For Emperor Napoléon Bonaparte I, first of all, he was a man, not a god. History is the history of the people. Every great man in history, no matter how brilliant, lived in society, not hung in the air. He is greater than the average person, not only because he has outstanding talent in some aspects, but also because he has higher status and power than the average person. But in any case, his foothold and contemporaries must be consistent, at the same level. The history of each era cannot be the history of a hero. The history of Napoleon's time is not Napoleon's personal heroic history, and he cannot be deified. However, for more than a hundred years, historians all over the world have made many deified comments on him, such as "the giant of the century", "the most magical wizard in history", "the emperor of the west", "the god of war" and "the master of fate", and even said that "he is the greatest figure in the world since Caesar and the most shocking figure since Alexander. On the contrary, it is anger, disgust and abuse. For example, he is a monster of Corsica, a tyrant who destroys freedom, a shameless villain, an imbecile, a madman and a rogue. Whether it is flattery or scolding, it belongs to bowing to personality cult. In this way, we can't really reveal the true face of Napoleon, a complex historical figure.

Second, it is the times that make heroes, not heroes that make the times. Historical laws show that every great social change is an era in which heroes come forth in large numbers and great historical figures are bound to be created. Napoleon was great because of the French Revolution, a great event that shocked the world. As Engels pointed out: "It happened that Napoleon, a Corsican, became the military dictator needed by France exhausted by the war." . However, if Napoleon never existed, his role would be played by someone else. "Therefore, we must put him in the history of the French Revolution in order to better understand him.

Third, we must look at the mainstream and dominant aspects, and we cannot replace the whole with one side. Historical figures, especially great historical figures, have complicated life experiences. Napoleon lived in the era of the French Revolution and the great transformation of the whole European continent from feudal society to capitalist society. His life experience and main activities are closely related to the characteristics of this era. So it depends on whether he moves against the historical trend or conforms to the trend of the times in this great historical trend.

Fourthly, we should make a comprehensive investigation and analysis of some works about Napoleon in the past, especially those so-called "some works about St. Helena". Because during his six years in exile, Napoleon still measured his mistakes with the eyes of a winner, and narrowed and covered up his mistakes by exaggerating some facts and covering up others. These things were concocted by the bourgeoisie in the struggle against the Bourbon Dynasty in the 1930s and 1940s, in order to achieve a certain political goal and revive the memory of Napoleon. Today, French historians only regard it as a legend or something, because it doesn't quite conform to the historical truth. In addition, some books about Napoleon's biography compiled by the British and Russians have a strong national chauvinism color, so the stories and nature of some events are not true enough.

Fifthly, some articles commenting on Napoleon are used to finding the basis from the works of classical Marxist writers. However, if we just quote some words without first knowing when Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin spoke and what they wanted to explain, then relying on such quotations alone will inevitably lead to a "quarrel" between classic writers about Napoleon. In short, the evaluation of Napoleon should put him in the history of the French Revolution. A comprehensive investigation of all his activities. In this way, we can see that Napoleon, as a strategist and politician of the emerging bourgeoisie, suppressed the rebellion of the royalist party, shattered the repeated armed interference of the "anti-French alliance" in Europe, disrupted the feudal order in Europe, promoted the awakening of the people of various European countries, and stabilized the social achievements of the French Revolution. This is the main aspect of his activities and his main achievement. Of course, every great historical figure can't be perfect, and he has his shortcomings, mistakes and even crimes. Napoleon, as a bourgeois strategist and politician, was even more so. Engels once pointed out: "Napoleon's biggest mistake was to marry the daughter of the Austrian emperor and form an alliance with the old counter-revolutionary dynasty." He did not destroy all traces of old Europe, but tried to compromise with it; He tried to gain a second-to-none reputation among European emperors, so he tried to make his court as good as theirs. Engels pointed out from the perspective of historical development that Napoleon's main mistake was "falling in front of orthodox principles". Similarly, we can't just because of his contribution, just as Marx satirized proudhon's observation of the quality of the economic category in Poverty of Philosophy, "just like the petty bourgeoisie looks at the great men in history: Napoleon is a great man; He did a lot of good things, but he also did a lot of bad things. "

Throughout all the activities of Napoleon's life, the activities he led played a progressive role in the development of society and human history at that time. He is a historical figure that should be affirmed.