I'm sorry I've slacked on posting these links but now that you've tested on this unit the film will only make more sense to you and help solidify the story of the French Revolution in your head.
Here are all the links in order. You Tube breaks the film into 7 parts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfiVhnyzSEI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXCXB0Q8GGI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyYahaVvOjc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfoA9WBBg1g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZU0mLImc08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUa34qOPjbQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXH7LRLDik
20 comments:
A really great/usefull movie.
I saw just the two parts but from now i see that there is all the stuff we learned about him in class, just in the visual way - in a movie !
It would be great if we could see it all together in class,because here is some more information about Napoleon and the Napoleonic Era.!
Bye :D !
Videos includes very interesting things,I saw 4 parts and there are some things which we learned about Napoleon in the class. And i think with this way,we can more understand about him. Like Blend says it will be really great if Mr.DeGaetano shows videos in the class!Becouse this blogspot it isnt very used from students.
Byeee...!
great links.They really helped me a lot to understand what we learned in the class and this way with the movie is great and very useful.
See you soon'
hi to all.
Thanks Mr.De for the links - when you add a picture to all the info you learned it helps a lot to remember. As Mr.Selimos said: The brain remembers pictures easier than words - even though we remember both of them as images.
After all we have learned, I am still not sure how to characterize Napoleon.
- WAS HE GENERALY GOOD OR BAD?-
It is obvious that he did some positive things but he also made some key mistakes during his 'in power' days.
I would like to open a discussion about this topic and I hope you all participate.
s.
Excellent topic Sami! I will wait to hear responses from your classmates before I state my opinion.
We could say that he was even bad , or good.
I think that even if he leaded France like a dictator and even if sometimes he wasn't a good leader at all,many of his actions had many good results.
If Napoleon would not exist, i don't believe that the people of Europe states would get back this feeling of being "loyal" to his country , that feeling of Nationalism -a feeling which the monarchy extinguished many years before.
In his conquered lands he also spread liberalism, that gave them the emotion that they need to be free , and have more rights.
Napoleon had opened their eyes and with this step that he did , the whole history of Europe will change - in a positive way.
So, he was the "founder" of Nationalism and Liberalism , even if he did it unintentionally.
Also , with Napoleon changed the way of War , because he had some new strategies and maneuvers, which will be used in all the states.
I heard that these strategies were the transition of the primitive attacking style to a new modern one.
He did a lot of changes in Europe and Worldwide - changes that have results even nowadays.
That's why I think that Napoleon was "good" leader in one hand , because we all have won some goods from his leading.
I will talk about his negative results later.
Bye.:D
I totally agree with you Blend, especially when you mentioned that he changed military tactics from classic to modern at some point.
Yes, he ignited the spirits of people and slowly but steadily, they started to fight for their rights and for their country - in other words - nationalism and liberalism are the indirect results of Napoleon's rule.
These above are LONG-TERM effects.
The question is...
What about the SHORT-TERM effects?
Don’t you think that he somehow weakened the Englightment Movement?
He believed in the Englightment ideas but he didn’t give the needed respect to them.
I think he somehow covered the true Enlightment Movement and made a version of his E.M. - the Napoleonic Code.
The truth is that he still 'governed' France as a king, except that he didn’t want to use the term king because people wouldn’t give him the support he needed so he changed it to EMPROR.
If we think deeply, we could say that he brainwashed almost the whole population with the idea that France is a Great Empire, like The Roman Empire or like no other Empire before - France rules the world and that he was this great person who achieved all this.
After Napoleon, France was in the same chaos that it was when he came to power. The economy was weak, monarchy was restored, people were hungry.
Now, this makes me think that Napoleon killed the revolution - stopped the revolution.
He took the power and used classic monarchy methods to rule, with some exceptions.
We now that before he came, the situation was pretty bad but this is no excuse for us to say that he was better than the directory - he could have been much better than he was - he could have respected all the Enlightment ideas and France would had been in a much better situation.
Or,
Was Europe in need for something aggressive and big to make people think about thier freedoms?
Was conquering almost the whole Europe the only way possible to spread out Nationalism and Liberalism?
These are questions that have no true answer but these questions make us question Napoleon, his methods and his heroics.
In the end,
I truly believe that if Napoleon used his skills and power in the best way he could, Europe would have been a better place to live, at least for the people that lived in the years after his defeat.
But,
Perfection is relative and we may say that he was not a good person but, unconsciously, he did some great jobs and we remember him for the 'greats' he did.
s.
Yeah Samin I agree with you absolutely.
The French people NOW do not remember him like a person that brang France back to the the same problems of the time before the Revolution , but like
a miracle of mankind ,a white door for the France of those days , that did the best possible for his country.
But if you ask an English or Russian , you will hear pretty bad things about him , things that you would never imagine. They do it in schools too; they learn the young students really bad things , by favouring their country in all possible ways, and by giving a big picture of France and Napoleon.
Sometimes i really think if he was a genius , if all those things that he did were purposely ,that he conquered Europe and make those nations think more about themselves and other things like that - because we said that he was based on the Enlightement Ideas , and Freedom, Liberalism , Nationalism were the major goals of them.
It wouldn't be a wonder, because i heard that he really was intelligent , that he read books all the time and that he was a virtuoso in Mathematics - and even that he read that great Chinese book from Cun Su - The Art of War that really was the key of advance for many of the most succesful persons in the world (source: Emin Osmani :P)
I think that he knew what he was doing all the time ; he was conscious when he united Northern Italia , Germany ( that was for decades separated) ,when he gave his conquered countries more rights and every other decision he did , because he knew that not in the next years , but after many years ,his Ideas and actions will affect the whole Europe.
Maybe if N.P. wouldn't appear, Germany would be separated , Italia also , the monarchy would exist even now (perhaps),England and Russia would conquer the whole Europe and discriminate whith these nations , there would be different boundaries , France would be in Chaos , people maybe wouldn't look for the basic rights of a human ,England would direct the Northern America even know( because Napoleon actions affect in the States too)... EVERYTHING WOULD BE DIFFERENT !
You see - It's not the same
Maybe there would be another person that would do it , but know we're focusing on Napoleon (just kidding ).
So ,his long-term goals were very important for the future of France , even Europe.
But France didn't change so much after that Napoleon became Emperor.
The best thing he did was conquering everyday new areas - conquers that made the people feel better (but this will not live long).And the other things: He didn't restore the "Estates" form , he made some reforms in School system and banks ,declared Chatolicism as the only one religion in France , and broke the Alliances with the other states of Europe.
Nothing important about the developing of the economy and the improving of the life of peasants.
That's why we can say that he was in one hand good , but in the other one bad.
How Samin says , Prefecture is Relative - and Napoleon in my opinion wasn't Perfect , but we could thank him because his decisions influenced directly the continuity of humankind.
Bye
N.P - Napoleon Bonaparte
I'm sorry!
YES!!!
Thats what I was looking for!
Now, I clearly think that he was nor good or bad!
He was in the middle.
Lets wait for other opinions, especially Mr.De's opinion.
One word that could describe Napoleon is:
He was GREEDY.
That's a great question , and i think it's not easy to state that he was good or bad.
As Blend and Samin mentined , he changed Europe...
For a time , he changed the way people were thinking , the way they were living...
But as for my opinin , I think that Napoleon lived , and acted for that time...
He didn't think about the future...
His intention was to conquer and conquer , but he didn't think what was going to happen with France when he is not the leader anymore...
We know he was a genius , and maybe he would have thought that one day he wouldn't be a leader , so France have to pay all the damages...From this example , you might think he was SELFISH...
But you can take many other examples , and your opinin will change every time...
That's why it's not sure if Napoleon was either good or bad...
See you all tmorrow:D:D
One thing I will add to this discussion right now is that Napoleon, (as were all revolutionaries) was very nationalistic. That is to say, he was very proud of his nationality and nothing guided his motives more than bringing glory to France. During the time of Napoleon, Ca. 1800, conquering new lands to expand your nation (creating an empire) was the held as the one of, if not the most, important achievement a leader could attain. This is something foreign to our world. Today's society shuns emperialism, but back then thousands of years of history "taught" that attaining an empire was the highest prize a nation could attain. The idea being that you now could lead the world in all ways of your nation (political, societal, economic, etc.)
mr.DE...
how long should the research be?
Is one page enough or it should be more?
s.
I mean:
Mr.DeGaetano(...)
:)
can we leave the talk show for monday?
Mr.DeGaetano can we please postpone the talk show for monday!?
Please
p.s. I hope you're feeling much better now.
I hope you feel better now and that it was just a minor thing.
s.
Post a Comment