Question

Guys! I need help ASAP

Answer 1

just ask away and will help you

Answer 2

help with what?

Answer 3

This is my assignment. Im not looking for you to do the assignment, i just need help with the info



Assignment 07.01: Please make sure to complete all parts of the assignment.

Part I:

You are to write a list of five qualities by which to judge effective leadership. What do you think makes a leader effective or makes them someone you would want to follow?

Part II:

Apply your selected "qualities" to the leadership of Napoleon. You are to answer the question, "Was Napoleon Bonaparte an effective leader?" You are to use your qualities as listed in Part I to determine his effectiveness. You must provide specific historical details showing how he meets or fails to meet each trait. Write your answer in a well-developed paragraph.

Part III:

Reflect on the goals of the French Revolution. Separate from Napoleon's effectiveness, in one paragraph consider whether Napoleon continued the Revolution or betrayed the Revolution. In other words, was Napoleon a hero of the revolution, a tyrant of the revolution, or somewhere in between? Visit Napoleon-series.org and PBS.org's Tyrant or Hero for additional information. Support your position with several examples.

Answer 4

He was neither a hero nor a tyrant of the revolution and actually had little part in it.
He was an ambitious young man and an opportunist. He had vision, and was a daring strategist. He had an orderly and logical mind .The French revolution gave him the opportunity to rise up the ranks, which in previous eras he would not have achieved as successfully due to his humble birth. Once a consul he elbowed his way over his colleagues and, since hereditary royalty was considered to be the enemy of the people, he made himself emperor, which in a way did betray some of the ideals of the revolution, but in another helped to build on them. Because he was a charismatic leader and a good strategist he gained the respect and the support of the army and his organisational powers served him (and the nation) well as he pulled the country out of the anarchic chaos created by the revolution.
As an emperor, he had a vision of a united Europe (which was well in advance for his time and has only been realised in recent years by different means, namely not by conquest but by negotiation) which he could not have achieved since the rulers of neighbouring states were against him. So he invaded and put his family members or his generals in power there, which is a classic form of nepotism practised by despots or gang leaders. Unfortunately they did not have the same organising or thinking powers and charisma as himself. However he restored national pride and order and was able to unify a society that had disintegrated through the reign of terror and internal bloodshed.
His major error was to attack Russia and go too far into it, leaving burnt earth behind him, and not foresee that he would be entrapped and that his army, which was his mainstay, would be destroyed in the harsh Russian winter.
As to the loyalty and gratitude of the French people, this was short lived when he was beaten. It was only the subsequent generations that came to appreciate what he had done for France in the long run and put him back on a pedestal.

Answer 5

wow um thanks! :D

Answer 6

no problem :D