The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Napoleon should be rembered as a 19th century version of Hitler

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 705 times Debate No: 41619
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I am taking the CON side of this debate; to clarify, I am strongly opposed to the idea presented in the title of this debate and wish to debate the topic with someone who DOES believe that Napoleon was a 19th century version of Hitler. By version of Hitler, I mean a person who should be remembered in the strongly negative way that Hitler is today, similar to him in terms of goals, character, and sanity. Many have wrongly portrayed Napoleon as an evil man who tried to destroy and pillage as much of Europe as possible, and I argue that this is a false assertion.

Please use round 1 only for acceptance and to state your position. As a rough outline for the debate, round 2 will be for arguments, 3 for rebuttals, and 4 for counter-rebuttals and conclusions.


Napoleon should be remembered as 19th century Hitler because he killed his own people and anyone who opposed him
Debate Round No. 1


To make the argument that "Napoleon equals Hitler" is to assume that such a comparison is even valid. I argue that it is not. The two men came from different eras and were surrounded by circumstances that were vastly different across the board. Because of this, it is very difficult to make a convincing argument for their actions being equal. However, it is easy to refute the similarities drawn in arguments supporting this concept. Therefore, I will allow Pro to first offer an in depth argument this round for why he believes Napoleon is so akin to Hitler, and then I will give a response to it in the next round. The BOP is on Pro.


natha45rwe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the round. I hope he presents his argument this round.


Ok man they both wanted to take over the world and have the religion that they followed practiced by everyone they took over plus they both just got of a war before they came into power so yeah it does not matter what era they came from except Hitler had vehicals that's the only difference
Debate Round No. 3


I will now address each part of my opponents argument and offer my rebuttals.

"Ok man they both wanted to take over the world..."
This is probably true. This is the only statement made by my opponent that is in fact valid. However, there is no verification of this idea with any form of a source, and it is something that needs to be backed up or else ignored for the purposes of the debate.

"... both wanted to... have the religion that they followed practiced by everyone they took over..."
Neither were outwardly religious, though Hitler and the Nazis arguably advocated a form of political religion. Napoleon did not follow any particular religion. He is even quoted as saying “Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." Napoleon's famed Concordat recognized Catholicism as the religion most common in France, but also gave religious freedom to Protestants and Jews. He is even credited with freeing Jews from ghettos as he conquered Europe.

" they both just got of a war before they came into power..."
I assume this means to say that both got out of a war just before coming into power. This is false: Hitler came into power constitutionally because of a provision in the German Constitution. In 1933 Germany had been uneasily at peace with Europe since the end of WWI for more than a decade.

"... so yeah it does not matter what era they came from except Hitler had vehicles that's the only difference."
I dispute the claim that vehicles were the only difference between the eras of Napoleon and Hitler. If we're going by innovations, then this source shows that vehicles were the only difference:
Otherwise, the existence of fascism, communism, Nazism, the Holocaust, and a unified Germany during the time of Hitler prove this point incorrect.

I will remind my opponent that the fourth round is only for rebuttals and conclusion, so I request that he does not introduce any new arguments which I will not have the opportunity to refute. It's up to the voters after this round; I hope I have been convincing enough in my argument.



natha45rwe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by STALIN 2 years ago
Honestly I don't think Con has a good chance to win this.
Posted by ndedo 2 years ago
No offense taken, just throwing out what I think about it. I actually wouldn't mind debating it since it seems like it would be a pretty interesting topic to take a stand on. I'll accept a challenge if you set it up; I guess the point of contention would be on your comment about whether we should honor figures as heroes or villains based on an objective analysis of their actions/impact. I'd suggest you put 4 rounds with similar round purposes as this debate, as I've found this structure to work well. (But since you're the instigator it's up to you.)
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 2 years ago
We could have a debate on it? No doubt I agree with aspects of what you have stated, but as a student of history, I do not believe that we should honour anyone as a hero or a villain, but solely as historical figures in regards to source material. I apologise if I offended your intelligence. Ignorance is fun.
Posted by ndedo 2 years ago
History is regularly portrayed with a bias about certain issues, Napoleon's legacy being one of them. I feel that far too often, he is portrayed as a Hitler figure by people with a clear bias against him (I'm looking at you, Anglocentric historians). Through this debate, I hope to point to this portrayal as an example of history being written by the victor, in favor of the victor, and slanderous to the name of the loser. I agree that one should avoid subjectivity in historical matters, which is the mistake many biographers and historians have made about Napoleon.

I greatly dispute the claim that there is "no real point in drawing comparisons from historical figures." How else would we decide who to honor as heroes and who to curse the name of? If Napoleon is on the level of Hitler (or even in the same category at all), then he shouldn't be honored and respected, which is what my opponent would probably try to prove in the debate.

Even if you still aren't convinced that this type of debate is valid, I'll point to how they offer a fresh perspective on the historical topic at hand. Different people had different perspective of events in history, and examining why they had those opinions is an intellectually enriching experience.
Posted by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 2 years ago
No real point in drawing comparisons (i assume in terms of evil) from historical figures. The whole point of historicity is to avoid subjectivity so as to come to a rational argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.