Napoleon: The Warrior Unmasked
Drew A Larson
Western Oregon University , 2014
"Unfortunately, and to many historians’ annoyance, there are two beliefs on the subject of Napoleon. The first belief is that Napoleon lived as a superb soldier and possessed a great mind. Napoleon, the savior of the French, had pulled the France out of their downward spiral, and regained their prior fame. The other, opposing, belief holds that Napoleon was a monstrous war hungry dictator; instead of a savior, Napoleon is viewed as a tyrant who sought world domination at all costs. These beliefs were held both during and after Napoleon’s lifetime. Each side has constructed concrete argument, yet the modern, typical, view of Napoleon seems to be the latter of the two.... "
https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=his
Thanks for sharing this Tom - very interesting. Not sure that I agree with the suggestion made by Drew that Napoleon is almost always seen as a military leader. That may be true of the public, but certainly isn't the case amongst most scholars in my opinion - you can't really understand the man without looking at the political as well as the military.
I would agree there's a diversion between the public in general and scholarly opinion. (I also doubt N.'s "revered" in France currently, though my feeling is that opinion's more nuanced in France than elsewhere.)
Yes, I agree, I have never got the impression that Napoleon is revered in France. Mind you, a colleague told me a while back 'No-one is talking about Napoleon in France', which i'm a bit more sceptical about.
I’m more convinced that Americans are talking about Napoleon more than the French are.
That may be true, based on the Forum, but in reality most Americans barely know there own history. Generally all Americans know about Napoleon is that his was a funny short guy who was in "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure." But, I'll admit, the "Black Legend" isn't as powerful in the US as the UK.
Fair comment @tomholmberg , but I think that probably has more to do with the Atlantic being considerably wider than The Channel! No one (Zimmerman telegram aside) has seriously threatened invading the US. Here in the UK still have the cultural memory of the ambitions of a certain Bohemian Corporal and I think it may colour our perspective.
@david Tomlinson "No one...has seriously threatened invading the US."
The British did it twice in the War of 1812-Plattsburg and New Orleans. Seems to me they were quite 'serious.'
@Kevin F. Kiley but not in living memory (unless you have a portrait stashed away you aren’t telling us about). Anyway, wasn’t that the war the US started by invading Canada?
@david Tomlinson "Either way, I don’t think 1812 will have affected US mainstream psyche overly much? Or am I misreading US popular culture?" Presumably some Americans have an inkling of the origin of their national anthem.
@john fortune I think we, as enthusiasts, sometimes get a skewed view. It’s just that I can’t remember the war of 1812 mini-series, or Hollywood film and when I search 1812 and set to most popular I get mostly references to Tchaikovsky and an overture. Even if they are aware, I wouldn’t imagine they would make any connection to Napoleon, seeing it as some sort of follow up to the revolution. Classifying the war of 1812 as part of the Napoleonic wars is an historians construct.
@david Tomlinson No, it isn't a 'historians' construct.' US warships and privateers were refit and revictualled at French ports, the second USS Wasp is a prime example.
Napoleon also wanted at least two of his frigates to operate in American waters to both show the flag and possibly work with American frigates.
Napoleon was at war with Great Britain and so was the US, so the idea of working together at sea was not a foregone conclusion.
And the British army in North America was finally reinforced by some of Wellington's regiments after Napoleon's first abdication. There they met disappointment and defeat, especially at New Orleans.
@Kevin F. Kiley So, was there ever a formal alliance between the US and France? We shouldn’t read to much about victualling it’s even repairs, as the use of neutral ports is normal, covered in our period by the normal usages of war, and now enshrined in international law. If there is no treaty or memorandum of understanding, was there any evidence of contemporary recognition of being cobelligerents? I’ve certainly not seen anything from the Brutish point of view that regarded the conflict as being controlled by Napoleon.
'Enthusiasts'- good word