The following quotations are a selection of excerpts of British anti-Napoleon propaganda of the period after Napoleon became head of state in France in late 1799. This material was written and published in an attempt to demonize and defame Napoleon for two reasons: the British considered him a deadly enemy of Great Britain, and to criticize with propaganda in order to picture Napoleon as evil.
The selections can be found in The Secret War Against Napoleon: Britain’s Assassination Plot on the French Emperor by Tim Clayton.
However, the question I have for the forum regarding this 'information' is how much it has influenced the study of Napoleon himself and how much is still be used by present day authors and historians (the two are not necessarily synonymous)?
Two of the quotations, by Coleridge and Whitbread, are apparently replies to the constant stream of anti-Napoleonic propaganda.
‘As to Buonaparte himself, there is every feature in his character, every circumstance in his conduct, to render it certain that no species of fortune, mental and bodily, no sort of infamy, which a malignant spirit, a depraved imagination, and a heart black with crimes of the deepest dye, can possible suggest, or a hand, still reeking with the blood of murdered innocence and stimulated by the most insatiable thirst of vengeance, can inflict, which will not be exhausted upon the conquered inhabitants of the British empire.-Anti-Jacobin Review, xv, 332-333, 1803.
‘A revolutionist by constitution, a conqueror by subordination, cruel and unjust by instinct, insulting in victory, mercenary in his patronage; an inexorable plunderer and murderer, purchased by the victims whose credulity he betrays, as terrible by his artifices as by his arms, dishonoring valor with ferocity, and by the studied abuse of public faith, crowning immorality with the palms of philosophy, tyranny and atheism with the cloak of religion, and oppression with the cap of liberty.’-Revolutionary Plutarch, II, 204; 227.
‘An obscure Corsican, that began his murderous career by turning his artillery upon the citizens of Paris-who boasted in his public letter from Pavia of having shot the whole municipality-who put the helpless, innocent, and unoffending inhabitants of Alexandria, man, woman, and child, to the sword till slaughter was tired of its work-who against all the laws of war, put near 4,000 Turks to death in cold blood, after their surrender-who destroyed his own comrades by poison.’-Buonaparte’s True Character, Wheeler and Broadley, Invasion, II, 284.
‘The contents of these volumes are interesting in a remarkable degree; as detailing, either from personal knowledge, or from accredited works of other writers, the lives, conduct, and crimes, of every person distinguished as a relative, a courtier, a favorite, a tool, an accomplice, or a rival of the Corsican upstart, who has hitherto with impunity oppressed, and plundered the continent of Europe; and as exhibiting at the same time a clear display of the extraordinary kind of police by which Paris is now regulated. Such a mass of moral turpitude as is here displayed, yet in a form that leaves little room to suspect its authenticity makes up blush for out species.’-European Magazine XLV, 56, 1804.
‘Fear is always cruel…In the late war and in the present the British Ministry has been loudly accused of participating in, and encouraging those plans of assassination, which have been directed against the person of the chief magistrate of France. Let the ministry, if they can with truth, vindicate themselves from so black a charge by a solemn and authentic disavowal; and let the British public show the high honor and intrepid courage, for which they have long been renowned, by consigning to merited contempt and abhorrence all works, together with their authors, who direct tendency is to degrade the generous and high-spirited patriot into the lurking assassin.’-Annual Review and History of Literature II, 510, 1803.
‘It has been considered an appropriate appendage to this work, to republish the celebrated pamphlet of ‘Killing no Murder,’ one of the most singular controversial pieces the political literature of our country has to boast; one of those happy productions which are perpetually valuable, and which, whenever a usurper reigns, appears as if written at the moment, and points with equal force at a Protector-or a Consul.’-originally from Killing No Murder directed against Oliver Cromwell and resurrected to be against First Consul Bonaparte.
‘It will, we trust, be amply sufficient for our purpose, to remind our readers that the doctrines and principles in question had for their object, not merely the revolution in France, but that of the whole world-That the usurping rulers of France have laboured, with unremitting assiduity for the accomplishment of this object-That the war was entered into with the Emperor in order to complete the overthrow of the French monarchy, according to the well-known declaration of Bissot, ‘It was the abolition of royalty I had in view in causing the war to be declared!-That hostilities were afterwards extended to other countries in pursuance of the impious design, announced by the declaration of fraternity, of affording military assistance to the disaffected of all countries-And that in furtherance of the same scheme of universal revolution, France has had her emissaries in every state, to inculcate her doctrines and to incite the people to insurrection.-Anti-Jacobin Review I, 27, 1798.
‘Mr Pitt railed most bitterly at the character of Bonaparte…But the truth is Mr Pitt knows Bonaparte to be sincere, and, therefore, will not negotiate, because the negotiations would lead to a peace, which peace would baffle that idle hope of restoring the French monarchy, which, spite of the document sent to Petersburgh, is and has been the real object of Ministers, both in beginning and continuing the war.’-Samuel Taylor Coleridge, as written in the Morning Post, 6 February 1800.
‘Every topic that can revile, and every art that can blacken, has been resorted to, for purposes of political slander; and I am very sorry to see that the Intercepted Correspondence from Egypt, strengthened, and embellished with notes, and perhaps, too, garbled, has made its appearance to prejudice the country against the chief consul, and thereby to set at a distance every hope of a negotiation for peace.’-MP Samuel Whitbread, 3 February 1800.
‘The intrigues of the French, the servile, the insidious, the insinuating French, shall be the object of my constant attention. Whether at war or at peace with us, they still dread the power, envy the happiness, and thirst for the ruin of England. Collectively and individually, the whole and every one of them hate us. Had they the means, they would exterminate us to the last man…while we retain one drop of true British blood in our veins, we shall never shake hands with this perfidious and sanguinary race, much less shall we make a compromise with their monkey-like manners and tiger-like principles.’-Prospectus of a New Daily Paper to be entitled The Porcupine by William Cobbett, September 1800.
Thanks for this Kevin. None of it is very subtle, unsurprisingly. I'd be interested to know whether French anti-British propaganda was more subtly done, given Napoleon's well documented prowess in that field. Luke Daly Groves actually wrote a MA thesis on British anti-Napoleon propaganda. I'll be interviewing him for 'The Napoleonicist' podcast in November, which may interest you when it comes out.
Is there a wider point that you were seeking to make with these excepts though, or are they just posted as curiosities?
The Whitbread quote certainly is what we might expect of a Whig, destined to be leader of the opposition, and an admirer of Napoleon, and Coleridge no doubt found a willing audience amongst the readers of the Morning Post. It strikes me that the Cobbet piece isn't really anti-Napoleon, more typical of what might be expected of anti-French propaganda from the long-eighteenth century.
I posed a question with the posting which is the third paragraph:
'However, the question I have for the forum regarding this 'information' is how much it has influenced the study of Napoleon himself and how much is still be used by present day authors and historians (the two are not necessarily synonymous)?'
So that is the 'wider point' of the posting and the material.
Thanks Kevin - my apologies. This should teach me not to post on the forum in a sleep deprived state! As I say, Luke Daly Groves is very good on this. I think he is working the thesis into a book.
No influence whatsoever - compared to the Boney's propaganda it is including a lot of truth, like Corsican, and murderous career.
Alas the Brits dealt with a lot of clemency against Boney, so he could spawn his lies into the world and create a cult of worship.
The Prussians would deal much harsher with him - a firing squad.
Surprising how much even scholarly opinion is still affected by propaganda from the Napoleonic era. For more info see: Napoleon and the British. Stuart Semmel. Yale, 2004. ( You can read my review of the book on the Napoleon Series.)
And some that are definitely not scholarly, such as the so-called biographies of Napoleon by Schom and Corelli Barnett which are both riddled with errors. And with a little careful research those errors would have been recognized as errors if the authors would have been just a little more 'scholarly.'
Thanks very much for the book recommendation. It is on my list.
Propaganda works best when it has a grain of truth in it. So when a historian echoes that truth, we should not presume that they are merely parroting the propaganda. The British propaganda quoted, like the period cartoons (arguably much more effective in a period of low literacy levels), was pretty obvious. Any historian worth the title should be capable of discerning it. Why would we suggest that they wouldn’t? Any more that a Holocaust historian was overly influenced by Charlie Chaplin in “The Great Dictator” for example. More worrying is that too many have swallowed Napoleon’s bulletins as factual or accept Fain’s assessment of him as objective. In my experience the vilification of him seems more than outweighed by the hagiography. I can’t recall anyone trying to preserve the ‘sacred memory’ of Pitt or the Price Regent for example. But I have been accused of defaming L’Empeurer. That leads me to think that Napoleon’s propaganda is so much better than the British, as it still seems to be working 200 years later.
"More worrying is that too many have swallowed Napoleon’s bulletins as factual or accept Fain’s assessment of him as objective."
Who has 'swallowed Napoleon's bulletins as factual"?
On page 602 of Swords Around a Throne, John Elting specifically states that Napoleon never intended the Bulletins as history.
Dave Markham published the Bulletins in his book, Imperial Glory: The Bulletins of Napoleon's Grande Armee in 2006 and it is quite evident if you contrast the Bulletins with Napoleon's Correspondence that there is a difference in the two.
As for Baron Fail, perhaps this might help:
'...Another secretary, Baron Fain, accompanied the Emperor on all his campaigns up to the abdication of 1814. He retired to private life under the Bourbons, and died in 1837. Between 1823 and 1827 he published three works, one for each of the years 1812, 1813, and 1814, which are among our best sources.'-Vincent Cronin, Napoleon Bonaparte: An Intimate Biography, 447.
'Here are the finest memoirs written on the organization of Napoleon's cabinet and the work of the Emperor at the height of the Empire.'
'The son of a master roofer of Norman origin, at sixteen Agathon-Jean-Francois Fain enters the revolutionary administration. Noticed by the secretary general of the Directoire, Lagarde, under the Consulate he is assigned to Maret, the secretary of state. It is in February 1806 that he becomes secretary-archivist in Napoleon's private cabinet. The Emperor values his capacity for work, his even temper, and his discretion.'
'Fain is never far from Napoleon, by night or by day. He takes down orders and letters in dictation, and organizes his archives when he is not writing. What Napoleon appreciates in him is that Fain is greedy for neither honors nor for money. In 1813 he takes Meneval's place as the Emperor's personal secretary.'
'Everything passes through Fain, with the result that he knows all the secrets of the period from 1806 to 1815...If Fain is noteworthy, it is because in his memoirs he describes with precision and accuracy the functioning of the imperial cabinet. His book ends with a portrait of Napoleon, which avoids idealization without descending to malicious tale-telling as did Bourrienne.'
'Descriptions of events are found in other of Fain's works...But these are of less interest than what can properly be called Fain's memoirs, finished in 1829 and published only in 1908.'
'With these memoirs it becomes evident that Fain was one of the great figures of the period, remaining modestly in the shadows, and that his testimony is of the essence.'-Jean Tulard, from the Foreword to Napoleon: How He Did It-The Memoirs of Baron Fain, First Secretary of the Emperor's Cabinet.
Indeed, moreover the cult is still well established and due to Boney's sun ray beam his groupies seemingly have the compulsion to defend his deeds - I cannot see this for another historical person of that time, in fact, strangely enough such cults exist for a string of dictators well into our time.
Did I ever read British propaganda to judge Boney? Why should I - a good start would be his correspondence to gain a picture of him.
Thank you, I was well aware of Fain’s close and intimate association with Napoleon. Indeed, it is that which leads me to determine that his assessment of Napoleon would be highly unlikely to be objective. Hence I believe it would be folly to take his famous “basically good” statement at face value, and would never be foolish enough to present it as evidence without massive caveats. Also, whilst they offer unparalleled access to Napoleon’s inner circle, they could hardly be thought of as a ‘warts and all’ exposé. I wouldn’t look to Fain to provide that about Napoleon, just like how I wouldn’t look to Gurdwood or Ellesmere for an unbiased assessment of Wellington. A good historian is capable of detachment. A poor one (and unfortunately Military History as a discipline has had far too many, both professional and amateur) cannot separate their personal attachments from their work. Then we get hagiography. A good historian can therefore handle propaganda and hero worship, from all sides, recognising it for what it is. They are therefore unlikely to be taken in by it. Which perhaps goes to the heart of the problem. They can be a good researcher and a good author. I can thoroughly enjoy their books. I recognise that everyone sees the world through their own environmental background and biases. But if they don’t have a commitment to professional detachment I cannot trust their conclusions and opinions. In my humble opinion that makes them writers about history, not true historians.
By your definition Georgette Heyer is an historian. What I’m talking about is what differentiates a true historian from a writer on historical topics. When that writing is written with an agenda (either nationalistic or hagiographic) then we are on a slippery slope. At the bottom of that slope are the ‘historians’ of 1930’s Germany and Stalinist Russia. As I say, enjoy the works of diligent researchers and good writers. However, when I know that they write from a bias, I keep a healthy supply of salt handy. I’m more impressed though when an author states his affections in the introduction, and then goes on to provide for contrary evidence in their analysis. That to me displays a good ethical historian, aware not only of the biases of his sources, but of him or herself as well. That establishes the trust that I believe has to exist for good history to flourish. Agenda driven pieces and hagiography, whilst being interesting distractions are only really fit for doorstops. For the record, I have named no one or been critical of neither ‘side’ (if indeed there are any). There is really no need to personalise this or get defensive. My only claim to these opinions is that I’m a paying customer who has spent a considerable amount of my disposable income funding these authors and their publishers. When I purchased and read Tim’s book, I must admit that I wasn’t unduly surprised that “The Anti-Jacobin Review” wouldn’t contain a glowing assessment of Napoleon’s achievements, or that opposition MP’s tend to say critical things about the government of the day. Maybe these are a revelation to some, not blessed with a free press or a parliamentary system. But then again, I believe you cannot effectively use a source if you don’t understand the environment in which it was written and the motivation of the writer. And neatly, that is what elevates the true historian from the mere author.
Yes, I strongly agree with what you say here David. It takes some serious soul searching to recognise and be frank about internal biases. Of course the great debate in history is whether you can ever truly divorce yourself from your unconscious biases. My personal opinion there is that you can, but it requires a great deal of effort and care, and often, in my humble experience, comes down to letting the sources do the talking, and working out the reality afterwards, rather than going looking for evidence of a particular phenomenon or trend. Even then, and I've been guilty of falling foul to this, knowing whether what you are looking at is truly representative is extremely difficult.
Good call on not personalising this. There are some very nice people on both sides of the 'Napoleon for and against' divide, who have produced quality work. I may fundamentally disagree with what some say more than others, but the beauty of history is, after all, having those discussions and profoundly, but respectfully disagreeing - self-affirming echo chambers would make for such boring historical discussions!
I didn't post my definition of a historian. I posted five separate ones from five different sources as an illustration. Take you pick-or not.
Isn't Georgette Hyer a novelist? She isn't, by definition then, a historian
@Zack White My favorite example of national bias was an article in "History Today" (one of the more serious history magazines, with actual historians writing the articles, though not a scholarly journal) where they had a picture showing "Napoleon killing civilians in his bombardment of Copenhagen."
It might perhaps prevent this discussion becoming an exchange of baseline lobs if the OP offered some examples of notable historians whose work he had mind as being tainted in the way he describes. He has mentioned the works of Alan Schom (1997) and Corelli Barnet (1978) whose limitations in his eyes would appear to set the bar very low (I am surprised not to see Adam Zamoyski mentioned). What authors worthy of consideration does he have in mind?
If memory serves, I think John Elting is highly regarded by @Kevin F. Kiley (there's been a debate about quality commentary on Napoleon before). Not sure what everyone's views are on John Lynn's work, though I have a huge amount of time for the guy.
There is of course always going to be the question of to what extent are the works of Andrew Roberts vs Phillip Dwyer and Adam Zamoyski, are simply reflections of the marmite-like nature of Napoleon's character. Its one of those discussions where the positions are incredibly entrenched.
I must admit, I have shifted slightly in my views on him. I used to be fiercely anti-Napoleon, but in time have set a personal distaste for the man aside, and make an effort to acknowledge the good and the bad.
@Zack White
What I don't understand is that one has to read that or those historian, why not get back to basics, read the correspondence and as many eye witnesses as possible, and yes, including Fain, what new is bringing Zamoyski at all, facts, that are around for over 200 years???
@Hans - Karl Weiß Again it depends on the individual and their circumstances. Most people don't have the time or financial resources, or the knowledge of how to locate those sources, and therefore historians writing these broad studies help to frame the narrative. So much has been written about Napoleon and his character by now that there is very little that is truly 'new' in terms of its interpretation. But yes, if a historian were to base their work purely on secondary sources, and the odd quotes that they do/don't contain, then we wouldn't actually class it as a credible piece of history. Going back to the originals is something that students tend to learn in the course of their BA thesis. Even then, many won't do so, which is often a shame. It all depends on your level of interest.
Equally, there is a trust element there. It should be reasonable to expect a historian to filter the wheat from the chaff, and present the most interesting/pertinent examples - that's part of what you are paying for (for them to do the research so you don't have to). And for many, again, who may not have the time/resources, there is always the language element to consider. It all depends how enthused you are about the topic, I guess.
'Worthy of consideration' was not perhaps the clearest way of indicating authors who should not be dismissed out of hand (as the above would seem to be) that have displayed an uncritical reliance on anti-Bonaparte propaganda. I didn't mean to invite a paean to the late John Elting.
Oh, no, I didn't think you did. I wasn't having a go.
@Zack White Moi non plus!😎
She was a writer of historical fiction. However, to do so, like Thomas Hardy and Bernard Cornwell she had to study history, ie be an historian. Bernard Cornwell crossed that divide formally for his work on Waterloo. To be fair though, I’ve seen people who call themselves historians advance fantastical theories that even she wouldn’t have used. Some of them make Pierre Plantard’s Priory of Sion sound plausible. That’s why I refer to them as historical authors, not liking to confer on them the mantle of historian. It’s a personal thing, but I think that a ‘true’ historian has to sign up to a few more ethics around their duty to history. When I asked my first history teacher who his hero was, I was expecting WSC or Bomber Harris (his education was interrupted by a certain Bohemian Corporal, and he spent what should have been his second year at university as a Lancaster tail gunner). His reply seemed rather strange to my 15 year old self: “My heroine is history herself. A beguiling seductress but a harsh and demanding mistress.” It’s only 4 decades and a couple of thousand volumes later that I see what he really meant. Ultimately, our duty to her should supersede our attachment to any historical figure. A ‘true’ historian values history more than their ego. Anyone who doesn’t is merely someone who writes about history, in my book.
I have seen and read too many novelists who write on historical periods that have no idea what they are writing about. They are not historians.
I’ve seen too many (so called) historians write on subjects they know little about, but it doesn’t seem to put them off.
@david Tomlinson And of course there is the realm of conspiracy theorists, where people with no knowledge of what history really is like to style themselves as historians, and claim that everyone who disagrees with their view (aka bases their work on historical evidence) claims that its a witch hunt.
A bit like those who go looking for Dan Brown ‘history’ I suppose. A novel written based on an acknowledged hoax, driving hordes of visitors to Rosslyn Chapel looking for ‘evidence’. Makes British and Napoleonic Propaganda seem a little tame in comparison.
My experience is that one faction’s peaceful protester is another’s mob. And as the victims of IHAT can testify, following orders is absolutely no defence. As you quite rightly point out, history is written by the victors. I very much doubt though that the royalists had access to 30,000 arms, so there must have been times that artillery was firing on largely unarmed crowds. Of such terrorist/insurgent vs freedom fighter/martyr discussions things like Easter uprisings are made. It is unsurprising that royalist propaganda does not match republican propaganda on this. I suspect the actuality sits somewhere in between.
Still there's a moral difference between a "mob" and an armed mob. So would you argue that the Irish killed in the '98 were a mere "mob" and undoubtedly not all of them were armed?
I offer no conclusions, just an observation at the problems such situations throw up, from history right up to the present day. Our period pre-dates the various definitions adopted by The Hague conventions and later International Law provision, so these situations are even more difficult to define.
'...that our principal reliance must be upon the effect of a bombardment, and that we must either endeavor by that means to destroy the Danish fleet, or force the government to surrender it into our hands.'-Sir George Murray on the Copenhagen bombardment in 1807.
'If it is found by experience that the destruction of the fleet is actually not within the power of our mortar batteries, we must then of necessity resort to the harsh measure of forcing the town into our terms, by the suffering of the inhabitants themselves. But to give this mode of attack its fullest effect, it is necessary completely to invest the place, and oblige by that means, all persons of whatever description, to undergo the same hardships and dangers.'-Sir George Murray on bombarding the inhabitants of Copenhagen in 1807.
Murray's course of action to initiate and conduct a terror bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807, in order to force the city to surrender itself and the Danish fleet.
Perhaps you should research the armed rebellion in Paris during which Napoleon used artillery to stop the attacks of the rebels.
Or is the issue actually one of Napoleon being involved and firing on the rebels in order to defeat the rebellion? Perhaps you believe that Napoleon should have let them overthrow the government?
Well, as Brumaire proved, he eventually had rather fewer scruples at overthrowing governments. Even at Peterloo, no one contemplated using heavy artillery at point blank range though. What I believe though is moot. Surely how propaganda ‘span” it on either side is more the point.
@david Tomlinson
Exactly, he overthrew a government, so in case it is alright for him to shot civilians, the government could have fired with canon at him as well,
@Hans - Karl Weiß Wasn't that the risk that Napoleon, Sieyes, and the others took when they undertook the coup?
Yet, there was no armed resistance to the coup, so it appears that the point is moot.
What civilians were shot during the coup of Brumaire?
And the coup replaced a corrupt government with one that was both honest and efficient and began a series of reforms that benefitted France and its people, did it not?
The artillery Napoleon used against the rebels was light, or field, artillery-specifically 8-pounders. That isn't heavy artillery. Heavy artillery is siege, garrison, and fortress artillery. Field artillery tops out at the 12-pounder.
And artillery is the big leveler when outnumbered as the government forces were. 30,000 to 8,000 isn't exactly an even or fair fight, now is it?
As to overthrowing a government, Napoleon was recruited by Sieyes, who was one of the Directors, and the Directory was corrupt, France was in a state of fiscal and moral chaos, and Barras, another of the Directors, was plotting to bring back the Bourbons.
Napoleon conducted a coup that was bloodless and he clearly demonstrated that he was more-than-qualified to rule. He brought order out of chaos, greatly improved conditions in France, brought the Revolution to a successful conclusion, and with his far-sighted reforms he completely remade France and maintained the social gains of the Revolution.
I don’t believe that history is pre-ordained, that is not how the participants experience reality. I’m also not convinced that there is necessarily much far-sightedness. There is a survivor bias, failed reforms go unnoticed, only successful ones are long lasting, therefore justifying the hindsight driven tag ‘far-sighted’. All it demonstrates is how seductive rear view mirror propaganda is, and how susceptible we are to it. Of course, a trillion dollar gambling industry is built on our inability to understand risk and probability. Had the royalists have returned though, not one Frenchman would have froze to death in Russia, or necessarily have been blown to kingdom come on the hundreds of ‘Napoleonic’ battlefields. I’m sure other disasters could have befallen a France under a restored monarchy, who knows? Perhaps France could have entered a new period of prosperity, a golden age under a constitutional monarch? No one knows now, and no one knew then. What price then, if Napoleon’s body have been laid in an un-marked Parisian grave, instead of Des Invalides? One more dead officer, trying to save a failed regime, no propaganda then, not even a footnote in history. Napoleon believed in his destiny, right up until it failed him, but we don’t have to. It only appears to us that way, because we know the contents of the next chapter in the story.
@david Tomlinson "I don’t believe that history is pre-ordained, that is not how the participants experience reality."
Who said or intimated that it was? This is yet another strawman...
I fear this thread is degenerating in it’s usual fashion. I’m therefore disengaging before it degenerates further
So, how far would Napoleon have gone? Are you saying that if the coup had become bloody he would have pulled out? Does it sound like Napoleon to flinch at the thought of a few casualties? If so, I would strongly suspect that the man of peace propaganda is at work.
He would used whatever means to crush any opposition, see his actions at the eglise Saint Roche, he isn't giving a damn - in case of resistente it gets crushed.
@Hans - Karl Weiß How would you propose to handle a revolution aimed at overthrowing the government?
'In time of revolution, with perserverance and courage, a soldier should think nothing impossible.'-Napoleon.
Since the coup succeeded without bloodshed, which was the object, speculation on what might have happened is somewhat without merit, historically-another 'what if' which cannot be answered.
Well, when you describe reforms as far-sighted, you are. And the point made is that we construct such notions in hindsight only. Please remember which forum you are on, and not throw insults.
No insult 'has been thrown.' Please stay on topic.
I agree again, but throwing insults is a sign of very weak arguments.
Strawman? Please refrain from personalising. I’m done with this thread as I have no ambition to descend to where it is going
Meanwhile welcome back to No 1 Court, where the rain has finally stopped, but the shortlist of authors, other than the usual suspects, recycling contemporary 'anti Napoleon propaganda' from the 'Great French War' remains, not wishing to touch any sore points- how can I put this?- diminutive.
Okay, here's a genuine question for Napoleon FANS, which I ask in an entirely neutral way. What would you acknowledge as being Napoleon's failings?
Equally, and in the interests of fairness. If you dislike Napoleon, what would you acknowledge as being his gifts and strengths
We have often seen the things that people who admire/despise Bonaparate refer to. What happens if the positions are reversed?
I'll offer this: I'm no fan of Napoleon, but my position has mellowed slightly with time. I would always have acknowledged that he was a phenomenally gifted commander - that much is obvious. He also had remarkable energy, had limitless vision, and showed incredible skill as a propagandist. He was also, significantly, probably the man that France needed in 1799, and in as much as he saw himself, the glory of France and the good of the French nation to be the same thing, he always acted in what he considered to be in the best interests of that trinity.
I would say that he was too much of an optimist. By that I mean he genuinely believed that his reforms would result in large sections of the populace attaching themselves to the regime. But, as we can see from our own times, people resent having "outsiders" sticking their noses in their business, even if they are well-meaning (and I'm not necessarily implying everything was well-meaning). Also that every action N. took had multiple reactions which soon overwhelmed anyone's ability to juggle them all successfully. Finally, declaring himself Emperor was a mistake, based, I think, on the erroneous assumption that as Emperor he could deal with the leaders of the other nations would eventually accept him on an equal footing. Fat chance of that.
Napoleon made three major mistakes strategically-the Continental System, invading Portugal and Spain, and Russia. Spain was the strategic drain on the Grande Armee and hurt Napoleon and the army much worse than Russia did.
Napoleon became over-confident after Tilsit and his overriding need to defeat Great Britain led to major mistakes and the invasion of Portugal gave Britain an opportunity to introduce a field army to the continent.
Napoleon did not always agree with the advice given to him by his subordinates. He would listen, but if he believed his course of action was correct, he would pursue his own course. Two of the largest errors were to, first, invade Russia which some of his advisers and subordinates disagreed with, probably remembering how difficult it was waging war in Poland and East Prussia in 1806-1807.
Second, in early 1813 Berthier and others urged Napoleon to pull half of the veterans out of Spain to face the Prussians and Russians in central Europe. This could have defeated the allies early and given the new Grande Armee more of a veteran core, especially in cavalry. It would have reduced the effort in Spain, but so what? Unfortunately, Napoleon didn't listen.
very hard worker, genius in propaganda, creating a cult, extremely brave, knew well how to manipulate people.
It is worth noting that Wellington, as a soldier and an ally had no authority over the civilian population of another sovereign country. He held no civil post in Lisbon and he had no fiscal authority to disburse British funds for purposes other than that which they were voted for. To do otherwise would be to risk being cashiered. It is clear that he did all within his power to urge relief and encourage preparations. There was another who as a head of state and in accordance with all the usages of war is responsible for the privations of the occupants of an invaded country. As both military commander and the authority from whom all diplomatic authority flowed, Napoleon was the one man responsible, for it is upon his authority the invasion was made. Displaced persons, regardless if they were doing so on the orders of the Portuguese government, were so as a direct result of a necessity of acting in self defence from the actions of an aggressor.
"It is worth noting that Wellington, as a soldier and an ally had no authority over the civilian population of another sovereign country."
Beresford did, and Wellington had authority over Beresford.
"Não encontrara ninguém, incluindo os habitantes das terras, pois os camponeses (segundo o oficial francês) tinham fugido depois de serem ameaçados pelos ingleses com a pena de morte."
https://journals.openedition.org/lerhistoria/1195
Referencing: Jean Jacques Pelet, The French campaign in Portugal 1810-1811..., p. 319. (I believe Vichness makes the same point.)
Technically, Wellington only had authority over Beresford as a British officer. Beresford drew his Portuguese authority directly. Such situations are actually quite common in the present period, with General Officers holding positions as National Contingent Commander and in a NATO or UN chain of command at the same time.
Where was the 'necessity' to displace a civilian population of 300,000 which caused at least 40,000 deaths from privation and disease?