"The Limits of Glory. Sergei Bondarchuk’s Waterloo." Topic

I personally like the actors in the movie, accuracy of accurate character portrayal not withstanding.

Waterloo sparked my interest in Napoleonic wargaming. The battle scenes mesmerized me.

However, I recently watched it again and was less enamored. The first half of the film on Napoleon's return absolutely dragged on. The film Gettysburg had it right. Stick to the battle and ditch the backstory. Instead of The Return, the battles of Quatre Bras and Ligny should have been used. I understand those battles were filmed, but ditched in editing due to length. They should have ditched the long portrayal of Napoleon's return instead.

The film dod cous thematically on Napoleon's downfall, so I guess it did need to show the hubris that preceded it.

(To be honest, I never watch that section on return visits)

I admit I like some scenes, like when you see just the boots of the marshals when marching briskly to obtain the resignation of Boney in 1814, or when the command fire is ordered, Rod Steiger blinked for a moment and showed a small shudder, as said before Rod Steiger is my actor of choice for Boney in 1815.

The Guard Lancer Regiment did not charge the Scots Greys (line lancers and cuirassiers did); Maitland did not defeat the Old Guard attack on its own; and what was not depicted in the movie would fill a good-sized book.

By the way, Napoleon did not 'resign' he abdicated. There is a difference. And the entire abdication 'scene' was inaccurate. Marmont's defection did not cause the abdication, as Napoleon had already agreed to abdicate. What Marmont's actions did was in effect bring back the Bourbons and destroy the idea of a regency for Napoleon II.

There are plenty of faults for sure in Waterloo, but better with them than nothing. Between that and War & Peace they cemented my love for the Napoleonic era.

Brechtel, you're perfectly right on the way matters of fact, both in this film/movie and in many, many others, have been omitted or distorted; Marmont's rendition of his Corps is a fine example. There's no doubt but that it occurred, and that it was one significant event among several; Von Winterfeldt has recently mentioned the first Abdication, and, crucially, how the sense of impending confrontation is conveyed visually to all those people in the audience who aren't as aware of the sequence of events as are historians. To the great majority of viewers, a sense of the Empire collapsing is quickly conveyed by the lines about Marmont's defection (and, incidentally, introduces something about "The Prussians" to the audience); the extent of the Coalition by the line about "The Cossacks are watering their horses in the Seine", the desperate state of affairs generally by the furious instruction to train troops whilst on the march.

An effective dramatic production, and an accurate historical presentation, are not necessarily opposed, but then, as GBS said to a Hollywood mogul, "You talk of Art, Mr -------; I think of Money". If it's a case of telling a few thousand people a little more accurately what you mean, or a few million ticket-buyers a little less accurately, which choice do you think a Producer is going to make? At least a lot of the uniforms are more-or-less accurate. Mind you, that Cuirassier or Carabineer scrambling up a tiled roof with a flag…

Half a caisson is better than no shot at all. Good Luck.

I agree with 14 Bore, those are not academical historical movies – but mostly entertainment, I can still watch Waterloo, despite all those well known shortcomings – and enjoy several scenes.

What has poor old Marmont to do with this, he saved France and the lives of a lot of soldiers and civilians.

The tragedy of old S Bond is how limited was what he did with the facilities granted unto to him. Or rather what he sacrificed for his own self indulgence and "artistic licence".

I still love the Marshalls' boots sequence, Louis XVIII and leaving the Tuilleries, the columns marching where Rod Steiger wanders into the only muddy patch in a barren desert, the breakfast sequence in Le Caillou ("This one"…why? which he then leaves), the march down the hill to Hougomont, the Polish Lancers (however wrong) against Scots Greys, the cavalry against squares….not a lot after that.

But the insane sequences. Ney at Ligny with two standards, "Good Beans Wellington", madly speeded up cavalry charges by Scots Greys, French heavies and Prussian hussars, his terrible use of helicopter views of totally undirected chaos (at least he did not do cloud scenes this time) etc etc.

Plus, what he did miss out upon. Almost any suggestion of the humanity involved, other than one Inniskillin Irish eejet (who should not have been anywhere nearby before the battle). The gates of Hougomont, the suggestion that d'Erlon was stopped by anything other than bagpipes and a slow motion cavalry charge, the defence of LHS, any role for anyone not in a redcoat, Plancenoit, etc

I loved the film when I saw it at Leicester Square and, in those days, you could stay in all day. I watched it three times back to back (well, two and half times in truth). This was before any idea of home recording on any medium, so I thought I will never get to see this again. Hard for folk these days to realise that was how it seemed then, before VHS and Betamax and that other one whose name I now forget, best of the lot, tape….U Matic that was it!

This was before any idea of home recording on any medium, so I thought I will never get to see this again.

For exactly these reasons I sat through Logan's Run three times back to back, aged 12. I genuinely thought I might never see Jenny Agutter naked ever again. I can still feel the dismay. Somebody I know has met her. She's tall.

Nowadays I tot up how much enjoyable battle action there is in a movie, and if there's 10 minutes, I'm happy. If any of the rest of the movie is entertaining as well I'm even happier.

Pleasing movies on that basis have been Battle of Britain, 633 Squadron, A Bridge Too Far, Saving Private Ryan, and Fury. All flawed, but all entertaining for at least some of the time.

Incidentally there is a story behind the theme music to 633 Squadron. The composer was coming up completely empty of ideas so in despair he tapped out 1,2,3,4,5,6…1,2,3 on the keyboard and a score was born…

Maybe just a bit more sharing than we needed there, 4C.

Most British males of a certain age (my age) had a deep seated fear that they would never see Jenny Agutter naked again. And in spite of the usual moaning about what was and wasn't in "Waterloo", can't any of you just enjoy it as a magnificent pre-CGI spectacle?

She's playing a senior nun person now.

Oh, like Jennie Agutter, was Jamie Lee Curtis in Trading Places. What a moment that was and of absolutely no relevance to the subject discussed. Esp in this era of Political Correctness, but she was a big strapping lass. Or Liz Hurley in Sharpe….."My compliments mam" was all Sean Bean could say. Not sure I could have even managed that

Brechtel198

IMHO there was never a chance for a regency in favour of the King of Rome. The other allied powers would not want to give the Austrians that influence, any more than some of them would be happy with the Bourbons, who they saw as British puppets. What they definately did know is that they could never trust Napoleon to not make yet another power grab. He already had form for it (twice).

None but a complete narcissist would believe that in his position he could be permitted to dictate terms. That first offer was therefore probably just a sop to his ego, rather than a realistic proposal.

You are right though, an abdication is a resignation only in the sense of chess, ie it topples your monarch. I agree with you though, Marmont was an irrelevance. But we have to remember that we are watching an entertainment, not a documentary, and the Marmont line is a good plot device for the lay filmgoer. I have seen documentaries, many of them funded by Wieder et al, that are even further from anything resembling the truth than the Di Laurentis film is.

So sad about Sir Ian Holm, even if the mention of his Napoleon protrayals prompt me to envisage a dimiutive emperor with bare hairy feet in some strange Tolkein crossover!

Glad to see the movie is finally available in HD for video streaming. I guess the current craze in cord cutting is flushing stuff out of the closet.

Do we assume you mean "Waterloo', Dan?

IMHO there was never a chance for a regency in favour of the King of Rome. The other allied powers would not want to give the Austrians that influence, any more than some of them would be happy with the Bourbons, who they saw as British puppets. What they definately did know is that they could never trust Napoleon to not make yet another power grab. He already had form for it (twice).
None but a complete narcissist would believe that in his position he could be permitted to dictate terms. That first offer was therefore probably just a sop to his ego, rather than a realistic proposal.

You, once again, are incorrect historically, if not logically. The 'narcissist' comment is way out of line historically, unless, of course, you have interviewed the Emperor personally and found it to be true as to your 'training' in psychoanalysis.

I would heartily suggest, then, that you read Caulaincourt's memoirs which accurately portray the events leading up to Napoleon's unconditional abdication.

The marshal's 'mutiny' forced Napoleon's hand to abdicate, but that was an abdication in favor of his son with his wife as regent, which the marshals supported. They wanted nothing to do with the Bourbons.

Marmont's planned defection to the allies was unknown to the other marshals and Napoleon. Caulaincourt and a delegation of marshals went to see Alexander, who was afraid of what the Grande Armee might do and that it was solidly behind Napoleon. The marshals forwarded that viewpoint, which they also believed.

When negotiating with Alexander, news of Marmont's corps being led over to the allies by their commanders and without the knowledge of the junior officers and rank and file, reached Alexander, and that is what scuttled to plan to have a regency for Napoleon's son. Unconditional abdication, unfortunately, was the result.

See Armand Caulaincourt's memoir, No Peace With Napoleon, pages 131-195, especially.

The movie follows a practice in the industry of folding events that happened at different times into one scene. It is unfortunate, but I don't condemn a movie for doing this, so long as the broader themes are still followed.

As to events leading up to the 1814 unconditional abdication, I don't think the timeline is as simple as Kevin suggests.

IIRC The allies had already entered into a treaty to put and keep armies in the field. After capturing Paris, on March 31 the Allies issued a declaration to the French nation saying "they will no longer treat with Napoleon nor with any of his family". In response to this the French Senate approved Talleyrand's declaration deposing Napoleon, abolishing his family's right of succession and delcaring th French people and army absolved from their loyalty to Napoleon. Marmont's deal to withdraw his forces from the conflict were made in response to these actions and without apparent knowledge of any imminent abdication of Napoleon in favor of his son. Marmont's decision to withdraw his forces from the conflict and Napoleon's decision to abdicate in favor of his son were likely acts of independent significance.

So did Marmont's actions frustrate Napoleon's plan? When it comes to historical "what ifs" I am a believer of never say never. However I believe it is unlikely. Paris had already fallen, and had done so relatively cheaply and quickly. Marmont's forces were not strong enough to tip the balance in the favor of the emperor. The French government had already split. Under the circumstances I think the allies meand what they said and Caulaincourt's reading on what Alexander might be prepared to do was a bit optimistic.

Napoleon's son succeeding an abdicating Napoleon would IMO have required a military success. I don't see that likely.

As to events leading up to the 1814 unconditional abdication, I don't think the timeline is as simple as Kevin suggests.

Have you read Caulaincourt's memoir? If not, I suggest that it could help you understand the dynamics of the situation.

I'm somewhat bemused as to how any actor is going to present an 'honest' portrayal of Napoleon in a couple of hours if professional historians have spent two centuries arguing over the man. Every single one of them brings their own bias to their work (often because they have a book to sell or an academic career to progress), so why are we expecting a different standard of actors and directors?

On the upside, everyone should find at least one version of Napoleon they like here: link

Personally I'm a fan of the little people, hitting one another…

@ LBR

Was it not in the same movie that Napoleon complained about his staff standing around him while he was seated, because it was "like being at the bottom of a bloody well"?

@Brechtel198

Why would I want to have interviewed Napoleon personally? I'm not qualified to give an indicative opinion.

However, the professionals who analysed over 400 writings and direct quotes were. It is their judgement that this evidence displayed sufficient number of traits (well above the modern diagnostic criteria) to warrant the attribution, on balance of probability, that Napoleon was more than likely a functioning narcissist.

I'm well aware of a narcissist's charisma and abilities at self-promotion. For that reason I don't restrict myself to only giving credibility to accolytes, sychophants and hagiographers, but prefer a broader canvas with more diversity.

Caulaincourt was operating from inside the 'bubble' and if old soldiers's memoires are sometimes fanciful, political memoires require industrial quantities of sodium chloride. Are you really saying he was an objective and neutral witness with no agenda? That would be an incredibly naive position. I broadly agree with Bill N's assessment. The Allies had already agreed their position and would continue to play their hand.

Napoleon was a gambler holding a busted flush.
Without credible forces and the support of the political machinery, the technicalities of what Napoleon did or didn't do, or the opinions of his suite, were largely irrelevant.

If you want to set yourself up as the gatekeeper of the Imperial Sacred Memory, then that's fine. More power to your elbow, but for me it is an edge case with little merit.

I did not diagnose Napoleon as a narcissist, just have a mind open enough to not dismiss out of hand the opinion of highly qualified and experienced professionals, after they had carried out a thorough analysis of the available evidence.

But remember, you never met him either. So that makes us even, and your opinion no more valid than mine.

It was indeed 4th Cuirassier. I saw Time Bandits at school, aged around 10. Obvious indoctrination by the headteacher.

Mind you I think my favourite was Evil and his casual zapping of minions, as well as the model for the fortress. The little details like abandoned buckets and ladders which you wouldn't get with CGI.

I have read more Caulaincourt than I care to Kevin, but have not read his contemporaneous notes in the original French. Here's my thoughts.

Caulaincourt was not with the Allies during critical periods of time. He is making his judgments based on snapshots rather than based on the full course of events.

Caulaincourt was not a disinterested observer.

Caulaincourt was dealing with the Tsar in April, 1814. He was not dealing with the Allies collectively. Even if the Tsar might have been initially won over to the idea of a regency in favor of the King of Rome, Britain, Prussia and Austria would also have to be sold on the idea.

I don't think Caulaincourt was aware the extent to which the Tsar was playing his own game.

My take a regency in favor of the King of Rome was not undermined by Marmont agreeing to remove his troops from the conflict. It wasn't undermined by the French marshals confronting Napoleon. It was undermined when Talleyrand told the Tsar that France would either have to have Napoleon or the Bourbons. If the idea of a regency in favor of the King of Rome had been floated earlier it might have had a chance. Napoleon played the card too late.

Talleyrand was playing his own game for his benefit, not France's, which was completely in character for him.

He is the one who influenced Marmont to turn traitor.

The marshals and Caulaincourt went to the allies, and particularly Alexander, to support a regency for Napoleon II.
Marmont was with them. And then Marmont's corps was led over to the allies which convinced Alexander that the army did not support Napoleon, which was not true.

If you don't agree with Caulaincourt's account, then I suggest you find something credible to support your opinion. If you can't or won't, then Caulaincourt's account stands as written.

It's often instructive, and sometimes amusing, to observe how writers of various kinds, when ostensibly discussing and analysing previous periods, nevertheless reveal at the same time something of the concerns and preoccupations of their own.

That is not how it works Kevin. If a source is biased or flawed there is no requirement that a contrary source be produced which refutes it. That you believe Caulaincourt's representations and assessments are accurate does not mean that I am required to. My reasons for not accepting them are stated. I have made my assessment based on the totality of what was happening from the fall of Paris to Napoleon's final abdication.

I do agree with you that Talleyrand was playing his own game.

If you don't believe that a source is valid, it is then necessary, I believe, to show how it is so. And just saying the contrary does not support a logical historical argument.

That is how it works.

And I believe that your 'assessment' is in error. There is a timeline that you are ignoring as well as first person narrative.

The following on Caulaincourt's memoirs are in Appendix A of Vincent Cronin's biography of Napoleon, 447-448:

'We now come to three works by upright men: day-to-day records, which therefore have a high degree of immediacy and authenticity. They are the Journal of General Desaix, with whom Napoleon had intimate conversations during the Italian campaign; the Journal of Roederer, valuable for the whole Consular period; and Caulaincourt's Memoirs, the fate of which throws light on the vicissitudes of Napoleonic material.'

'About 1826 Caulaincourt, suffering from cancer of the stomach, went to take the waters at Plonbieres. There he met Charlotte de Sor, alias Madame Eillaux, a novelist. She questioned him about Napoleon and persuaded him to show her certain pages of his manuscript Memoirs. Caulaincourt died in 1827; ten years later Charlotte de Sor published a two-volume Souvenirs du Duc de Vicenze. So successful were they that she followed them up with two more volumes, again purporting to be based on Caulaincourt's papers.'

'Caulaincourt's authentic Memoirs were published only in 1933, admirabley edited by Jean Hanoteau, who was then abnle to describe Sor's books as a 'tissue of absurdities,' untruths and spiteful words, the historical value of which is nil.' Yet they had been freely used by previous biographers of Napoleon! Caulaincourt's Memoirs, written between 1822 and 1825, are based on notes taken daily when he was in touch with Napoleon. The two men disagreed about many things, including the character of Tsar Alexander, but Napoleon, in St Helena, called his former Grand Squire 'a man who is both sensitive and upright', and his Memoirs are among the most valuable sources we have.'

Kevin you have it backwards. If the validity of a source is questioned, then to the extent there is a burden of proof, it falls on the person who is offering up the source. Reasons for questioning a source are not limited to other sources containing conflicting information or assessments. It can include ability of the source to properly observe as well as the bias of the source.

I have stated my reasons for questioning Caulaincourt's assessment on the conditional offer of abdication. Caulaincourt was only with the allies for a limited period during the relevant time frame, and his dealings were largely with the Tsar during that period. Caulaincourt was also present as the representative of Napoleon trying to sell the plan. I don't believe either of these are challenged. That these are not sufficient reasons for YOU to doubt the validity of Caulaincourt's assessment of the conditional offer of abdication does not mean they are insufficient for others to reasonably doubt Caulaincourt's assessment.

Lets assume for a moment though that the Tsar was interested in the offer. It wasn't an offer that he alone could accept. The Tsar's decision was whether to refer the offer to the King of Prussia and the representatives of the United Kingdom and of Austria, or whether to reject it outright as inconsistent with the stated allied policy of refusing to treat with Napoleon or his family. The decision by the allies would have been considered in the light of Paris having already fallen and of a split in the French government having already occurred. The allies may have also been aware of French sebacks in southwest France. Napoleon was. Plus Caulaincourt has been betting the entire time that the allies won't learn of the dissent within the ranks of the French military leadership. When they met each allied leader/representative would have been aware that if some but not all of the allies accepted the offer, the result could be Napoleon continuing in power.

Was it possible the King of Rome could have succeeded his father. I see one way. Napoleon finds a suitable marshal to serve as Constable of France. Napoleon then unconditionally abdicates, which under Imperial law of succession would make the King of Rome Emperor. The Constable then declares the King of Rome Emperor which the army at Fontainbleau recognizes. At that point Caulaincourt is dispatched by the Constable to the Tsar to present the abdication and succession as an accomplished fact, and to further state that the Constable will be unconditionally delivering Napoleon into the allies control within a day or two. Now at this point any of the allied leaders could choose to leave the war secure in the knowledge that Napoleon would not be in power. With Napoleon physically in their control how many of the allies other than Britain would be willing to continue fighting to place a Bourbon on the throne?

…you have it backwards. If the validity of a source is questioned, then to the extent there is a burden of proof, it falls on the person who is offering up the source. Reasons for questioning a source are not limited to other sources containing conflicting information or assessments. It can include ability of the source to properly observe as well as the bias of the source.

Your ideas are not only illogical, they are ahistorical and contrary to both historical methodology and historical inquiry.

You have offered nothing to contradict the source given, and support for Caulaincourt has also been provided.

And you have offered nothing but uninformed opinion on the subject.

@Brechtel198

I agree 100% with Bill N

"you have it backwards. If the validity of a source is questioned, then to the extent there is a burden of proof, it falls on the person who is offering up the source. Reasons for questioning a source are not limited to other sources containing conflicting information or assessments. It can include ability of the source to properly observe as well as the bias of the source."

There are no impartial contempraneous observers. So what they produce as a source will have been written for an audience, even if it was a diary entry for themselves in which case their audience is their ego. Either way, we have to understand the perspective from which it comes and the motivations of the writer. That is the bedrock of correct historical methodology and good historical enquiry.

Credibility (or otherwise) is your opinion as to degree, it isn't, nor ever can be, a binary "fact". There are forensics we can apply, archeological evidence for example. Experimental data can refute apocryphy. ce is in error or perhaps being disingenuous It is not a competition of one source over another, they are all faulty to a varying extent, and it is our judgement that is in play.

Cognitive biases and heuristics are a part of the human condition. That is a fact. I have them. Caulincourt had them. Kevin F Kiley has them. Any enquiry that fails to take account of them really is truly ahistorical.

You choose to believe Caulaincourt's opinions and assessments realtively wholesale? Bill and I are choosing to be more skeptical because he was an actor in the drama and had his own agends. We believe he may not have known what he thought he knew anyway. Both camps are perfectly valid and fit the facts.

I've said it many times, this is not a game of sources top trumps and there is no need to win. Or accuse people of being uninformed or ahistorical when all they have done is draw a different conclusion to your own.

I was thinking about having tee shirts made up saying "I was called uninformed and ahistorical by ,,,," and selling them at history cons. The back side will depict water off a duck's back. I think there is a market.

Bill N out.

I agree 100% with Bill N

I'm shocked.

"I was thinking about having tee shirts made up saying "I was called uninformed and ahistorical by ,,,," and selling them at history cons. The back side will depict water off a duck's back. I think there is a market."
Given the evidence of the last 2895 days on this Forum, you'll need a massive production run?

It`s rather tatty, but much loved; my copy of the souvenir programme …from a time when going to "the pictures" in Tottenham Court Road was a special event!

I was thinking about having tee shirts made up saying "I was called uninformed and ahistorical by…

I have discovered over the years of historic discussion here and on other forums, that the last thing some do if they cannot support their position factually they resort to ridicule or mockery which undoubtedly indicates the historic bankruptcy of their previous arguments.

A pity we can't even discuss a film here without the same old arguments and acrimony…

@mc

Super Find!

I still have my copy bought the day the film opened at the Odeon in Leeds and treasured ever since.

And, by the way, 2895 days of "I'm right, you're 're all wrong" isn't "discussion".

@MichaelCollinsHimself and @ConnaughtRanger

It is to my eternal shame that I swapped mine for some Marvel comics. :(

Whatever happened to that film franchise I wonder….

Oh the capriciousness of youth! I wasn't to know it was going to become a lifelong obsession. Must keep an eye out if any come up.

Did you both go on to get the book? I'm on my third copy, because I kept reading them until they fell apart!

@Brechtel198

You might find the following useful

YouTube link

It's designed for children, but then again I was a child when I learned it, and it hasn't become any less useful.

@Brechtel198

The following one is quite good too

YouTube link

And your point is what? It seems to me that the two videos are describing what is common among those who continually denigrate Napoleon and the French, including the Grande Armee.

And in that endeavor those who do that tend to personally attack those who admire Napoleon and the Grande Armee.

Sound familiar?

As a footnote, addressing bias and assessing source material is part of any good history courses, especially on the graduate level. It certainly was in mine.

And I hope that you took note of what was in the videos and then review your postings because to my mind your postings and opinions are excellent examples of what the videos were addressing.

I have a very strange little book "Waterloo" by Frederick E Smith (also wrote the book 633 Squadron). It is, it says "Based on the screenplay by H.A.L. Craig for the epic Dino de Laurentiis production directed by etc". Published 1970. It develops a few of the minor characters from the film eg a grenadier from the Garde or the Innisklling private, who were cut out of the film or at least heavily edited.

I found it-do you recommend getting it?

I used to have a copy – the short answer is no, unless you collect film memorabilia.

Thanks!

@Brechtel198

I think you somewhat miss the point. The video was about the perspectives and biases of the sources. So in this debate the it's Caulaincourt's perspectives we are talking about, and the relevance or not of his insights as a source.

It fundamentally is NOT about you and I. All observers have biases and we are no different. However, it does not follow that all differences of opinion are the result of them. It is perfectly okay to come to two different yet equally valid interpretations from the same sources.

I don't know where you get this idea that I'm anti-Napoleon from. It's just that I'm interested in Napoleon the man, not the legend. If anything, I tend to believe that the real Napoleon was more of a victim of his own legendary status rather than a villian. I think we do him a dis-service to continually put him on a pedestal that no human being can ever balance on indefinately.

Yes, I agree that he was probably a narcissist, but I'm not being perjorative. I would suggest we should regard it as a neurotype rather than a disorder. However, it would put some of the traditional "corsican ogre" comments in a different light. Of course, he was an extremely high functioning narcissist. If anything though it also goes a long way to explain some of his shortcomings in 1815. Certainly much longer than the blaming of mud, Grouchy or Ney anyway.

Fundamentally though if you want to engage in a proper debate about the real Napoleon, you have to give up the idea of being the keeper of the eternal flame for him. Otherwise, there is a cognitive dissonance. The greatest military genius of all time vs someone who lost a battle, lost a campaign, lost the peace, lost a throne and ended up dying a prisoner on a mid-atlantic rock. "You cannot prove a negative is the cry", "Whatever is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", comes the reply. So the rather pointless dance goes on…..

Of course, they can both be true if you let Napoleon be a man, with all the faults and fallibilities that come with that job title. Hostage to the same fates as anyone else. It is, however, an irreverent if not necessarily an unsympathetic approach.

The legend however can never stand for it, and leaves those who defend it to turn intellectual cartwheels to try and reconcile the irreconcilable. I don't know if it's the romance or whether Napoleon's charisma does indeed reach out beyond the grave. It is for others to explain their own motivations. What I do know is that every attempt to introduce even the slightest note of realism is attacked as slander.

Well, the dead cannot be defamed. History, in it's huge sweep must inevitably be a much sterner judge than any contemporary source would be.

If anything, I believe those who defend Napoleon's legend are actually belittling him. They are forcing him to be seen at the end of the 100 days as a tragic and pathetic figure. Those who look beyond the legend get to marvel at the talent that defied the odds for so long, and that admiration is not diminished when his luck finally runs out.

Very few sportsmen and women quit when they are at the top. Many go to one too many olympics, have one too many fights or end up as the 4 times world champion being the number 2 driver in a team. For Napoleon, Waterloo was the result of one campaign too many and denying that tarnishes the rest of his achievements.

Ultimately, I believe I'm doing the Emperor a greater service than you are. But there you go.

An interesting choice of words in this comparison:

'those who denigrate Napoleon'

'those who admire Napoleon'