I still have to say that the guy expanded too little for how much was spent,not to mention how he ended up antagonizing most of France's former allies like the Dutch in the process of doing so
I'm not sure you can really say he expanded too little... France made several rather important gains in the North and the East during his rule. It may not look like much on a map but I don't necessarilly think border changes were that huge at the time in Europe. If you take Europe in 1643 and then look at the map in 1715, it's more or less the same map.
As for saying he ended up antagonizing most of his allies... I think that's exagerated. The Dutch's attitude certainly switched but that's kinda what happens when your ruler gets on the Sun King's bad side by refusing to marry one of his bastard daughters and also by becoming King of England, which was France's traditionnal ennemy... Oh and that also happens to have overthrown James II who was on rather good terms with his French cousin. So in that particular case, I think there are wrongs on both sides. As for the rest of France's allies... I don't know but it seems to me that most actually stayed on the French side. Bavaria certainly remained France's main ally in Germany for example.
I do think however that setting up a Bourbon successfully in Spain was a real big plus of his reign.
Eh... Remains to be seen. The Spanish Bourbos had pretty awful rulers at one point (Charles IV, Ferdinand VII, Isabella II). Then again, they also have had Philippe V, Charles III and Juan Carlos so I guess it kinda balances itself.
Napoleon. Lost hundreds of thousands of French lives to give up France's status as the premier power of Western Europe, lost the Rhineland, lost Flanders, lost Northern Italy...
It's a dream to think the Allies would have allowed France to keep these lands without question... The only way they would have would have been if they no longer had the choice and had been defeated. The problem is that all these conquests contributed to make France overpowered in the eyes of the allies.
As for the war, it's partially an inheritance Napoleon had from the Revolution. I mean, the Revolutionnaires were the ones who declared war on the rest of Europe in 1792... And the Allies never really trusted a strong Revolutionnary France after that... Napoleonic France being just a continuation of that to them...
Plus, it's kinda forgetting the legacy Napoleon left behind. The guy made a huge deal of reforms during his reign, some of which are still around (though amended) in France, spread his Code Civil throughout Europe which in turn spread revolutionnary and liberal ideas, etc... You can't judge Napoleon solely on the military side: it's the main aspect of the man, but there is also a whole lot more to his life, career and actions than just his wars.
Napoleon I, great general, but you know you're doing something wrong when you end up at war with the rest of the continent no less than five times...
Kinda what happens when you're seen by said other powers as the heir of bloodthirsty revolutionnaries that overthrew and executed their kings and wanted to do the same to all of Europe... Also when you're seen as the defenders of dangerous ideas like the ones the Revolution propagated...
He also restored slavery, which is not only immoral but it also bungled any chance at recovering Haiti.
The whole mess with slavery is actually quite complicated. longsword14 explained it earlier better than anyone could. Napoleon basically restored slavery only to keep control of his oversea colonies and even then the move was supposed to be a pragmatic one: slavery wasn't supposed to be restored in the isles it wasn't applied.
Plus let's give him credit: he acknowledged this as his biggest mistake in his memoir. And during the Hundred Days, though he didn't abolish slavery, he abolished the slave trade.
He could a done somethings to be a more acceptable presence in European diplomacy. Some territorial concessions here, some reconciliations with the Bourbons there, not offering Archduke Charles his brother's throne...
You know some little things that would have made him less obviously a radical hegemon.
Territorial concessions weren't really going to cut it. If the allies wanted satisfaction, Napoleon would have basically had to go back to 1793 borders... France in control of the West Bank of the Rhineland was basically too OP for the other European powers. And the British would never have allowed France to keep control of Antwerp.
Reconciliations with the Bourbons was also out of the question: the Bourbons had been kicked out by the Revolutionnaries and for most of the period they were extremly determined to go back on everything the Revolutionnaries did. Hell, there is a reason Napoleon was able to make a comeback during the Hundred Days and that's because Louis XVIII was more or less going back on everything the Revolution had done. It's only after these events that Louis XVIII became more pragmatic...
As for the Hegemon part... Thing is that it's more a less a side-effect of a vicious cycle the Revolution caused. France became more powerful and upseted the balance of power in Europe at the time and the allies would have only been satisfied if the balance was restored. The problem that it was screwing France over, no matter how you look at it: it would have had to abandon nearly all of its conquest made before Napoleon rose to power. As such Napoleon kinda had to beat the rest of Europe into submission. Which is what he did for most of his reign. The problem is that it in turn meant that Nappy became too powerful for the rest of Europe, which in turn meant that the allies wanted to weaken France, something which couldn't be done without screwing the French over, so new war to beat the allies into submission, rince, repeat... It's probably a bit caricatural but that's more or less how it went.
I don't know why everyone is picking Charles X. Yeah he was a generally bad ruler who learned nothing from the revolution but he didn't leave France any weaker than he found it.
If the state of your kingdom at the end of your rule was the only thing that mattered, then Georges IV would probably considered one of the greatest monarchs of Great Britain... As far as I know, that's far from the case.
You should also see what kind of legacy and reputation he left behind him. By all accounts, Charles X is basically considered a buffoon in French history. He is basically considered as the only architect of his downfall because of how intransigeant he was. And his reign is basically only remembered as a collection of mistakes and failures...
I voted for John II. The man's reign was an absolute, unmitigated disaster from start to finish. It says something when you would rather return to captivity instead of ruling your country.
The part where he returned into captivity is more linked to what he perceived was his personnal honor. He had originally been freed in exchange for an extravagant sum of money and a few hostages... One of said hostages escaped captivity so John felt compelled to go back. A bit stupid from a political POV, but John II is a man that was highly chivalrous.
Louis-Philippe. I suppose he wasn't an entirely useless monarch, but one cannot really countenance overthrowing the same rightful King who is also ones cousin.
If overthrowing your predecessor discards you from the title, we can basically remove a great deal of names from the list of great rulers...
I have a great deal of empathy for Charles X. If my brother, sister-in-law, nephew, sister, and son had been murdered by republicans, my brother overthrown once, and myself and my entire family forced into exile, I would have also been mistrustful of any whiff of republicanism and intransigently reactionary.
Charles X's action become a tad less forgivable when you consider that his older brother Louis XVIII basically shared the same views but was more into realpolitik to know his marge of maneuver and thus was more careful. To all of this, Charles X basically said "Screw this! I AM THE KING!" and it blew up in his face... HARD.