"Napoleon - Man or Myth? BBC Radio 4" Topic

The BBC is running a series on Napoleon this week:

link

The presenter is Andrew Roberts who is a Napoleon enthusiast, who recently put the case that he's "Napoleon the Great" so it's a bit of a hagiography.

For the debate featuring Roberts check out:

TMP link

Having listened to the programs so far available Andrew Roberts seeks to dispel what he considers the "misperceptions" he thinks most hold about Napoleon vs. what might be considered fact by most academics.

Myth 1: Napoleon was short
Myth 2: Napoleon had no sense of humor
Myth 3: Napoleon was a liar and bombast
Myth 4: Napoleon was a totalitarian and dictator

I think he succeeded in dispelling the notion Napoleon was short and that he had no sense of humor.

The presentations are entertaining and not a bad overview of Napoleon. His stated myths, dispelled or not are just a contrivance to paint "hard to dispute, currently believed truths" of Napoleon's nature and his times. Nothing new, terribly shocking or inflammatory in there. I would listen to the rest when they are available.

I would recommend his book. I think referring to Roberts as a "Napoleonic enthusiast" is a very apt description.

Thanks for pointing this out, going to give it a listen right now!!!

Why is it hagiography?

I'm enjoying it very much.

Why are admirers of Napoleon so concerned to prove he was not short, as if being short was a failing? I have never heard admirers of Horatio Nelson worry about the fact that he was rather small.

A hagiography is a biography of a saint.

And to write--or speak--about an individual, endowing him or her with almost saintly qualities that are exaggerated or didn't exist, is often called a hagiographic approach.

Didn't the Emperor decree that the feast day of Saint Napoleon was to be celebrated?

A hagiography is a biography of a saint.

And to write--or speak--about an individual, endowing him or her with almost saintly qualities that are exaggerated or didn't exist, is often called a hagiographic approach.

Exactly.

And I don't see anyone on this board attempting to canonize Napoleon.

I haven't seen the subject program yet, but Andrew Roberts certainly didn't move for Napoleon's sainthood in his biography.

It seems to me that if Napoleon is either judged fairly or, heaven forbid, looked at sympathetically based on solid research, then the book is accused of being 'hagiography.'

And that is nonsense.

Why are admirers of Napoleon so concerned to prove he was not short, as if being short was a failing? I have never heard admirers of Horatio Nelson worry about the fact that he was rather small.

Because the information is inaccurate. Careless authors directly 'translate' the French measurement of five feet, two inches directly into English measurement.

As the French foot was three-quarters of an inch longer than the English foot, which makes Napoleon of average height, a little over five feet six inches, for the period.

Nothing is made of Nelson's physical stature because English speaking authors don't attack Nelson as Napoleon has been inaccurately pictured, including his height.

Why is it hagiography?

Well that was the impression I got from reading his biography.

Goes on about Napoleon's humour – his joke after shooting Massena in the face is, of course, bloody hilarious.

Then off course the whole matter of attempting to reimpose chattel slavery which is glossed over by Napoleon's supporter.

Are the BBC trying to make Andrew Roberts rich(er)?

First a three part TV documentary and now a radio show too.

I'm sure we could all provide a list of alternative writers if they are hard up for ideas!

Well that was the impression I got from reading his biography.
Goes on about Napoleon's humour – his joke after shooting Massena in the face is, of course, bloody hilarious.
Then off course the whole matter of attempting to reimpose chattel slavery which is glossed over by Napoleon's supporter.

I would suggest then that you would consider any biography that is sympathetic to Napoleon to be hagiography,which is cannot be supported historically.

Regarding Napoleon's sense of humor, I found the following two comments applicable:

When First Consul Napoleon was asked if he would step down when he was finished with his reforms. He replied, 'Who do you think I am, George Washington?'

Savary once asked Napoleon, 'Who do you want to be, God?' Napoleon thought about it, then replied, 'No-it's a dead-end job.'

Slavery is an interesting issue during the period. Great Britain and the US outlawed the slave trade in 1807, but Great Britain didn't outlaw slavery in the West Indies until 1834. And for all the hyperbole regarding Toussaint and Haiti, which is what I assume you're referring to, Toussaint did not better the lives of the 'former' slaves, but retained them in their 'position' with merely a new title.

Seems to me that your points are somewhat moot.

Trajanus

We have TV documentaries on Napoleon, a documentary on Wellington, another on the Battle of Waterloo and one on the foreigners who fought for England at Trafalgar. There is even one where the Sharpe actor Sean Bean learns to fire muskets and cannons, which sadly I can't access. There are radio programmes, extracts on the news and even Napoleonic authors on talk shows. And countless new books to chose from. This is surely a great time for military history and Napoleonic enthusiast and wargamers.

I would think it is best to complain when there is hardly anything Napoleonic available.

Trajanus

I meant to add that there is even a Waterloo graphic novel available now (via Amazon, written and illustrated by Mor, Tempoe and Courcelle. It is not bad, although, in my opinion, it is more of a comic than a graphic novel. It is very enjoyable and reminded me of the old Classic Comics from long ago. And it is something different yet still Napoleonic.