Looking for Napoleone of the Renaissance

[Lafayette]

I am going to suggest someone that might cover just be what you are looking for.

Vlad Dracul, Voivode of Wallachia.

He was notorious in his day. Utterly cruel yet urbane. Highly educated. Took on the might of the Ottoman Empire and held his own. Impaled his enemies by the thousand. I reckon he had a dark sense of humour. Betrayed a few times. I think he ticks all your boxes.

I appreciate your suggestion and need to think about it. Old Drac may be too dark. You said he was urban does imply he was charismatic.

These are the characteristics of my villain:
handsome
charismatic
brilliant
liar
blames other except for himself
hot tempered
athletic
great swordsman
drinks too much, but not an alcoholic
womanizer?

 

[svalbard]

Again I believe Vlad ticks the majority of those boxes. Not too sure about the womanizing. Think he was a devoted husband.

 

[Lafayette]

Again I believe Vlad ticks the majority of those boxes. Not too sure about the womanizing. Think he was a devoted husband.

Just goes to prove no one is totally bad.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Of course it does depend on what you mean by a "Napoleonuc" figure and by setting it in the "renaissance era"

Napoleon himself rated Gustavous Adolphus as one of the greatest generals of all time, I think because they were quite similar. They both innovated new tactics and weapons (Gustavous' use of artillery probably got the ex-artillery captain, Napoleon excited), they were both aggressive on campaign and on the battlefield, and both forged Empires.

On the other hand if you are wanting a "renaissance prince" , I think of the rulers that instigated "Golden Age" cultural advances - the arts, education science, discovery. They were something different from brute warlords focused solely on warfare and land grabs (although they did that too, of course.)

So people like Vlad the impaler, are great templates for a despicable antagonist, but a renaissance prince? Probably not. (Plus outside a dogged and brutal defence against the Ottomans, I wouldn't rate him militarily).

 

[Venusian Broon]

Another person you might consider looking at, but he definitely wasn't renaissance, although on many counts he embodied a similar sort of set of developments for his realm, was Fredrick the Great.

Very aggressive, arrogant, duplicitous, but cultured, superior military commander and one of the most 'enlightened' Kings of his time - very into the arts and sciences. He pushed Prussia into Great Power status, laying the foundations for Prussian dominance of the Germans.

Lots of pros and cons with him, easy to lionise him if you take the Prussian side, easy to demonise him as a power hungry demagogue if you take others views!

Definitely not a womaniser though

 

[svalbard]

Of course it does depend on what you mean by a "Napoleonuc" figure and by setting it in the "renaissance era"

Napoleon himself rated Gustavous Adolphus as one of the greatest generals of all time, I think because they were quite similar. They both innovated new tactics and weapons (Gustavous' use of artillery probably got the ex-artillery captain, Napoleon excited), they were both aggressive on campaign and on the battlefield, and both forged Empires.

On the other hand if you are wanting a "renaissance prince" , I think of the rulers that instigated "Golden Age" cultural advances - the arts, education science, discovery. They were something different from brute warlords focused solely on warfare and land grabs (although they did that too, of course.)

So people like Vlad the impaler, are great templates for a despicable antagonist, but a renaissance prince? Probably not. (Plus outside a dogged and brutal defence against the Ottomans, I wouldn't rate him militarily).

Lafayette did say he wanted a villain. Not too sure if Adolphus fits that description. But of course to his enemies he would be.

Vlad on the other hand is a fairly interesting character in that he was raised by the Ottomans, may have been known Sulieman personally, his defense against the Ottomans was quite successful. If he had support from Corvinus, who knows?

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

Here is the latest from ACOUP. I post this here because he is really great at discussing historic realism (or lack thereof) in fiction -- and the effects the lack of realism have in conveying a great story. Tolkien was great at describing strategy, tactics and battles with regards to realism. The showrunners for Rings of Power are not -- or choose not to be. This is the intro paragraphs. If you go through his archives you'll find detailed analysis of what is right and wrong in so many of your favorites - Lord of the Rings, Dune, Game of Thrones, and many others. (emphasis mine)

Collections: The Nitpicks of Power, Part III: That Númenórean Charge​

Bret Devereaux Collections February 3, 2023 32 Minutes
This is the third part of our three part (I, II, III) look at many of the smaller issues of historical realism in Amazon’s Rings of Power, following up our mode the major worldbuilding problems the show experienced. Last time we discussed the tactics (or lack thereof) of the Southlanders and Orcs in the major battle in episode 6, “Udûn.”
This week we’re going to turn to the Númenóreans, looking at their tactics and also (because it fits nowhere else) a look at the design of the ships in the show. As with last weeks critique the running theme here is that efforts by the showrunners and writers to be clever and novel – to present either novel ship design or novel cavalry tactics – end up looking unrealistic both because the showrunners have not familiarized themselves at even a basic level with those fields but also because producing something novel in fields of human endeavor that have been practiced for centuries is really hard. It is not something generally managed in a writer’s room brainstorming session or with just a bit of concept art.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Weren't the Prussians also part of this coalition?

I think, maybe I've been looking in the wrong places. If I'm not being mistaken Napoleon was not only brilliant, but also charismatic. He was also cruel I've read, but don't know how much.

Thanks for the suggestion.

The Peninsular War (a part of the Napoleonic Wars) mainly involved Britain, Portugal and Spain. But towards the end of his regime, pretty much the whole of Europe from Russia to Prussia to Austria to Britain and others (including some French) came together to ensure the defeat of Napoleon.

Yes Napoleon was brilliant and charismatic, but he was also a risk taker and a warmonger. He had it all, then lost it all. The '100 Days' when Napoleon escaped from Elba and returned to the throne of France has to go down as one of the most audastic events in world history.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I appreciate your suggestion and need to think about it. Old Drac may be too dark. You said he was urban does imply he was charismatic.

These are the characteristics of my villain:
handsome
charismatic
brilliant
liar
blames other except for himself
hot tempered
athletic
great swordsman
drinks too much, but not an alcoholic
womanizer?

This pretty much describes Henry VIII through various stages of his life. Not usually known as a military genius, he did set the foundations for the Royal Navy and the construction of his Cinque Ports and cannon forts that lined the Southern coast made England a much more secure country. Without this, England almost certainly would have been overrun in the decades following his death.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

Instead of Henry VII - I give a vote to: Richard I, byname Richard the Lionheart or Lionhearted, French Richard Coeur de Lion, (born September 8, 1157, Oxford, England—died April 6, 1199, Châlus, duchy of Aquitaine), duke of Aquitaine (from 1168) and of Poitiers (from 1172) and king of England, duke of Normandy, and count of Anjou (1189–99). His knightly manner and his prowess in the Third Crusade (1189–92) made him a popular king in his own time as well as the hero of countless romantic legends. He has been viewed less kindly by more recent historians and scholars.

 

[svalbard]

That is a good suggestion. Henry was also considered the epitome of a Renaissance Prince at one stage

 

[svalbard]

Instead of Henry VII - I give a vote to: Richard I, byname Richard the Lionheart or Lionhearted, French Richard Coeur de Lion, (born September 8, 1157, Oxford, England—died April 6, 1199, Châlus, duchy of Aquitaine), duke of Aquitaine (from 1168) and of Poitiers (from 1172) and king of England, duke of Normandy, and count of Anjou (1189–99). His knightly manner and his prowess in the Third Crusade (1189–92) made him a popular king in his own time as well as the hero of countless romantic legends. He has been viewed less kindly by more recent historians and scholars.

Richard is a real enigma. A warmonger yet cultured.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Richard is a real enigma. A warmonger yet cultured.

Richard was from the Plantagenet/Angevin dynasty who were all a pretty irascible lot. In the family he was born into he had to fight just to stay alive, with siblings and parents who were all out to get power at the other's expense. It's hard to know what kind of king he would have been, as he spent so little time in the country. But judging by his brother John it's perhaps as well that we wouldn't know.

 

[svalbard]

I wonder though how much of John misrule is seen through the lense of a biased press. He was left with an impoverished kingdom due to Richard's wars. Was John any worse than other Medieval kings. I am not saying we should re write history but he was dealt a crap hand. His son didn't fare much better and it wasn't until Edward I that England finally got a true successor to Henry II.

 

[Lafayette]

I wonder though how much of John misrule is seen through the lense of a biased press. He was left with an impoverished kingdom due to Richard's wars. Was John any worse than other Medieval kings. I am not saying we should re write history but he was dealt a crap hand. His son didn't fare much better and it wasn't until Edward I that England finally got a true successor to Henry II.

I recall reading an article in British History Illustrated (which I believe is no longer in circulation) that agrees with your assessment not only that he endeavor to be fair to everybody, which didn't sit to well with the nobility.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The best thing to say about John is that he was a far better ruler than his brother Richard, who (unsuccessfully) attempted to usurp the throne from his father, before eventually becoming king and almost bankrupting the country with his military expeditions. Supposedly in his 10 year reign, he only spent 6 months in England.

John was his father's favourite son, partly because he stayed loyal to his father when his brothers and mother did not, possibly partly because Henry II saw in his son someone prepared to do the hard work of running a kingdom. As king, John was determined to be as heavily involved in the governance of England as possible. The problem in part though was that Richard had left him in a difficult financial position, and therefore more at the mercy of the Barons, who were the power behind the throne.

The main issue for John though was in his Plantagenet/Angevin upbringing, He was (supposedly) vindictive, distrustful, petty and spiteful, traits that were no doubt exacerbated with the atmosphere in which he was raised. He was determined to get back his lands in France, and for this he needed money from any source he could obtain it. What he needed was the backing of the Barons, but because of his (probably unfounded) distrust in their loyalty, he ended up antagonising them into rebellion. He couldn't even keep on the right side of the Pope, leading to his excommunication and a situation were for some time the people of England who died couldn't be properly laid to rest.

Under different circumstances he could have been a competent ruler, but his personality traits made him one of the most ineffectual monarchs England has had.

 

[AllanR]

Though an admiral more than a general, take a look at Yi Sun-sin - Wikipedia

With only 13 warships his navy held off more than a hundred Japanese ships. No Korean ships were lost. Yi Sun-sin used the unique currents of the strait as a force multiplier. Battle of Myeongnyang - Wikipedia