Book
Review - Napoleon the Great
By Andrew
Roberts
”He is the
Napoleon of crime”, was how Sherlock Holmes described his nemesis Moriarty,
head of the London underworld, in the popular crime novels of Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle. This short description sufficed to inform the reader that Moriarty must
be a truly formidable character indeed, someone who has risen to the absolute
pinnacle of his chosen profession, and who is not to be trifled with. That the
mere mention of Napoleon’s name roughly half a century after his death was
still so pregnant with meaning and subtle menace to a Victorian audience
suggests that during his short but intense life, Napoleon Bonaparte managed to
leave his mark on the world. Even though he was ultimately defeated and brought
low by his enemies, his name remains synonymous with military genius. In Napoleon the Great, British historian
Andrew Roberts has written a superb biography of history’s consummate
adventurer, a man who rose from relatively humble beginnings and exploited the
tumultuous events of the French revolution to become Emperor of France and the
undisputed master of Europe.
Napoleon Bonaparte
(at this stage Buonaparte) was born in Ajaccio, Corsica in 1769. Since he was
of the island’s nobility his future prospects were relatively bright, as long
as his family could stay in the good graces of the French, who were reviled by
many Corsican nationalists. Indeed, as a young man Napoleon sympathized with
the nationalists, and viewed their leader, Pasquale Paoli, as something of a
role model. His sympathies notwithstanding, the young Napoleon travelled to
France to learn a soldier’s trade, and was soon commissioned as an artillery
officer thanks to his gift for mathematics. Along the way his Corsican
nationalist sympathies wavered, as he was forced to navigate the tumultuous
political climate in the wake of the French revolution. Napoleon agreed with
demands for equality before the law and the concept of promoting soldiers and
civil servants based on merit, but he was never a hardcore Jacobin.
During the
siege of Toulon in 1794, Napoleon commanded the victorious French forces,
leading from the front, he was injured by the thrust of a British bayonet, but
survived, and earned the respect of his men as a corporal in gold braid.
Victory at the Siege of Toulon helped launch Napoleon’s career and catapulted
him ahead of other ambitious peers. It also showed his capacity for hard work,
ingenuity and disregard for his own physical safety on the battlefield, all of
which would later help him seize power in France and humble the armies of his
enemies.
Even after
this victory, Napoleon’s rise was by no means ensured, his career was nearly
undone by his association with the bloodthirsty Robespierre brothers, when they
were toppled later that same year, but after he returned to Paris and protected
the Directory from a royalist uprising, his star was once more in the
ascendant. Shortly after marrying the widow Joséphine de Beauharnais, Napoleon
became a general at the age of twenty-seven. Fearful of the ideals of the
French revolution, the old monarchies of Europe had forged a coalition against
France, intending to restore the old order. The main theatre of war was in
Germany, and the Italian theater was regarded as a sideshow. Napoleon thought
otherwise. Arriving in Nice he took command of the Army of Italy, and proceeded
to lead it to victory against superior Austrian forces. During this campaign,
Roberts notes, Napoleon was able to use his great energy and speed of maneuver
to best his opponents, who were often older than he was, and led armies that
were more poorly organized.
After the
Italian campaign Napoleon went to Egypt, to lead a military expedition with a
contingent of scientists, with the aim of challenging Britain’s overseas
empire. The Egyptian campaign was a failure from a military standpoint, but
thanks to Napoleon’s soldiers bringing home the Rosetta stone, modern
Egyptologists are able to read hieroglyphics.
With the
political situation in turmoil and France beset by external enemies as well as
internal troubles, Napoleon seized power along with a group of political allies
and became first consul in 1799, his position further cemented by the results
of an election that was rigged in his favor.
Even though
peace was soon signed with France’s principal enemies, Austria, Great Britain
and Russia (Prussia joined them later), these nations would over the coming
years form new coalitions against France, and would in time ground Napoleon and
his empire down.
A vigorous
domestic reformer as well as a soldier, Napoleon’s reign saw France being
modernized in a many fundamental ways. His legal system, the Codé Napoleon, remains
in use in France and in many countries around the word today. Napoleon
reorganized the French civil administration to be one based on merit. He also
founded the Banque de France, as well as reforming the French education system
and implementing a new tax code. Always a tireless micro-manager who was
interested in controlling the minutest aspect of his realms, he wrote a
staggering number of letters and dictates throughout his life. Once, when he had
left France to embark on one of his many military campaigns, he wrote a letter
back home demanding that a provincial priest who had given a bad sermon would
be severely admonished. This restless energy and capacity for overwork was one
of Napoleon’s greatest strengths, even though he was unable to remain fully as
vigorous later in life as his health deteriorated.
Over the
coming sixteen years after becoming consul in 1799, Napoleon waged war almost
continually against France’s enemies. Having soundly defeated the Austrians,
Prussians and Russians in battle many times, he reached the zenith of his power
in 1807, when he met Tsar Alexander of Russia on a barge floating in the Neman
river to sign the treaty of Tilsit, in effect dividing Europe between these two
absolute monarchs. Relations between the two men were initially cordial, but
Napoleon, who effused about Alexander that “Were he a woman, I would have taken
him as my mistress”, never got the measure about the cool-headed and cunning tsar.
One of
Napoleon’s most severe weakness, besides his total ineptitude when it came to
naval warfare, was his inability to modernize French trade and finance. In The Ascent of Money, previously reviewed
on this blog, Niall Ferguson asserts that British trade and finance remained
superior to France throughout this era, which, together with the power of the
Royal Navy, enabled the island nation to stay in the fight and bankroll
France’s enemies. In effect, Napoleon’s empire was funded by victories on the battlefield
that brought riches through plunder, a modus operandi that was inefficient and
unsustainable in the long run. The bonds of the Banque de France were never
equal to those issued by the British, and naval dominance meant that overseas
trade could deliver prosperity much more reliably than plundering Vienna for a
third time.
An effect
of the trade imbalance was that Napoleon tried to browbeat his defeated enemies
into agreeing to an embargo of British goods, called the continental system.
This hurt the economies of the German states, as well as Russia. Napoleon’s
anger over Tsar Alexander’s transgression against the continental system were
one of the factors that led to the greatest military blunder of his career. In
1812 Napoleon invaded Russia with an army more than 600 000 strong. Even though
he captured Moscow, the Russians retreated from his armies and burned
everything that could be of use by the French, and the brutal winter soon
started to take its toll. In November 1812, the shattered remnants of
Napoleon’s armies crossed the Berezina river and retreated into Poland. This
fatal defeat, which robbed the Grande Armée of most of its veterans as well as
most of its cavalry, led Napoleon’s rivals to declare war against France once again.
Even though Napoleon fought bravely and with great ability to defend his
empire, his efforts were in vain. Roberts points out that critics who dismissed
Napoleon as a spend force by this point are wrong, he remained a battlefield
commander of great ability, but ultimately France’s enemies were too numerous,
its armies too depleted and its population too tired of war.
After a
short Exile to the Mediterranean Island of Elba, Napoleon briefly returned to
power in 1815, but was defeated by a combined force of British and Prussian
soldiers at the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815. Napoleon’s defeat was not
inevitable, but a series of bad decisions led to him being defeated by Blücher
and the Duke of Wellington, who had previously shown great ability while
fighting against the French armies in the Peninsular war. Exiled for a second
time, this time to the remote pacific Island of Saint Helena, Napoleon died in
1821, most likely of stomach cancer, the illness that had claimed the life his
father and several other family members.
The
Napoleonic epic gives any biographer a treasure trove of material, and Roberts
has used all of this to great effect. Napoleon
the Great is a thoroughly enjoyable read that is sure to delight anyone
with even a remote interested in history, and tells the tale of one of the most
fascinating men who ever lived. It is true that the ears waged by Napoleon led
to the deaths of many, both soldiers of civilians. It is also true, Roberts is
careful to mention, that not all wars fought by Napoleon were his fault. Yes,
his invasions of Spain and Russia were naked acts of imperialist aggression,
but he also tried to make peace with Great Britain and her allies repeatedly,
but was most often rebuffed and had to go to war only once diplomacy had
failed.
In answering the question of whether Napoleon
managed to achieve his dreams and ambitions, Roberts points to his childhood
heroes, Alexander the great and Julius Caesar. Before Napoleon any ambitious
young man wanted to be like Alexander the great and Julius Caesar. After
Napoleon, any ambitious young man wanted to be like Alexander the Great, Julius
Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte.
