Continuing the 'big questions' theme, here's another big one to spark POLITE discussion:
What was Napoleon's biggest mistake?
A few immediately spring to mind - the Continental System, the Peninsular War, the invasion of Russia, the return from Elba.
As before, chose your own parameters for measuring this, and happy posting.
To be perfectly honest, Napoleon's biggest mistake was losing. The factors that brought about that defeat are many and complicated (more complicated than are usually presented in these debates), some of Napoleon's making, some the making of his enemies, and some the making of circumstances.
I take your point @tomholmberg , but I don’t think losing was his mistake, just the symptom. The consistent root cause of his mistakes was the same one as his successes. His crippling overconfidence. On a personal level he would probably regret his divorce of Josephine the most, his quest for dynasty overwhelming his personal happiness. He cut a particularly sad figure at St Cloud after Waterloo. All human beings tend to believe they affect the world rather more than they do. The three errors @Kevin F. Kiley highlighted share that characteristic. A belief that he could bend an entire continent to his will. A belief that he could overcome the resolve of his Peninsular enemies. A belief that the limitations of geography and climate did not apply to him.
To my mind there were three:
-The Continental System.
-Invading Spain.
-Invading Russia.
The one that did the most and lasting damage to the Empire and the Grande Armee was the war in the Spanish peninsula.
Interesting. I'd agree with the significance of all three, although I would argue that the continental system takes precedence as the root cause of the Peninsular War (at least as far as Portugal was concerned, thereby turning Napoleon's attention to the Iberian Peninsula), and of course was a source of irritation for Russia (though not the only one).
None, his views - still dominate how the Napoleonic Wars are seen, look at how Bernadotte, Marmont or Dupont are seen in the other thread, through and through by the eyes of Nabulieone.
His clever lies and ongoing propaganda of the cult - dominate the perception of the Napoleonic period.
So not even loosing and getting millions of people slaughtered did him do any harm.
Well he did end up exiled on a rocky island in the middle of the Atlantic, far from his family, and with nothing but his memories for company (besides a few close supporters), so losing did him some harm in the short term.
I take your point though - the myths live on, even if his dynasty did not.
@Zack White
When I was in Paris in 89 - Marat's old printing office lay in ruins and there was no money to restore it while the copula of Les invalides church was recently restored and the newly gilded parts did shine brightly.
Also Nabulieone isn't any longer on the rock, he is in the heart of Paris.
As long as hagiographies dominate our thinking as like Elting, or well entrenched myths, brought up by Petre and copied by Chandler, I see no strife that people are at all interested in history but in mystification.
This happens quite frequently - as the lost cause in the ACW or even the 2nd WW where "histories" written by Halder or Manstein dominate the view of the Eastern front, slowly at least here the perception is changing due to the willingness of historians to consult much better recently researched books.
But as long as cults exists, who are very powerful, who find excuses for the most heinous crimes, I fear nothing will change and I cannot see that in that case Nabulieone did anything wrong.
Mmm... so @Hans - Karl Weiß, a tortured individual whose ideals are only noble and making no errors suffered outrageous misfortune, was betrayed and had his just success stolen from him. Who says history does not repeat itself? There is something in that narrative that is like a honey pot for some people. The main problem is that the real Napoleon, much like most of us, possessed all the human frailties. I wouldn’t deny him charm and an above average ability. However, much of his rise was about seizing opportunity and more than his fair share of luck. Perhaps then he share his biggest mistake with all inveterate gamblers, not knowing when to quit?
@Hans - Karl Weiß You are right of course, the very notion of mistakes is to some people like garlic to a vampire. It’s a shame, because there is a much better story behind the blinding of light of the legend.
It is not so much the notion of mistakes, it is the view of the period through the eyes of Nabulieone and persons are judged as he victimized them.
See the best Marshals thread, Marmont was exceptionally gifted and praised in a lot of memoires - but as long as you dare to bring up his name in whatever context a Pavlovian reaction will happen.
To discuss contemporaries of the French emperor or the emperor of the French is seemingly impossible in case those stood against him or like Dupont failed at Bailen and for that must be in the bad box, because the master said so.
Well, if posters didn't have differing opinions, there'd be little role for questions like this one, or for forums, for that matter.
A mirror of life itself “.....a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”?
@david Tomlinson I wouldn't call my fellow posters idiots... at least not to their faces. 🙄
Not me...blame Shakespeare!
@Kevin F. Kiley you do realise that if you take:
"Any conspiracy and plot aimed at disturbing the State by civil war, and arming the citizens against one another, or against lawful authority, will be punished by death.'
D'Enghien was in the pay of Great Britain, and since France and Great Britain were already at war since 1803, d'Enghien was committing treason.
And who are 'his excusers'?
And why would a military tribunal be a 'kangaroo court'?
Seems to me that d'Enghien got what he deserved."
and make some simple substitutions:
"Any conspiracy and plot aimed at disturbing the State by civil war, and arming the citizens against one another, or against lawful authority, will be punished by death.'
(D'Enghien )Ney was in the (pay of Great Britain) orders of the Ruler of Elba, .........since (1803) 14 March 1815, (d'Enghien ) Ney was committing treason.
And who are 'his excusers'?
And why would a (military tribunal) Council of War be a 'kangaroo court'?
Seems to me that (d'Enghien ) Ney got what he deserved."
You have effectively destroyed your argument made on the Marshal's thread that Ney's execution was "judicial murder", if d'Enghien's was not.
I have no problem with either characterisation as long as the person casting it remains consistent!
I disagree. Ney continued to fight for France; d'Enghien was in the pay of the British. The two are not related.
And then perhaps we can discuss the Bourbon's White Terror which was the proscription of as many of Napoleon's officers as they could get their hands on.
And Napoleon did nothing of the kind when he returned from Elba. The Bourbons, as well as d'Enghien, were the authors of their own misfortune.
And I beg to disagree. The definition of treason you used EXACTLY fits Ney’s situation. “civil war, and arming the citizens against one another, or against lawful authority,” His troops arrived on the 14th (whilst Louis was still in control in Paris) cheering “vive Le Roi”. Napoleon, at this point the Sovereign of a foreign power illegally in the country, had already been in secret communication. Ney then solicited the defection (not surrender) of his force, and led it under orders and arms into the service of an usurper. At this point Louis was the head of the duly constituted legal government and still resident in the capital. Indeed, it was likely that it was Ney’s treason that tilted the balance against the Bourbons. Being removed by force majeure is not abdication and anyway occurred 5 days after the treasonous act. He was condemned out of his own mouth and by the chronology. If d’Enghien’s execution was not a mistake or an act of “judicial murder” then neither is Ney’s. Or indeed the reverse, and they both are. Anything else is cognitive dissonance worthy of Orwell’s 1984.
@david Tomlinson The Bourbons were not removed by force upon Napoleon's return from Elba. They voluntarily left for Belgium. Neither the populace nor the army would fight for them.
And I would question whether the Bourbon government of Louis XVIII was legitimate. They had returned 'in the allies baggage wagons' and were imposed on the French people by the allies.
That doesn't seem like a 'legitimate' government at all.
It appears from the tone of most of the posts that Napoleon's GREATEST mistake was being born.
Well @tomholmberg , a thread that invites us to discuss his mistakes was hardly likely to yield many valedictory commits though, was it? I suppose the “name Napoleon’s three greatest achievements”thread is unlikely to be too balanced either!
@david Tomlinson >“name Napoleon’s three greatest achievements”thread<
One would have to be killing a publisher.
@tomholmberg
marrying a widow and adopting their two children, that is what I call a noble act - but then later - he became very pedestrian again.
At least two authors commented on this:
The poet Thomas Campbell replied to his fellow writers' complaints when he offered a toast to Napoleon at a drinking party, "But gentlemen! He once shot a publisher."
"How often we recall, with regret, that Napoleon once shot at a magazine editor and missed him and killed a publisher. But we remember with charity, that his intentions were good." -Mark Twain, letter to Henry Alden ( November 11, 1906)
😊
@Kevin F. Kiley I wasn’t using ‘conspiracy theory’ in the modern idiom. I was referring to the actual theory about the existence of a real conspiracies and linking that to propaganda. All sides used propaganda (including Napoleon) and all sides used similar methods. That is brave intelligence officers and sympathetic patriots, or dirty rotten spies and filthy traitors. Just season according to taste.
@Kevin F. Kiley So much for the “Napoleon Man of Peace” meme then? Poor old Louis can do right for doing wrong. Stand and fight and he would have been castigated for throwing away French lives in civil war. Put La Patrie above your personal interests by choosing to go into temporary exile and he is a coward, There is nothing wrong in admiring Napoleon (despite his mistakes and faults) or despising Louis (despite any mitigating factors. There is nothing wrong in regarding Ney as a martyr and d’Enghien as a traitor. As long no one expects others to regard it as anything else than what it is. Biased in favour of Napoleonic and post Napoleonic propaganda. There is a more nuanced view that seeks consistency and closer correlation to the recorded acts and timelines.
"So much for the “Napoleon Man of Peace” meme then?"
That appears to be a strawman argument as no one has 'advanced' that 'meme' except for you. Why is that? 🙄
@Kevin F. Kiley It’s not a straw man argument, because I’m not arguing with anyone. I was just asking for your take on it in relation to your proposition that 1815 was bloodless. Is it your contention ‘Man of peace’ concept doesn’t exist, or that it does but doesn’t apply to what you are saying? It’s just that the landing on the coast at the head of a formed unit and then sending messages soliciting the defection of the country’s armed forces doesn’t seem very peaceful. @Charles Esdaile ‘s description of it as a military coup seem to hold greater attraction.
On the “it’s only wrong when Napoleon does it” I’m wondering how equitable that is. Some on this thread have branded Louis a coward for fleeing into exile in the face of military failure and overwhelming force in 1815. But hadn’t Napoleon functionally done much the same in 1814 and 1815 Weren’t they equally as ‘voluntary’ ? Why isn’t Napoleon labelled a coward for Fontainebleau or Rochefort therefore? The answer is of course that history is an interpretive discipline, that confers upon the historian (professional or amateur) great power. As Spider-Man tells us, with great power comes great responsibility. Surely that responsibility is to differentiate between when we are relating events or expressing our possibly biased interpretation . Events could and should be defended robustly whilst we should allow for doubting of our interpretation. Muddling the two isn’t scholarship and potentially fuels the mob.
On the “it’s only wrong when Napoleon does it” I’m wondering how equitable that is. Some on this thread have branded Louis a coward for fleeing into exile in the face of military failure and overwhelming force in 1815.I would say - au contraire, only when Nabulieone is doing it - it is right, slaughtering POWs for example. In case other commanders would have done it - the cult would raise a great out cry and defend by teeth and claws - their demi God.
Yes indeed poor Louis is branded a coward but Nabulieone deserting the Armée d'Orient or his ruined army in 1812 has of course very good reasons, to flee, when he shits bricks so that he has to put on an Austrian generals uniforms in 1814, perfectly acceptable, if another contemporary would have done it - cowardice.
One of Napoleon's overlooked mistakes is in his promotion to marshal of Oudinot, Marmont, and Macdonald after Wagram.