Book Report on “Napoleon: A Life”
Pretty sure Andrew Roberts is president of the Napoleon fan club because this book was part biography and part love letter, but it was…
Pretty sure Andrew Roberts is president of the Napoleon fan club because this book was part biography and part love letter, but it was extremely well researched and well written.
I sort of feel like I have to read another biography of him just to get a less biased perspective, but it was a worth reading and it gave me a deeper appreciation of how brilliant he was not only as a military commander but also as a statesman and domestic leader. His greatest achievement in my mind wasn’t any campaign or single battle, but rather the Napoleonic Code, which is pretty much the foundation of many Western society’s judicial systems. What I can’t wrap my head around is how he inspired suicidal loyalty in his men, as well as his extreme self confidence — those were really two of his greatest assets. I get that in Revolutionary France someone who is a general or a monarch taking the time to stop and say “Hey guys, what’s up? Crazy weather we’re having right?” was an unheard of thing, and it was like a rockstar/the pope/the president just talked to you but ok that’s not going to get me to march to Moscow in the winter. It was a different time.
I listened to the biography on Audible because I like listen to books while I cook, do dishes, workout and walk my dog. The big drawback is I wasn’t able to refer to the maps that are in the print edition. But when I finish books like this I usually keep an eye out for it in used book shops and second hand stores. A lot of times you can find biographies and other history books for the bookshelf for a couple bucks each.
Anyway I found it super interesting that Napoleon didn’t even learn French until he was nine or 10. It just adds to the irony of the entirety of the nation of France, including the members of its elitist echelons of society, would at one point be completely bent to the will of this rough upstart from the “backwater” of Corsica.
It’s an unfair comparison in my mind to equate Napoleon to Hitler in any way, which I’ve seen done by modern armchair historians (like myself) but he wasn’t a racial bigot nor was he inept as a military commander (Hitler was a terrible general).
The only real similarity Napoleon and Hitler share is their terrible decisions to invade Russia, acts that led in part to both of their downfalls. Though it could be argued that Napoleon could have emerged ultimately victorious if he had won at Waterloo (which he should have on paper) and went on to beat the last coalition, which was frankly doubtful. France was exhausted after two decades of war.
He was great with children. I found that surprising. His is ugliest attributes were his misogyny and racism though, which are not surprising for the time but still disappointing from a man who seemed bigger than the conventions of the era in which he lived and conquered.
His opinion of females was tellingly-giving when he was once asked by an aristocratic lady about the best occupation for women. He replied:
“Women should not be regarded as the equals of men; they are, in fact, mere machines to make children. I do not like masculine women any more than effeminate men.”
Yikes. From what I understand he found that particular woman annoying and might have been more harsh than usual in his speech to her, but still. From what I understand he made plenty of other remarks over the years and in letters that well-establishes his low opinion of the gender.
You would think that a guy who was so into meritocracy he would be able to see the merit of women, who were a major part of what kept the economy and country running while most of the men were away at war. I mean France basically took on everyone else in Europe and almost won. That’s not just because of one man, even though Wellington said if he was looking at a field of 60,000 troops and Napoleon arrived to command them he would consider it a force 100,000 strong.
Anecdotes aside, it takes a huge economic engine to be able to field armies numbering in the hundreds of thousands for 20 years, and that engine was fueled by the work of farmers, millers, seamstresses, washer women, butchers, bakers, servants and everyone else who occupied the lower rungs of society. Yet the soldiers got all the glory – the more things change the more they stay the same…
Napoleon’s record on race relations also leaves something to be desired, to put it lightly. Roberts didn’t go into that too much, but he does recount an instance when Napoleon’s army bayonetted 2,000 Turkish soldiers while they were trying to surrender and then once they had captured another 3,000 Napoleon ordered them executed. Napoleon, being the consummate general of his day, would have honored the prisoner of war status of any European forces taken in the field, yet in this case he had them all shot. That’s telling behavior from someone who took the contemporary rules of “civilized” war very seriously.
Another book that touches upon Napoleon’s racism is “The Black Count” by Tom Reiss, the 2013 Pulitzer prize winning biography of General Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, a cavalry general under Napoleon who was of mixed race heritage. He was the son of a French noble and an enslaved woman of African descent, born in the Caribbean and educated in France.
Dumas stands as one of the highest-ranking men of African descent ever to lead a European army, and if you recognize the last name that’s because his son was Alexandre Dumas, the great novelist who wrote “The Count of Monte Cristo” and “The Three Musketeers.”
Anyway, the elder Dumas died in poverty, denied the pension he earned by what he described as a jealous, spiteful Napoleon motivated in part by racial animus. General Dumas was known for his large size and incredible strength and bravery in the field, and believed that Napoleon was jealous of him. Napoleon’s racial bias is definitely an element of his personality I wish Roberts would have explored more.
I did really appreciate the fact that Roberts went to basically every battlefield and describes them as they look in now modern times. I don’t even blame him for his almost adoring tone in describing the great general and self-styled emperor. It would be hard not to fall in love with the man, having lived and breathed every day of the guy’s life writing such a comprehensive book.
On the whole it was interesting (and extremely detailed) book about a one of history’s biggest personalities and greatest talents who died surprisingly young.