The Sword and the Spirit

I truly enjoy reading psychobabble, especially when it it so rigorously--and repeatedly--clothed with an avalanche of alleged psychological criteria and methodology and assessments and scales and measurements, and presented with all flags flying. The following is truly risible: "For this study, it was decided to allow the five trained psychologists to read and independently interpret primary source historical material that I [Coss] gathered. A decision was made to limit this research to either Napoleon’s words or those of the men who were in the room with him." If you don't see the amazingly enormous hole in this "methodology," then I'll leave all those who think this entire "study/podcast/whatever" has real merit--particularly its expected one-sided pronouncements--to enjoy it as much as you like. I believe, based on decades of studying, reading, scribbling, and other types of involvement in this fascinating and polarizing period, that Napoleon was indeed narcissistic, arrogant, overbearing, inflexible, loutish, and generally overreaching. I also believe he was capable of brief bouts of sympathy and empathy, and a number of other similar qualities that appeared from time to time, though in more limited occurrences. And I didn't need five--or fifty--trained psychologists to tell me this.

@Maggie Scott I'd be the first to agree that there are aspects of the the methodology that are open to question. Indeed, I raised some of them with Ed directly after he gave the paper on which this chapter was based; the main one for me being the difficulty in separating Napoleon the public persona from Napoleon the inner man and the extent to which play-acting for public consumption masks the real personality. Nevertheless, I consider the approach interesting and worthwhile and was happy to support Zack's desire to include it in the published proceedings. Frankly, with so many entrenched views around, any attempt to look at events or people of our era via a novel approach is to be encouraged, if only for opening up the debate.

Considering the background and qualifications of Ed's team, though, I would respectfully take exception to 'psychobabble' and 'alleged psychological criteria'; these people are professional military medical personnel, which is rather a different kettle of fish to, say, Frank McLynn trying his hand at DIY psychology in his biography of N.

I was under the impression that Titeux started already with such a topic in Revue Napoléonniene with an article but seemingly an illusion or I cannot find it any longer.

Otherwise I have to hold back, there you rightly point out the importance to get back to the basics, the original documents, as amateur I can hardly do this, though I did spent some times, then in SHAT in the good old times, when run by army soldiers, one could just walk in, fill out the forms and get 10 boxes without any problems, you did not even need a permission card. Now registration, pre booking a place, and restriction to 3 boxes, in case I remember that correctly.