Posted on 11/07/2014 6:43:35 AM PST by C19fan
Napoleon Bonaparte died on May 5, 1821. More books have been written with his name in the subject line than the number of days that have passed since.
So writing yet another biography about one of the most iconic and controversial statesman of 19th century Europe seems, at first glance, like a fruitless task.
That is, of course, unless one has something new to say about the French emperor. In Napoleon A Life the British historian Andrew Roberts seeks to revaluate what he calls the “caricature we have come to think of as Napoleon.”
Ever since Hitler visited Napoleon’s tomb at Les Invalides, on June 23, 1940¾ following the fall of Paris¾ a connection has been made between the two dictators that historians haven’t been able to forget about.
In his new book, Roberts seeks to persuade his readers that Napoleon was not an evil monster. The narrative is a remarkable piece of historical research that spans just over 800 pages. It presents a convincing argument that while Napoleon was certainly no pacifist, he did, during his 16 years in power, create lasting achievements that ought to be remembered by France, Europe, and indeed the rest of the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Hands down, the greatest military tactician in world history.
Better than DeGaulle??
(sarc)
He was a monster, a very smart monster. Not quite in Hitler’s league monster-wise that’s all.
Very interesting article. Thanks for posting.
However, when you said “revisionist”, you weren’t kidding. The author is trying to make Napoleon out to be some kind of agent of the Enlightenment. I can’t square that the French invasion of Russia. If that wasn’t an imperialistic action, than nothing is.
Bottom line, for me anyways. The author is searching for ways, and reasons, to justify the actions of a murderer.
Arising as he did from the ashes of the French Revolution, Napoleon was as much a product of his times — and a man for them — as Hitler was for post-WW1 Germany. And they both lost their dynasties when they made the capital blunder of attacking the Russians on their home turf in the winter.
At least Napoleon had the guts to camp with his troops at Borodin and Moscow. You sure didn’t see Hitler at Stalingrad or Kursk.
He stopped the bloody excesses of the French Revolution, and quite frankly, he treated his people far better than Tsar Alexander, Frederick William, or King George did theirs.
***Hands down, the greatest military tactician in world history.***
YES! Invade another nation to conquer it! When things turn sour leave the army behind to perish and go home to plan other conquests!
Thoughts of Egypt and Russia.
“The huge difference between those rulers and Napoleon comes down to one word: totalitarianism. Napoleon was not interested in it. He wanted his subjects to support his regime. And yes, he was very tough on those who didn’t. But he didn’t want to control every aspect of his subject’s lives. He wasn’t interested in inserting the state into the existence of the private individual. Mao, Lenin, and Stalin were obsessed with that idea.”
Sounds like my kind of guy. The fact that he was an imperialist doesn’t make him a monster. In military regard, he was no different than any other imperialist, other than his success.
Lost not just one, but two armies while he ran home. I can't think of any other 'Military Genius' who has accomplished that. < / s>
The closest thing to a notion of a totalitarian state prior to the 20th century would be Frederick the Great of Prussia, who said of his subjects "Your soul belongs to God, the rest is mine." Frederick bureaucratized and regimented Prussian society far more than Napoleon even attempted in France.
I’ve read quite a few books on Napoleon, and never thought of him as a monster, though many bios portray him that way. I don’t think he was much different than the other crowned heads of Europe; he was just better at achieving the same goals than they were.
Prior to coming into Italy, circa 1803 or thereabouts, he sent a list of 100 top works of art to the pope and instructed him to prepare to turn them over to the French army. Many wound up in the Louvre.
Napoleon had his architects begin the work of restoring the Roman Forum. For a few century people had dumped trash into the forum and there was no attempt at preservation. The popes considered the Roman statues and ruins, even the Colosseum to be pagan places and didn't care much about them.
At one time, it was a fashion in England and Germany to have Roman artifacts and statues in your home. There was a black market for such items.
One of the TV shows had a segment on the Brits monitoring the conversations of captured high-level German officers, who were unaware they were being recorded. Some petty interesting comments, but the one that gave me a laugh was when one of them said "The only two people who didn't know it got cold in Russia were Napoleon and Hitler."
As a military tactician, I think Genghis Khan ranks right up there with Napoleon. Better yet, Genghis was undefeated when he died.
Napoleon, like Hitler, expected his campaign to be over before the worst of the cold set in. In Napoleon’s case, he had taken Moscow, but then lost control of his army and wasted weeks trying to get it organized so he could get the heck out of there. That gave the Russians time to regroup and set up ambushes and raids all along the retreat. The Gran Armee, weighed down by loot and plunder, and freezing in the blast, trudged back toward France with men dropping at every step.
That rout cost Napoleon his empire.
Agreed. But going in there without a Plan B?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.