Napoleon: Hero or Villain?

@Maggie Scott

Please be assured I wasn't trying to tar a nation of nearly 330 million with the same brush. I certainly wouldn't presume to suggest such a thing of anyone on this forum. But I have heard and read of Vietnam veterans expressing a similar sense of betrayal to that being described by Colonel Rumigny.

@Hans - Karl Weiß Makes an excellent point about the post WWI concept of Dolchstosslegende.

These parallels though seems to suggest that such sentiments are very common after a defeat.

@david Tomlinson

Indeed, and historians have the task to rip off those legends, otherwise they have catastrophic consequences for the future, as the Dolchstosslegende proved, the lost cause, Dolchstosslegende and treason, bad weather - how convenient to construct legends to excuse failure.

@Hans - Karl Weiß I think it is a powerful thing where this is tied to a hero, like we see with Napoleon.

Like most, my early historical education was around the "great man" theory, kings mostly. What intrigues me is the appellation "The Great" which Roberts gives Napoleon. Alfred the Great died in his own bed, still reigning.

Frederick the Great died in an armchair in his study, still reigning. Catherine the Great of a suspected stroke, still reining.

Napoleon died a captive of his enemies. Perhaps in needing excuses making for his failure, he ironically becomes more of a hero?

Hans-Karl, there is a very detailed journal article by Phil Dwyer about every imaginable atrocity occurring between 1792 and 1815. Of course, given Dwyer's admitted bias, the article concentrates on every horror committed by the French--and I agree that quite a few were particularly nasty--with a cursory nod to a few guerrillas and bloodthirsty Calabrians and irate Neapolitans.

Nothing about the British, however. I find that decidedly odd, given that Dwyer concentrates on the accounts from "memorists" who witnessed most of the events and the fact that every British combatant above the rank of drummer boy seems to have written interminable letters from the Peninsula or wrote exhaustive memoirs decades after the facts.

Nevertheless, Dwyer's article is in English, useful for folks who are not comfortable with other languages, and it is stuffed with citations for further study, or fact-checking:

It Still Makes Me Shudder': Memories of Massacres and Atrocities during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars

Philip G. Dwyer

War in History

Vol. 16, No. 4 (November 2009), pp. 381-405 (25 pages)

Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26070650

Thanks for sharing this Maggie, that looks very interesting. I'll 'look forward' (as far as you can look forward to reading about attrocity) to taking a look at that in the train tomorrow.

Thank you for this, welcome to the forum. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismayed by the passion. I just want to ensure that the passion does not spill over into anger. I appreciate your point about a less polarised question, but my sense was that exploring extremes allows us to then arrive at a more nuanced conclusion in the middle ground by working through the two contrasts. Equally, the forum is aimed at both specialists and non specialists and speaking with the experience of a teacher, people are often taught prior to university, to think in terms of 'black and white' answers to complex questions, so this is an opportunity to open the topic up by examining the polarised perspectives and realising that he was neither angel nor anti-Christ!

@Zack White I have to disagree that beginning with a polarized premise leads to a more nuanced discussion. Polarity almost always fosters the determination to quote, cite, and hit folks over the head with disparate opinions and sources. Any thoughts of middle ground are usually left at the door of the bar/pub where the brawl will shortly ensue.

I don’t know who the “non-specialists” here are, but I certainly know plenty of the experts, long-time toilers in the era’s rich and intoxicating vineyard. Most have already reached that middle ground years ago based on wide-ranging research among archives in half a dozen or more countries. Others will doubtless never change their points of view. Period.

@Hans - Karl Weiß I'm with you on that: one in the US, one in the UK. So... what would be the proper Napoleonic method for getting rid of them?

@Maggie Scott

There is a lovely story that when Winston Churchill was on a visit some defensive works or other he jumped over a wall, and landed both feet into some wet cement,

"Ah Prime Minister" an aide quipped "you seem to have met your Waterloo!"

"No!" growled Marlborough's biographer and kinsman, "My Blenheim!"

They say all political careers end in failure.

Napoleon's was no different.

Bravo both. That's the spirit.

Thank you for the intervention Zack. I will always extend the courtesy of respecting the opinions of all forum participants. Transparency, honesty and respect are central planks of good debate.

I think though there is a fine, but significant distinction to be drawn. What is being shared on this forum is being contributed free of charge for the edification of all of us, and very enjoyable it is proving. However when we are dealing with commercially published authors, if one is a paying customer I don't think it is unreasonable to express an opinion on the product. I am sure in common with many forum members I have spent (and continue to spend) hundreds of pounds each year on titles. We should be grateful to the likes of Andrew Bamford, because without the investment of specialist publishers such as he the debate would be much poorer. I think though we have a duty to those who may be acquiring works, including second hand or re-released older titles, to identify those that are significantly biased or authored by a clear admirer. Potential purchasers can do so knowing that they should be read critically, rather than unreservedly.

Works by Elting, Codman-Ropes, Hugo, Houssaye and Roberts grace my bookshelves. They even manage to do so alongside books by Charles Esdaile without either spontaneously combusting. There are even a couple with Kevin F Kiley on their dust jackets. I enjoy them all, but I don't labour under the misapprehension that any of them are holy writ. If I quoted from any of them, I would be careful to differentiate between opinion and factual analysis.

What I find curious is that it arouses such passion when we are discussing historical figures that have been dead for approaching two centuries. They, and all of their direct kin and acolytes are long gone. Their egos cannot be harmed, they can take no offence. It seems very strange that someone born in the modern era would be offended on their behalf, like some kind of sacred memory. Although I didn't use the term, if one invests such collective blind faith one should not be too surprised at someone using the term cult to describe it.

I believe we can see their lives with a distance and perspective denied them in their lifetimes. They may well have peddled the myth of their infallibility when they were alive but I regard them as human beings, with all the associated frailties that come with that. It appears that puts me on a collision course with some, on both sides of the hero/villain debate, who prefer a less nuanced interpretation. Of course that is their privilege, but is it also not mine to decline to share it?

So, what we are to take from this, that people tend to be liked by their closest friends? Not exactly news to most of us. Likewise, powerful people tend to attract entourages who attach their own ambitions to their star? Just like I wouldn't trust the objectivity of a biographer of Elvis who only consulted the Memphis Mafia. There is rarely anything of intelligible value that emerges from an echo chamber.

@david Tomlinson

Unfortunately, in hating, despising, or whatever term you would like to use to describe it, some folks cannot stand Napoleon and will do anything to vilify him and what he did and accomplished. Again, unfortunately, the 'Corsican Ogre' theory, based on allied propaganda of the period, is still alive and well. Those who support that theory tend to denigrate those who do respect and admire the Emperor, accusing them of attempting to 'canonize him. Napoleon was a man with extraordinary abilities and talents, as well as normal faults attributed to any human being. However, he was head and shoulders above his 'fellow' heads of state in both ability and character, and his civil accomplishments especially have lasted to today and many are still in effect, whereas the remains of the Hohenzollerns, Romanoffs, and Hapsburgs have vanished like water on a hot stone. To get to know the 'real' Napoleon, it is helpful to read his correspondence and the memoirs of those who knew him well such as Fain, Marchand, Rapp, Savary, and Caulaincourt, among others. In the final 'judgment' you have to make up your own mind.

Have you read Fain, Marchand, Savary, Coignet, and Ropes, for example, or the modern scholarship of Col Elting, Vincent Cronin, and others who don't agree with your 'assesment'?

@Kevin F. Kiley

You misattribute me. I have never subscribed to the 'Corsican Ogre' view, any more than one of unrestrained obeisance. At heart, I am an empiracist, which leads me to believe that there is a distinct difference between the jealously guarded public personas and the flawed human beings behind them. Indeed, to this day this difference drives the an entire genre of investigative journalism.

I've read most of your author list, some many years ago in the original French before English translations became available. As most were acolytes their biases are understandable and can easily be accounted for. I don't look to John Gurwood or John Kincaid for critical evaluation on Wellington either. I wouldn't describe Elting's and Cronin's work as particularly modern though, being approximately 3 and 5 decades old respectively. Neither has had the benefit of the rise of internet access, collaboration and data analysis tools. They are also clearly admirers. Understanding that not everyone will share the opinion, I find both of them at best uncritical, and liable on occaision to slip into hagiography. I would not therefore quote from either without exercising caution and would counsel others to do so. A personal view that I would defend but not force upon anyone.

However, my particular 'fanboy' obsession is with the 100 days campaign. I recognise that this means that I only see Napoleon when he is past his best, and that could skew my perspective. His subsequent writings and pronouncements on the campaign from St Helena do not portray him in a particularly good light either. Thanks to authors such as Gareth Glover, Andrew Field, Paul F Dawson and Stephen M Beckett and others we are seeing a whole raft of primary source material coming to a wider audience. Not all of it fully supports the views of Elting, Cronin or even the abdicated Emperor himself. Elting and Cronin are both deceased, we cannot know how they would have modified their opinions in light of newly uncovered evidence or analysis. Personally, I believe it is my duty as a serious student to keep an open mind, that is all.

@Zack White These things do have an element of chance - Joubert was being lined up as the military strongman by Sieyes until he was killed by an Austrian patrol as Novi began. Others like Moreau and Bernadotte were sounded out. The common feature is that there are often powerful interests around, who see it as in their interests to put an individual in power, but then the figurehead takes charge. It is a valid comparison with Hitler (who was more politically astute) and Putin. Napoleon was more of an opportunist and acted, when most would have hesitated.

@Zack White

Napoleon gained experience in 'governing' when in Egypt. When he returned to France he was cognizant of both the ineptness and corruption of the Directory and asked if he could become a Director. He was told that 'by law' he was too young. He also discovered that Barras, one of the Directors was thinking of bringing back the Bourbons which few if any wanted.

That being the case, when approached by Sieyes, another of the Directors, to join a coup and attempt to replace the Directory, he agreed to become the 'sword.' Sieyes had no intention that Napoleon would become head of state after the coup. Napoleon was much smarter, and much more able, than Sieyes and the government that Napoleon established not only restored law and order, but retained most of the social gains of the Revolution.