I don't know whether Napoleon is universally admired (except, perhaps by the French) or whether Alexander the Great is considered a hero outside Greece or Macedonia. Both were complex men and the achievements of both included positive things along with blood and mayhem. Napoleon toppled much of the medieval structures that permeated Europe and introduced the idea of "civil" society; i.e., a society that was not based on a state religion for the regulation of human activity. I doubt that even Napoleon's most fervent admirers would downplay, let alone deny, the carnage his conquests produced. Alexander marched east leaving devastation and death behind but established a link between eastern Europe and Asia that endured despite different empires and religions.
One can debate the merits and demerits of empires, but I have been particularly amused and confused to hear notionally progressive people comment admiringly on empires, for example that of Genghiz Khan. His present-day admirers note that it was said (by whom, I forget) that a woman could walk from one end of the empire to the other bearing a load of gold without being molested. That's after he piled up mountains of skulls, so I guess there were no people left to molest travelers. But some folks persist in liking centralized power for supposedly keeping things (and people) organized. And to give the devil his due, empires have the effect of bringing people into contact, which has advantages.
Our history is never totally abhorrent, let alone totally benign.
No comments:
Post a Comment