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.
top of page

Like
0
1
bottom of page
"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.
Just as a short comment, Napoleon was a hero to his valets and these were men who were around him on a daily basis. Baron Fain and Marchand also thought highly of Napoleon as did Prince Eugene and his Imperial ADCs, such as Rapp, Savary, Mouton and others. Napoleon also counted the latter as friends as well as Lannes and Duroc.
I cannot remember exactly in what book, either Bertaud : The Army of the French Revolution, or Scott: The Response of the Royal Army to the French Revolution I read about the growing discontent of the army with the government. The Army felt it deserved more support from the Government. The revolutionaries attempted in the earlier days of the French Revolution to keep a tight control of the army and to prevent that hero cults would be established - but then with the Directoire, this all vanished, in 1797 the army was a political instrument of power controlled by the generals. The Boney sunraye beams are blinding our general attitude just looking at his person only, there was already a coup d'état de 18 fructidor an V - Boney was only a consequent evolution of all this - and not for without any reason, Boney had to reconcile some very anti Boney parts of the army, which had deep republican sentiments and he had even to beguile Moreau - for his planned coup.
In the end the army believed Boney was the right man, to serve the interest of the army and that of the French Republic along with two other civilians, soon it dawned upon those generals who had civisme and acted for la patrie, that this was a disastrous decision, and right they were.
France was getting a strongman because the military wanted to get one, it started already in about 1796, with Boney they got the man who was ready to take the risk.
It is difficult to see from where such a strong man would emerge from the civilian world.
I think Zack and David are right. The strongmen (and increasingly today strongwomen) are the punctuation marks of history. We tend to see liberal progressive egalitarianism as inevitable, but it's not a linear progression. Rather the strongman, tyrant, dictator call them what you will, is needed to be the catalyst that spurs change on their inevitable demise.
It is the cult - established by Boney fawners, discarding historical evidence, regardless whatever arguments are brought forward to see the real Boney behind his sunray beam, it will be negated and all his faults are either negated or excused, he is such a sunshine boy - which he wasn't at all.
Also, whenever his greatness is praised, at a closer look, almost all is propaganda and collapses to dust by the most superficial study of his correspondence.
Like - he abolished torture - really? He advises it to gain information, on the surface a benevolent men, just scratching it, a merciless tyrant.
It is nothing new that evil man have a lot of admirers.
Did France need Boney? Not at all, it was the ruin of France, Boney abused France only for his goals and his understanding of honour.
It's proving really interesting to watch this discussion develop. I always find it curious that Napoleon is such a polarising character. I wonder if part of the problem is that both sides are adamant they're right. I had a discussion like this on Facebook a couple of years ago, and one person kept turning around in response to the evidence I was offering that suggested he wasn't great and saying 'that's just your opinion'. When I asked them to give me counterarguments to my points they just stopped replying! Can the two positions be reconciled? Was Napoleon in some respects the man France needed, though his methods were unpalatable?
"He built no new palaces" is hardly a compliment of restraint. He didn't need to, for the same reason our own King George VI or Our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth hasn't. Because of his predecessors, there were already plenty available for his and his family's use.
I'm sure though that many of the leaders of the other nations of Europe would have preferred that he had have stayed home and played palace builder. Rather than on campaign at the head of an invading army intent on seizing theirs that is.
Just because you happened to be in charge when something good happens, doesn't make it down to you. If that were true, Mad King George would be personally responsible for half of the industrial revolution! However, in a totalitarian state almost nothing happens without the consent of the tyrant. That means they can take (or be given by fanboys) the credit for just about anything. If you then carefully take any negative outcomes and commit the sin of lying by omission, the illusion is complete.
I wasn't aware of that assessment by Colonel Elting. I'm afraid it only serves to confirm my suspicions that he was rather blinded by the light from Napoleon's star. Shame, because when you redact the hagiography there is still plenty of merit in his works.
From The Superstrategists by John Elting:
'Napoleon had reigned as a true emperor, lawgiver, and builder. His Code Napoleon, which modernized and systemized French law in clear language, is still the basis of French law and has had world-wide influence. He built no new palaces but left a mighty heritage of harbors, highways, bridges, drained swamps and canals. He planted trees along his roads; set up a government office to protect France's forests, lakes, and rivers; gave Paris better water and sewer systems, its first public fire department, an improved opera, and the modern system of street numbers. Wherever his rule ran, there was freedom of religion, basic human rights, better hospitals, orphanages, and public sanitation...He encouraged vast improvements in French agriculture and built up an enlarged system of public and private education. Just as important was his emphasis on competence and honesty in his officials. All careers were open to men of talent who would serve loyally, regardless of family bavkground or political orientation. Also, he balanced his budgets; even in 1814 France had practically no national debt. And he ruled as a civilian head of state, never as a military dictator.'-144-145.
Comparing Napoleon with Hitler is a great insult to the former and a compliment to the latter. In short, it is an invalid analogy.
Napoleon governed by the rule of law, Hitler did not; Hitler was a mass murderer, Napoleon was not. And by definition, Napoleon was not a tyrant. Compared to his fellow heads of state he was head and shoulders above them as a ruler and a man.
As I guess everyone on this site knows well enough, I loathe Napoleon and all he stands for: talented he may have been, but in the end he was nothing but a warlord and an adventurer
I couldn't agree more, the trendy fawning of one of most ruthless tyrants of the beginning of the 19th century is incomprehensible and counterfactual in my view.
It is amusing to watch the fan boys finding the most extreme excuses for Boney's behaviour while on the other hand they bash other historical persons for the identical reasons.
From The Mind of Napoleon by JC Herold, xxxviii-xxxix:
‘Certain external and by no means accidental similarities between Napoleon’s career and that of Hitler have blinded some men to the far more significant contrasts. Unlike Napoleon, Hitler is likely to go down in history as another Attila or Jenghiz Khan. Hitler destroyed the law; Napoleon was a lawgiver whose code spread across continents. That difference alone should be enough to discourage comparison. Hitler was a maniacal crank with an ideology; Napoleon, sane and self-controlled, despised ideologies. Hitler appealed to hatred; Napoleon, to honor. Hitler extolled that dark, instinctual monster which he called the People and which Taine had called the Gorilla; Napoleon had seen the monster in action during the Reign of Terror, and he preferred to perish rather than invoke its power. Napoleon, when he began his career, embodied the hopes of sane and noble minds (not least among them Beethoven’s); Hitler began and ended surrounded by a handful of psychopaths. But why insist on the contrast? Perhaps there is no difference between them but the difference between the Age of Reason and the Age of Hatred. It’s a substantial difference.’
'Far from being evil, Napoleon was naturally good. If he had been evil with so much power at his disposal, would he be reproached for two or three acts of violence or anger during a government that lasted fifteen years!'-Baron Agathon-Jean-Francois Fain, First Secretary of the Emperor's Cabinet.
Napoleon was a great bad man.
Far be it for me to produce a counter argument to Kevin, but he has given us a brilliant exposition of what David described as "fanboy",
This list can be easily countered, but some examples
2. Yet crowned himself, so as not to acknowledge it's authority at his coronation.
4. By ruthless repression
11. Whilst overseeing a repressive police state
12. That was actually established during the revolution in France
13. That was actually established during the revolution in France
16. Whilst rewarding his family and cronies with kingdoms, titles and estates
18. So victorious allied armies in 1814 and 1815 could march in the shade
21. By the systematic acquisition of territories and extortion of contributions
25. By looting and appropriating art works from across Europe at the point of his sword.
30. By enforcing his repressive continental system of trade.
My point is, even when the result may have been laudable, the means often were not. The same could be said though of any of the "big bad" characters of history. Cromwell might have his statue in Wesminster but is unlikely to get one in Drogheda for example. The reality is that he was a product of his age, and in an age of monarchy and oligarchy perhaps no better of worse at times than some of his contempories. If we are to make him a hero, I'd say it was a flawed one. If he is to be a villain, then with some mitigation.
Napoleon was a great captain, one of the greatest, if not the greatest, in military history. However, his accomplishments as French head of state were much more significant:
-Introduced the Civil Code, followed by other legal codes such as a new Penal Code, one which was less punitive than that of Great Britain.
-Restored the Church.
-Issued a ‘pardon’ to the emigres and urged them to return to France.
-Ended the political and social problems in the Vendee, ending the civil war there.
-Completely revamped French public and private education. Napoleon spent more money on education than on any other civil function.
-Built roads, canals, harbors, bridges, and drained swamps.
-Established orphanges and hospitals, and public sanitation.
-Established a Paris fire department.
-Established the prefect system.
-Reformed the National, later Imperial, Gendarmerie.
-Guaranteed basic civil rights.
-Guaranteed freedom of religion.
-Granted Jews full citizenship.
-Introduced gas lighting.
-Introduced the smallpox vaccine to the European continent.
-Abolished feudalism within the Empire.
-Built three trade roads through the Alps.
-Trees were planted along France’s roads.
-Established a government office to protect France’s forests, lakes and rivers.
-Established better water and sewer systems for Paris.
-Balanced his budgets and established a sound financial system.
-Because of his insistence on public finance, the franc became the most stable currency in Europe by 1810.
-Encouraged and sponsored improvements in agriculture.
-Insisted on honesty in his officials and established an agency to ensure that occurred.
-Was a patron of the arts.
-Established the Legion of Honor, open to all both civil and military.
-Established France’s first bureau of statistics.
-Reestablished horse-breeding in France.
-Improved French industry.
-Brought full employment, stable prices, and an improved balance of trade.
-Law and order was reestablished in France after the chaos of the Revolution while keeping in place the social gains of the Revolution.
I cannot understand the hero cult about Boney, still widespread despite all the historical evidence otherwise.
This must be due to his genius in propaganda and as well as being a clever liar.
Not only did he re instate slavery but he created a highly efficient police state and ruined France.
Russian officers in 1814 were shocked to see how poor a lot of French lived, despite the huge contributions other countries had to pay - some even considered that their serfs lived under better conditions.
I cannot see where he was good for France, he ruined a super power which couldn't even win against the Germans in 1870 on its down.
Despite pushing the operational art of war to a new level his campaigns from 1812 onwards were sheer disasters.
It is interesting that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon were all foreigners to the countries where they had taken power. Napoleon may have been good for a few in France but there is a huge amount of blood on his hands. The French state had been bankrupted by their support of the American Revolution. The only way that France could survive was to asset strip and pillage further teritory whether of the enemy, satelite or ally. He was a poor judge of character and re-instated the slave trade.
As I guess everyone on this site knows well enough, I loathe Napoleon and all he stands for: talented he may have been, but in the end he was nothing but a warlord and an adventurer. Indeed, as I once remarked to Adam Zamoyski, he always reminds me of a squirrel - i.e. a tree-borne rat with great PR! As for said biographer’s book, it is better than the disgraceful ‘Napoleon the Great’, but Zamoyski loses his way and ends up arguing that Boney was trapped by his own success, that he was in fact a victim of his own military might. This, however, is complete nonsense: the invasion of Russia, for example, was quite unnecessary, whilst a compromise peace could have been achieved as late as Febrairy 1814. Finally, the Code Napoleon contained many features - almost all of them the work of Boney himself - that were highly repressive, and was not adopted nearly as widely as has often been argued.
There are always two problems with this debate: First, there is no placebo with which we can compare the character concerned. A chaotic state like Revolutionary France will always end up with an authoritarian strongman, but how differently would another person have acted? Secondly, a big character will always be written about to suit the current agenda - Churchill has been invoked by both sides in the EU argument. Thus, the selection of material and indeed, whether a character is a hero or villain, usually tells you more about the subjective views of the author than any objective view of the character involved. This is exacerbated where the character represents the last great outing of a fading power - which applies to both Churchill and Napoleon. In Napoleon's case, it is made worse by the fanboys denouncing any new material, which does not fit the mythology, as somehow "anti-Napoleon/French" when all that has been done is that new material has been unearthed, but that's probably the same with all celebrity fanboys.
Thus we finish up with the recent biographical output - Roberts' hagiography seeks to portray Napoleon as the man in charge, directing events, while Zamoyski strips Napoleon back to basic character and seeks to portray him as someone, who got lucky, amidst some very strong tides in history - yet they are writing about the same person. Both have failings, which are common in Napoleonic biography (and elsewhere):
First, they do not consider the wider context. The Code Napoleon is regularly trotted out as benefiting France and much of Europe. Even the hagiographer, Vincent Cronin, admits that the Revolutionaries had started work on a legal code in about 1795 to bring the country together and increase central control. Half had run on Common Law and half on Roman law - the Romans having devised the latter and famously codified it under Justinian in particular. One engine of English power was its Common law, introduced by Henry II in the 12th century. Joseph II introduced a Criminal Code and a series of commercial codes in the 1780s, but ran into stable vested interests, which had been largely eliminated for Napoleon and Henry II.
Secondly, they avoid the question of responsibility for the outcome. The BBC series 'The Nazis: A warning from history', revealed that contrary to the popular view, Hitler was rather idle and only set policy, leaving the donkeywork to his lieutenants, but Hitler is then viewed as responsible for every unpleasant result, let alone atrocity. Napoleon, his hagiographers tell us, worked tirelessly sending out instructions for everything, yet somehow he has no responsibility for The Second of May and other events portrayed by Goya, let alone the death and damage across Europe.