"Napoleon as Psychopath / Balanced study deflates..." Topic

… the emperor's legend.

"Although hundreds of books have been written about Napoleon Bonaparte, there has been no comprehensive biography in English of this extraordinary figure who, more than any other, revolutionized the history of modern Europe -- none, that is, until "Napoleon Bonaparte," a meticulously researched volume by historian Alan Schom.

Avoiding the commonplace extremes of Napoleonic scholarship, which tend toward deification by the French and demonization by the British, Schom presents the upstart French Emperor as a military and political genius motivated almost exclusively by love of glory. In fact, in an appendix on Napoleon's medical history, Schom claims the emperor, like many who have aspired to absolute power, fits the definition of a psychopath…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I don't think I'd go so far as psychopath.

I'm reading Zamoyski's "Napoleon" at the moment and one thing that comes through is his temper and his ability to abuse people verbally…and then apologise and try to make it up to them afterwards. I also remember from an account of his marshals that Napoleon admitted that he had treated one very badly. I can't remember who, but I'm pretty sure it was one of those more inclined to tell him what he needed to hear. Other examples too…his concern for Jospephine after their divorce…his reluctance to execute a would-be assassin…etc

It seems to me that the further you get from 1805 the less there is to admire about him and the more there is there is to deplore, but I don't see psychopathy appearing it on the list.

I don't trust psychological diagnoses when they have the victim in front of them, much less at a range of 200 years. But I wouldn't care to be standing between Napoleon and whatever he wanted, whatever the rights of the thing. By the end, I wouldn't even want to be the person who told Napoleon an unwelcome truth.

I am also intrigued by the notion of Talleyrand being concerned with the fate of France. Talleyrand's concerns began and ended with the fate of Talleyrand.

I don't trust psychological diagnoses when they have the victim in front of them, much less at a range of 200 years.

Robert Piepenbrink doesn't go far enough. The facile use of psychiatric terms should be rejected in any historical work. By all means discuss whether Napoleon was all sweetness and light in his dealings with others or was a mean SoB but leave the armchair Freud out of it.

All great generals…perhaps even just merely competent ones..and maybe even some incompetent ones…could arguably be seen as psychopathic to some degree. Egotistical? Lacking in empathy? Enamoured of violence? If they did not have these qualities – at least a little bit – they couldn't do their job and their troops would suffer. Somewhat psychopathic is essential but greatly psychopathic or greatly empathetic traits in a commander are disasters for an army.

Its by Schom!!!

Says it all, total waste of money and reading time! I bought the last biography of Napoleon he wrote, a few years ago now. Read the first 3 or 4 chapters and then quite literally threw it in the bin. Only book I've ever bought that I threw away as utter rubbish and drivel.

Yep, just as when I see a book touted as 'the truth at last' or something similar in relation to a famous battle or campaign, I avoid books that are going to try to apply current medical theory to someone dead for more than 50 years.

Or nearly 200 in this case.

Pass.

nothing there to deflate, his personal disorders are quite evident, narcissistic, egocentric, megalomaniac, not necessarily a psychopath but personal disorders – evident.

Glup!….

Amicalement
Armand

I'm waiting for the book that reveals Napoleon was actually Jack the Ripper.

You mean Jacques le ripper.
Everybody knows Napoleon was just the reanimated corpse of Charles XII, why else would he march into Russia unless it was an attempt to settle a 100 year old score.
Also explains why he was so willing to sacrifice so many Frenchmen.

Gunny, if you can believe the book in the OP, you can believe any of this stuff.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Schom's book is the most inaccurate picture of Napoleon I have ever seen. It is poorly researched and is fit only for the dust bin.

And this 'review' is from 1998.

What is interesting and I don't know if we can find it now, but there was an interview on C-Span after the book came out with Schom and that was more telling than the book itself.

Also explains why he was so willing to sacrifice so many Frenchmen.

I don't suppose you could try to explain that comment? Better than that, why were the allied nations 'willing to sacrifice' so many of their own people.

Except, of course, for the British as they preferred to be the coalition paymasters.

Because as the reanimated corpse of a swedish king, he doesn't care about sacrificing frenchmen.

That's right Kevin. Because from 1792 to 1815 the British were known for avoiding action with the French either by land or by sea.

The British did not 'invest' in a large field army during the period. And, like the French, had numerous foreign units in the army.

'Out of a population of almost 15 million in the British Islands alone in 1809, England mustered fewer than 300,000 regulars, including foreign and colonial troops.'-John Elting, Swords Around A Throne, 505.

Because as the reanimated corpse of a swedish king, he doesn't care about sacrificing frenchmen.

Some people seem unable to accept this evident fact;-)).

Elting is wrong as usual, better consult Bamford

Oh hang on.

Define psychopath. Is this the layman's term as in Hitchcock, or the strict "medical" definition?

The basic inability to empathise with others leads to the characteristics that make for great generals (alas). It leads to the arrogance about his competence (well founded, but hardly endearing) that made Wellington great. It made Monty competent (given massive resources). It made MacArthur…well, famous anyway, however competent.

Let me get back to defining what is meant.

Did Napoleon ever apologize for anything without qualification?

Elting is wrong as usual…

Nonsense.

You might try to cite Bamford if you disagree with Col Elting. That would be the best course of action.

How did a comment that Bonaparte might have been a psychopath degenerate into a re-heated criticism of British foreign policy?

Oh, yeah: welcome back Kevin. Charming as ever.

Whatever Napoleon was, everyone danced to his tune.

The British contributed a lot and are a fascinating part of the wars. However, I do not understand why there seems to be a type of British gamer who seems to be very angry with Napoleon. Further, some of them suffer from some sort of unjustified superiority complex because they were on the "winning" side. Not sure that that side was an actual blow for freedom or proof of of anything beyond luck or a form of Materialschlacht.

Minipigs, beating the French has been a part of our national subconscious for a thousand years!

Not sure why anyone would be angry with Napoleon though? He lost…

yes he was a good looser, he made England great.

Isn't the relatively small regular British army of the period a bit misleading? You should also include the Yeomanry and other ‘home defence' units – as the only European nation not invaded by someone else during the Napoleonic wars, there wasn't the need to introduce conscription or restructure the armed forces.

From memory, there were about 20k Yeomanry and 120k in the RN?

Furthermore, as the most industrialised nation in Europe, as a result of this structure, there wasn't the drain on economic manpower, enabling the British to fund both its navy and also provide financial support to its allies – so it made sense to keep the armed forces small and ‘fight by other means'.

But what's this got to do with the OP about Napoleon being a psychopath?

Cerdic:Minipigs, beating the French has been a part of our national subconscious for a thousand years!

Not sure why anyone would be angry with Napoleon though? He lost…

I dont know either but it does seem that there are a few British posters (enough to make me notice) who act like it all happened a week ago. It's just odd how defensive some British gamers can be about their role in that and other periods.

Americans like the French (Well, the non redneck-y ones)and like the fact that Napoleon was trying to spread some modern principles of liberty. I dont think of it too politically because I like both the British AND the French role in the SYW/AWI/Napoleonic Wars but, again, it does seem like some British gamers get way too excited about it.

Isn't the relatively small regular British army of the period a bit misleading? You should also include the Yeomanry and other ‘home defence' units

yes indeed,in case you look at the man power commitments of the regular army, the number in 1809 is about 213,000 according to Bamford – not including colonial troops – and only manpower deployment by theatre.

Attempting to paint Napoleon as some liberating force for which Europe should be forever grateful really is one of the most spurious arguments put forward by chroniclers such as Elting et al.

There is no doubt that the man was at times a military genius, especially earlier in tbe piece and a brief flash toward the end of 1814, but to suggest that all of Europe apart from the monarchical heads of state were sitting by and hoping for French "emancipation" is stupidity. One of the reasons the French army was able to march so quickly across Europe was its policy that troops should not have to wait for the supply train to catch up and were free to "secure" supplies from the local populace. The gratitude of Prussian, Russian and Spanish peasantry toward the Napoleon's expansionist policies is well recorded.

And despite the ruthless plunder and money demands France was in a pitiful state as shocked Russian officers noticed in 1814.

How did a comment that Bonaparte might have been a psychopath degenerate into a re-heated criticism of British foreign policy?

Yes, on the one hand strange and on the other hand, stunningly predictable.

Anyway, some degree of psychopathy isn't 'that' uncommon, in particular amongst certain groups: link . There isn't anything wildly unlikely about the possibility of Napoleon being psychopathic, since he was a pretty unusual person by all accounts. Van Creveld called him "the most competent person who ever lived" :it isn't that far-fetched to consider that part of the reason for that is that he wasn't wasting time thinking about how the other guy was feeling. His diplomatic behaviour and policy seem never to be designed to achieve a sustainable "both sides benefit" equilibrium.

@ Brechtel

Elting's number appears to exclude the headcount of both the militia and the Royal Navy, so is highly misleading.

If you take a look at the reference, pages 504-505, you'll notice that Col Elting is referring to the British army, including in his total regulars, foreign troops, and colonial troops.

He doesn't include the Royal Navy and the militia.

@ Brechtel

So the number's not fit for purpose then.

@ deadhead

You're quite right to bring this up. A psychopath in the colloquial sense is just an unpleasant person, whereas in the clinical sense, it's AIUI someone (inter alia) deficient in empathy to the point where it results in harmful behaviour.

An effective military commander could clinically speaking be somewhere on the spectrum, I suppose. Military decisions often set out to cause unpleasant consequences that the commander must be prepared to overlook. A bit of genuine psychopathy might be helpful in making decisions that get people killed. But you can train commanders to think as required, and in any case I find it hard to believe that it's actually necessary or always net beneficial for a commander to be a psychopath. A good general will actually think himself into the enemy's shoes and anticipate him, for example. This requires a form of empathy, and hence an actual clinical psychopath would surely be worse at this than most.

Almost by definition, anyone following Napoleon's career trajectory has an unusual mindset.

So the number's not fit for purpose then.

Why? It concerned the British Army and I don't see anything wrong with the total taken in context.

Have you read the book?

Sure, about 10 years ago. I'm not questioning whether he says that or whether it's accurate as far as it goes. What I'm challenging is your claim that "the British…preferred to be the coalition paymasters", which apparently relies on the size of Britain's field army to prove that as this was so small, the main and preferred contribution was the monetary one.

I'm pointing out that this is a completely bogus basis for comparison. The better metric of military commitment is total military commitment, including militia and naval forces. Otherwise we could equally well conclude that the Austrian, Prussian and Russian contributions to the wars were nugatory because they preferred to avoid fighting any sea battles. The only power that took the war to France at sea, defeated its fleets and wrecked its trade, was Britain, so that by 1815 the French navy was constructively destroyed (see footnote page 26 link). Nobody else did anything of note.

In fact, if we're going to exclude militia, we'd better exclude the Landwehr numbers from the Prussian army's contribution as well, because if we're only counting regulars on land, we should be consistent.

Elting is very misleading by downplaying the Royal Navy and the militia and the colonial troops, then quite another figure would turn up and show the commitment of Britain in manpower as well – context and no manipulation.

Indeed. If the only military contribution that counts is the number of regulars, then Prussia only fielded 40,000 men at Ligny and brought a mere 15,000 to Waterloo. The 2/3rds of Bulow's IV Corps who were Landwehr don't count and weren't there. It would surprise them to learn this no doubt.

The 2/3rds of Bulow's IV Corps who were Landwehr don't count and weren't there. It would surprise them to learn this no doubt.

And where was this stated?

Constructively, you said it, Kevin. You maintained that the relative size of the British military contribution to overthrowing Napoleon was a function of the size of its regular forces.

If so, then to be consistent you'd have to exclude the contribution of all but regular army units from all other counts too. In which case, the Prussian militia who fought in 1815 and prior, and who made up 2/3rds of Bulow's Corps at Waterloo, don't count, because we aren't counting militia. Pouf, they're gone.

Alternatively you could gracefully concede that your original proposition was nonsensical.

What are you talking about?

I posted that the British regular army, including foreign and colonial troops, was 300,000.

Where were the British militia units deployed during the period?

The Prussian Landwehr were raised and organized to fight, the British militia undoubtedly were not.

There is nothing 'nonsensical' about my postings in this thread.

This posting is not only 'nonsensical' to use your term, but it is a misrepresentation of what I have posted:

Constructively, you said it, Kevin. You maintained that the relative size of the British military contribution to overthrowing Napoleon was a function of the size of its regular forces.

Let's just recap, shall we?

Kevin wrote:
why were the allied nations 'willing to sacrifice' so many of their own people.
Except, of course, for the British as they preferred to be the coalition paymasters.

To which I replied:
That's right Kevin. Because from 1792 to 1815 the British were known for avoiding action with the French either by land or by sea.

You then replied:
The British did not 'invest' in a large field army during the period. And, like the French, had numerous foreign units in the army.
'Out of a population of almost 15 million in the British Islands alone in 1809, England mustered fewer than 300,000 regulars…'

So your definition of what's a "a large field army" is based on how many regulars the army contained. This is apparently the entire basis of your claim that the British, unlike other European nations, were not "willing to sacrifice" their people and preferred to spend money instead.

I pointed out to you that this does not include militia or naval personnel and you agreed that it
doesn't include the Royal Navy and the militia.

So the figure you rely on is one we agree to be an incomplete total that omits the militia (around 55,000 in 1805), the volunteers (212,000 in 1805), and the Royal Navy (120,000). So the total number of men under arms was not Elting's 300,000 but nearer 700,000. That's not including the substantial manpower commitment in the merchant service, who were men unavailable to the armed forces.

You can't have it both ways. Either navies, militias and other don't count as military effort, in which case for consistency they don't count in any other country's case either, or they don't. If the former is your assertion, and a rather eccentric one it would be, then in tallying the Prussian contribution at Waterloo we must on this basis exclude the militia. This means they contributed not 50,000 men but about a third of that. Likewise Wellington was heavily out numbered by Napoleon because we don't count the militiamen who formed part of his field army in his total. Similarly, there were no opolchenie at Borodino, and no Austrian Landwehr at Wagram.

If on the other hand you insist you don't mean that, and you concede that all forces including militia do need to be included, then the actual British effort was well over double the number you previously claimed. And Britain contributed the uniforms, weapons and money that ensured a number of her allies were able to contribute anything worth a damn themselves.

So over to you. Do you agree militia and naval forces count, or not? If so why use such a nonsensically misleading figure as Elting's?

For bonus points, could the smaller size of the British regular army compared to that of others have anything to do with the fact that unlike anyone else Britain wasn't constantly invading and conquering her neighbours?

The question remains: How many British militia units were deployed to Europe, India, or North America to fight during the wars?

French National Guard units and Prussian Landwehr were employed to fight were they not?

Except, of course, for the British as they preferred to be the coalition paymasters.

Didn't we do this before? Le Breton totally demolished this one forever: TMP link

Brechtel

Where were the British militia units deployed during the period?

If you don't know the answers to this may I suggest you do a little research on the subject which may both inform and surprise you? You should also try researching the Yeomanry, Volunteer Infantry, Artillery and Cavalry.

Didn't we do this before? Le Breton totally demolished this one forever: TMP link

yes indeed – alas another worthwhile contributor who left TMP

So both parts of Kevin's eccentric claim – that Britain shirked fighting and paid others to do it – now lie in ruins.