Young Napoleon was a capable military mind but i think he is clearly overrated by many compared to much more capable military minds in history.

The Romans produced at least 10 military minds alone arguably ahead of Napoleon.

Sulla
Cesar
Scipio
Pompey
Agrippa
Marius
Lucius
Constantine
Augustus
Flavius Belisarius - Actually not a Roman but a Byzantine general.

Why is he overrated?

Take out Augustus for sure. A lot of the other guys owe a large chunk of their reputations to defeating lesser opponents, or at least, non-imperial opponents (tribes, clans, lesser kingdoms). Only Marius compares to Napoleon on reforming the structure of the army, and that shouldn't be overlooked. At first glance, I'm not sure Napoleon takes a second seat to anybody on this list, but I'm open to be persuaded otherwise.

That said, everybody on that list terrifies me. I'd be most scared to be the enemy of Sulla I think.

Don't be to quick......

Augustus' reign laid the foundations of a regime that lasted for nearly fifteen hundred years through the ultimate decline of the Western Roman Empire and until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. Napoleon's reign lasted a few years, and two of the greatest military stumbles of all were both under Napoleon's command when he Invaded Russia and of course Waterloo.

Napoleon's career mirrored Julius Cesar. But, I would put Cesar well ahead of Napoleon for many reason's beyond the scope of this post, most notable that Cesar did not have losses like Napoleon did in Russia and Waterloo.

By the year 13, Augustus boasted 21 occasions where his troops proclaimed "imperator" as his title after a successful battle. By the end of his reign, the armies of Augustus had conquered northern Hispania (modern Spain and Portugal), the Alpine regions of Raetia and Noricum (modern Switzerland, Bavaria, Austria, Slovenia), Illyricum and Pannonia (modern Albania, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia, etc.), and extended the borders of the Africa Province to the east and south.

He had his losses. A prime example of Roman loss in battle was the Battle of Teutoburg Forest in AD 9, where three entire legions led by Publius Quinctilius Varus were destroyed with few survivors by Arminius, leader of the Cherusci, an apparent Roman ally. Augustus did not lead this battle and Varus was clearly the blundering general. Augustus retaliated by dispatching Tiberius and Drusus to the Rhineland to pacify it, which had some success although the battle of AD 9 brought the end to Roman expansion into Germany.

I think Augustus's legacy was not his innovation as a military leader but his talents as a military leader of empire. The reign of Augustus initiated an era of relative peace known as the Pax Romana (The Roman Peace). Despite continuous wars or imperial expansion on the Empire's frontiers and one year-long civil war over the imperial succession, the Mediterranean world remained at peace for more than two centuries.

Augustus dramatically enlarged the Empire, annexing Egypt, Dalmatia, Pannonia, Noricum, and Raetia, expanded possessions in Africa, expanded into Germania, and completed the conquest of Hispania. Beyond the frontiers, he secured the Empire with a buffer region of client states, and made peace with the Parthian Empire through diplomacy. He reformed the Roman system of taxation, developed networks of roads with an official courier system, established a standing army, established the Praetorian Guard, created official police and fire-fighting services for Rome, and rebuild much of the City during his reign.

I don't disagree with that, and while Caesar is more famous, Augustus was in many ways more significant (had Caesar lived, that wouldn't be true because Caesar would have probably crushed the Parthians and then returned to restructure the Republic or abolish it). It may be transparent that I'm relying on HBO's Rome and Mike Duncan's History of Rome podcast here, but Augustus comes off more than a little squeamish about being on the battlefield. It seems that he didn't dictate tactics like the others on your lists did. It's certainly true though that he used the military to consolidate power in a more brilliant way than anybody before him.

De-facto there is no USSR any more, but de-jure, all ex-soviet countries speak russian, or having russian as one of official language, and, they are using one economical space (something like union) . So, there is still something like USSR.

And second,
About what institutions are you talking about?

The examples that you use actually make Smrk2 point.

Language has never been something that defines a great empire. Sure having it adapted and in use wide spread helps, but is not a feature to bank on. At the height of the USSR most people in Poland still spoke Polish.

Groups of people trade with on another for common good and economic gain but that still dose not mean they are pining for the glory days of the USSR or common rule.

Do you think the old East Germans are looking back to the good old days of harsh treatment of human rights, food shortages etc of the Russian occupation after WWII? I think they are very happy generally being the pillar that is supporting most of Europe not a cog in the old USSSR.

Greeks - Math, science, and philosophy in the academy, democracy at scale, the Hellenistic era.

Romans - Defined the boundaries of Western civilization for ~600 years (almost silly to just pick one institution).

Greeks & Romans: the spread/institutionalization of Christianity, the Byzantine empire.

British - The Royal Society, the Industrial Revolution, the parliamentary system, English common law.

Don't forget the one cultural institution left by the of USSR:

About which great greek empire are you talking about?

It's great empires of west. USSR was great empire of east, and partly of west.
You do understand that it's very naive to compare ancient times and modern era?

Communism, revolution in space program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_program), industializing of east.

New generation - yes, old - no.

Not only economical. Its like EU.
They won't re-unite officialy, but even now Moscow dictates policy of neighbourhoods.(similar with USA)

Again, you are talking about subject, which about you know little, or nothing.
Did you know that East German was one of most industrilize republic of USSR?
Food shortage? Yes, coffee and sugar was deficite 1976-1979. Something else? Proof.
Harsh treatment of human rights? Proof. Please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...ratic_Republic
I understand that for you, and a lot of americans - USSR, empire of evil, that good old Cold War days are not over.

You see your attitude towards USSR? Reign of Chaos, or something similar, while USA is the Stronghold of Justice and blah, blah blah.
And yes, institution left by USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

It's only became 'criminal organization' because all secret documents was published.
ANY 'secret security institution' should be described as criminal.

The Delian league (predominantly Athens), then the Macedonian empire.

Explain why that distinction is relevant. I don't hesitate to count the Mongol Empire as a great empire, or Imperial China, etc.

I don't like your tone. I gave my opinion (clearly identified as my opinion) and tried to explain why I have the opinion that I have, and indicated that I'm glad to hear why you disagree.

If you don't like comparing great empires of ancient times to great empires of modern times, then give us a list of the great modern empires you want to compare the USSR to.

How is communism doing these days? I love space as much as the next guy, but soviet accomplishments in space are not significant at the empire scale. Industrialization is good, but the west industrialized (and pioneered industrialization) 100-150 before.

Are you implying that there are a number of people in the old East Germany clamoring for the old days of Soviet occupation?

I think most Germans would actually rather have Napoleon as Emperor rather than being under Soviet occupation.

That's very probably true, but on the other hand the British would rather endure sugar shortages and play balalaikas than to have had to bend to Napoleon.

Then, Russian empire should be counted as ''ancestor'' of USSR.

Because, in my opinion situation in the world changed drastically. We should count great empire in context of that era.


I didn't mean to offend you. It's just my writing style.
And I didn't say that I don't want to compare ancient empires with modern, to me, it's the same like to compare different worlds.

Well, to me modern great empires - Britain, USA, China (rising one), USSR(after collapse, rising Russia).
All of this countries above still having imperialistic ambitions, and they are dictating they rules around them.


You can't say so quickly that ideology have been faded. When institution of democracy was 'created', it didn't spread to world so fast.

To modern era space accomplishments - new science! It's like something completely new to humanity, perhaps like physics to ancestors?
What about chemistry? Dmitrii Mendeleev, Nikolay Nikolayevich Semyonov, et.c.
There is a lot of accomplishments.

Did I mention something about ''clamoring for the old days of Soviet occupation?'' I just replied to you, that it wasn't so bad as you described.

Yes, you think, not you not me, we both don't now how most Germans think.
And btw, why you think that Napoleon won't be more harsh than USSR was?

That's actually true. There's even an english wikipedia entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostalgie

Just one small example. Their are many history offers us.

Rape during the occupation of Germany

"Avenge! You are a soldier-avenger! … Kill the German, and then jump the German woman! This is how a soldier celebrates victory!"
The Soviet Counterinsurgency in the Western Borderlands. Cambridge University Press. p. 277.

The majority of the assaults were committed in the Soviet occupation zone; estimates of the numbers of German women raped by Soviet soldiers range from the tens of thousands to 2 million.In many cases women were the victims of repeated rapes, some as many as 60 to 70 times according to the book The Struggle for Europe.

At least 100,000 women are believed to have been raped in Berlin, based on surging abortion rates in the following months and contemporary hospital reports, with an estimated 10,000 women dying in the aftermath. Female deaths in connection with the rapes in Germany, overall, are estimated at 240,000. Antony Beevor describes it as the "greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history".

Stalin is alleged to have said that people should ' understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle'. On another occasion, when told that Red Army soldiers sexually maltreated German refugees, he said: 'We lecture our soldiers too much; let them have their initiative.

Ah the good old days of the Soviet Empire.

Hooney Badger, you are demagoguing right now. We are not talking about WWII, you should discuss this in another topic.
BTW, you think germans did not raped any women in Belarus, Ukarine, Poland, e t.c? And what you will say about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_war_crimes ?
And why you didn't reply to:

Nothing to say?

From your wiki posting:

"Those seeking the preservation of East German culture banded together to save Ossie Crosswalk Man (Ost-Ampelmännchen), an illuminated depiction of a fedora wearing man in crosswalk lights. Many German cities in and near the former East German border, including Berlin, Lübeck and Erfurt, still retain the use of the Ampelmännchen at all or some pedestrian crossings due to its cultural relevance, and many souvenirs sold in East Germany and in Berlin make use of the icon."

I stand corrected. Forget the Rape during the occupation of Germany, Mass deportations, serious violations of individual rights for decades; the USSR has left major cultural influences the world will appreciate for generations to come like the Ossie Crosswalk Man.

Why you are so concerned about those rapes? No one knows the right amount, and no one ever will. You can even say that all germans was raped(yes! males and females), and it will sounds to me the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_du...ion_of_Germany
And one more thing, do not withdraw this from context of WWII. This didn't happened in peace time, It was war times, against most deadliest enemy.

Give me the link about mass deportations of germans from East Germany. Or you just want to write something?

Serious violations of individual rights - EVERY empire violates rights of civilians, every. Even you'r USA.

There is no point to discuss WWII and how evil USSR was in this thread, i suggest to create a new one, something like ''USSR empire of evil'', or ''Why there was no democracy in USSR?''.

Everyone is seeing what he wants to see, even in history. It's your choice, but don't say this for all the rest of world.

Yes, I'm implying now.

I think your missing the point. Empires involve forcing compliance on others. That's what Napoleon was attempting to do in 1812 when he Invades Russia. That is what the Mongols did when they conquered what we now call Russia and it's what the German's attempted to do in WWII. The Question is what makes them great? The Greeks, Romans and Mongols left a pretty interesting legacy. Napoleon's exploits and the old USSR not so much. That said we did establish that the Ossie Crosswalk Man was a truly lasting legacy of old East Germany.

The USSR does not even make the top 10 runner up list of great empires. Carthage to the Romans would be a much better nomination until they ran into Scipio Africanus. The Russians in WWII had some talented generals but none of the caliber of Hannibal, Scipio, Sulla, Cesar, Pompie the Great or even Napoleon.

How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan