"Napoleonic Biographies" Topic

There have been a few Napoleonic biographies mentioned lately and I believe a few comments are appropriate.

Barnett's Bonaparte and Lyons Napoleon Bonaparte and the Legacy of the French Revolution, along with Schom's biography, Napoleon Bonaparte: A Life, tend to all show an inherent bias, referring to Napoleon as 'Bonaparte' throughout the books. It is also historically incorrect. As a general of the Revolution, it would be correct to refer to him as either General Bonaparte or just Bonaparte. When First Consul, use of only his last name would also be appropriate. However, once proclaimed and crowned Emperor, Napoleon would be the correct form of 'address.' No one refers to any of the other European crowned heads by their family names, and Napoleon deserves the same attention from anyone who chooses to write a biography of him or any other type of book on the period. Napoleon at least earned his throne-the others merely inherited theirs.

Alan Forest in his biography Napoleon recognizes this, as does Vincent Cronin and others.

B

Napoleon at least earned his throne-the others merely inherited theirs.

Well, this is pretty partial really. There has never been any particular theory of the state (except Nietzsche?) where an inidividual could 'earn' a throne.

As Col Elting notes in Swords, if you style him Napoleon before 1804 you are wrong, if you style him Bonaparte afterwards you are wrong (or dispute his legitimacy)? Does it really matter, in the end?

Regards

Yes, I believe it does for it is historically accurate.

And, in the case of the 'biographers' who are consistently 'con' in their viewpoints on Napoleon (no matter where the actual evidence leads) it indicates a definite bias in the books.

All authors should try for balance in historical writing. Unfortunately, when Napoleon comes up for judgment, the negative views, correctly or incorrectly, take precedence as does the usage of 'Bonaparte' throughout.

Sincerely,
M

Then if you take such a view, using 'Napoleon' instead must presumably indicate a 'pro' bias too?

Regards

The memoirs evaluated by Cronin were based on accuracy and reliability regarding Napoleon-not whether they were pro or con.

B

Is this comment on the right thread Kevin?

Anyway, logically, if using 'Bonaparte' indicates a bias against, using 'Napoleon' must indicate a bias for.

Regards

As far as I am aware off, he did not earn the thrown he took it by force, starting with the 18e Brumaire.

For good biographies, go for Tulard and Presser.

Napoleon was not made Emperor by force. He earned it by clearly demonstrating his ability to rule, restore law and order, and ensuring the social gains of the Revolution for the French population.

He was recruited by the initiators of the Brumaire coup after he discovered that Barras, one of the five Directors, was conspiring to bring back the Bourbons.

B

He was recruited by the initiators of the Brumaire coup after he discovered that Barras, one of the five Directors, was conspiring to bring back the Bourbons.

You shouldn't mistake ex post facto excuses, with actual motivations.

And, in the case of the 'biographers' who are consistently 'pro' in their viewpoints on Bonaparte (no matter where the actual evidence leads) it indicates a definite bias in the books.

All authors should try for balance in historical writing. Unfortunately, when Bonaparte comes up for judgment, the positive views, correctly or incorrectly, take precedence as does the usage of 'Napoleon' throughout.

I do get the chronological name problem but to me it's not worth a fight, to me is a lawyers argument, I know who they are writing about and the angle they are coming from.

Odd position. People tend to refer to Wellington as Wellington. Not Wellsley when in India until 1809. Viscount Talavera until 1813 and then Wellington from then on. Refusing to do so reflects some inherent ant- Wellington bias does it?

Same with Boney.

I use Boney as it is quicker to type. Bonerparte when I am not typing in a rush. I don't use Napoleon much. I prefer Bonerparte. Sounds more regal.

And why no mention of rabidly pro Bonerparte bias? Which authors would populate that?. Which ones should the critic be wary of for there inherent Francophilia or Bonerparte Fandom? Any that call him Napoleon by your logic?

Elting for one. He should be in your list as one to be wary of. He's as bad as the two you mentioned except he his the other side of the same coin.

'And why no mention of rabidly pro Bonerparte bias? Which authors would populate that?. Which ones should the critic be wary of for there inherent Francophilia or Bonerparte Fandom? Any that call him Napoleon by your logic?
Elting for one. He should be in your list as one to be wary of. He's as bad as the two you mentioned except he his the other side of the same coin.'

I disagree with you on Col Elting. He wrote of Napoleon's faults and mistakes as well as his good side. That to me is balance. And he also wrote of those who were rabid detratctors and supporters (the quotation from The Superstrategists has already been posted on that subject).

B

'As Col Elting notes in Swords, if you style him Napoleon before 1804 you are wrong, if you style him Bonaparte afterwards you are wrong…'

That isn't what is stated in Swords. The following is what is written on page xiii in the 'Points of Information' Number 1:

'The purist would require that Napoleon be styled 'Napoleon Bonaparte' or simply 'Bonaparte' until December 2, 1804, when he became Napoleon I, Emperor of the French. Because this book shifts constantly back and forth through 1792-1815, however, 'Napoleon' is used throughout to avoid confusion.'

Nothing is said there about being 'wrong' or incorrect.

B

But Kevin surely you could use Bonaparte or whatever for the same reason….regardless of any bias.

To be honest I think the use of a name in itself is not evidence of bias (though it may shown an indication).

One could even call him the Corsican Tyrant* without bias though Ogre may be pushing it :)

(* just about technically correct if memory serves, if you use it as per the ancient Greek usage and the actual root of tyrant – tyrannos).

Good Lord.
One would hope the broad brush of history uses a palate of better pigments.

What I wonder is, why the necessity to pass a moral judgement about a character like Napoleon? What are we? Historians? Or priests?

It's funny; I'm in Berlin this week, working in the Prussian archives, and I noticed that on documents pre-1813, they refer to him as "Napoleon" or "der Kaiser Napoleon."

As soon as 1813 gets under way, he's "Buonaparte" or "Gen. Bonaparte" again on their documents.

I guess we know now why Napoleon was always obsessed with the question of his legitimacy. Legitimate monarchs get called by their monarchical names, whether or not they have a gun to your head.

Here's a funny one I just found yesterday. It was published simultaneously in German and English:

Goldsmith, Lewis. Buonaparte, an outlaw!!! An Appeal to the Germans, on the necessity of outlawing Bonaparte. (London, 1813)

(Notice how he manages to spell the name two different ways in the same title!)

'But Kevin surely you could use Bonaparte or whatever for the same reason….regardless of any bias. To be honest I think the use of a name in itself is not evidence of bias (though it may shown an indication). One could even call him the Corsican Tyrant* without bias though Ogre may be pushing it :)'

By the way it is used, such as by Barnett, it is intended as a pejorative so as not to recognize the imperial dignity to which Napoleon was raised, somehow inferring that Napoleon was not legitimate.

Seems to me no one ever thinks of how the crowned heads of Europe were first raised to be crowned heads in their beginnings after Rome fell in the 5th century AD-they usually had to fight for it.

In British history there was enough fighting for crowns there, and in Scotland, Robert the Bruce certainly fought for his. No one seems to want to question their right to rule.

And the term 'tyrant' (and Napoleon certainly was not one) is also pejorative in its use.

B

"By the way it is used, such as by Barnett, it is intended as a pejorative so as not to recognize the imperial dignity to which Napoleon was raised, somehow inferring that Napoleon was not legitimate."

You don't know that. He might have used it because he likes it. Or because its his name. I think you might be a tad too sensitive about this.

Perhaps-and there might also be a tooth fairy.

Have you read the book? It's almost the worst biography on Napoleon I've read-only Schom's is worse.

It isn't well-sourced, there are too many errors in fact, and too much opinion not backed-up with evidence.

B

the solution is simple, up to his self crowning as emperor – Bonaparte, after that Napoléon, or in case one likes nick – names – Boney ;-).

"Have you read the book? It's almost the worst biography on Napoleon I've read-only Schom's is worse."
In your opinion.

"It isn't well-sourced,"
Only in the copy you have, you've already had it pointed out to you that the 1997 is fully referenced.

"there are too many errors in fact, and too much opinion not backed-up with evidence."
In your opinion.

Edwulf,
This is part of a much larger discussion that has been going on over three or four different (current) threads.
Just out of interest have you read Corelli Barnett's book yourself? In my opinion it is indeed one of the worst and most biased books ever written on Napoleon, and a great deal of content has been put forward to show that.

Kevin is not being a "tad too sensitive" about this, he just recognises that Barnett's book is mostly biased nonsense. He listed something like 70 different factual errors and/or instances of derogatory name calling that should be below an academic historian. And this was just from the first half of Barnett's book.

Barnett's book has been defended on these other threads by both Whirlwind and Chouan. Chouan had a little nibble at Kevin's list and ended up getting backed into a corner (and the Dawghouse, although this had more to do with a related dispute with Gazzola). Whirlwind keeps objecting to the labelling of the book as biased, but he hasn't really added any actual content to de-construct any of the points on Kevin's list. So the list stands until further notice.
TMP link

P.S. Barnett's book isn't all bad, it has some pretty pictures and some interesting sections. I read it when I was young and going through a phase of enjoying reading anything to do with Napoleon, but even at that tender age I realised the author had some bizarre 'issues' with an Historical figure that died 200 years ago. Maybe it was a tactic designed to try and sell more books?

<sigh> any word, can be pejorative even itself.

From Wikipedia – referenced from Merriam Webster.
A tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos). The original Greek term, however, merely meant an authoritarian sovereign without reference to character bearing no pejorative connotation during the Archaic and early Classical periods.

So using the original terminology as I suggested is just about accurate. Unless of course he was not an authoritarian sovereign.

Objectivity and subjectivity make great focus for debates, I think we all should be more objective about our subjectivity rather than subjective about our objectivity.

Telestic Warrior,
"Kevin is not being a "tad too sensitive" about this, he just recognises that Barnett's book is mostly biased nonsense. He listed something like 70 different factual errors and/or instances of derogatory name calling that should be below an academic historian. And this was just from the first half of Barnett's book.

Barnett's book has been defended on these other threads by both Whirlwind and Chouan. Chouan had a little nibble at Kevin's list and ended up getting backed into a corner (and the Dawghouse, although this had more to do with a related dispute with Gazzola)……. So the list stands until further notice.
TMP link"

Not quite. I certainly wasn't aware that I was backed into a corner by a list of opinions masquerading as evidence. I've also used my lunch hour to address Brechtel's list elsewhere.

Chouan,
we are all busy people, you are not the only person with commitments. If you don't want to spend your lunch-breaks defending your controversial and biased positions then I suggest you don't write controversial and biased posts on Internet forums, as you did on the thread in question. What did you expect to happen? For other people who are well-informed and have strong opposing views to just let it slide? That's hardly realistic.
If I have learned one thing on the TMP Napoleonic boards it is that there are a whole host of intelligent & well-informed folks that are ready to correct any errors that I make, and if I post controversial views (and I have posted many) that I had better be prepared to defend myself from the grenades that are sure to fly my way.

As to whether you have adequately addressed the list or not, I think it is clear you have not. You had a decent go at debating Kevin on one point and one point only; whether or not Napoleon was a "fervent Jacobin" and a "notorious jacobin". The result was probably a score-draw. You showed that Napoleon had clear links to Jacobinism, other people showed that Napoleon was never a 'fervent' jacobin, and this label is a stretch, at best.

As to whether you have adequately addressed the list or not, I think it is clear you have not.

The list is a list of opinions but they are presented and defended as facts. No debate is possible.

'Only in the copy you have, you've already had it pointed out to you that the 1997 is fully referenced.'

And you've seen the 1997 edition?

By the way, I have it ordered and inbound.

B

A debate is always possible. Some debates are a waste of time (like this one), but they are always possible.
And a debate has already been had on at least one of the points on the list, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Approximately 70 different examples of factual errors and/or articles of bias were presented. Some of the items on the list probably fall under the category of 'opinion', but the vast majority of them do not. If you have a problem with these examples you can de-construct them. Or you can stop flogging this long-dead horse of yours. This is becoming extremely tedious. If you have no actual content to contribute regarding the usefulness and veracity of Corelli Barnett's book then what is the point of your posts?

"And you've seen the 1997 edition?"
On my desk in my office at work. Why do you ask?

"Approximately 70 different examples of factual errors and/or articles of bias were presented. Some of the items on the list probably fall under the category of 'opinion', but the vast majority of them do not."

All you need to do is read them again. It should be simple to work out which are factual errors, and which are differences of opinion. Every single one that I looked at today is a difference of opinion. Not one factual error could I find. A few unpleasant, rather supercilious comments by Brechtel198,and one error of his own (I was being pedantic) but no proven errors in Barnett.

All you need to do is read them again. It should be simple to work out which are factual errors, and which are differences of opinion. Every single one that I looked at today is a difference of opinion. Not one factual error could I find.

Well, you didn't look very hard did you? I found the following quite quickly.

Page 96: on the Boulogne camps…'The land forces were to be concentrated in four great camps, each to hold an army corps and its artillery, at Utrecht, Bruges, St. Omer and Montreuil, with a fifth at Brest as a diversionary threat to the restless English colony of Ireland.'
The camps along the channel were Brest, Montreuil, Boulogne, St, Omer, Bruges, and Utrecht.

Page 98: ‘On 2 December 1803 he resoundingly dubbed the invasion forces ‘The Army of England.'
In June 1803 the army assembled on the Channel coast was named the Armee des Cotes de l'Ocean. In August 1805 it became the Grande Armee. It was never named The Army of England.

Page 107: ‘Bonaparte himself was not much of a military innovator, but content instead to make war with this hybrid army as he found it.'
The army was formed into homogenous divisions of infantry and cavalry; the corps system was implemented from 1800; the artillery train was created by Napoleon in 1800; the cavalry reserve was created-just a few of the military innovations made by Napoleon.

Page 109: ‘This strategy bore strong resemblences to the Schlieffen Plan of 1914: in the simple grandeur of the conception of a flank march by almost the entire army…'
The outflanking of Ulm and the Austrians in 1805 was not done by a ‘flank march' but by a deep envelopment into the Austrian rear.

Page 110: Ulm'…was a success that only just escaped being a disaster.'
Again, a ridiculous statement that is not based on factual material.

Page 119: Reynier in column at Maida.
Reynier did not attack in column at Maida but in line. The original error on this issue made by Oman was later corrected by him. It was old information by the time the book was published in 1978.

Page 122: ‘Bonaparte proved as oblivious in 1806 to evidence that Prussia was girding herself for war as to evidence of the Third Coalition the previous year.'
Barnett needs to take a serious look at Napoleon's correspondence. Again, he is in error.

Page 153: ‘With his defeat at Aspern Bonaparte had got himself into the most gruesome plight of his career, with half his army marooned on Lobau and the Danube repeatedly in flood.'
The French on Lobau were not ‘marooned.' The bridge to the east bank of the Danube was taken up after the French withdrawal and Lobau was turned into a fortified camp. New bridges were built to the west bank and preparations, based on Lobau were made for the second Danube crossing which took place at the beginning of July.

Page 154: ‘Inexplicably Bonaparte selected this strong sector as the object of his opening attack, by Davout's and Oudinot's corps. They were thrown back with bloody loss. Bonaparte tried again, this time with Bernadotte's Saxon corps in the center of the Austrian ring at Wagram.'
Davout was not engaged along with Oudinot. Oudinot, Bernadotte, and Macdonald were attacking the Austrian center. Davout was on the French right flank and his attack on 6 July was the battle-winner.

There are other examples of factual errors in Barnett's book but to be honest that is not my major beef with Barnett. My main concern by far is that the chap displays a clear anti-Napoleonic agenda. Anyone who has read the book who retains any balance at all can see that. Only somebody who has an entrenched anti-Napoleon bias could not see that the book contains a bizarre amount of anti-Napoleon bias. It really is childish stuff. Apparently it has suckered in a few adults who should know better.

Again, please read my post properly. Every single point raised by Brechtel that I discussed above was simply a difference of opinion. I've not yet time to go through the others, but a 0% record so far in proving error. Not that good really. Barnett does mention Boulogne by the way, in the previous sentence to that quoted selectively by Brechtel.
Again, please note that I have never suggested that Barnett's book should be read as the one book to read. I suggested it as a differing view to the very pro-Buonaparte oevre of Cronin. There is no single book to read on this or any other subject. All books have an inherent bias, the reader, to gain a balanced view must read several books, preferably, in fact absolutely, with differing viewpoints. I read Cronin long ago; I found it obviously, perhaps deliberately, biased in Buonaparte's favour. But, it was portrayed as a balanced view, which it isn't. Barnett makes no pretense about his book being a balanced view, but it does provide the balance necessary to counter the rest of the books about Buonaparte, which are, generally positive.

The last post I made showed factual errors made by the author, not a difference of opinion. Some of these errors may be relatively minor but they are still factual errors. That is what you asked for, that is what I provided.

But to repeat myself from earlier, my main point is this; "my major beef with Barnett (is not the factual errors). My main concern by far is that the chap displays a clear anti-Napoleonic agenda. Anyone who has read the book who retains any balance at all can see that. Only somebody who has an entrenched anti-Napoleon bias could not see that the book contains a bizarre amount of anti-Napoleon bias."

Well, let's say that the last 4 examples were minor errors. So out of 75 (or is it 79?) examples of "error" presented, only 4 are actually errors. All of the others are differences in interpretation. So still not a brilliant or crushing catalogue of evidence and proof, but essentially a list of differences of opinion.

Chouan, we have gone over this already on the other threads.

- the factual inaccuracies in Barnett's book are just part of the problem, of greater concern is his obvious anti-Napoleon bias which is displayed in almost every paragraph in his book.
- Barnett compares Napoleon to Hitler multiple times in order to play a cheap psychological trick on the reader.
- Barnett resorts to derogatory name-calling of Napoleon on multiple occasions.
- He has virtually nothing good to say about Napoleon at all, almost every paragraph is a personal attack on the man. Short of having to go through every paragraph with you with a fine tooth-comb there is not much left to say. We both seem to be repeating ourselves on this thread and the other three.

Taken as a whole there is a "crushing catalogue of evidence and proof" exposing Barnett as an Historian who shouldn't be taken too seriously on Napoleon. Maybe his other books are valuable, be he clearly has issues with Napoleon. If you want to recommend Bonaparte to others then go for it.

I'm out.

Unlike some on TMP, I would not claim to be an expert in this period. I have never read any of the books in question and therefore I might be able to add a bit of a 'neutral' viewpoint of this discussion.

The list of reasons given why Barnett's book is 'not fit to read' or whatever strikes me as tenuous at best. Any history book will have 'opinions' that can be disagreed with and even factual errors – but a few of these is surely not enough to render any book utterly meritless?

I recently read a biography of Churchill's Bodyguard which described the battleship HMS Prince of Wales as 'the Royal Navy's latest destroyer' – a rather surprising mistake: as Churchill's life is so inextricably linked to WW2, one would have thought the author would have a deep enough knowledge of the conflict to have heard of the Prince of Wales etc.
But does this sort of glaring factual error make the book utterly invalid? I would suggest not.

My passion is the Boer War, and I am constantly infuriated by the way Pakenham's book has become the 'definitive' history of the conflict. Pakenham has a habit of explaining away any Boer defeat (eg. Elandslaagte) by saying the British 'heavily outnumbered them' – without explaining to his readers that, an attacker would hope to hold 3:1 advantage in an infantry assault – these sort of numbers are not a massive advantage. He also leaves out anything that doesn't suit his point of view, glossing over British victories and giving whole chapters to Boer victories.
Do I think Pakenham is massively biased?
Yes.
Do I think that his book therefore is unworthy of study and offers nothing?
Absolutely not – it is one outlook on a conflict / period and has an enormous amount of valid and interesting information. No subject can be understood by reading a single book on the subject and we should all try to read about a subject from different sides of the argument – there is no other way of challenging / developing / adjusting the ideas you already hold.

And even 'factual errors' are not always errors as such, but can sometimes come down to interpretation:
Did the flank march begin on the 16th, when some outriders left the main camp? Or the 17th, when the first Infantry Brigade followed them? Or the 18th, when the General and his main body moved off?
Did the 21st Lancers take part in a charge if only a handful of them (attached to the 17th Lancers) were there?

Why would any enthusiast of the Napoleonic period only want to read work by writers that they agree with?

I haven't seen anyone here claim that they were an 'expert' on the Napoleonic period.

B

Brechtel198

My opening caveat was actually meant as a compliment to some posters – I am certainly no where as knowledgeable as many who post on the Napoleonic Boards.

Any comment on the other 25 lines of my post?

BullDog69,

It might be a good idea for you to actually read the thing before you make comments like "The list of reasons given why Barnett's book is 'not fit to read' or whatever strikes me as tenuous at best."

I have never said that it is not fit to read, just that it is basically an anti-Napoleon diatribe, and biased to a rather cringe-worthy degree. Barnett's book is worth reading if only to remind ourselves that modern authors can still behave in an irrational manner when talking Boney.

Any lists of bias that either myself or Kevin Kiley or any other person could provide will essentially be inedequate to 'prove' an authors inherent bias, we would have to go through each an every paragraph and that would not be a valuable use of anyone's time. That is partly why I have given up trying to get Chouan to see sense. The book is definitely worth reading if you can get a cheap copy, I am confident that anyone with a modicum of good sense (in regards to the Napoleonic era) will appreciate that a book that only concentrates on the negatives of someone's career and in which almost every paragraph is a personal attack on the same personage, is a book that should be viewed with extreme distrust.

TelesticWarrior

Many thanks for your advice.

So in summary, you feel Barnett's book is 'definitely worth reading'.

In which case, I'm not entirely sure what all the fuss is about.

BullDog69

Barnett's book is worth reading to see how an author uses a completely negative Anti-Napoleon basis in order to sell his book, in the same way that 'he who can't be named', used the joke basis about Waterloo being a Prussian victory. You can usually find copies of Barnett's book in second hand shops for less than a fiver.

Gazzola

So you too are now saying the book is 'worth reading'.

I think you have convinced me.

Thanks guys!

Nice misinterpretation of what Gazzola wrote. I am impressed.

B

Brechtel198

So when he clearly states that it's 'worth reading for reasons x y and z', that actually means it's 'not worth reading'?

But you didn't say 'for reasons x y and z' now did you? And again, you're misinterpreting.

Why not just be forthcoming in your postings? It's really easy to do.

And as I have stated many times, every book is worth reading, in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. And Barnett's diatribe is definitely chaff, unfortunately.

B

Bretchel198

Many thanks for your advice. So now that we have established that every book is worth reading, I'm not sure what this discussion was about?

Bulldog
Deliberately misquoting your fellow TMPers is not cool.

Well Bulldog, I think they are saying that it was worth them reading it but it ain't worth you or anyone else reading it because err! It was worth them reading it but….

Paul :)