Adorno said:
Very much unintended. He wanted to force Alexander I to a truce, not invade Russia.
Anyway, he was a warmonger and caused the deaths of many people in his megalomaniacal pursuit to conquer Europe.
The first part of your post somewhat contradicts the second. He wanted to force a truce, not invade Russia, but was a warmonger who wanted to conquer Europe?
Austupaio said:
I think of Napoleon a lot like I do Hitler, great man who had some good ideas and the power to implement them, spoiled by letting the power go to his head and by ultimately going quite ****ing batty.
Renowned historian David Chandler on the comparison of Napoleon and Hitler:
"Since the 1940s it has been fashionable in some quarters to compare Napoleon with Hitler. Nothing could be more degrading to the former and more flattering to the latter. The comparison is odious. On the whole Napoleon was inspired (in the early years at least) by a noble dream, wholly dissimilar from Hitler's vaunted but still born "New Order" Napoleon left great and lasting testimonies to his genius -- in codes of law and national identities which survive until this very day. Adolf Hitler left nothing but destruction."
kurczak said:
Napoleon was unique. He makes for a great story, although admittedly Tolstoy already squeezed out basically all there is literature-wise and all you can do is retell War and Peace in different ways. Bummer.
I wouldn't agree that
War and Peace was the definitive word in Napoleonic literature.
Les Misérables' section on Waterloo is akin to Tolstoy's Borodino, and gave great analysis afterwards (although not historically perfect). Likewise, although he wasn't trying to compete with
War and Peace, Anthony Burgess (famous for
A Clockwork Orange) captured Napoleon terrifically in
Napoleon Symphony.
Amontadillo said:
He was a warmonger in that he incited wars to procure France's dominance. This proves the other two points. Done.
That's it? That's hardly evidence.
Let's not forget the fact the Napoleonic Wars were an offshoot of not only the French Revolution, but the French Revolutionary Wars; the wheels were in motion before Napoleon arrived.
J. David Markham on Napoleon's role in history:
"Napoleon was trying to reform; to improve the lives of people. He fought wars because, in many case, these wars were foisted upon him by various coalitions that didn't want improvements in the lives of people. The Austrians, the Russians, and the Prussians were afraid that their own people would get the idea of freedom and equality and liberty under the Civil Code."
And Vincent Cronin on Napoleon's wars:
"Such criticism relies on the flawed premise that Napoleon was responsible for the wars which bear his name, when in fact France was the victim of a series of coalitions which aimed to destroy the ideals of the Revolution."
I think people tend to hold Napoleon to an arbitrary standard. Although absolutely an imperfect ruler (as
all rulers in world history are), are we expected to believe Britain, Austria, or the positively feudal Russia were benevolent regimes? Is there any particular reason that when other countries declared war
on France, which was usually the case, they're given a blank check? The blanket statement of "warmongering" is a common misconception. I think Napoleon's primary sin was being ahead of his time, and France's was being a republic in the heart of Royalist Europe.
In regards to "liberty" and "freedoms", ahh... France was hardly the shining example of either during the Revolution, and I don't exactly see it as a wrongdoing to put them into a corner and make the adults make the big decisions, but that's me. But in any case, my main point against that is that representation does not exactly equal freedom: the ability to chose your leaders doesn't exactly make you free. 
