Rating: 
Summary: a interesting biography of Napoleon
Review: According Englund, Napoleon is not the tryant depicted in Alan Schom's biography, rather his is a pragamatic ruler that allowed a certain amount of judicial independence in France. Englund writes that only a small number of French citizens were actually imprisoned during the Napoleonic era and that judicial institutions would sometiemes overturn the government's decisions. Englund believes that Napoleon had a postive role in the countries that he occupied since the basis of strong centralized states were developed in Italy and Germany. However Englund is highy critical of Napoleon's handling of foreign policy since he angered the monarchies of Europe by creating the Republic of Genoa in 1803, and then outraged the Russians by expanding the French satellite of Poland in 1809. Both of these actions, Englund states trapped Napoleon into an unwinnable war. I would strongly reccomend this book to anyone who is interested for a new view of the Napoleonic era.
Rating:
Summary: A flawed, but human Emperor
Review: Breaking from the common theme of Napoleonic biographies, Englund ditches miltary strategy, tactics and love affairs, preferring to focus on the political man behind the throne. For Englund, Napoleon is not the idealistic conqueror, but neither is he the tyrannical imperialist. He is, instead, a work in progress, influenced and shaped not only by philosophers like Rousseau and political figures like Paoli and Robespierre, but also by the turbulent events through which he lived. Englund does a great job of illustrating Napoleon's transition from a young, impressionable patriot and idealist, into a pragmatic and efficient ruler, a product of his many influences and encounters. While exposing many of Napoleon's faults as a ruler, Englund makes no qualms about also recognizing the successes he achieved, first as consul, and later as Emperor. The end result seems to cover both viewpoints effectively. All the better is that Napoleon becomes "human," and like all of us, he has his triumphs and his faults. While one can easily want to yell at the dead Emperor for his persistent antagonizing of the European continent, one can also see him as a man who feels as though he carried the weight of France on his shoulders, and his alone. Englund does a fantastic job attempting to balance the pro/con approaches to Napoleonic study. Great read. Definitely worth checking out for anyone wanting a fresh look at l'Empereur.
Rating:
Summary: A flawed, but human Emperor
Review: Breaking from the common theme of Napoleonic biographies, Englund ditches miltary strategy, tactics and love affairs, preferring to focus on the political man behind the throne. For Englund, Napoleon is not the idealistic conqueror, but neither is he the tyrannical imperialist. He is, instead, a work in progress, influenced and shaped not only by philosophers like Rousseau and political figures like Paoli and Robespierre, but also by the turbulent events through which he lived. Englund does a great job of illustrating Napoleon's transition from a young, impressionable patriot and idealist, into a pragmatic and efficient ruler, a product of his many influences and encounters. While exposing many of Napoleon's faults as a ruler, Englund makes no qualms about also recognizing the successes he achieved, first as consul, and later as Emperor. The end result seems to cover both viewpoints effectively. All the better is that Napoleon becomes "human," and like all of us, he has his triumphs and his faults. While one can easily want to yell at the dead Emperor for his persistent antagonizing of the European continent, one can also see him as a man who feels as though he carried the weight of France on his shoulders, and his alone. Englund does a fantastic job attempting to balance the pro/con approaches to Napoleonic study. Great read. Definitely worth checking out for anyone wanting a fresh look at l'Empereur.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: Centuries after his death, Napoleon Bonaparte still stymies biographers. What to make of this amazingly dynamic figure who forever changed the world around him? Is the French Emperor the prototype for 20th century fascist dictatorship, with a strong centralized state dedicated to iron hand rule over a subject populace? Was Bonaparte nothing but a vicious and petty warlord, whose own lust for glory and battle guided the destiny of France in the early 19th century? Or was Napoleon, the so-called "New Man", the dream of an absolute leader guided by the humanist principles espoused by the European enlightenment? If anything, Bonaparte defies almost all characterizations. He was a politician as well as a military leader, a fact often ignored in other biographies. As a very astute political player, Napoleon presents a multi-faceted persona, a fact recognized in Steven Englund's excellent biography. Englund's Napoleon is somewhat sympathetic, a man dedicated to certain ideals and his own ascendancy. The way to the top is a stunning tale, and Englund tells it as well as anyone else. One of the best parts of Englund's book is the emphasis he places on Napoleon's early life on Corsica. I find this is a part of Bonaparte's psyche that is often ignored, to the detriment of in depth studies. The fractious politics on the little island had a great deal to do with the developing political theories of Napoleon, as he experienced power and competition for the first time. The rise and fall of his erstwhile ally, Paoli, mirrored his increasing disenchantment with truly enlightened politics. At the same time, young Napoleon was no doubt developing a chip on his shoulder as he was educated along with the rich and powerful of French royalist society. These bluebloods shunned rustic Napoleon, who, from an early age, had to fight for everything he had. As a young officer, the vivacious Napoleon was already far ahead of his years in maturity, intelligence, and understanding of the momentous political tidal waves that were ripping apart French society. In a time of indecision, he was a dangerous man indeed. Englund writes of the rise of Napoleon as well as I've ever seen it. Napoleon did not lead a division into Paris, did not institute a military dictatorship on a whim. One of the most impressive things about Napoleon's ascension was the fact that his actual military power was rarely used by him in order to assume control of the country. Instead, Napoleon shrewdly pushed his way into the new revolutionary institutions formed after the death of Louis XVI through shrew maneuvering and bold action on the battlefield. He was strong enough to dominate his opponents, but subtle enough to avoid most criticism. I found the actual mechanics in Napoleon's power grab to be stunning in their complexity and genius, a point Englund does not gloss over. Equally impressive is the avenue through which Napoleon, inexplicably, managed to be crowned emperor of a nation that had just executed its monarch. Napoleon's reign as monarch was an experience of contrasts. Through his military power, Napoleon managed to effectively conquer almost all of Europe. He solidified his control of France proper, initiating a whole new spate of civil law. I thoroughly agreed with Englund's notion that Napoleon was a beneficial presence in some instances, especially if one agreed with the Enlightenment. His restructuring of representative mechanisms and the courts of Europe preceded similar improvements made decades later. However, Napoleon's own recklessness ruined him in the end, as he never successfully made use of his conquered states, preferring to constantly denigrate and abuse their resources. Englund's biography is so successful on two different planes. On is the writing itself. While the book is not overly simplistic, but it is very engaging. Englund has a wonderful ability to convey facts without drowning in them, writing in a very airy style that often mixes his own insightful comments with historical events. The other reason this book is such a joy is because of its exhaustive research. Every opinion and supposition seems very well grounded in voluminous research and evidence. I found the book eye opening and extremely interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: Centuries after his death, Napoleon Bonaparte still stymies biographers. What to make of this amazingly dynamic figure who forever changed the world around him? Is the French Emperor the prototype for 20th century fascist dictatorship, with a strong centralized state dedicated to iron hand rule over a subject populace? Was Bonaparte nothing but a vicious and petty warlord, whose own lust for glory and battle guided the destiny of France in the early 19th century? Or was Napoleon, the so-called "New Man", the dream of an absolute leader guided by the humanist principles espoused by the European enlightenment? If anything, Bonaparte defies almost all characterizations. He was a politician as well as a military leader, a fact often ignored in other biographies. As a very astute political player, Napoleon presents a multi-faceted persona, a fact recognized in Steven Englund's excellent biography. Englund's Napoleon is somewhat sympathetic, a man dedicated to certain ideals and his own ascendancy. The way to the top is a stunning tale, and Englund tells it as well as anyone else. One of the best parts of Englund's book is the emphasis he places on Napoleon's early life on Corsica. I find this is a part of Bonaparte's psyche that is often ignored, to the detriment of in depth studies. The fractious politics on the little island had a great deal to do with the developing political theories of Napoleon, as he experienced power and competition for the first time. The rise and fall of his erstwhile ally, Paoli, mirrored his increasing disenchantment with truly enlightened politics. At the same time, young Napoleon was no doubt developing a chip on his shoulder as he was educated along with the rich and powerful of French royalist society. These bluebloods shunned rustic Napoleon, who, from an early age, had to fight for everything he had. As a young officer, the vivacious Napoleon was already far ahead of his years in maturity, intelligence, and understanding of the momentous political tidal waves that were ripping apart French society. In a time of indecision, he was a dangerous man indeed. Englund writes of the rise of Napoleon as well as I've ever seen it. Napoleon did not lead a division into Paris, did not institute a military dictatorship on a whim. One of the most impressive things about Napoleon's ascension was the fact that his actual military power was rarely used by him in order to assume control of the country. Instead, Napoleon shrewdly pushed his way into the new revolutionary institutions formed after the death of Louis XVI through shrew maneuvering and bold action on the battlefield. He was strong enough to dominate his opponents, but subtle enough to avoid most criticism. I found the actual mechanics in Napoleon's power grab to be stunning in their complexity and genius, a point Englund does not gloss over. Equally impressive is the avenue through which Napoleon, inexplicably, managed to be crowned emperor of a nation that had just executed its monarch. Napoleon's reign as monarch was an experience of contrasts. Through his military power, Napoleon managed to effectively conquer almost all of Europe. He solidified his control of France proper, initiating a whole new spate of civil law. I thoroughly agreed with Englund's notion that Napoleon was a beneficial presence in some instances, especially if one agreed with the Enlightenment. His restructuring of representative mechanisms and the courts of Europe preceded similar improvements made decades later. However, Napoleon's own recklessness ruined him in the end, as he never successfully made use of his conquered states, preferring to constantly denigrate and abuse their resources. Englund's biography is so successful on two different planes. On is the writing itself. While the book is not overly simplistic, but it is very engaging. Englund has a wonderful ability to convey facts without drowning in them, writing in a very airy style that often mixes his own insightful comments with historical events. The other reason this book is such a joy is because of its exhaustive research. Every opinion and supposition seems very well grounded in voluminous research and evidence. I found the book eye opening and extremely interesting.
Rating: 
Summary: A lively read, an often-puzzling biography
Review: Englund generally stays true to the implications of his subtitle, "A Political Life." This author, whose previous work sprawls from Princess Grace of Monaco to an explication of Hollywood-era blacklisting, does give the reader a reasonably focused portrait of Napoleon as a political animal, motivated and moving by political will above all other considerations. I teach a college course on Napoleonic history, and I originally considered this book as a text. I've decided against it, and not simply because Englund employs a needlessly florid prose (just how many times should an author describe something as "otiose," or a policy as "tergiversated?") I ultimately decided against the text because it is laden with cross-references and skips around fairly liberally in chronology (which would be fine for more experienced readers of this period), yet fails to deliver much depth or novelty of analysis. Englund makes the odd factual error or oversimplification, such as when he names Blücher as the allied commander at Lützen and Bautzen, or demonstrates a lack of perception on non-French sources, such as when he claims that Napoleon nicknamed his second wife "Louise" (all Habsburg females were called by their second names - "Marie" was family tradition.) He also makes some unsubstantiated assertions, such as claiming that Prussia's Queen Luise led a "reactionary" faction in Berlin, in conjunction with Stein and Hardenberg (two less-reactionary Prussians would be hard to imagine.) Ultimately I find this volume somewhat disappointing. Englund has a tendency to include himself in the telling: He slips frequently into the second person and present tense, references pop-culture and tourism, frequently conjures up Hitler (though he finally asserts that he's not making that comparison) and even concludes with an autobiographical essay on how he became interested in Napoleon by playing with miniature soldiers. (I surely don't begrudge him that interest; I just don't think it has any place in a serious work of history.) Englund does do us a favor that is rare among Napoleonic biographers: he includes an extended historiographical essay at his conclusion. This, actually, would have been better as its own book, expanded and developed, because the world doesn't really need another Napoleon biography. We need instead a clear-headed analysis of the ways in which Napoleon's biography(ies) have evolved over the past 200 years. *That* ultimately tells us a lot more about Napoleon's place in history.
Rating:
Summary: A lively read, an often-puzzling biography
Review: Englund generally stays true to the implications of his subtitle, "A Political Life." This author, whose previous work sprawls from Princess Grace of Monaco to an explication of Hollywood-era blacklisting, does give the reader a reasonably focused portrait of Napoleon as a political animal, motivated and moving by political will above all other considerations. I teach a college course on Napoleonic history, and I originally considered this book as a text. I've decided against it, and not simply because Englund employs a needlessly florid prose (just how many times should an author describe something as "otiose," or a policy as "tergiversated?") I ultimately decided against the text because it is laden with cross-references and skips around fairly liberally in chronology (which would be fine for more experienced readers of this period), yet fails to deliver much depth or novelty of analysis. Englund makes the odd factual error or oversimplification, such as when he names Blücher as the allied commander at Lützen and Bautzen, or demonstrates a lack of perception on non-French sources, such as when he claims that Napoleon nicknamed his second wife "Louise" (all Habsburg females were called by their second names - "Marie" was family tradition.) He also makes some unsubstantiated assertions, such as claiming that Prussia's Queen Luise led a "reactionary" faction in Berlin, in conjunction with Stein and Hardenberg (two less-reactionary Prussians would be hard to imagine.) Ultimately I find this volume somewhat disappointing. Englund has a tendency to include himself in the telling: He slips frequently into the second person and present tense, references pop-culture and tourism, frequently conjures up Hitler (though he finally asserts that he's not making that comparison) and even concludes with an autobiographical essay on how he became interested in Napoleon by playing with miniature soldiers. (I surely don't begrudge him that interest; I just don't think it has any place in a serious work of history.) Englund does do us a favor that is rare among Napoleonic biographers: he includes an extended historiographical essay at his conclusion. This, actually, would have been better as its own book, expanded and developed, because the world doesn't really need another Napoleon biography. We need instead a clear-headed analysis of the ways in which Napoleon's biography(ies) have evolved over the past 200 years. *That* ultimately tells us a lot more about Napoleon's place in history.
Rating:
Summary: best left to the experts and/or insomniacs
Review: If you can't name 5 important dates and 5 important people in the French Revolution you might want to skip this book. The author is an academic expert on this period and to some extent assumes that the reader is as well. Most of the text is devoted to accounts of political battles with opponents who are not very thoroughly described. This makes the book somewhat dull and hard going for the layperson.
If you are an expert you'll appreciate the wealth of information in this book but will probably still curse the publisher and author for including no maps of Napoleon's battles. It is very hard to understand from the text how any of these were set up or what happened.
Rating: 
Summary: Americans, Fill a Gap in Your Knowledge of Europe
Review: Many of us in the U.S., Canada & Mexico, trace our genealogy, culture and religion to Europe. Yet, many Gen-Xers and younger cannot name more than 2 or 3 European capitols. We frustrate the Europeans as much as they frustrate us. To know European history is to understand current trans-Atlantic relations. How can we bridge this gap to our cousins across the pond? Steve Englund's "Napoleon" is a great place to start. No period has had a greater impact on European thought than the 1770's through 1815. Englund brings the reader into the eye of the hurricane.
The author assumes that the reader has completed "Intro to European History 101" at the college level. Englund quickly moves the reader from the banal "Who and What" of history to the intriguing "Why?". Englund's facts and research are impeccable, yet he writes in the humanistic style of a novelist. The book portrays Napoleon not as the brooding figure on horseback, but as the driven immigrant-reformer, speaking accented French, who rises to become Emperor. Napoleon is seen as a tyrannical son of Mars, yet also enlightened governmental innovator. Start your own enlightment with Englund's book.
Rating:
Summary: A political account of the Corsican Emperor of the French
Review: Stephen Englund is a person who has immersed himself in a study of Napoleon since childhood. His research in the complex politcial world of nineteenth century Europe is well done.
Napoleon emerges from Englund's book as something of a Renassiance soldier of fortune, The little corporal rose from a lieutenant of artilleryin the Republic army to become the titan of nineteenth century Europe,
Napoleon as delineated by Englund is seen as a complex man of warth and cruelty. Bonaparte loved his family and France. He was
a man who believed in strong authoritan rule whose Code Napoleon and military victories and defeat placed an indelible impact on France.
This book is slow reading. Englund's style is replete with long words and is written in a lapidary, anecdotal style reminiscent of an earlier era of histographic authorship.
I fraknly was bored by much of the intricate politcs involved in the countries conquered, ruled and opposed by Empire France.
The accounts of battles are brief relating to how they affected Napoleonic politcal stratgey. The personal life of Napoleon is briefly chronicled but the interest remains focused on politics,
Those wanting the best account of the military aspects of Napoleon's rule would be better served by reading David Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon. The Army of the Empire has been well presented by the work of Elting.
This work should not be used as an introduction to the Napleonic world. It is somewhat specialized and lacks good maps.
Many of the characters are assumed to already be familiar to the reader.
This book is useful for the information it conveys. It is worth the time spent in reading it. Recommended for history buffs but not for those with only a general interest in the man and the European landscape of post-Revolutionary France.
|
