"Napoleon and the Verdict of Biography: A Conversation" Topic

… with Historian Adam Zamoyski.

"…Today we're going to be talking about his new monumental biography of Napoleon, simply entitled Napoleon: A Life. Zamoyski was educated at the Downside School, and later he received his degrees from Queens College at Oxford University. He received the master of arts in honors in 1974. Thereafter he set about the task of being a writing historian, and that is exactly what he has done, writing well over a dozen influential books about European history and the figures behind that history. But he's also looked at the big ideas and the big themes. He has sought to integrate, to understand, to make connections as you look at civilization, culture, and history. And at least in my mind, to understand history as Adam Zamoyski approaches it, is to understand that he is also Count Zamoyski. He is the son of a very aristocratic Polish family. He has walked the history that he writes about, and his family has been very much involved. Most of us do not have a similar kind of story, not written large on the canvas of history. But in our own way, we cannot remove ourselves from the story.

I'm looking forward to this conversation with historian Adam Zamoyski. Adam Zamoyski was kind to speak to us today from his home in London. Adam Zamoyski, welcome to Thinking In Public.

Albert Mohler: I guess in one sense, anyone who writes a major biography of Napoleon has to explain why. So I'll just start there. Why this massive almost 700 page biography of Napoleon published in the year 2018, 2019?…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

An interesting article. Since I have the author's Rites of Peace and 1812 Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow, his English version Napoleon, The Man Behind The Myth is on my list to buy, albeit not at the top of the list.

Although I welcome titles covering Napoleon and anything else to do with the Napoleonic period, I always feel unsure about an author that attempts to know how great historical characters (whoever they are), thought or why they achieved what they did. It can't be done. Any author that attempts this is only offering his own viewpoint and interpretation of events and the historical character.

And the interview suggests the author was not keen to write about Napoleon in the first place, which does not make the title attractive or more appealing to potential customers. In fact, I would go as far to say he only wrote it or agreed to write it to go against Andrew Robert's best selling and prize winning book on Napoleon. He may have been jealous of Robert's success with that title.

And from what he states in the article, I think I will probably find quite a bit to disagree with. For example, his suggestion that Napoleon should have stayed in France in 1815, rather than attempt the almost successful defeat of two allied armies in Belgium. He was already outnumbered, so anything he did would be a gamble and I think it would have been a poor gamble had he waited until he became massively outnumbered when the Russian, Austrian and other allied armies arrive to join up with the British and Prussian armies. Plus, I doubt Napoleon wanted France fought over again, as in 1814. I also disagree with his viewpoint concerning Poland. Napoleon created a Polish state, the Duchy of Warsaw.

And before anyone can accuse me of only buying and reading books that are positive towards Napoleon, I own and have read titles that negative towards him, included Alan Schom's 'balanced insight' version. LOL

Happy you like it my good friend! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand