00:00 Intro 01:09 Factual background 03:45 Why didn't they kill him? 06:00 Why was Napoleon loved?

Executing a ruler isn't the kind of thing rulers want to set a precedent on.

Napoleon was national hero then and even now in France. Executing Napoleon would make him a martyr. History has proved that martyrs are more dangerous than living men. They become symbols and inspirations of movements, nationalism and rebellions. The English played their cards well.

When he returned from his first exile he proved a point, that his rule was far better than the re-established Bourbon dynasty. Louis XVIII fled Paris rather than face him. He truly was a man of the Enlightenment, carrying out reforms all over Europe which undermined royal absolutism. He showed the concept of a ruling class to be anachronistic. If he had been executed it would have partly been an act of revenge by the Ancien Regime which would have backfired, making him a martyr to countess thousands of common French people.

If you think about it for a second. Napoleon was and still is highly respected by the french people even after he became emperor. after his first defeat, he "escaped" exile on elba and returned to france and they welcomed him back. exiling or executing a person with this kind of influence, you're going to need an extremely good reason to get way with it. Napoleon was a brilliant military genius who became emperor and his victories made him well respected during the revolution and into the future. executing him would have caused backlash and give the people of France only two options: either fight on or lose hope. I hope you understand my reasoning.

I think they were smart, killing him would probably have created riots in Western Europe, the Napoleonic wars had done enough damage, I think they wanted calm to return to the continent .

Excellent examination. One quibble with the description of Napoleon Crossing the Alps: the wind in the painting is at Napoleon's back, aiding him in his climb. Far from "denying the wind," it would seem Napoleon is buoyed by it in his quest.

I was reading Adam Zamoyski's biography "Napoleon: A Life". In it, Zamoyski pointed out that a major reason why Napoleon's Hundred Days return to France in 1815 was so chaotic, and fell apart so quickly, was that Napoleon was just winging things the whole time. No long-term planning, no strategy, no nothing. Why? Assassination. Or rumours about it. Before his 1815 return, apparently stories kept spreading worldwide that Europe's rulers considered it inconvenient that Napoleon was just hanging around on St. Elba. They were terrified of him slipping his anchor and popping back to France whenever he pleased and making a vast triumphant return to power and war and devastation. He could smash Europe's political chessboard all over again. They considered his presence on St. Elba threatening. So threatening. These rumours soon reached Napoleon himself. Zamoyski couldn't find any evidence of Napoleon actually making such plans. Apparently he'd genuinely resigned himself to simply faffing around on St. Elba for the remainder of his life. Nevertheless, the rumours persisted. Assassins might assassinate him at any moment. So he decided, fuckit, I refuse to just hang around waiting for a thug's blade. Any return to this alleged power and war, no matter how chaotic or unplanned or disastrous, is better than that. Let us roll the iron dice one last time! To glory!

Actual reason. Politicians and kings didn't want to get killed when they lose. So they didn't want to set a dangerous precedent for them.

I think one of the main reason Wellington refused to execute Napoleon was that he respect Napoleon so much.

Executing leaders of opposing nations was not considered a rational idea until the 19th century. A classic example was how Scipio Africanus was disappointed by the persecution of Hanibal and understood the situation as a moral decadence of Rome. In the middle ages, leaders were not normally executed, and were taken prisoner and returned for ransom. I believe that war was seen more as a natural event or as a business, whereas today it is seen as a crime by itself. Our view of war today comes down to good versus evil, where im good and my enemy is the evil, which requires a scapegoat, a personification, to be executed by the winning side. I think that's why we find the death of opposing leaders so natural these days. It's funny how our society has evolved but we face war as an act of deep and uncontrollable hate. Such act calls for the total destruction of those "responsible" for this state, which normally consists of the leaders of the enemy nation or faction of course...

With the presence of the French Consulate at Longwood, Saint Helena, it is said that the ghost of Napoleon still walks through the halls of Longwood house, pacing the floor as he continues to contemplate his memoirs.

I always assumed because he was still popular and the Allies didn't want to have to reduce all of France by military force, drive everyone who had served Bonaparte underground or into resistance in fear for their own lives, or start the not very capable Louis XVIII off on the wrong foot, either in 1814 or 1815. Executing defeated heads of state wasn't normal for them, anyway, not even dodgy not quite legitimate self-made emperors, not least because at one time or another everyone had recognized his government and treated with him. Plus, although on one hand he had served the republic as an officer with great skill including against Royalists in Paris and Toulon, he had had no part in the revolution, the overthrow of Louis XVI and his execution, or the creation of a republic. So he was only even a rebel or traitor against the French Crown by several circumstantial removes. The government he overthrew on 18 Brumaire was already illegitimate from a Royalist POV.

In short; As a ruler, you dont want to make it a precedent that a ruler can be executed.

After reading several comments, I've come to an interesting conclusion. There's an argument for not killing a ruler when you depose them, because, in a way, it allows you to control where that man's influence will go. For if you do choose to kill him, the power vacuum that ensues means that you're suddenly unable to truly influence the destiny of that ruler's nation. "Better the evil you know, than one you don't." It is therefore impractical to kill a ruler, if you are hoping your terms to last. (But also, do not commit the mistake of not making sure that such a ruler is actually unable to overturn your dictates)

Napoleon keeping the title of emporer was just a joke really. Britain has always been the memelord.

There was too much nostalgia and even respect for Napoleon in France. The French and certainly the allies were anxious to avoid more unrest in France- although restoring Bourbon monarchs did not work out very well either.

Accidentally discovered this channel. Your video is really good, looking forward for your videos

"A King does not kill another King."

Well Prussia is powerful back then but even so it was not "thought to be the mightiest army in Land" it is France and because of this it contributed as a factor as why France is very confident to beat Prussia in the Franco-Prussian war.

Amazing video! Can't wait for more videos from this channel! A breath of fresh air on the platform

Thank you for this interesting presentation. I like to add some information: Napoleon used poison in the hope to kill himself during his first abdication crisis. But the poison was too old and he only suffered terribly from the attempt in Fontainebleau. He decided to never try to suicide again. After his escape from the Waterloo battle field in 1815 he first chose to reach the small castle of Malmaison beside Paris. There he had still the possibility to make choices such as killing himself or to surrender again.. or to escape to the USA. This evasion plan to the US came to the attention of Fouchet who was already in secret negotiations with the Bourbons and the allied forces. Fouchet did his best to try to persuade Napoleon to not "become an adventurer" but to confront the allied victors as a surrendering Monarch. What a pity indeed that Napoleon lost precious time with such intriguing treacherous advisors and when he finally reached the coast of France his ship was already a sitting duck blocked by the Royal Navy. Fouchet will remain in his functions as main chief of the french police and serve the returning King from exile. Obviously it was far better to have Napoleon locked-up by the British instead of knowing him free in the USA with new invasion plans in the making and many soldiers and servants of the state remaining sympathetic to the Emperor. The King of France needed Napoleon out of the picture to get enough support by the many qualified followers and leaders of the Bonaparte Regime. The page had to be turned in order to let the society in France go forward in the new era. This was how Fouchet evaluated the situation.And Napoleon fell into the trap. Locked up in Saint Helena and getting sick he will at least have had enough time there to write his autobiography.. which is of course a very interesting book to read.Interestingly his "nephew" the future Napoleon III lived in the UK for a couple years and he crossed the channel into France trying to overthrow the King in France. Something he failed to do and he got jailed for that. Modern testing of the DNA of his hair and of a living direct male descendant has established that Napoleon III was not a descendant of any Bonaparte male but the child fathered by a yet unknown man. Irony of history indeed.

Napoleon was held in high esteem even in the state of Louisiana- My dad was born in Napoleonville, La., named by one of his soldiers. Even in New Orleans, Napoleon Ave. has always been a popular street with two cross streets named after a couple of his victories, Marengo and Austerlitz.

An excellent book, The Murder of Napolean, details the years long efforts by Sten Forshufvud, a Swedish scientist, researching the death of Napolean. The authors follow Forshufvud as he puts together a case for the chronic arsenic poisoning of Napoleon. A forensic analysis of various locks of the emperor's hair showed he had been administered arsenic over several months ultimately ending in his death.

Perhaps the British were thinking long range, as in time they eventually developed St. Helena Island as a tourist destination with Napoleon's exile and death there as its historic calling card.

Virgin Hitler: conquer Europe and after he loses he commit suicide Chad napoleon: conquer whole Europe loses got captured and exiled and return to France and conquer again and exiled again

Joan of arc wouldn't have become a Saint and a symbol of France if only exiled. Burning alive a 19 years old girl made her immortal. Good move on Napoléon.

This man was an absolute genius. I’ve read five different biographies of him…

Fitting indeed to use the 1812 Overture as background music.

Imagine if they killed Napoleon... Damn, that would be chaos

The answer to this question does not need a ten-minute video. They didn't kill him because they were gracious enough to spare their fellow freemason.

Politicians were a lot less brutal and far more gentlemanly in the early 19th century than in the 20th. Napoleon was hated but respected, and they also knew that executing him would turn him into a martyr and a venerated hero figure. It would lead to more wars as the French people would seek revenge. There is also a persistent rumour that Napoleon was poisoned secretly by the British in 1821, but this is unlikely and there is no supporting evidence. Finally, Napoleon was guilty of simply losing the final war against the allied coalitions, nothing more. He wasn't a psychopathic criminal like Hitler.

8:16 Fun fact: Napoleon did cross the Alps on a mule, a mix between horse and donkey. So technically, the painting did tell _half_ the truth.

Yes, killing Napoleon could have made him a martyr for a lot of French people, but for a lot of Italian and Polish people as well. Russians, Austrians, and Prussians shurely didn't wanted that.

That's a breathtaking painting by David. I don't know why modern art isn't as awe inspiring

Napoleon definitely isn’t an innocent character but many people forget that all of Europe was at Empire building at the time, it wasn’t unique to the French, the other empires just hated that they picked a fight and got spanked. The real travesty as far as the other European empires were concerned was that the French had overturned the old order and took the opportunity with their campaign successes to export the new Republican ideas to the rest of Europe. That was the thing that the other empires could not abide, the rest is largely a justification. As far as they’re concerned, he wasn’t the antichrist because he expanded in Empire, he was the antichrist because he was bringing dangerous ideas which threatened the foundations of all the other empires who were still living in the past. Very good video though. I often wondered this and just assumed it was because France would have been uncontrollable if it happened, similar to Japan after World War II.

there is also the aspect of his own record... but for the Duc of Enghien and the "chances of war", he never killed any sovereign or their family. Sure, some died on the battlefield, but that was fair game. Also, given how many hardcore military personel that were still faithful to him, it would have been a nightmare to quench the fires of the French guerrilla... And Wellington witnessed first hand what guerrilla did in Spain to the imperial army

I really want to see the look on every European Monarch's face the moment they heard Napoleon escaped Elba and he's now the emperor again

If Germany had been treated like they treated Napoleon after WW1, Hitler and WW2 would have never happened and the Soviet Union would not have occupied Easter Europe for decades.

A note of error. Jean-Baptiste Kleber was never blamed for any "downfall" of the egyptian campaign. Napoleon was stranded after the British destroyed the entire french navy. There was no way he could retreat by ship with the remainder of his army, which is why he decided to elude the british on board a single vessel leaving kleber in command of any administration established in egypt as well as the remaining body of soldiers, of which most was sick. Kleber was assassinated by some egyptian fanatic leaving the french army no option but to surrender. It is true that Napoleon reacted to a rumour from reliable sources that some allied faction, most likely the Prussians, sought to murder him, but that would be somewhat difficult as he had a loyal guard on hand at all times. The main reason was that according to terms of his abdication, he was to receive an annual pay of several million francs to keep his tiny empire of Elba running, something he did quite well in the first few months of his stay there, paying out of his own pocket. The fee was never paid, nor did the allies have any intention of doing so.

Short answer: they didn't want a martyr

After what happened to Napoleon, you have to wonder why Hitter ever considered invading Russia.

The kings around him weren't comfortable to see another king get executed, even if he was their arch enemy.

Damn, you are talking about me

For victors in war, executing defeated popular rulers like Napoleon I violates long standing protocol. Even executing relatively unpopular rulers like Kaiser Wilhelm II (no longer popular by November 1918) violates protocol. Such executions are generally thought to create more problems for the conquering victors than they solve. Thus even the Soviet tyrants did not execute Imre Nagy or Alexander Dubcek after invading Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 respectively. It is true that Nagy's Soviet backed successor Janos Kadar had Nagy executed in 1958 after two years of consolidating power. But it is almost certain that the Soviets gave Kadar that choice. And the Soviets would have held Kadar personally responsible had that backfired. Fortunately for Kadar it did not backfire. The main exception to the protocol against killing overthrown rulers is for domestic revolutions. Thus King Louis XVI and Tsar Nicholas II were executed following the French and Russian Revolutions respectively. But even Stalin waited many years before having his defeated rival Leon Trotsky killed. He waited until 1940 long after he felt it was no longer risky to have Trotsky assassinated in exile in Mexico. Even deposed Soviet leaders Georgy Malenkov and Nikita Khrushchev were demoted in 1955 and 1964 respectively, not executed. It is pretty certain though that those who deposed and demoted Malenkov and Khrushchev (including Khrushchev in Malenkov's case) would have been executed had their plans to depose them failed. I would even go so far as to state that but for their roles in notorious crimes against humanity even Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo wouldn't have needed to fear execution. Only the Nazi genocide led Hitler to commit suicide and only genocide by Imperial Japan led Tojo to unsuccessfully attempt suicide before eventually being executed. Benito Mussolini was shot by Italian Communists who then hung him and his mistress upside down to be dismembered by an angry mob. But in Mussolini's case it was otherwise unlikely that Mussolini would have faced execution even as a junior partner in Adolf Hitler's genocide. French Nazi collaborator ruler Marshal Henri Philippe Pétain, generally known as Philippe Pétain, Marshal Pétain and sometimes The Old Marshal, was not executed. French President Charles de Gaulle commuted Pétain's sentence to life in prison. That is ironic since Pétain's Nazi collaborator regime had sentenced de Gaulle in 1940 to death in absentia. Pétain's deputy, Pierre Laval was less fortunate than Pétain and was in fact executed in 1945.

This is incorrect. The reason he wasn't executed was because of his love of Labradors. Nobody that is a fan of the most wonderful doggos in the world can ever be truly killed.

Keep up the amazing work it's starting to look like the algorithm is turning in your favor.

You earned a sub. Don't get how you only have 20 subs.

Great video for sharing. Fun fact: Napoleon's father was attorney at law. 👍 Maybe that's the answer to why they didn't kill him. 😁

They saw what happened after caesar and didn’t want that to happen again

I visited the Museum in Mobile, Alabama, several years ago. One impressive item that I found on display was the 'Death Mask' of Napolean Bonaparte. I don't recall learning 'why' or how his 'Death Mask' wound up there, except Mobile's earliest days were governed by the French. I don't recall the years during their reign. Still, I want to go back to Mobile to study other items on display. And to see if Napolean's Death Mask is still on display.

He wasn't defying the wind. The wind was at his back.

I don't think this was unusual, there were so many instances in Indian colonial history, British arrested the local king and didn't kill them. Killing was only when the king was unpopular among his people.

Amazing how each ruler can send thousands of men to their death yet spare the life of their real enemy it really shows how we really are just pawns in a game to them we mean so little to them that their is no thought about the civilian life

Highly informative! Hope ur channel grows well, and may the consistency gods be with u good sir. Subscribed. 👌

The judge: I know what he did was wrong, but it could've been worse. He could've stolen some bread.

Very fascinating video as are many of the learned comments from viewers. Years ago I heard that the term "bogey man" for a scary man was actually "boney man" and coined by the Brits to refer to Napoleon when they were fearing an invasion of the island. Is this a true story?

They waited for Joaquin Phoenix to finish him

The choice of background music, 1812 Overture, was ironic and iconic 😋

I always wondered about this, nice video!

Rule #1: it's simply, Kings don't kill kings. Other monarchs were afraid of killing Napoleon will set an example for future conflicts.

Short answer: because he's just freakin awesome that's why

History changes things, one time you are a villain and later you are a hero.

I still don't understand what Napoleon did so wrong .....sounds like others were just jealous of him and should of gave him more men .....and maybe he would of won he seemed a better person than who took over

Even in Germany, we think that he was one of greatest French, who ever lived . God bless him in eternity .

The British don't go in much for assassination. Not sporting. Like Ghandi and many others, he benefited in part from decency (relative) of his enemy.

They poisoned him instead of direct execution

They were good Christians back then, expressing Christian mercy was seen as being a good thing.

This is what is still causing tension in Nigeria system, killing a ruler, since first military coupe . the country is yet to settle from its mistake.

In a shorter version. Napoleon was a freemason. He surrendered to the British who were full of freemasons. The royals didn't consider napoleon as a fellow sovereign.

I may be wrong, but Napoleon codified the laws of his Empire into one neat tract. His Empire became, basically, all of Europe at one point. That was something no-one had achieved before afaik. It was a giant leap forward, you don't kill the guy that did that. He was not simply another despot with nothing to offer.

Probably to avoid pissing population off. I was right.

The British knew they directly caused most of the Napoleonic wars

He died from accidental poisoning. His green wallpaper was made of cyanide laced dye.

Great content, suscribed

I read the real reason Napoleon was kept alive was because he still had influence in France, and for the British Napoleon was the weapon they could use against any other French government. After all, Napoleon was able to kick out the restored Bourbons.

Marshal Blucher certainly wanted to execute him but I think Gneisenau his chief of staff would have dissuaded him. If Napoleon had been captured by hard core French royalists, they may have executed him. Napoleon was popular mainly with the Army. Many Frenchmen were furious that his wars had cost the lives of over a million Frenchmen with nothing gained. The French accepted the return of the Bourbons without too much of a fuss but later overthrew them as being too reactionary.

You also loved him when you hear him speak in his corsican accent when/during a military campaign.

Hey, Your video is very good! But it have some flaw, the volume is very low for my phone even though it's in mid volume. Hope you can increase your voice volume in the future!

He identified with the people and not with the land. He should have focused on assimilating people and not on land. However, assimilation should not be by force but by enticement.

My enemies are many. My equals are none.

They never kill THEIR lifetime actors. Hitler died of old age in Argentina--he played his role for the banks and was also rewarded.

I'm immortal, anyway. Wellington and all the others are known only because of me.

would probably be less painful than stomach cancer

During the French Revolution, the revolution executed their Royalty. THIS was unacceptable to the other Kingdoms of Europe. And thus they went to war against France. However, Napoleon time and time again proved he was ROYALTY material through his military victories. Executing a Royalty is not to the interest of the rest of Europe.

Another great video. Keep it up! 👍🏻👍🏻

The comments sections in history channels are always so informative and interesting to read.

In short the British sensibility saved Napoleon execution twice!

He was a stoic, a visionary, an educator, a reformist, a brilliant strategist, a scientist and encyclopedist and likely the most extraordinary man that has ever lived.

I don't understand one part of this video, about 5:00 in the narrator says that executions of sovereigns wasn't in fashion anymore, but less than twenty years earlier, the french cut the heads off their sovereigns and executions took place of sovereigns all throughout latin america, and in the east, so it's very contradictory.

What’s the classical music in the background ?

The various European governments during the 18th and 19th centuries had a “ gentlemen’s agreement” that execution of defeated head of state was in poor taste and might set a bad precedent. We note that Germany’s Kaiser Whilheim abdicated to another country following WW I defeat and peaceably lived out the remainder of his life. The Russian Bolsheviks executed the Romanoff family, which was a catalyst for much destruction and wrangling for power. This strategy of isolating the defeated advisory might have been beneficial in Iraq. If the defeated Saddam Hussein was tryed at The Hague he would have likely been sentenced to life in prison and perhaps not served as a catalyst for the 10 year war in Iraq.

Executing him would have set a bad precedent: Killing a 'bad' actor (ruler) would probably give ideas to 'the people' being ruled by monarchies and other similar type governments.

Blucher actually wanted to hang him. But he wanted to 'carthage' Paris as well, destroy it and saturate the soil with salt. So nothing would ever grow there again. Quite a character.

Great video. Love from Spain

I feel it only fair to point how how Napoleon repaid Wellington for saving his life; leaving money in his will to the man who tried to assassinate Wellington.

It would have been such a jerk thing to do to have him executed the Austrians stabbed him in the back o countless occasions with impunity and he accepted their surrender every time without any executions or exiles

"But he's just a lowly Corsican peasant, what can he do in the battlefie... oh,"...

They make it seem like Napolean woke up every morning on an island dressing in full uniform and posing on a horse as if he was still in power instead of just accepting retirement and adopting hobbies.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.