In an epic episode Marcus Cribb & Luke Daly Groves join me to discuss the opposing perspectives on the emperor, his impact, and how he's remembered. They also show the trolls that Napoleon can be discussed without getting angry, while explaining why Napoleon is like ordering a takeaway! https://anchor.fm/the-napoleonicist/episodes/Napoleon-the-Great-Debate-emg20o
Difficult to listen to hero worship at its worst, he wasn't an able administrator at all in Egypt, he left it in a mess, read what Kleber writes about it who as left dumped in it, in Italy, during the first Italian campaign, brutally suppressing revolts, showing his hide.
Ah yes Nabulieone's view of women was quite usual and popular at his time, yes, my point, he wasn't a genius he was just another petty noble holding total power, intelligent - yes, hard worker - yes, brave on the battle field yes - but a genius - no - with the exception in propaganda.
And yes it is not the Code Nabulieone.
Oh Luke's arguments are a long way from the being hero worship at its worst Hans-Karl. The Napoleon Cultists will not acknowledge any failing, pose kissing imperial standards, and scream Napoleon's own propaganda at you whilst refusing to acknowledge that he had any flaws. Luke offers none of that distasteful rubbish. His view is certainly more far more pro-Napoleon than mine, but I knew that he would be willing to recognise the guy's failings, which is why I invited him on. I would agree in the genius point, but I dislike the term genius anyway (I just don't think it helps)
Quite a rational discussion, but this stuff on the Code and education falls into the same old failing - a lack of context. Austria had been codifying its laws under Joseph II and the process continued under Franz II/I, although there were several codes, not one overarching Code. Joseph also made primary education compulsory, so that each child could become “a servant of the state”. Napoleon did not differ from this approach.
Legal codes cannot just be written by any old body, so while Napoleon probably did move the process along, he would not have written individual clauses as it would have to be in consistent legalese (can you imagine current politicians try to write statutes, when most seem incapable of logical thought).
However, the subject areas would be written against a backdrop of his policy, which was primarily aimed at keeping himself in power. Of course, he retained the property rights given to peasants - it makes them loyal to the regime (same reason as Thatcher sold off public housing in the 80s) - vacillated on slavery and reduced the new rights of women. (I know we have done this before, but can we please keep the modern agendas out? ).
I notice that contradiction came up again - one minute Napoleon is organising rubbish collection and the next, he is giving free rein to his Marshals to do what they like. Why does no biographer address this? Are they scared of the contradiction and its results?
@Zack White
OK, it seemed to be from the start like this but not in the end.
so he had a popular legitimacy? And for that reason he was better than any other monarchs in Europe? 18e brumarie was his legitimacy.
It is typical of dictators to hold elections to create a legitimacy of shine.
Mr. Gorves just claims that Nabulieone's ruling was better in comparison to other rulers in Europe, on what does he bases his knowledge, what does he know about the rulers of let's say Bavaria, or Saxony, or even Prussia, what was their amount of death sentences against Nabulieone's?
One of my greatest criticism of Nabulieone's worship is the Boney centered only approach without even trying to study in the same depth other nations in Europe as well.
another good point of discussion, the greatest military conqueror since Julius Caesar.
Nobody, not even me denies that the did wage very successful campaigns and was a master of the operational art of war, but great soldier? For a while yes, but for the hero worship fan boys his severe blunders are ignored, Egypt - a disastrous campaign - especially Syria, he then did not learn anything from the sufferings of his army in the winter campaign of Poland 1806/07 - where the halcyon victories of 1805/06 are gone forever, it is ignored, and ignored is his never coming to grips with Spain, then the Russian campaign of 1812 - is this the result of a great military commander, then he let's slip 1813 by not coming up with a strategy as all, his army is marched to death by exhaustion in the autumn campaign, in 1814 - useless victories and again not idea of strategy and 1815 an abysmal failure, this is all ignored by the shine of his victories - so great military commander - yes and no.
Here is an idea that suggesting it got me booted off another forum, presumably for offending hero worshiper's sensibilities. To test whether your adherence is emotional bias rather than logical or merely preferential, are you capable of writing a short piece extolling the opposite view? If as a Napoleon admirer you are capable of sustaining and validating some criticisms? By the same token, if you want to sustain a Corsican Ogre view, could you make a case for some redeeming factors? If you find you cannot bring yourself to do either, it suggests you are emotionally invested rather than quite as rational as you think you are.
DS at Staff College used that one, and I think it comes from the rhetoical tradition, Someone with a better classsical or philosophical education than I might be able to assist. If I recall, I think there is/was a Radio 4 series that used this device. What I find strange is that such an elementary debating tool was regarded as trolling (or presumably heresy?). At least Elvis fans are honest enough to admit they are fans as they file past The King's tomb at Graceland. They don't try to persuade you that they only go there for the gift shop, like one devotee tried to describe his pilgrimage to Les Invalides!
It's a really interesting idea. One which at the end of the debate Zack challenged us to do (great minds and all that). I think because Luke and I aren't on the total extremes of both camps it is possible, though we hold opposite views. (as I state in the debate podcast, I tend to take a more extreme view online, purely because I see members who display cult Napoleon worship and want to hold up the complete flip side of that...) hope you enjoy the debate and take away that Luke & I were able to remain civil throughout, which is often rare online surrounding the extremes of Napoleon's, Politics, Wars, Attrocities, Legacy, &c
Wouldn’t be so sure - I was in the pub once and Elvis came on the jukebox. I made some remark, which I think was something to do with the state of him at the end of his life, when some nearby fan turned round and said “I won’t have anything said against Elvis”. You only have to look at some of twaddle now doing the rounds about Diana to see how some people get bizarrely obsessed with these personalities.
@Marcus Cribb I find myself in the bizarre position of being accused of being “anti-N”, mostly after the Osprey on Marengo, but that is for not swallowing the mythology. N is not my object of interest, although he obviously looms large in the overall picture. Some people just incapable of grasping that concept. I tend to view him as s pragmatist, who knew a good idea when he saw one, had a good eye for propaganda and was a charismatic leader. As I have said elsewhere, the key is to understand why he acted as he did - and I suppose that is where the extremes kick in- so that we can see what was his steady line of thought and to what extent circumstances forced things upon him.
Thank you Marcus, I’ll look forward to following it. What it does reveal is that we are prepared to get exited over a head of state in power for less than two decades, who ended in failure yet had a charisma powerful enough to sustain a legend still.