"he was harsh with both treason...." Rather ironic, from someone who from a British perspective was a treasonous rebel who took up arms against his rightful sovereign.
Had he lost the war of independence (it wasn't a revolution, the machinery of government remained intact), Washington's tarred head would probably have adorned a spike in London. The right and proper fate of a traitor and oath-breaker. He would have then become nothing more than an interesting footnote, as would the young Napoleon if he'd have suffered a fatal wound. History is that fickle.
As I say, a matter of historical perspective. One man's rebel is another man's freedom fighter.
Napoleon a villian?
A villian is someone who commits crimes, and when caught gets imprisoned. You can see why people might confuse him for one. Napoleon committed the worst crime of any historical figure. He gambled once too often and lost. Lost badly and was imprisoned for his trouble.
Washington was a hard man who was focused on winning the War of the Revolution in the long haul. An organizer and disciplinarian, he was harsh with both treason and those who broke military law, such as deserters.
There is an excellent volume on his correspondence, Washington Writings, which is highly recommended:
From George Washington to Major General John Sullivan, 31 May 1779
"The expedition you are appointed to command is to be directed against the hostile tribes of the six nations of Indians, with their associates and adherents.1 The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more....After you have very thoroughly completed the destruction of their settlements; if the Indians should show a disposition for peace, I would have you to encourage it, on condition that they will give some decisive evidence of their sincerity by delivering up some of the principal instigators of their past hostility into our hands—Butler, Brandt, the most mischievous of the tories that have joined them or any other they may have in their power that we are interested to get into ours...But you will not by any means listen to ⟨any⟩ overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected..."
'Napoleon Is A Villain In History Because George Washington'"Because George Washington...." Are we missing something here; a subordinate clause? A conjunction? One registration too many on a platform that seems about as intelligible as Quora, so I haven't read this but-"a litany of lucrative spice islands in the Caribbean" tells me I am probably not missing muchly.
@Hans - Karl Weiß The idea that Napoleon is a 'villain' is nothing but a product of British and allied period propaganda.
If you had mentioned either Alexander I or Francis of Austria that would have been an accurate assessment. Frederick William was nothing more than Alexander's lackey. And by this time George III was unfortunately having major medical problems.
When Napoleon was First Consul and in the midst of his myriad reforms, one of his officers asked him if he would step down when he had finished his tasks. He looked at the officer and asked him 'Who do you think I am? George Washington?'
Napoleon also officially ended the unofficial Quasi-War with the US in 1800 and put the French army, not yet the Grande Armee, into mourning when he heard of Washington's death.
A matter of perspective:
"he was harsh with both treason...." Rather ironic, from someone who from a British perspective was a treasonous rebel who took up arms against his rightful sovereign.
Had he lost the war of independence (it wasn't a revolution, the machinery of government remained intact), Washington's tarred head would probably have adorned a spike in London. The right and proper fate of a traitor and oath-breaker. He would have then become nothing more than an interesting footnote, as would the young Napoleon if he'd have suffered a fatal wound. History is that fickle.
As I say, a matter of historical perspective. One man's rebel is another man's freedom fighter.
Napoleon a villian?
A villian is someone who commits crimes, and when caught gets imprisoned. You can see why people might confuse him for one. Napoleon committed the worst crime of any historical figure. He gambled once too often and lost. Lost badly and was imprisoned for his trouble.
Washington was a hard man who was focused on winning the War of the Revolution in the long haul. An organizer and disciplinarian, he was harsh with both treason and those who broke military law, such as deserters.
There is an excellent volume on his correspondence, Washington Writings, which is highly recommended:
https://www.amazon.com/George-Washington-Writings-Library-America/dp/188301123X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1B4PN6C0NTWFS&dchild=1&keywords=george+washington+writings&qid=1605541117&s=books&sprefix=Washington%27s+writing%2Caps%2C178&sr=1-1
From George Washington to Major General John Sullivan, 31 May 1779
"The expedition you are appointed to command is to be directed against the hostile tribes of the six nations of Indians, with their associates and adherents.1 The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more....After you have very thoroughly completed the destruction of their settlements; if the Indians should show a disposition for peace, I would have you to encourage it, on condition that they will give some decisive evidence of their sincerity by delivering up some of the principal instigators of their past hostility into our hands—Butler, Brandt, the most mischievous of the tories that have joined them or any other they may have in their power that we are interested to get into ours...But you will not by any means listen to ⟨any⟩ overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected..."
because ironic, m,ok, may,b. because lazy / ignorant fat fingers, less
'Napoleon Is A Villain In History Because George Washington' "Because George Washington...." Are we missing something here; a subordinate clause? A conjunction? One registration too many on a platform that seems about as intelligible as Quora, so I haven't read this but- "a litany of lucrative spice islands in the Caribbean" tells me I am probably not missing muchly.
Maybe he should read more widely than Roberts’s hagiography.
When Napoleon was First Consul and in the midst of his myriad reforms, one of his officers asked him if he would step down when he had finished his tasks. He looked at the officer and asked him 'Who do you think I am? George Washington?'
Napoleon also officially ended the unofficial Quasi-War with the US in 1800 and put the French army, not yet the Grande Armee, into mourning when he heard of Washington's death.