Napoleon was ""cancelled"" within his lifetime by being sent into exile. In Britain, his name used to be used as a shorthand for dictatorial behaviour, especially from short men.

De Gaulle was again subject to what you might call the ""woke mob"" during his lifetime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_68

People have to learn to cope with accurate presentation of what historical figures did, a lot of which was very bad especially for the losing side.

What's with the double quotes? Of course we want an accurate portrayal of the character, the good and the bad. The worry is it won't be so accurate coming from a contemporary American perspective.

I think going to the barricades is a much older French tradition and labeling it with the modern "woke" label -does tend to indicate your politics.

That's what the sarcasm quotes were for.

While I've read a bunch of critical media of de Gaulle, much of the media I've read of Napoleon seems to be tinged with his glory - I'd actually love a more critical review of historical Napoleon given his influence on modern Europe and the West at large.

Napoleon is kind of a.. controversial character in history. let's not forget that the late 18th century was a bloody period in european history with massive societal change. It saw the removal of old medieval systems and them being replaced by more modern ideas.

Absolutist monarchy is an (early) modern phenomenon, not a middle age one. Middle ages ended with the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans in 1453.

In fact, wouldn't Napoleon be part (and the end ?) of the absolutist monarch phenomenon?

Oh, all the more reason for a more critical review of his legacy, I'm sure it'd be very interesting with a more objective/modern lens.

You know, he is not celebrated in places where he brought destruction with him. As in outlook on foreign army in more informed by pillaging then by glory.

That is how countries typically interpret history - from their point of view.