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.

The coup that Napoleon was recruited for was begun by civilians, not the army, and at least one of the conspirators was a Director.

They knew that they needed a sword' because the army was the most, if not the only, stable organization in France. For all the admiration for the Revolution, France was a mess after ten years of it.

@Zack White

The Civil Code is still in effect, if I'm not mistaken, and, for example, is part of the state law of Louisiana. Napoleon's reforms-social, political, and governmental as well as economic, were meant to last and the overwhelming majority lasted well beyond the Bourbons. Some are still in effect today.

The Code is available to read on the Napoleon Series.

@Maggie Scott Joseph's reforms were not unpopular with the ordinary people - even conscription was not an issue until the heavy losses and defeats of the 1790s. A keen son of the Enlightenment, he believed God had made him Emperor to improve the lot of his subjects - this is paternalism, not autocracy. He ran into the opposition of the vested interests - his mother up to 1780, who wanted stability after the Prussian Wars, Kaunitz on foreign policy (the alliance with France was his idea), the Hungarian magnates, the provincial assemblies and the populations with greater privileges (notably Belgium). Joseph was aiming for a centralised empire, where everyone of at least the same social status was treated equally. That is good for everyone getting a better deal (abolishing serfdom, religious toleration etc.), but not for those losing ground (the privileged Belgians, the nobles and the Church). What he did not grasp was that he latter could not see the wider benefit to the empire, so he failed to bring them with him. Initially as the new emperor, he could bring in his key reforms, such as the Edict of Toleration of 1781, but over time, the status quo forces pushed back. There were also side-effects of his key policies - conscription, which would give opportunities to young men trapped in poor agricultural communities, meant a loss of manpower for the landowners, hence their growing opposition to him and his reforms, which benefited them, notably improving agriculture. He was a man in a hurry and really tried too hard.

@david.a.hollins I spent some time with Joseph II back in the day, and seem to recall reading in a couple of sources--their identities escape me now due to old age--that the peasants were in favor of the reforms, even to some extent conscription, but generally turned against Joseph in the wake of his apparently relentless anti-Roman Catholic/clerical policies and attitudes. Maria-Theresa loved the Church's influence for her people and its upper clergy for certain positions of importance in the government. Have I recalled incorrectly?

But Zack is right - France was always going to get a strongman after ten years of chaos. Another might have emerged, who was more diplomatic and made some deal with the allies, so that he could consolidate his power internally. Despite the authoritarianism of military control and the prefect system, Napoleon probably did not do that. His power rested on military success rather than a consolidated position. Such regimes will however only last as long as the immediate supporters see its continuation being in their own interests.

Perhaps you can support your allegations with credible evidence? That might lead to a good and interesting discussion. Using pejorative terms such as 'cult', 'Boney fawners' and the like do nothing constructive and are polarizing.

@Kevin F. Kiley

Definitions:

Cult - great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work. A usually small group of people characterized by such devotion.

Fawning - seeking or used to seek approval or favor by means of flattery

Perhaps Kevin you could provide guidance on how that faction of historical commentators would like to self-identify? We could then use that designation in no danger of any imagined offence being offerred?

In balance, if I could offer one small piece of advice? History is an interpretive discipline. You might therefore find it rather futile to accuse someone of being polarizing in a thread which is headed "Napoleon: Hero or Villain"?

@Kevin F. Kiley Many thanks. I followed up the order that you mentioned. There is indeed an order threatening those who remained, but it is actually expressing the will of the Portuguese government. I raised a query about it on twitter, and none of us could establish whether anyone was actually executed. Plenty did stay behind, though more, as we know, moved south behind the Lines.

@Kevin F. Kiley

Lincoln was the duly elected leader of a democratic nation. Are you really comparing him morally with Napoleon, at the very least, an autocrat? The United States was also a federated structure, ie the movement was sucsessionist. From the Vendeans perspective they were continuing the Bourbon rule of 1814, which had been legally constituted after the fall of Napoleon:

5th April 1814 the Senate:

"Declares and decrees as follows :—1. Napoleon Buonaparte is cast down from the throne, and the right of succession in his family is abolished. 2. The French people and army are absolved from their oath of fidelity to him."

6th April himself:

"The Emperor Napoleon, faithful to his oath, declares that he renounces, for himself and his heirs the throne of France and Italy"

In 1815 Louis had fled, not abdicated. From their perspective, the Bonapartists were the rebels who had seized de facto power from the legal government.

I always think that cross-period comparisons must come with huge caveats. However, for me the WWII comparison of maquisards recognising the legitimacy of the Free-French government in London rather than that of Vichy would be better.

@david.a.hollins

The other factor at work is what makes the period so interesting and consequently Napoleon as its biggest character and one of the biggest of all history:

I cannot follow this logic, he wasn't at all a biggest character of all history, he is one where the cult around his person is still in full swing, compared to others who were humanised or de - culted.

Frederick the Great served as such a cult figure, abused for propaganda reasons for years - along with him his army - that changed with the end of the second World War, when that abuse in propaganda was shown - and how he was used to manipulate the people, from then on he was seen in a more sober way - in a much better historical context, freed of mythology and legends.

The same with Boney, but for whatever reasons, his cult is still in full swing, maybe due to the fact that he himself instigated his own propaganda machine - remember he was deliberate to falsify history by destroying historical documents and then have campaigns re written just to polish his genius, well known for the Marengo books of lies Berthier had to compose for him. All other campaigns should have been dealt in the same fashion, and Boney was furious when Damas for example re fused to hand him over Kleber's war diary of the Egyptian campaign.

Lucky for historians - Boney was finished to do all this when he was deported to St. Helena.

Still in later years - France needed a hero, and the military world wide - a hero as well, and works by Jomini or Thiers influenced and still is influencing the historical and military world with catastrophic consequences as could be seen the ACW.

You cannot conduct a civil discussion about Boney, due to the fact that he his still seen by some not as a human but as a demi good - and it is conducted on a pure emotional level.

Fortunately you can do this with Frederick the Great now, or with Marlborough.

@david Tomlinson

The comparison of Napoleonic France with Stalinist Russia and East Germany is another invalid comparison, as bad as using the Hitler analogy. It is just inaccurate as well as ahistorical.

It seems to me that you are relying on the old allied and British propaganda of the period.

Have you read the period memoirs already mentioned as well as the better biographies on Napoleon?

One outstanding example of an accurate book on Napoleon is The Napoleonic Revolution by Robert Holtman. I highly recommend it.

You might also take a look at the Historical Dictionary of Napoleonic France 1799-1815 edited by Owen Connelly. Harold Parker is one of the Associate Editors. The entry on Great Britain beginning on pages 219-222 was written by Professor Parker and Carolyn White. All was not light and enlightenment in Britain during the period with corruption in Parliament, workers' riots and the lack of universal sufferage. It is also noteworthy that as of 1810, the French Franc Germinal was the most stable currency in Europe. And the British penal code was much harsher than that of France. There was also 'inflation, high prices, and bankruptcies.' And starvation was common 'with most people living at the subsistence level.' There was also an increase in violence in the country with one prime minister, Spencer Percival, being assassinated in the lobby of the House of Commons.

The British also gave shelter and subsistence to the exiled Bourbons, which allowed their plots to assassinate First Consul Bonaparte to be attempted. If the British government did not actively condone the assassination attempts, they did nothing to stop them and the conspirators were transported to France by the Royal Navy.

Did you see the reference to Anne Plumpton that I posted? I also posted a link to her book on Google Books.

@Kevin F. Kiley

If France was a republic, please show me where Napoleon stood for election before taking power? If it were a constitutional monarchy, please show me how he was the rightful heir? Was he, or wasn't he, a military officer participating in a coup?

Was Napoleon's main powerbase not the army? If not, why does he continuously refer to his military glory? Was not therefore the implicit threat of his regime that of the army? Is not that where does the "whiff of grapeshot" quote comes from? As he was an artillery officer therefore, maybe not at the point of a bayonet, but at the muzzle of a cannon?

You call Napoleon a lawgiver, yet it is one definition of a tyrant that they do not conform to the law. He replaced it. Did Napoleon not write the Imperial constitution? Or do you suppose the Imperial crown was offered to him out of gratitude? I think Napoleon made the point when he refused to be crowned by the Pope, but seized the crown himself and placed it on his own head.

When it comes to weilding arbitary and absolute power, do you think the loyal subjects of Hanover found the imposition of Westphalia or Napoleon's brother?

I understand that this does not fit with everyone's world view, but Merriam-Webster gives 4 definitions of a Tyrant, and in my judgement Napoleon satisfies two completely and one partially. So I think it is a perfectly reasonable label to give him.

@Kevin F. Kiley

You seem happy to make ahistorical comparisons to the ACW and Lincoln when it suits your argument. I presumed you would not mind when I did it to suit mine?

My point was merely, as you have supported many times on the predecessor to this forum and others, on the unreliability of eyewitness accounts. The GDR and USSR fit the definition of a police state, yet it is perfectly possible to have visited them and not become aware. You cannot use one the opinion of one eyewitness to prove the absence of all the paraphanalia of a secret police. You can visit both London and Washington and never feel the prescence of MI5 or the FBI for example. I think therefore the analogies perfectly fair on that basis.

I don't think though that Napoleon was unique in being a strong man, with a desire to keep a firm grip on power. I think it is quite poetic that the head of his secret police ultimately became one of the instruments of his downfall. I don't doubt that for a nation that had endured The Terror and went on to The White Terror, Napoleon's repression was relatively benign. I also don't doubt than many of the absolutist rulers at this time may have been equally 'guilty as charged'. However, the rather rosy picture painted by your correspondant, taken in isolation, does not provide much.

I am making no comparison with Hitler, but on the nature of historical evidence. The Dowager Duchess of Devonshire (Deborah Cavendish DCVO née Mitford) famously remarked on having tea with Adolf "He had terribly blue eyes!" We would hardly use this convivial encounter as evidence to deny the existence of the Gestapo or the Holocaust would we? Neither did she, as she said that in her long lifetime she would rather had tea with Elvis!

I'm afraid the more emphasis is placed on Fouché as the arch villian, the more the role of the secret police in Napoleon's regime is emphasised. Otherwise, how did he get to become such an important figure if the apparatus was ineffective? If it was effective, in whose name or on whose instructions had it been established?

@david.a.hollins A reasoned--and informative--response. I don't agree with some of your points, but I like how you presented them.

@Maggie Scott

You are absolutely correct-Napoleon was not a military dictator and his government was overwhelmingly made up of civilian officials. Seldom did he appoint serving officers, such as Savary, to be a minister. He did appoint Savary as Minister of Police after Fouche was sacked, and that was because of Savary's expertise in intelligence operations that he had repeatedly displayed as one of Napoleon's Imperial ADCs. Savary was also an expert light cavalry officer.

@Zack White

There is an excellent article by Thierry Lentz which logically demonstrates that Napoleon was not a military dictator. Perhaps you could look it up.

As for plundering other countries, he did levy reparations on the nations he defeated, usually because they began the wars of 1805, 1806, 1807, and 1809. Napoleon was not the aggressor in those wars, and it was England that broke the Treaty of Amiens in 1803.

Some useful references are The Road to Rivoli by Martin Boycott-Brown, which covers the Directory's, and not Napoleon's, plundering in northern Italy in 1796-1797; Napoleon's Satellite Kingdoms by Owen Connelly, which covers the art 'thefts'; and France Under Napoleon by Louis Bergeron which covers, among things, the finance system that Napoleon instituted as First Consul and that was retained by the Bourbons and France for decades after 1815.

Yes, the analogy is invalid, but Napoleon and the rule of law? He was always happy to manipulate things to his advantage (illegally) if he wanted. The plebiscites are an example of that.

I agree that some of the idolising comments are remarkable. A stand out example for me was Andrew Roberts in his three part documentary for the BBC a few years ago. When dealing with Napoleon plundering Italy he simply said 'but I think these historians need to get over themselves' (and he refused to engage with Nap stabbing his ally Spain in the back in 1808). The most common line I hear is 'but everyone was an autocrat back then'. This is true, but we don't have a phenomenon of those leaders being hero-worshipped in the same way.

@Zack White It was tough to take Roberts seriously after he stood in Lodi on the west bank of the Adda, pointed to the Austrian positions due east on the east bank and declared that Napoleon had to attack them to take Milan - which is due north on the west bank!

I'd agree that comparisons with Hitler are unhelpful. I see plenty to dislike about Napoleon on a personal level (whilst recognising his achievements), but the comparisons don't work. The world was fundamentally different, and they operated in different political climates.

Isn't that a quote from David Chandler in his Campaigns?

There is always the argument about whether the big characters of history shape events or are driven by them. The truth is probably something like the individual shaping events within the constraints imposed and opportunities offered by the great tides of history - without the Revolution, Napoleon would probably just have been a senior commander in the Royal army.

Unlike Hitler, who was primarily ideological, Napoleon was essentially a pragmatic leader, who led an authoritarian regime, which its very nature, will get things done more quickly than other regimes constrained by democratic institutions or powerful interest groups. Many of the measures Kevin lists were introduced (or attempted) by Joseph II with the primary aim of making the Habsburg empire more effective, but he faced a lot of opposition. It is simply taking much of the information of context to pretend that Napoleon was some kind of benevolent innovator, when he took good ideas and placed the interests of N Bonaparte above all else. Focusing on certain measures will accentuate the hero/villain view.

The information may well be faulty too - gas lighting was much more to do with Napoleon III. In 1801, Phillipe Lebon in Paris used gas lights to illuminate his house and gardens. It was however 1820 before it was widely adopted in Paris. The "trade roads" were military roads as the Alps were the key to central Europe and trade followed on - much like Roman roads. Such are the dangers of fanboy approaches!