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.
To see this working, head to your live site.
Search
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.
This is a beautifully considered response David - i agree with a lot of what you say here. I'm certainly no fan of Napoleon, but when i've heard Zamoyski speak I've often been left feeling that the situation is being oversimplified.
I'm certainly not inclined to believe the 'Man of Peace' argument about Napoleon though. Such an argument misses the point that various European nations declared war on Napoleon because he extracted intolerable terms in his peace treaties - his aim in such treaties was exploitation rather than prioritising compromise which could have resulted in a lasting settlement.
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.
Yes, ultimately Napoleon can only blame himself for his downfall, given that he could not compromise.
You can hide behind an online pseudonym, Charles, but we all know it's you ;)
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 Corsica had been annexed/bought by France the year before Napoleon was born, Napoleon was French.
It would be very helpful if you could explain the logic of your last two sentences.
It would also be helpful if you could show the references you have used to come to your 'conclusions.'
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.
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.
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.
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!
Napoleon was a great bad man.
Isn't that a quote from David Chandler in his Campaigns?
'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.
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.’
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.
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 adventurerI 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Hmmm, but the lack of debt was caused by plundering defeated nations, try telling the re-enslaved that their human rights were respected, and there was a huge amount of cronyism in how honours were handed out, even if France was more egalitarian than it had been. As for not being a military dictator, I completely disagree. He was one man at the head of an army ruling a country on his own. Surely that's a sign of military dictatorship?
@Zack White It is also a complete fabrication to claim that he balanced his budgets. That implies taking on no additional debt. It is an abuse of language (another fanboy trait) since every budget must balance - it is just a question of what the balancing item is. We did this some years ago on another site and Napoleon’s finances were under strain from 1805 (when the Bank Of France Governor pleaded with him to abandon the campaign). By 1810, the French debt was trading on a significantly higher yield (real interest rate) than UK debt. Why would that be happening if the French budget was “balanced”? Elating had no greater grasp of accounting than he did of German.
It is is almost inevitable with any kind of authoritarian rule that it emerges from chaos and is popular initially, because things get done, but it ends in corruption, cronyism and a broken economy.
@Zack White Nope. Napoleon was not a military dictator, nor was France ever consider a military dictatorship. You want one of those, then look to the lengthy late 19th-century and the entire 20th century in Central and Latin America, Africa, Greece, Spain, and the entry listed by McGill University that's my favorite: England from the date of Pride's Purge, when the army took over Parliament, until Dick Cromwell abdicated in 1660.
The accepted and general definition of a military dictatorship is this: A military dictatorship, also known as a military junta, is a dictatorship wherein the military exerts complete or substantial control over political authority, and a dictator is often a high ranked military officer.
Napoleon was head of state; he no longer held military rank. He was indeed head of the army, much as a commander-in-chief. But there it ends. Last time I looked, the Grande Armee did not exert control over the various branches and functions of the imperial government.
Was Napoleon autocratic? He certainly was. Did he stifle opposition, written and oral? Yes, indeed. Was he in effect the final word on most matters, large and small? All the time. And how was this different from Francis I and Frederick William III and Alexander I? Even Francis and Alex took command of their respective armies at Austerlitz--ad we know how that turned out--and at other times as well, in addition to their political duties. So were they military dictators? Be careful using modern terms to describe late 18th/early 19th century matters. It doesn't work.
"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 John C Ropes, The First Napoleon:
'It is not inconsistent with the views here presented of the character of Napoleon, that we should find him occasionally resorting to measures of extreme severity. Where it seemed to him to be necessary, in order to preserve his army, to suppress dangerous insurrections, or the like, he rarely hesitated to employ what seemed to him the most sure mode of accomplishing his object. it is in this way that we must account for the wholesale execution of the prisoners of Jaffa, most of whom, having been recently released on parole, were found again in arms against the French. In a similar light we should regard the severities which accompanied the final extinction of the insurrections in La Vendee, and those which he recommended his brother Joseph to employ against the fierce and obstinate resistance of the Neapolitan lazzaroni. In this unhesitating employment of force on occasions of this nature, Napoleon much resembled Cromwell.
But this sort of thing does not constitute a man a tyrant or even a harsh ruler. The stability of society, the welfare of well-disposed citizens, the interests of progress and of liberal government even, may well, in times of turmoil and revolution, be more secure when entrusted to the hands of such a man, than if committed to the charge of one less practical and less inflexible.'
Instead of labeling something inaccurately as 'hagiography', perhaps you could take issue with what Col Elting wrote and approach that point by point. So, if you disagree with something, then find and post something credible that negates it or proves it to be inaccurate.
And using the pejorative 'fanboy' is more fit for the schoolyard than a historical discussion. It lowers the discussion to the grammar school level and helps nothing. I suggest that we all keep the discussion at a respectful level and avoid the use of pejoratives.
More from The Superstrategists on Napoleon:
'By an odd twist of fate, it is only recently that we have been able to actually 'know' the living Napoleon. His personal life and character, his political aims and methods, even aspects of his military career and strategy, have been mishandled by most historians-often intentionally, frequently from the difficulty of properly evaluating the available source material, sometimes out of built-in national bias.'
'Even fair-minded historians found their available sources full of booby traps. While he lived, enemy propaganda presented Napoleon as a monster who relished murder, treachery, theft, incest, blasphemy, and any other possible evil. The counterblasts of his supporters sometimes went to almost equal extremes in lauding him. The most misleading truth twisting, however, came from people who had served him to their profit, but-in hopes of making an equally profitable peace with the Bourbons who supplanted him after Waterloo-turned to defaming him. Prominent among them were former close associates of Napoleon such as Louis-Antoine de Bourrienne, the Duchess of Abrantes, Claire de Remusat, and Marshal Auguste Marmont. The memoirs such people wrote, or had ghostwritten, were accepted as indispensable reference works by too many writers, though most of them are worthless and even the better ones contain much untrustworthy material. Only during the last few decades have English-language historians really managed an accurate recreation of Napoleon as an individual human being, as well as a ruler and statesman.-139
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?
Which of Napoleon's 'methods were unpalatable'?
@Kevin F. Kiley
I would imagine one of the Vendean loyalists or the prisoners of Jaffa would be better placed to answer that, should they have survived.
@david Tomlinson
The prisoners taken at Jaffa were, in large part, paroled former prisoners of war who took up arms again. According to the then laws of war, if they were captured, their lives were forfeit.
Regarding the Vendee and the uprising there, Napoleon did not serve in the Vendee and the uprising had been defeated by 1796. And Napoleon brought back the emigres and restored the Church, the latter being one of the reasons for the revolt in the first place. So, your comment on the 'Vendean loyalists' is a little puzzling.
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.
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"?
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.
One thing that is usually overlooked is that Napoleon was the liberal head of state compared to the allied monarchs and he himself was a constitutional monarch.
How do you account for that? And none of his fellow heads of state had the record of reform in their own countries that Napoleon had in France.
@Kevin F. Kiley Very easily - it is simply untrue. It is a phrase bandied about by Bonapartists (usually Americans, who live in a Presidential democracy and not a constitutional monarchy) to suggest Napoleon was nicer than the autocratic European monarchs. Although today's constitutional monarchs are little more than hereditary figureheads for life or at least as long as they wish, that is not the whole definition. From the start of the concept under William III and Mary II, (yes, I know this is pre-1776) the monarch's power was limited by the elected body, which really held the supreme power as it held the purse strings. George III was a halfway house really in the process that brought us to today, but he was potty and the British state still functioned well enough to defeat Napoleon. The Napoleonic regime was not "liberal" as it brooked no opposition, not least as the centres of political power were splintered and weak when N took power - in a military coup.
That also gave him a key advantage - his reforms are very similar to those Joseph II and both were aiming to make their states more powerful. Joseph ran into what Friedman called the "tyranny of the status quo" (ie: various powerful groups increasingly oppose anything which damages their own power), but Napoleon did not. It was much easier for him to bring in sweeping changes (for good or ill), but the danger is without organisd opposition, an autocrat or dictator comes to believe in their own omnipotence, which is where it goes wrong.
@david.a.hollins Would you also say that Joseph II had spent much of his adult life endlessly planning what he'd do when Mommy Dearest passed that, when he finally got his chance in 1780, he barreled ahead with the best possible intentions but upset every conceivable segment of his subject? He believed in "reform from the top down," which only occurs when the reformer is an autocrat. Poor Joseph never seemed to understand why his subjects, from high to low, were so ungrateful regarding his attempts to make so much "better" for them. Napoleon was also an autocrat, and often quite iron-fisted about it, but he lacked Joseph's sensibilities.
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.
Could anyone have foreseen Napoleon's jump to power though? It's not as though he was front and center of government. Part of the reader for him going to Egypt was that the government were delighted to have a reason to keep him out of the way, so that he couldn't garner power or more political allies.
@Zack White I don't know enough about Naps to answer that properly, and in any case I'm always wary of the whole teleological "Naps's rise to power was inevitable" thing, but it seems to me you've partially answered your own question there with "the government were delighted to have a reason to keep him out of the way so he couldn't garner power or more political allies"...
@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.
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.
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.