"New Book Explores The Often-Forgotten Human Side Of .." Topic

…Napoleon Bonaparte.

"Beyond Napoleon Bonaparte's war exploits and rule, what is known about him as a person?

Thanks to 25 years of research by local history teacher Thomas M. Barden, history fans now have a better-than-average look at the man with the publication of his book, "Napoleon's Purgatory: The Unseen Humanity of the ‘Corsican Ogre' in Fatal Exile," which was released Feb. 16 by Vernon Press.

Barden is also a Fellow of the International Napoleonic Society.

The book depicts Napoleon's human side as exposed by those who lived with him in exile on the island of St. Helena. It launched at #1 on Amazon's Hot New Releases for the Napoleonic War History book list, achieving the Best Sellers Top 10 List for the identical Amazon category through the publications the first week.

Through the journals and diaries of the Emperor's Companions, generals and servants emerges the story of Napoleon's gentle love for children, his eternal love for Josephine, his charming sense of humor, and his painful death…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Well spotted. Although it might be interesting, it does not look to contain much, if any, of military interest.

However, even though it is priced at £44.00 GBP it still sold out on Amazon. Unfortunately, as yet, there is no indication of when further copies (or a cheaper paperback) may become available.

Sadly, Nap's human side isn't very interesting. Cheat. Liar. Braggart. Unfaithful husband. No loyalty beyond his own family. You can meet as many people like that as you want at any office party. It's the public side of Napoleon--the tremendous energy and military and administrative ability--which commands interest after two centuries.

You couldn't sell me a book on the sex life of Henry Kissinger either.

Although Mamie Van Doren did claim he tried to put the moves on her.

Kissinger,that is. Not Napoleon.

Here you go, HvS…from the not too distantly passed and still very much missed, Neil Rogers:

YouTube link

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Sadly, Nap's human side isn't very interesting. Cheat. Liar. Braggart. Unfaithful husband. No loyalty beyond his own family. You can meet as many people like that as you want at any office party. It's the public side of Napoleon--the tremendous energy and military and administrative ability--which commands interest after two centuries.

You are misinformed and all you're doing here with your comments is repeating the British and allied propaganda of the period.

From The Superstrategists by John Elting, who did explore the human side of Napoleon, along with Vincent Cronin:

'Only during the last few decades have English-language historians really managed an accurate recreation of Napoleon as an individual human being, as well as a ruler and statesman…' 139.

'[Napoleon] could get such service out of his men because he shared (portions of the 1812 campaign excepted) his men's dangers and hardships, riding just behind his advance guard, often taking what fortune might send in the way of food and shelter-a tumble-down farm building with some straw for his bed and rain and wind for company; a few potatoes, roasted in the embers of a campfire and shared with his staff, for supper. IN action, he was fearless; after a battle he was concerned for the wounded. (Quite contrary to the usual concept of Napoleon, he was careful if his soldiers health and had a surprising commonsense knowledge on that subject.) He rewarded good service generously, sought to be just and patient. And he won a legendary devotion, the 'Vive l'Empereur!' that echoes yet across the centuries.' 147.

'Napoleon had reigned as a true emperor, lawgiver, and builder. His Code Napoleon, which modernized and systemized French law in clear language, is still the basis of French law and has had world-wide influence. He built no new palaces but left a mighty heritage of harbors, highways, bridges, drained swamps, and canals. He planted trees along his roads; set up a government office to protect France's forests, lakes, and rivers; gave Paris better water and sewer systems, its first public fire department, an improved opera, and the modern system of street numbers. Wherever his rule ran, there was freedom of religion, basic human rights, better hospitals, orphanages, and public sanitation…He encouraged vast improvements in French agriculture and built up an enlarged system of public and private education. Just as important was his emphasis on competence and honesty in his officials. All careers were open to men of talent who would serve loyally, regardless of family background or political orientation. Also, he balanced his budgets; even in 1814 France had practically no national debt. And he ruled as a civilian head of state, never as a military dictator.' 145.

Well said Kevin!… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I am under the impression, as far as being a cheating husband is concerned, that Josephine took another lover prior to any of Napoleon's dalliances. Just wondered if that is correct. Thanks in advance for any comments anyone would like to make regarding this., John Miller

Well, I am pretty sure it wasn't Henry Kissinger. . .

Hafen von Schlockenberg: I heard old Hank got around but I think you are correct in your conclusion. John Miller

I am under the impression, as far as being a cheating husband is concerned, that Josephine took another lover prior to any of Napoleon's dalliances. Just wondered if that is correct. Thanks in advance for any comments anyone would like to make regarding this., John Miller

Josephine was unfaithful first, not that it excuses Napoleon from doing the same.

They later settled down into at least a couple comfortable with each other. And Napoleon adopted her children, of whom he was very fond. And he trusted Eugene, as evidenced by making him Viceroy of Italy and then an army commander in 1809. Eugene is probably the most underrated general of the period.

As for Josephine, Napoleon sincerely regretted divorcing her later, but he believed it a matter of state, and not the heart. Josephine finally did fall in love with Napoleon, writing in October 1801 to her mother: 'Bonaparte…makes your daughter very happy. He is kind, amiable, in a word a charming man.'

Reportedly, 'Josephine' was the last word he spoke as he died.

Unfaithful husband. Hmm, I guess the same could be said for Kutuzov and Wellington, to name but two.

But I guess having women throw themselves at you is the heavy price those who make history have to put up with. LOL

The story that Josephine and Paul Barras had an affair isn't true. Among other factors, theirs was a business relationship--Josephine offered her entree into the better part of society in exchange for Barras's contacts with profiteers and other shady means of making money--and Barras preferred young men to ladies of any age.

The myth of infidelity with Hippolyte Charles is equally that--a myth. Captain Charles had his uses, but sex was not one of them.

There is, however, the probability that Josephine and Lazare Hoche were lovers for a very brief time when imprisoned, but not after their release.

Y'all need to stop reading tired old salacious memoirs by unreliable, gossipy women and biographies written by men.

You are right John!… it was an Hussard…

Napoleon was marching to Acre when he received the news and went mad…

Amicalement
Armand

Napoleon was marching to Acre when he received the news and went mad…

Are you sure on that – but did't he abuse then already the wife of a fellow French officer? So why his tantrum – his wife only payed back, poor Josephine

"Sadly, Nap's human side isn't very interesting. Cheat. Liar. Braggart. Unfaithful husband. No loyalty beyond his own family."

Spot on.

Haters gotta hate…accurate or not.

Brechtel198

Spot on.

"…Cheat. Liar. Braggart. Unfaithful husband. No loyalty beyond his own family…."

We are not talking about the English Cabinet my friend… (smile).

Or you think that all of those Tories were saints…?

What about Lord Wellington?… he was a good husband… no?…

Come on Von…!

Hate like you did is not sane…

Amicalement
Armand

"You are misinformed and all you're doing here with your comments is repeating the British and allied propaganda of the period."

Are you sure? Are you, seriously, arguing that Buonaparte wasn't a "Cheat. Liar. Braggart. Unfaithful husband."? Or that the suggestion that he had "No loyalty beyond his own family." is false? Really?

I provided the information.

If you don't agree, then supply something credible that contradicts it.

And to answer your query: Yes, really.

Napoleon's character is routinely sullied using old, inaccurate information. I supplied some that is accurate.

Did Napoleon cheat at games? Yes, and he always gave back his winnings. Braggart? Really?

Liar? In what sense? If you're talking about the Bulletins, they were never intended to be accurate history.

MaggieC70: I don't believe I have read any books by unreliable, gossipy women yet, or I don't have the knowledge to determine that about them, which is certainly possible. As to the biographies I have read, and I have read very many really good ones, IMHO, I don't believe that the aspects of the character's life I would find most interesting are something most women would care to write about.

"Cheat. Liar. Braggart. Unfaithful husband. No loyalty to anyone beyond his own family." IMHO, even if true, these would make him no worse than most of the other monarchs of his time.

Well said John…

Some people think that Napoleon was a real Ogre and the rest of the Monarchs were Heidi…

"Bonaparte is charged with been cruel, but it's unjust. He was capable of great generosity, and exhibited pity in circumstances not to be expected for a man trained on a battlefield. Hering once of a poor English sailor who having scaped from confinement, had constructed a frail boat of cork and branches of trees, with which he designed to put to sea, in the hope of meeting an English Vessel and thus reaching England, he send for him and on learning from his lips that this bolt undertaking was to get back to his aged mother, he immediately despached him with a flag of truce on board an English ship, with a sum of money for his aged parent, saying that she must be an uncommon mother to have so affectionate a son…"

Tell me how many of King Louis (supported by the British) entourage or the King himself were capable of similar gestures…

Amicalement
Armand

"I provided the information."

No, you didn't. You provided some quotes from a text that supports your view, none of which actually provide any evidence that he wasn't a cheat a liar or a braggart.

"If you don't agree, then supply something credible that contradicts it."

No, it doesn't work that way. You argued that he wasn't a cheat a liar or a braggart. It is up to you to prove your assertion. If you can't, then your assertion is worthless.

"Napoleon's character is routinely sullied using old, inaccurate information."

Indeed? Inaccurate? Like what? You've made an assertion again, please support it with evidence.

"I supplied some that is accurate."

Did you? Where? You provided some quotes from two of Buonaparte's hagiographers, Elting and Cronin, but none of which actually proved anything.

"Did Napoleon cheat at games? Yes, and he always gave back his winnings."

So he did cheat! So what if he returned his winnings!

"Braggart? Really?"

Have you read his memoirs? link

"Liar? In what sense? If you're talking about the Bulletins, they were never intended to be accurate history."

Oh. that's alright then. As long as one knows that one is lying, one isn't actually a liar….. You'll have to do better than that!

Actually, I don't have to 'do' anything.

I've supported my argument. You just happen to not like it.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Have you read his memoirs? link

That isn't Napoleon's memoirs. Napoleon didn't write that book.

And if you're going to offer up something as evidence from the period, I suggest that you pick one that is both credible and reliable.

Bourrienne is neither and has been proven so for quite some time.

From Napoleon by Vincent Cronin, 442-443:

'Louis-Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne was the same age as Napoleon, with whom he attended Brienne and the Ecole Militaire. Then he left the army to become a diplomat. He studied languages in Germany and married a German girl. In 1797 Napoleon appointed him his secretary. But Bourrienne had what Napoleon called 'a magpie's eye' and began to embezzle. When Napoleon gave Hortense a Paris house as a wedding present, Bourrienne paid half a million francs for the house but charged it to Napoleon as one million. He passed on news of Napoleon's doing to an interested party for 25,000 francs a month. Napoleon had to dismiss him in 1802, but sent him in 1804 to Hamburg as charge d'affaires. Here Bourrienne had carried on a profitable trade in forged passports and illegal exactions. A special investigating committee found, in 1810, that Bourrienne had embezzled two million francs. Napoleon removed Bourrienne from his post and ordered him to pay back half the sum.'

'After the fall of France Bourrienne hurried to Talleyrand, who, on 1 April 1814, had him appointed Minister of Post, while the Provisional Government cancelled the order whereby he must repay a million francs. Later Bourrienne became Minister of State. But he continued to speculate, lost his job, and in order to escape his creditor, fled to Brussels. A publisher named Ladvocat persuaded him to write his Memoirs as a way of repaying his debts, brought him to Paris and installed him in a small room. But Bourrienne wrote nothing. All he did was to make notes on which, later, the first two volumes were based. As for the eight other volumes, they were ghosted by Maxine de Villemarest, a failed diplomat turned journalist, an indefatigable 'ghoster' of Memoirs-he even worked up the notes of Mademoiselle Avrillon, Josephine's chambermaid-and an admirer of Talleyrand, whose Life he was also to write. In 1834 Bourrienne died in a lunatic asylum.'

'So the Memoirs which appeared under Bourrienne's name between 1828 and 1830 and for which he was paid 6,000 francs were hardly more than a travesty of Napoleon's life cooked up for Louis XVIII's reading public, the tone of them set by a bitter personal enemy, whose mind was already becoming unhinged. This became quite plain in 1830, when a group of men headed by Comte Boulay de La Meurthe pointed out the main factual mistakes in a book of 720 pages: Bourrienne et ses erreurs. It would never have got past the French censors, and was published in Brussels.'

'The most ironical falsehood in Bourrienne's Memoirs is the statement that Napoleon had no friends and cared nothing for friendship. The truth is that Napoleon went to great pains to hush up the scandal of Bourrienne's embezzlements, and it was precisely out of loyalty to a boyhood friend that he did not publicly disgrace Bourrienne, first in 1802, then in 1810.'

'In Bourrienne's Memoirs it is said that when he went to Egypt Napoleon had already decided to make himself ruler of France, and was merely biding his time. This of course tallied with the legend already put out by the Bourbons that Napoleon was an upstart driven from first to last by ambition for supreme power. The statement in Bourrienne is belied by all contemporary evidence, but has done more to bedevil interpretation of Napoleon's character than almost any other single error.'

You can fine Boulay de La Meurthe's volume, referenced above, here:

link

And you can notice the contributors to de La Meurthe's volume include Belliard, Gourgaud, the Prince d'Eckmuhl, Meneval, and Cambaceres. These notable gentlemen were honorable and not dishonest like Bourrienne.

Bourrienne's Memoirs are fiction and are intended to dishonor Napoleon and are full of lies and calumnies. It is very unreliable as a reference and I would not recommend its use.

So, you'll have to do much better than that.

Only you haven't. There is nothing in what you posted that supports your argument at all! That your hagiographers consider that he balanced his budgets, that he shared his soldiers conditions on campaign (really?), he cared about his men ("Bah! Une nuit de Paris remplacera tout cela!" ["What of it?" or "Not to worry! One Parisian night will replace all that!"]), instituted the Code Napoleon and instituted public works, and all in the gushing tones of the true admirer, is meaningless in the context of your assertion. There is nothing in your supposedly supporting quotes that argues against him being a braggart, liar or cheat, and that he was an adulterer.
It doesn't matter whether or not I like your argument, you haven't made an argument! You've just made an assertion with some irrelevant quotes!

You have done and posted nothing that refutes what I posted.

All you have to offer so far is a suspect volume that was ghost-written in 1830 to denigrate Napoleon.

I suspect that is your intention here anyways.

If you cannot support your counter-argument, then your postings are meaningless and without merit. I've quoted two excellent historians who have thoroughly researched the subject to come to their conclusions.

You haven't done anything here but rant over a subject that you obviously know nothing about.

And, as I have pointed out before, your chosen pen-name for the forum says it all.

Move on-you have nothing constructive to offer here.

You're right about Bourienne, of course, I was relying on my memory; I had meant his "The Memorial of Saint Helena" as dictated to Las Cases. link
Truly the work of a braggart.

In any case, you've agreed that he was a cheat and a liar (To lie like a bulletin) his memoirs show him to be a braggart, and he was clearly an adulterer, even a serial adulterer. He had relationships, and in some cases children with at least the following: Pauline Foures, Marie Walewska, Marguerite-Josephine Weimer and Giuseppina Grassini. That Josephine was also unfaithful doesn't change anything!

Oh, now the rant word! To be used when a person persists in writing something that one doesn't like! Along with the snarky personal remark, of course…..

"I've quoted two excellent historians who have thoroughly researched the subject to come to their conclusions."

You've quoted two hagiographers who may, or may not have thoroughly researched the subject (with Elting we can't be sure because of his unprofessional lack of proper referencing) but none of your quotes have anything to do with whether or not he was a cheat, liar and braggart. And unfaithful, thus they are not supporting your argument.

I don't need to prove that he was a cheat or a liar, you've already done that for me in a previous post.

PS. How does my chosen pen name say anything?

Just to clarify, and perhaps help you to understand, let's use this as an example. What is there in this quote that proves that he isn't a liar a cheat or a braggart?

"'[Napoleon] could get such service out of his men because he shared (portions of the 1812 campaign excepted) his men's dangers and hardships, riding just behind his advance guard, often taking what fortune might send in the way of food and shelter-a tumble-down farm building with some straw for his bed and rain and wind for company; a few potatoes, roasted in the embers of a campfire and shared with his staff, for supper. IN action, he was fearless; after a battle he was concerned for the wounded. (Quite contrary to the usual concept of Napoleon, he was careful if his soldiers health and had a surprising commonsense knowledge on that subject.) He rewarded good service generously, sought to be just and patient. And he won a legendary devotion, the 'Vive l'Empereur!' that echoes yet across the centuries.'"

If you can, please point it out to me. If you don't, I will assume that you can't and that you've beaten a hasty retreat.

OK, I'll bite, John Miller: what exactly are the aspects of a character's life that you find most interesting are those most women wouldn't care to write about? And do you mean women contemporary to the ti8me, or just any women at any time?

From what I have read Napoleon's famous adversary, the Duke of Wellington, was something of a bed hopper himself. In regards to the shabby treatment of one's spouse, seemingly he would not be required to take a back seat to the Emperor. John Miller

MaggieC70: Thanks for getting back to me. I was referring to women of any time. My interest is military in nature, the military careers, the battlefield exploits or blunders of the characters of the era. It is my impression that biographies written on Napoleonic personalities by women are usually more personal in nature and less concerning the character's military life. There are two women whose works, (not biographies), concerning the battle of Gettysburg, Reardon and Harrison, whose book I have read and own, but they seem to be the exception. Thank, John Miller

I'm with you, John, on the military side of things. and not much at all on the gossipy bits. I'd also like to think the bio I wrote was the exception to your impression about female authors…

John,

If you haven't read Maggie's biography of Lannes, I would highly recommend it. It is thoroughly researched, very well-written, and if not the best biography for the period, it is at least in the top two (though I cannot think of one that is better).

Sincerely,
K

@Tango 01

""…Cheat. Liar. Braggart. Unfaithful husband. No loyalty beyond his own family…."

We are not talking about the English Cabinet my friend… (smile).

Or you think that all of those Tories were saints…?

What about Lord Wellington?… he was a good husband… no?…

Come on Von…!"

The topic is Boney and there is very true that he was a a cheat, braggar, unfaithfull husband – you cannot deny this, as up to Wellington – open a new thread – nowhere did I say he was saint.

"IN action, he was fearless; after a battle he was concerned for the wounded. "

after action he was cold, he visited that battle field to count the death – he was never concerned about the welfare of his soldiers this is just legend building.
Eye witnesses were surprised about this cold attitude

Back up your assertions, or don't make any more silly postings on the subject.

It is very clear that you are not demonstrating either balance or fact in your postings.

All you're perpetrating is 'bags of bull.'

one just has to read his comments about the burning of Somensk, even his entourage was shocked – one has just to read books – a good start – those of Bernard Coppens and Jaques Presser

MagieC70 & Brechtel198: As it happens I bought "The Emperor's Friend" when it first came out, read it at that time, and loved it. Brechtel's comments above are spot on. Lannes is a member of my personal pantheon of military heros,(one of quite a few). Sad to relate however, I completely forgot the book was written by a woman, (the phrase "sharp as a bowling ball" may well apply here). Thanks, John Miller

So, it appears that other leaders/commanders were also unfaithful. We can, of course, add Russia's Alexander to that list. Yet some people feel they can use this fact as a negative against Napoleon. So everyone did it but it is only bad when Napoleon does it. That is so comical.

As Kevin said, haters gotta hate. LOL

one just has to read his comments about the burning of Somensk, even his entourage was shocked – one has just to read books – a good start – those of Bernard Coppens and Jaques Presser

Presser? Really?

His stated purpose in his book was to denigrate Napoleon and his marshals.

And what were the comments at Smolensk? Perhaps you could post them?

And what is your source for that? Presser?

Perhaps using the Correspondence would be better?

Personally, I don't worry about Napoleon's marital infidelities – any more than I'm bothered by Nosey's, or Nelson's – as I'm more interested in his military career.

But if one is discussing Napoleon the private human being, then they are relevant, though they simply show him to be no worse than many other men of his time – or later!

It'd probably be easier to make a list of "people of import and power" who didn't have a long row of flings, affairs and infidelities. :)

IIRC, Wellington's comment on Nelson's wish that the country take care of Emma Hamilton was to the effect that if every man in public life could leave his mistress as a charge on the state, the country would soon be bankrupt!

As Brechtel198 hasn't even attempted to explain how his quotes in any way support his argument, yet has continued to post, it would appear that he is unable to do so, and has chosen to ignore the challenge. At least that confirms my opinion of him, and his historiographical position…..

the man who so cared about his soldiers – according to legend – left twice his army when the soldiers most needed him, Egypt and Russia – what a mess he left behind, and dumped the resonsibility on others.

In that way dear Von Winterfeldt the King of Prussia have to been shot!

Not to mention the Austrian Emperor!…

Or dear King Louis!…

etc

etc.

Amicalement
Armand