Napoleon the Great? A debate with Andrew Roberts, Adam Zamoyski and Jeremy Paxman

Absolutely wild to me that nobody mentioned the fact that Napoleon re-introduced slavery.

The amazing debate!

Paxman is supposed to be neutral! About as neutral as Great Britain in the 1800's

Zamoyski in the UK, Norman Davies in Poland. What a coincidence 😂

adam got rekt
based emperor bonaparte

They were really arguing past each other for a lot of this. Zemoyski kept making arguments about Napoleon's character and morals, which aren't in my opinion relevant.

Alexander of Macedon got drunk and murdered one of his friends and most loyal generals one evening. He was a deeply disturbed and unwell man, and yet no one disputes his title of "The Great". Why then should Napoleon's lesser personal moral failings disqualify him?

A really interesting subject, spoiled by Paxman, always has to make himself the center of attention.

Is there a transcribed version of this debate?

It’s fascinating how two totally opposite views can so often be correct. Andrew certainly knows his oats 👍🇿🇦

I think Napoleon closely parallels Alexander the Great. Both were of different ethnicities than their nationalities (i.e. Macedonian/Greek and Italian/French). Both were clear military geniuses. Both ruled over continents by their 30s. Both spread the arts and the sciences. Both attempted to unify their empires and advanced their cultures (e.g. certain Hellenistic ideals, certain French revolutionary ideals). Both were in certain respects (not all respects) progressive for their time period. Both were in a sense benevolent dictators. And so on. If Alexander the Great is a fitting moniker, then I think the same moniker should suit Napoleon as well.

I found the points against Napoleon to sound almost petty and embarrassing.

“The Great” is unnecessary for such a man. The truly greatest only need their name. That is enough to evoke the full-fledged majesty of the individual.

Caesar. Hannibal. Napoleon.

I recommend Napoleon by Alan Schom, a great read.

Such intellectual blather about a power-mad dictator, at arms length, shows how far arrogant, self-inflated commentators have detached from the darkest realities of Napoleon's destruction of peace & prosperity in Europe. "He built these, he helped those, he constructed these, he modernised this..." Nothing seen from the standpoint of the thousands of families torn apart from Portugal to Moscow. So, he was charismatic?! So what? He behaved as Caesar did, as Hitler did, he raised his family to postitions of power, exactly as Trump did...another who showed the ability to create adoration with slippery words containing no truth. I'd dearly love to transport Roberts especially, back in time to witness the endless slaughter and misery caused by this creature who so many bow to with undeserved reverence.

Biographical history that ignores sociology, psychology and neurology is worthless.

Would be nice if you provide subtitles for videos on this channel.

A great debate. Two very knowledgeable guys.

Astonishing the pompass British arrogance anti french bassing

that narator shouldn't be sitting there
Also, Adam Zamoyski is comparing to much to modern times, and even using woke arguments.
I sujest doing the same debate about Arthur Wellesley

adam zamoski should consider napoleon he did receive a military education and training of a officer no matter what he should respect napoleon

I do not understand you never mentioned CYRUS the Great ,the king whom was the greatest ,he had the biggest empire,however he was just and well come their custom ,religion AND FREE THE JEWS , helping them building their place of worship . Only king built their places ,by paying them as worker not slave, and respect completely women's right and put them as managers. THE PROOF OF IT IS THE CYRUS CYLINDER in United Nation.

Reminds me of how people feel about Trump

The fact that Zamoyski speaks differently about Napoleon,than what he writes in his books,does not do him any good and discredits him.Why is he doing that ? Opportunism ?

Andrew Roberts looks like an older Napoleon

The fact that this debate even took place establishes him as great IMO.

Brits: still irrational about Napoleon.

He wasn't perfect but he was definitely a net positive.

Andrew Roberts won that by far! He was had an impartial unprofessional moderator and the other speaker both arguing with him at once! Not fair to have two against one at all.

Napoleon was a political opportunist and egomaniacal . But he was definitely a great General. As far as his overall greatness…😑🤷🏾
More studying before I can make an honest assessment.

Napoleon defeated a communist uprising with cannons.. He’s great.

There was an element of self-mockery in Muhammad Ali's statement, "I am the Greatest!", because he knew there is always an element of ruthless monster in the truly great.

Great to see Paxman on form. Such strength to see all on this panel. Those of us- do more, even though i could do more. Maybe.

It's blessed that this man has such superb English. Why?

did the guy just say napoleon wasn't a military genius?

nah it's a fact that he was average height back then, that's not what you call a small person

terrible moderator

"napoleon the bully" do ppl still read british propaganda in modern time?

You don't need to say Napoleon the great, because he is the only one who holds that name "Napoleon", and his name explains his greatness, unlike popular names like "Alexander", you'd need to say who is the great one. Caesar also isn't called the great.

Andrew not only won this. He spanked Adam's DADDY like Adam stole something, and shamed the biased moderator.

This display is why even other English speaking nations harbor Anglophobia.

Zamyonski did such a kousy job of making his case that he turned me into a Bonapartist. And that is before I considered his sneering, condescending style.

Terrific! Observation

Armand Augustin Louis de Caulaincourt was Caulaincourt was fluent in a number of languages, including Russian. After the peace of Lunéville in 1801 he was sent to Saint Petersburg by First Consul Napoleon Bonaparte. His mission was primarily to check British influence in the Russian court.

Excellent objective perspectives on Napoleon ….Je Apprecie Monsieur Adam and Andrew …
Napoleon did not listen Caul Armand Augustin Louis de Caulaincourt He advised Napoleon not to invade Russia

Why did they choose a short man with a high pitch voice to argue the case for Napoleon?

This Count, Adam, is like one of the snobby officers from Sharpe’s Rifles, complaining that Napoleon was promoted from the ranks and just could never fit in with the proper gents 😄🤦🏻‍♀️

Enjoyed that ! I try to only listen to quality! Need more of that , especially about history! Thx !

This is the definition of a debate masterclass by Andrew. Very well spoken and answers only in documented facts.

Andrew Roberts is brilliant.

Napoleon was Great- without a doubt. Only Utopians can deny his greatness.