"Adam Zamoyski's Napoleon: A Life" Topic

This volume arrived this week and while I haven't finished it yet there is some interesting comments and positions by the author in the book so far.

First, it is an easy read and is over 700 pages in length.

Second, the following comments are worthy of note:

'Until very recently, Anglo-Saxon historians have shown reluctance to allow an understanding of the spirit of the times to help them see Napoleon as anything other than an alien monster. Rival national mythologies have added layers of prejudice which many find hard to overcome.'-xiv.

'Napoleon did not start the war that broke out in 1792 when he was a mere lieutenant and continued, with one brief interruption, until 1814. Which side was responsible for the outbreak and for the continuing hostilities is fruitlessly debatable, since responsibility cannot be laid squarely on one side or the other. The fighting cost lives, for which responsibility is often heaped on Napoleon, which is absurd, as all the belligerents must share the blame. And he was not as profligate with the lives of his own soldiers as some.'-xv.

'In the half-century before Napoleon came to power, a titanic struggle for dominion saw the British acquire Canada, large swaths of India, and a string of colonies and aspire to lay down the law at sea; Austria grab provinces in Italy and Poland; Prussia increase in size by two-thirds; and Russia push her frontier 600 kilometers into Europe and occupy large areas of Central Asia, Siberia, and Alaska, laying claims as far afield as California. Yet George III, Maria-Theresa, Frederick William III, and Catherine II are not generally accused of being megalomaniac monsters and compulsive warmongers.'

'Napoleon is frequently condemned for his invasion of Egypt, while the British occupation which followed, designed to guarantee colonial monopoly over India, is not. He is regularly blamed for re-establishing slavery in Martinique, while Britain applied it in its colonies for a further thirty years, and every other colonial power for several decades after that. His use of police surveillance and censorship is also regularly reproved, even though every other state in Europe emulated him, with varying degrees of discretion or hypocrisy.

Interesting comments and conclusions regarding Napoleon and the period in general, don't you think?

I'm not sure I would was the word 'interesting' as much as inflammatory. It sounds to me, based upon the passages you are sharing, as if the author is attacking critics of Napoleon at the expense of ignoring Napoleon's down side. I've never heard any serious scholar accuse Napoleon of being a "megalomaniac monsters and compulsive warmongers" but to ignore his ego and his willingness to go to war when the diplomatic solution didn't go his way can't be ignored. Perhaps it is just the passages selected intended by the book's author to stir 'debate' but with these little snipits I am concerned as to the author's objectivity. If I find it in the library I would read it but I'm not going to spend money on it at this point. However, thanks for sharing as it's always to good to see what's out there.

He's a fascinating character of history and I suspect books will be written about him at least for another 200 years. It really was the Napoleonic era. BUT, when a man is so instrumental to history he's going to be praised and vilified – especially a man with so many enemies. What is interesting to me is how the natural focus on Napoleon defacto allows his key protagonists to avoid similar scrutiny. Most good things and bad said about Napoleon seem fair enough to me but to use the British as an example, George III, the Prince Regent or the Prime Ministers of the day get off relatively lightly when it comes to their dirty dealings and imperial morality. Europeans only appear to have partially transcended their warmongering imperial pretensions in recent years – even after WWII they were still cruelly exploited the Far East and Africa. I suppose the difference was that the French kept winning against most rivals with breath-taking results one at a time and all at once. Winning for as long as Napoleon did – his rivals still hate that.

Bug is really hitting this one!

I responded at my usual great length and with profound erudition. It was there for a while but now vanished.

Probably on the ACW board now!

No, it is also on Discussion

Thanks Kevin. Always looking for balanced, broad perspective views of history (none of us can truly be without some bias but I like someone who tries) and it sounds like this might be one. From the passages you've quoted it sounds like the author is not white-washing Napoleon but rather suggesting that his contemporaries were no saints either.

Love a balanced view. Might have to get this one.

One man's "interesting" is another's "inflammatory".

Nothing new there.

How is it 'inflammatory'?

The silence is deafening…

Easy to toss out an opinion, more difficult to defend it.

Amazing, isn't it?

Perhaps some consider the material 'inflammatory' because it goes against long-held beliefs by an historian who has done the research and has based his conclusions on fact and not emotion or inherent national bias.