Napoleon : A Political Life

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.

Rating:
Summary: Sensational Book
Review: This book is for those looking for a higher, more in depth look at Napoleon. This is not a book for people just getting into Bonaparte. Hundred's of pages of detailed material on the Emperor, plunging into his private life, military career, and most specifically, as indicated by the title, his political career. A must read for anyone with a strong understanding and interest in Napoleon.

Rating:
Summary: Not for the layperson
Review: This book was written for the author's peers. To get the most out of this book the reader needs a "walking thesaurus"-level vocabulary, and a good working knowledge of European history (especially Roman and French). The author refers back to events many times without ever having fully explained them or their historical significance. At times it seems the author is presupposing knowledge of the subject! I would recommend reading a book on The Revolution itself (and possibly a different book on Napoleon!) before trying to tackle this one.

Rating:
Summary: Napoleon the nice?
Review: Well, no, not exactly. But this is certainly the most positive recent biography of the Emperor, many of which compare him to Hitler. Steven Englund's new work is a not altogether satisfactory hybrid. On the one hand it is well aware of recent scholarship and frequently refers to it in the notes. On the other hand it is less detailed and less informative than one might expect. Ian Kershaw devoted 1,400 pages of text to Hitler, not counting notes. By contrast Englund devotes about 475 pages and here less is less. Compared to recent biographies such as Paul Preston's Franco, Richard Bosworth's Mussolini or Herbert Bix's Hirohito, this is a less successful book. Another problem lies in its basic thesis. It is complex: Napoleon was a vain man who lusted for military glory and who ultimately failed because he refused to compromise at key points in his reign. But at the same time he was also the advocate of a vaguely progressive reform (which in my view seems to get vaguer as time goes on). The problem with this thesis is not that it is untrue. Indeed it is basically true. But it is poorly presented and argued, with certain lacunae on the way and a certain apologetic tone.

As one reads the book we are reminded of Napoleon's virtues. He was a brilliant general, obviously, such as the quartet of victories he won in five days a few months before his first abdication. He was capable of genuine love (unlike Mussolini and Hitler). He was willing to listen to the advice of people who disagreed with him, he was capable of being calm and reasonable towards people who had crossed him. (Indeed one future conspirator was automatically promoted to general while imprisoned for another plot.) He also possessed genuine courage, getting up after his horse was killed under him, daring opposing French soldiers to either join him or kill him just before the Hundred Days. His reign allowed a certain rule of law and a certain toleration. During his reign he made useful contributions to French society with a more efficient bureaucracy, a new law code, some improvements to education, financial stability, and French stability. Having said all that, there is a certain indulgence in Englund's account. Some of this can be allowed. It is true that Napoleon arranged the judicial murder of the Duc D'Enhigen, but the Allies had been involved in disingenuous plots that involved assassinating French officials. It is true that Napoleon, in his diplomatic proceedings, showed bad faith and aggressiveness. But often his enemies did as well. Yes, Napoleon instituted censorship and had perhaps 2,500 people imprisoned. But many of these were actually rebels or brigands, and there was nothing like the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of summary executions after the restoration in 1815.

But there are also problems. There are slips in Englund's account: the Gracchi brothers were second century BCE, not third; the inflation France faced in the 1790s was not the first in history; the June 1799 "coup" was not directed against Neo-Jacobins, but a neo-Jacobin impeachment of the executive; Napoleon's second wife was not the niece, but the grand-niece of Marie Antoinette. Englund is vague and diffuse about how Napoleon was able to appeal to his soldiers, or when he decided that he wished to become emperor once and for all. One of the most striking things about Napoleon's rule was how popular politics seemed to vanish and poltical dissension apparently evaporated. Englund has little to say about this, aside from the fact that Napoleon was genuinely popular. On questions such as the Neo-Jacobins whom Napoleon overthrew in 1799, or the nature of national consciousness in France and the rest of Europe, or about religious feeling under the Empire, Englund has little to say. Likewise Englund argues that while French occupation could be rough, it did have some progressive aspects. Perhaps, but Englund does not provide the detailed (and somewhat less optimistic) discussion that David Blackbourn and James Sheehan gave in their histories of Germany, nor does Englund really confront the harsher case by Timothy Blanning or Simon Schama. The overall significance of the Empire for the French economy is not made clear, and while Englund notes that there was prosperity he does not dispel the feeling that it was ultimately peripheral. Particularly striking for me is that Napoleon's attempt to reestablish slavery in Haiti is only given a page, while the tens of thousands of Haitians who died as a result of this attempt are not mentioned at all.

As the book goes on Napoleon becomes more ruthless, less willing to hear other people's advice, more contemptuous of the revolution's legacy and less deserving of our sympathy. There are surprisingly few monuments to him in Republican France. One is reminded how for centuries European monarchs have schemed and plotted for glory and how, for nearly two decades the second son of a minor Corsican noble systematically beat and humiliated them. One is reminded of the oceans of sycophancy that have surrounded dynastic rulers and then remembers that Napoleon is the one monarch who actually did something to deserve his. One might say that is all the monument Napoleon needs. More important, it is all he truly deserves.

Rating:
Summary: Napoleon the nice?
Review: Well, no, not exactly. But this is certainly the most positive recent biography of the Emperor, many of which compare him to Hitler. Steven Englund's new work is a not altogether satisfactory hybrid. On the one hand it is well aware of recent scholarship and frequently refers to it in the notes. On the other hand it is less detailed and less informative than one might expect. Ian Kershaw devoted 1,400 pages of text to Hitler, not counting notes. By contrast Englund devotes about 475 pages and here less is less. Compared to recent biographies such as Paul Preston's Franco, Richard Bosworth's Mussolini or Herbert Bix's Hirohito, this is a less successful book. Another problem lies in its basic thesis. It is complex: Napoleon was a vain man who lusted for military glory and who ultimately failed because he refused to compromise at key points in his reign. But at the same time he was also the advocate of a vaguely progressive reform (which in my view seems to get vaguer as time goes on). The problem with this thesis is not that it is untrue. Indeed it is basically true. But it is poorly presented and argued, with certain lacunae on the way and a certain apologetic tone.

As one reads the book we are reminded of Napoleon's virtues. He was a brilliant general, obviously, such as the quartet of victories he won in five days a few months before his first abdication. He was capable of genuine love (unlike Mussolini and Hitler). He was willing to listen to the advice of people who disagreed with him, he was capable of being calm and reasonable towards people who had crossed him. (Indeed one future conspirator was automatically promoted to general while imprisoned for another plot.) He also possessed genuine courage, getting up after his horse was killed under him, daring opposing French soldiers to either join him or kill him just before the Hundred Days. His reign allowed a certain rule of law and a certain toleration. During his reign he made useful contributions to French society with a more efficient bureaucracy, a new law code, some improvements to education, financial stability, and French stability. Having said all that, there is a certain indulgence in Englund's account. Some of this can be allowed. It is true that Napoleon arranged the judicial murder of the Duc D'Enhigen, but the Allies had been involved in disingenuous plots that involved assassinating French officials. It is true that Napoleon, in his diplomatic proceedings, showed bad faith and aggressiveness. But often his enemies did as well. Yes, Napoleon instituted censorship and had perhaps 2,500 people imprisoned. But many of these were actually rebels or brigands, and there was nothing like the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of summary executions after the restoration in 1815.

But there are also problems. There are slips in Englund's account: the Gracchi brothers were second century BCE, not third; the inflation France faced in the 1790s was not the first in history; the June 1799 "coup" was not directed against Neo-Jacobins, but a neo-Jacobin impeachment of the executive; Napoleon's second wife was not the niece, but the grand-niece of Marie Antoinette. Englund is vague and diffuse about how Napoleon was able to appeal to his soldiers, or when he decided that he wished to become emperor once and for all. One of the most striking things about Napoleon's rule was how popular politics seemed to vanish and poltical dissension apparently evaporated. Englund has little to say about this, aside from the fact that Napoleon was genuinely popular. On questions such as the Neo-Jacobins whom Napoleon overthrew in 1799, or the nature of national consciousness in France and the rest of Europe, or about religious feeling under the Empire, Englund has little to say. Likewise Englund argues that while French occupation could be rough, it did have some progressive aspects. Perhaps, but Englund does not provide the detailed (and somewhat less optimistic) discussion that David Blackbourn and James Sheehan gave in their histories of Germany, nor does Englund really confront the harsher case by Timothy Blanning or Simon Schama. The overall significance of the Empire for the French economy is not made clear, and while Englund notes that there was prosperity he does not dispel the feeling that it was ultimately peripheral. Particularly striking for me is that Napoleon's attempt to reestablish slavery in Haiti is only given a page, while the tens of thousands of Haitians who died as a result of this attempt are not mentioned at all.

As the book goes on Napoleon becomes more ruthless, less willing to hear other people's advice, more contemptuous of the revolution's legacy and less deserving of our sympathy. There are surprisingly few monuments to him in Republican France. One is reminded how for centuries European monarchs have schemed and plotted for glory and how, for nearly two decades the second son of a minor Corsican noble systematically beat and humiliated them. One is reminded of the oceans of sycophancy that have surrounded dynastic rulers and then remembers that Napoleon is the one monarch who actually did something to deserve his. One might say that is all the monument Napoleon needs. More important, it is all he truly deserves.