I'm actually ending this unit of Napoleon in class tomorrow.
Basically Napoleon was a dictator of France who loved to carry out conquests. During the beginning of his reign he had man victories, heck in the battle of Austerlitz he was able to beat an even large Austrian and Russian army with only the french army. I'm not sure how many people were in the armies. This battle ended in a peace treaty by Austria, Treaty of Pressburg. So you can say that the Europeans thought of him as a god, for the first handful of battles. However later on he was just a shell of his glorious past. He became too selfish and ignorant in his victories, and pursued to fight England and Prussia, at the battle of waterloo. Two of the major citis that posed a threat to his conquests.
To answer your question, Europeans would have though of him differently during his first years of his ruling, and his last years of his ruling because of the victories and losses he had in battles to try to take over all of Europe. He was a crazy dictator.
B. Explained how rulers get to keep power!
It would be difficult for the United States for two reasons, the fact that none of the land was mapped other than the areas that previous voyagers had gone through, and the natural landscape of the area, and last, Native American Hostility.
Three examples: When pioneers would voyage to the west, there would often be encounters were they would be attacked by animals that had not been seen before, bears, sneaks, different wolves, and many more. They barely knew the natural resources of the area, such as food, etc.
The next example, no mapping, would be difficult because for the most part, they had no sense of navigation except for the few maps that had been made, even then, would be difficult to navigate.
Native Americans did not appreciate the pioneers coming into the land they considered their own, they resembled hostility and would even kill the civilians that would travel through the land, or capture them.
Hope this helps!! <3
The difference lies in interpreting the two sides of the conflict. McPherson saw the war as the war between the evil South and the good North. He was focused on the abolition of slavery and their integration into the society as free people. Horwitz on the other hand saw South not as evil but as a faction which went to war to protect its economic interests.
I assume you're talking about the Revolutionary era. The colonists wanted to go to war for their independence. They didn't have representation in the government, yet they were still taxed.
