In an epic episode Marcus Cribb & Luke Daly Groves join me to discuss the opposing perspectives on the emperor, his impact, and how he's remembered. They also show the trolls that Napoleon can be discussed without getting angry, while explaining why Napoleon is like ordering a takeaway! https://anchor.fm/the-napoleonicist/episodes/Napoleon-the-Great-Debate-emg20o
top of page
bottom of page
Here is an idea that suggesting it got me booted off another forum, presumably for offending hero worshiper's sensibilities. To test whether your adherence is emotional bias rather than logical or merely preferential, are you capable of writing a short piece extolling the opposite view? If as a Napoleon admirer you are capable of sustaining and validating some criticisms? By the same token, if you want to sustain a Corsican Ogre view, could you make a case for some redeeming factors? If you find you cannot bring yourself to do either, it suggests you are emotionally invested rather than quite as rational as you think you are.
DS at Staff College used that one, and I think it comes from the rhetoical tradition, Someone with a better classsical or philosophical education than I might be able to assist. If I recall, I think there is/was a Radio 4 series that used this device. What I find strange is that such an elementary debating tool was regarded as trolling (or presumably heresy?). At least Elvis fans are honest enough to admit they are fans as they file past The King's tomb at Graceland. They don't try to persuade you that they only go there for the gift shop, like one devotee tried to describe his pilgrimage to Les Invalides!