Similarities Between Napoleon Bonaparte And Otto Von Bismarck

Prince Otto von Bismarck was seen as both a political genius and a power monger, like a Prussian version of Alexander the Great by the people. Bismarck was a conservative, who used the people around him to reach his goals; and in doing so, he pitted people against one another. According to the book 19th Century Germany: Politics, Culture and Society 1780-1918 by John Breuilly, modern historians have found it very hard “to separate the man from his achievements” (Breuilly 172). The historians have run into a roadblock that consists mostly of

Both Kaiser Wilhelm and Otto Von Bismarck’s policies differed. In reality, Kaiser based his ideas and was influenced off of Bismarck. Wilhelm II was mostly concerned with the power of the German Navy. He consistently tried to get the best of the best for the navy and always got the latest weapons for them. Also, he attempted to make Germany the predominant world power. His aim to get allies for Germany was a complete failure. When Kaiser tried to reach out and get help and support from Britain, he had failed once again. That was due to the fact that he tried already to get colonies in Africa, The Pacific, and China. At his fault, we were left in isolation and had Austria-Hungary as our only ally. On the other hand, Bismarck’s efforts into getting alliances were much more contributive. Bismarck had began with isolating France and getting Russia and Britain to occasionally check in on France, while also maintaining good ties with Britain. He essentially had a more complex system in that area. The only thing Bismarck was known unsuccessful for ,was the decrease in domestic development for Germany. Kaiser Wilhelm and Otto Von Bismarck constantly disagreed within their foreign policies. The main disparity among these two men were their ages. Kaiser being the youngest had completely different political ideologies than Bismarck (“Otto Von Bismarck)

This topic can only be analyzed by examining Napoleon in action, so I assessed reports and depictions of Napoleon’s actions on the battlefield from battles such as Toulon, The Battle of the Pyramids, Leipzig, Borodino, and Austerlitz. I also examined comparisons of his tactics to previous tactics to deduce why Napoleon was so successful on the battlefield, despite sometimes being at a numerical disadvantage. Finally, I studied a biography, Napoleon in Egypt, to take an even closer look into his thinking and tactical genius.

Bismarck had near absolute control over his country, and when he resigned his power is passed on to his successors. The following German leaders would ignore The philosophy of realpolitik and favor of militaristic illusions. Otto von Bismarck utilized his leadership as well as philosophy of realpolitik to unify Germany and maintain peace in Europe. Subsequent German leaders would disregard Bismarck's ideals, as his obsession with individual power failed to create a long lasting germany. Thus leaving to a tainted legacy.

Bismarck was a leader who was destined to make his country better through war. He supported realpolitik, which meant he was more concerned with making decisions based on the good of the country than what is morally right or wrong. With a leader so dedicated to his country, it made Germany almost guarantee prosperity. However, Bismarck’s love for his country may have been taken a step too far. When the German Social Democratic Party was founded, Bismarck became paranoid that they would ruin the country.

Historians to this day debate about whether Otto Von Bismarck was an opportunist or planner during the time of German unification. This topic of whether he was a planner or opportunist is quite unusual and can have two sides with solid arguments. Bismarck was a man first with a vision of bringing more power to Prussia but soon changed to bringing Germany up and uniting all of the German states. Many believed in him as a visionary who was a key part in uniting Germany and after keeping the peace in Europe which didn’t turn out so well later on.

Napoleon III and Bismarck both had huge impacts on France and Germany respectively. Both men had great diplomatic skills and strong personalities which lead to all sorts of reforms within their nation. Both men are known for their leadership skills and for the Franco-Prussian war, and even though the war technically ended by military means, both of their diplomatic skills had major impacts on the dynamic and outcome of the war. It is unclear to many how the war ended with a Prussian victory; and this is an attempt to explain what led to the war, and how those factors resulted into a Prussian victory.

Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898), Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) and Ludwig Erhard (1897-1977) shared similarities and differences within each of their influential political careers, in which these similarities and differences would shape the country of Germany between 1862 and 1966, based on their respective visions for Germany, their implementation of their policies within Germany, and the nature of which they left Germany when they ended their political careers. Bismarck and Hitler were similar in their respective visions for Germany, in which they wanted to unify Germany as a country by their use of policy. Erhard’s vision, however, was to recover the economy of Germany and reconstruct Germany. Bismarck and Erhard were similar in their implementation

Bismarck, to many historians, was known for his ability to manipulate the Prussian government, and alliances with other nations to achieve his goal to create the German Empire with the Prussian Kaiser as its leader. Through his idea of Realpolitik, to do whatever deemed necessary to reach a goal, Bismarck manipulated the different parts of the Prussian government and the Foreign policy to unite the German States under the leadership of Prussia’s Kaiser. The problem with Bismarck using Realpolitik is that he could have used illegal methods or methods that exceeded his authority as Prime Minister. Bismarck used methods that exceeded his given authority as Prime Minister, from 1862- 1871, to a small extent. The Kaiser had given Bismarck power that exceeded that normally given to a Prime Minister, but through the expansion of powers of Prime Minister before he entered office, many of Bismarck 's actions were found to be within his authority.

Throughout history, circumstances have led individuals to develop or modify ideas that which impacted and influenced societies in many different ways. One individual was Napoleon Bonaparte, with his ideas influence on the modern world, which bringing liberal reforms to the numerous territories that he conquered and

Overall, while the foreign policies of Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm were not very similar, they did both maintain the Dual and Triple Alliances, and Germany was at the center of European diplomacy during both era’s, however it was in different ways. Therefore, while both policies did not share many similarities, they did have their key differences. For instance, during the rule of Otto Von Bismarck, Germany had a strong and well-developed foreign policy. This is because through the use of foreign policy, Otto Von Bismarck aimed to weaken France, thus ensuring that no other country would attack Germany. Additionally, Bismarck also prevented threats to Germany through use of defensive alliances and cooperative agreements with various countries,

Otto von Bismarck, “The Iron Chancellor,” guided the Prussian ascent to power in Europe and the unification of Germany through the 1864 Second Schleswig War, 1866 Austro-Prussian War, and 1870 Franco-Prussian war. However, this new German Empire at the heart of Europe provided a destabilizing presence and encroached on the existing powers. The newly powerful German state would surely be eroded by war on the European continent. Bismarck showed his talent in isolating Denmark, Austria, and France as he facilitated Prussia’s rise, but demonstrated his true genius by entangling the major powers of Europe in alliances to maintain peace from 1871 to 1890—a strategic necessity for the survival of the nascent German state. His skill far outweighed the other statesmen of his time, and he “deserves full credit for having steered European politics through this dangerous transitional period without serious conflict between great powers.”

Bismark seems to be the most important factor of these. He was a successful diplomat with strong anti liberal views. Even though parliament refused to approve taxes for enlarging the Prussian army, Bismark simply carried on collecting them, showing his willingness to go to extreme measures to achieve his aims.

One of Bismarck’s more modern biographers states “Otto Von Bismarck made Germany but never ruled it” (Steinberg, 2011). To begin with, any study of pre-World War Europe would be incomplete without a thorough assessment of Bismarck and his work, especially when someone like Adolf Hitler in his Mein Kampf talks about “Bismarck’s Empire”, “Bismarck’s Reich” and “Bismarck’s Germany” (Hitler, 1971). Bismarck is credited with the unification of the German states in the late nineteenth century. But how did he do that? And what was “Bismarck’s Reich”? These are some of the questions we will be answering.

allows the reader to see how Bismarck friends and foes viewed him as a leader during the