[quote name='supadupacheap']Meh, they were a world player but never reached a dominance greater than that of the Imperial British (which is what we were comparing originally) Yes, he had some victories over the asian peninsula and China but Britian was wailing on China at the same time.
The acquisition of current day Nice and just the rebuilding of the very tarnished french rep. was his greatest achievements. He was great for France (economically and patriotically) but as far as establishing a dominant conquering military, nah.
Theres a reason he was called "Napolean small" until recent historians reviewed his accomplishments. Napolean one took more territory than any French leader ever. Napolean 3 rebuilt from the fall out of Napolean 1's final failure and then made the French a economic power in Europe again. The Imperial British took over whole portions of the new world, were the #1 economic superpower of the time, and laid entire civilizations to waste when they wanted to. Not as dominant as the Romans but really, who was?[/QUOTE]
The British were more worried with Empire then (mutiny of India, etc) whilst France was focused solely on Europe. They had a big role in the unification of Italy and Germany (though mainly he was trying to deal a blow to Austria). The Brits were more dominant worldwide at the time, yes, but in Europe the major plater was definitely France.
I also love history discussions.