Napoleon the Great
What is
unusual about Napoleon the Great? Well, the most obvious thing is
that Roberts nails his colours to the mast, declaring that Napoleon was not
another Stalin, Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler. He was much bigger and better than
that. He was not just a brilliant general (Wellington famously said that
Napoleon’s hat on the battlefield was worth 40,000 men). He was a superb
administrator, a reformer and someone who saved France from the worst excesses
of the French Revolution and at the same time he preserved what was good in
that tumultuous event. He was also a patron of the Arts and a true son of the
Enlightenment.
Three characteristics of Napoleon make him particularly admirable: his personal charm and ability to communicate with ordinary people and understand their point of view; his phenomenal memory for people, faces, places and events; and his enormous capacity for hard work.
Some of the statistics that Roberts comes out with are mind-blowing. For example, he argues that something like 120,000 French troops died in the Russian campaign, not because of a bullet, a Cossack sabre, hunger or the appalling cold, but because of typhus. He also records a long list of Napoleon’s mistresses, one-night-stands and casual affairs. Old Boney must have been so busy bonking that it is hard to see how he could have had any time (or energy) left for fighting more than sixty battles and reforming the French legal system with his Code Napoleon.
Despite being a Corsican, Napoleon was remarkably tolerant and forgiving to those who let him down or even betrayed him, such as Fouche and Talleyrand, whom Napoleon famously described as “a shit in a silk stocking”. The Emperor’s personal courage is also remarkable: Napoleon really did “lead from the front” on many occasions, risking his own life and sharing the dangers of war with his soldiers. No wonder his men dubbed him “the little corporal”.
Roberts squashes quite a few Napoleonic myths. No, Boney was not a titch: he was of average height. Yes, he was quite plump towards the end of his life, but in his twenties and thirties he was decidedly skinny. Almost bony, in fact. No, Napoleon was not poisoned by the Brits on St. Helena and yes, he did deserve to lose Waterloo. Ney was “the bravest of the brave”, but he was incapable of commanding very large numbers of troops. Instead of Ney, Napoleon should have had Davout with him on the road to Brussels, on that fateful day in June, 1815. Of course, there are innumerable “what ifs” in Napoleon’s tumultuous life. What would happened if he had appointed capable administrators to so many foreign thrones, instead of members of his own family? Or if Napoleon had not implemented the Continental System? Or not invaded Russia in 1812? Well, we will never know, but at least we can read Napoleon the Great and find out what did happen. And why Napoleon made it happen.
Three characteristics of Napoleon make him particularly admirable: his personal charm and ability to communicate with ordinary people and understand their point of view; his phenomenal memory for people, faces, places and events; and his enormous capacity for hard work.
Another
unusual feature of this book is that we see thing very much from Napoleon’s own
point of view. This is because Roberts has made extensive use of the enormous
collection of Napoleon’s letters (more than 30,000 of them) that has recently
been published.
Some of the statistics that Roberts comes out with are mind-blowing. For example, he argues that something like 120,000 French troops died in the Russian campaign, not because of a bullet, a Cossack sabre, hunger or the appalling cold, but because of typhus. He also records a long list of Napoleon’s mistresses, one-night-stands and casual affairs. Old Boney must have been so busy bonking that it is hard to see how he could have had any time (or energy) left for fighting more than sixty battles and reforming the French legal system with his Code Napoleon.
Despite being a Corsican, Napoleon was remarkably tolerant and forgiving to those who let him down or even betrayed him, such as Fouche and Talleyrand, whom Napoleon famously described as “a shit in a silk stocking”. The Emperor’s personal courage is also remarkable: Napoleon really did “lead from the front” on many occasions, risking his own life and sharing the dangers of war with his soldiers. No wonder his men dubbed him “the little corporal”.
Roberts squashes quite a few Napoleonic myths. No, Boney was not a titch: he was of average height. Yes, he was quite plump towards the end of his life, but in his twenties and thirties he was decidedly skinny. Almost bony, in fact. No, Napoleon was not poisoned by the Brits on St. Helena and yes, he did deserve to lose Waterloo. Ney was “the bravest of the brave”, but he was incapable of commanding very large numbers of troops. Instead of Ney, Napoleon should have had Davout with him on the road to Brussels, on that fateful day in June, 1815. Of course, there are innumerable “what ifs” in Napoleon’s tumultuous life. What would happened if he had appointed capable administrators to so many foreign thrones, instead of members of his own family? Or if Napoleon had not implemented the Continental System? Or not invaded Russia in 1812? Well, we will never know, but at least we can read Napoleon the Great and find out what did happen. And why Napoleon made it happen.
Comments
Post a Comment