British Historians & Napoleon
British historian David Andress wrote the following on his twitter account about the commemoration of the bicentenary of Napoleon's death:
"The world as a whole would have been better off if he, like a number of less lucky generals of his generation, had been cut in half by a cannon-ball some time in the later 1790s"
Then he goes on to compare himself favorably to Napoleon:
"Today's small satisfaction - realising that I have now outlived Napoleon, AND managed not to embroil a continent in a decade of futile and murderous war at the same time."
When a historian harbors this kind of feelings towards a historical figure can they still be trusted with their research? Where do we draw the line between a historian and a propagandist?
I'm inclined to agree with Jean Tulard when he says that as a historian he doesn't judge but merely presents facts and explains the reason behind actions.
@Mo Cheikh Napoleon undoubtedly shared some beliefs and prejudices common among his contemporaries. And some he did not-if he did he would not have undertaken the reforms that he did, completely remaking France.
The Black Codes were first instituted in the late 17th century under Louis XIV.
And if blacks were not allowed entrance into France, how did blacks become part of the French Army of the period?