Napoleon: Hero or Villain?

"Sur quoi pourrait-on m’attaquer qu’un historien ne puisse me défendre ?

 Napoléon, à Sainte-Hélène."

Quoted in Le Chant du Départ by Max Gallo

Here is a view of a veteran, Colonel Rumigny, aide de camp to General Gérard refelecting on the disbandment of The Army of the Loire in 1815:

"The natural pride of men of war could not accept the idea that Napoleon had committed great faults; not a soldier thought that the defeat was the result of his poor combinations. They blamed those of Leipzig, of 1814 and of Waterloo, solely on treason. This word is the veil that blinded believers from the flaws of their idol and the illusions that it created explains the attachment to the name of Napoleon and the fantasy of the old soldiers who served"

Andrew W Field, Rout and Retreat the French Perspective, Pen and Sword 2017. Page 304 translated from Souvenirs du Géneral Comte de Rumigny 1789-1860 Paris 1921 page 118-119.

It is easy to see if you focussed entirely on the reminicences of these old soldiers and the memoires of Napoleon's closest acolytes how hero worship can build up.

There is something about the tortured and betrayed hero that plays well with the psyche. It also explains to some extent the wounded eagle monument. Deep down, I think we all of us prefer to feel vindicated and a little betrayed, rather than face the reality of our own shortcomings. I also think we tend to project that onto our heroes too.

The reality is that they may be good, they can even be great, but they are also human. This, of course, gives them feet of clay. However, if we admit that, we also have to address our own reality. Hero worship is therefore a "safe" zone to which we can subscribe.

We can perhaps forgive the participants, as they had collateral. Described by Rumigny, a first-hand witness to events, not some propaganising xenophobic Napoleon hater I think we should give it some credence. No narrative is free of author bias. However, as 21st century students of history I think we have a higher duty to recognise those of others and at least to seek to move beyond our own.

massacres and atrocities did happen and will happen always in war. What is curious for Boney in particular that massacres are denied by his disciples to maintain his golden image, like Jaffa, the rules of war, lack of food, etc. - etc., hair splitting arguments just to exculpate the hero.

Now with the internet good sources are on our fingertips and - ignoring non English sources will provide a very one side - one dimensional image.

It is convenient to ignore that the prisoners at Jaffa consisted or old people, women and children as well. It is legend that those who surrendered had been paroled earlier.

Those soldiers murdered by the order of Boney had surrendered in good faith to the promise given at Jaffa, that they then would be let free, having the impression that France was a civilized country, they forgot that they were not dealing with France but with a villain like Boney.

Source a plenty on that - like de la Jonquierie.

When the topic proposed is “Napoleon: Hero or Villain,” I think it is disingenuous to express dismay at the passions aroused in responding to such a polarizing question. It might have been more productive had you asked for a discussion about what Napoleon did that was good, bad, and indifferent, with examples to back up one's point of view. A couple of folks would, of course, find only evil, and others only the absolute best. Neither is a particularly useful—and credible—position for a historian to adopt. In my opinion, Dwyer, for example, writes as if Napoleon personally licked the red off his favorite lollipop, and Roberts writes as if he’s proposing Napoleon for the next meeting of the Congregation for the Causes for Saints.

As I’ve said for the four decades I’ve been hanging around in this particular historical era, Napoleon meets my most rigorous criterion: he is never boring.

This is an interesting quotation that I first came across in 1964:

'Here I am sitting at a comfortable table loaded heavily with books, with one eye on my typewriter and the other on Licorice the cat, who has a great fondness for carbon paper, and I am telling you that the Emperor Napoleon was a most contemptible person. But should I happen to look out of the window, down upon Seventh Avenue, and should the endless procession of trucks and carts come to a sudden halt, and should I hear the sound of heavy drums and see the little man on his white horse, in his old and much-worn green uniform, then I don't know, but I am afraid that I would leave my books and the kitten and my home and everything else to follow him wherever he cared to lead. My own grandfather did this and Heaven knows he was not born to be a hero.' -Hendrik Willem van Loon

Can I take a moment to dispell some of the heat that is creeping into the discussion. I am delighted by the passion that this feed is generating - that is precisely why I set up the forum. Please can we all remember that the beauty of what we do is to passionately and respectfully disagree. Disagreement is only natural, and nobody, I trust, will respect a contributor any less for the fact that they have an entirely different reading of history. Choice of terminology is a delicate matter, and communication that does not take place face to face can often be misconstrued. Using a phrase like hagiographic or fanboy to express an opinion on an individual from history is fine, and is a point which we can all enjoy debating further. When describing a current school of thought, or an individual participating in debate, it is important to ensure that the words used are respectful to all. I mention this in a pre-emptive capacity, to see that the discussion does not turn ugly. To reiterate, I am delighted that we are debating a polarised topic. I have the utmost respect both for those who consider Napoleon to be one of the great men of history, and a deeply flawed character. This is not an attempt to muzzle one side or the other. We are, I hope, all friends here, debating a topic that arouses passions. Please ensure though that we resign any conflicts to the pages of history!

More from Ropes:

ON DR. EDWARD A. FREEMAN'S CONTINUING TO USE THE NAME 'BUONOPARTE' IN HIS HISTORIES

It is curious and not a little amusing to see the persistency with which some English writers of today retain the petty prejudices of a former time. Dr. Edward A. Freeman, to whose historical researches in many fields the world is much indebted, evidently enjoys speaking of Napoleon by his family surname. In fact, he will not even allow his victim to decide for himself how that name ought to be spelled. In the 'General Sketch of European History...Buonaparte (sic) is spoken of as 'calling himself' Consul, Emperor fo the French, and King of Italy. Whether it si or is not correct to speak of him as Emperor of the French and King of Italy, are questions which do not seem in the least to trouble Dr. Freeman. To him, an Englishman, this objectionable foreigner, having started in life as a private citizen possessing the family name of Buonaparte, Buonaparte he shall remain, no matter what may have been the world's recognition of the titles he assumed, or the posts he filled. I had at one time thought that this extraordinary refusal to give to the ruler of France the rank which was accorded to him by all the states of Continental Europe might be accounted for by the fact that the English government never recognized Napoleon the First as Emperor of the French. But this theory I find is untenable; for when Dr. Freeman comes to speak of the Third Napoleon, whose title was not only recognized by England as by the other powers, but who was the ally of England in the Crimean war, was received at Windsor Castle and received the Quenn at the Tuileries, he gives him no more decent treatment than he gave to his uncle. It is Buonaparte (sic) who becomes a prisoner at Sedan...I recall nothing quite so good as this, except the conduct of the jacobins in calling Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette Citoyen and Citoyenne Capet.'

John C. Ropes, 1885.