• HOME

  • Bones of Burgos

  • FORUM

  • FRENCH REVOLUTION

    • Origins
    • Events
    • French Revolutionary Wars
    • The Revolution Abroad
    • The Glorious First of June
    • The Battle of Cape St Vincent
    • Occupied Europe
    • Napoleon's Early Life
    • 1793: The Siege of Toulon
    • 1796-7: Napoleon in Italy
    • 1798: Egypt Campagin
    • The War of the Second Coalition
    • The Battle of the Nile
    • Napoleon's Coup
    • War in the West Indies 1793-1801
  • NAPOLEONIC WARS

    • British Politics, 1793-1815
    • Invasion Scares in Britain, 1793-1815
    • The Peace of Amiens, 1802
    • The Redeclaration of War, 1803
    • 1805: The Battle of Trafalgar
    • 1805: Austerlitz
    • 1806: Jena-Auerstedt
    • 1807: Friedland
    • 1809: The Walcheren Expedition
    • 1809: Wagram
    • 1812: Napoleon's Invasion of Russia
    • 1813: Leipzig
    • 1815: Waterloo
    • Expanding Britain's Empire
    • Death, Glory and Legacy
  • PENINSULAR WAR

    • 1808: The War Begins
    • 1809-10: Weathering the Storm
    • 1811: Stalemate
    • 1812: Breaking the Deadlock
    • 1813: Breakout
    • 1814: The Endgame
    • Wellington's Letters
  • LEARN MORE

    • Reviews
    • TEACHER'S ZONE
    • ABOUT
    • CHANNEL
  • Members

  • More

    Use tab to navigate through the menu items.
    To see this working, head to your live site.
    • Categories
    • All Posts
    • My Posts
    Zack White
    Sep 11, 2017

    Napoleon: Hero or Villain?

    in General Discussions

    Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the best known people in history. Over the last 200 years there has been intense debate on whether he should be remembered as a hero or a villain. Read the page on Napoleon's legacy under the 'Napoleonic Wars' tab above, and then post your thoughts below.

    139 comments
    139 Comments

    Share Your ThoughtsSign up to leave a comment.

    Mo Cheikh
    Sep 02, 2020

    "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



    Like

    D
    david Tomlinson
    Jan 20, 2020

    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.

    Like
    D
    david Tomlinson
    Jan 21, 2020
    Replying to

    @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.

    Like

    H
    Hans - Karl Weiß
    Jan 21, 2020
    Replying to

    @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.

    Like

    D
    david Tomlinson
    Jan 21, 2020
    Replying to

    @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?

    Like

    H
    Hans - Karl Weiß
    Jan 15, 2020

    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.



    Like

    H
    Hans - Karl Weiß
    Jan 15, 2020

    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.

    Like
    M
    Maggie Scott
    Jan 15, 2020
    Replying to

    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



    Like

    Z
    Zack White
    Jan 15, 2020
    Replying to

    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.

    Like

    M
    Maggie Scott
    Jan 12, 2020

    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.

    Like
    Z
    Zack White
    Jan 12, 2020
    Replying to

    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!

    Like

    M
    Maggie Scott
    Jan 12, 2020
    Replying to

    @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.

    Like

    Kevin F. Kiley
    Jan 12, 2020

    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

    Like
    M
    Maggie Scott
    Jan 19, 2020
    Replying to

    @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?

    Like

    D
    david Tomlinson
    Jan 19, 2020
    Replying to

    @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.





    Like

    Z
    Zack White
    Jan 19, 2020
    Replying to

    Bravo both. That's the spirit.

    Like

    Z
    Zack White
    Jan 11, 2020

    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!

    Like
    D
    david Tomlinson
    Jan 12, 2020
    Replying to

    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?





    Like

    Kevin F. Kiley
    Jan 11, 2020

    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.

    Like