Napoleon, was he that great?

[Incongruous]

Robert Harvey certainly does not seem to think so, whether through his own opinion or through the evidence he gives.
In The War Of Wars Harvey really does give Boney's reputation and Myth a good thrashing, showing him to be considered by his more able Marshals as nothing but an equal, a partner in the splitting of Europes spoils. A maniac autocrat of the first order (he is most damning of his supression of the constitution by force) who were it not for the Scheming Talleyrand and Fuche would be lost on International and even national polotics. Was averse to any kind of peace as his power rested upon a wartime army and national cohesion.
Indeed in some of his private letters and accounts of his meetings with those with whom he was displeased. he comes across as childlike and politically inept.

I am no expert and I doubt any of us are but I still would ask for you're interpretation of Nappy.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I'm also no expert, but I must say that I've been searching hard to find anything brilliant enough to compensate his many and huge mistakes.

[Incongruous]

Austerlitz was a very great feat of arms and silenced an Empire for Years.
However it could not counterwigh I think his greatest mistakes in the proclomation of 1808 in Prussia.

[Geoffrey S]

Defining Napoleon by his wartime miltary feats, which should also not be underestimated, is hardly the way to judge the man, the same way as it'd be inappropriate to do so with Churchill or Stalin. What he did was create a modern state from near anarchy, setting the basis in laws and borders throughout western Europe which has been built upon since.

[Fragony]

Question should be was he the greatest. The man was a genius.

[KARTLOS]

after costing ewurope thusands of lives he ultimately achieed nothing and ended his life a hopeless failure. i have never understood why anyone respects the the dirty little midget.

[Spino]

Rather than read Robert Harvey, a relatively new author to the crowded Napoleonic scene who may be looking to make a name for himself by resorting to the usual Bonaparte bashing you might want to read a few books by David Chandler, an historian who is widely considered to be one of the few experts on Napoleon.

I have to agree with the 'Napoleon was a nigh genius/genius' crowd. When Napoleon was on top of his game he was almost untouchable.

The problem with saying that some of Napoleon's ablest Marshals were on par with their emperor is that some of them they truly were, at least in some aspects, on par with Napoleon. Once the reforms of the Revolution took place the French army became a meritocratic machine that produced the best officers and non-commissioned officers of that era. "A (marshal's) baton in every backpack" was a popular term in the French army of that period. Desaix was considered a true peer and rival of Napoloen and might have gone on to become Consul had he not been killed at the battle of Marengo. Davout, although he hailed not from poor or bourgeois beginnings but from 'landless' nobility, is considered by most military historians to be Napoleon's best Marshal and possessed a knack for martial, administrative and intelligence gathering matters that rivaled Napoleon's. Suchet and Lannes were also extremely capable and effective Marshals whose talents and skills were quite numerous

Looking purely at Napoleon's military endeavors keep in mind it took the combined efforts of the major powers of Europe to bring the man down... and this was accomplished in no small part thanks to Napoleon's mammoth ego that ultimately superseded his genius and lay the groundwork for the disasters that led to his eventual downfall.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Question should be was he the greatest. The man was a genius.

Normally, a genius has associated with him a number of great achievements. Newton making his models of physics and progress within the field of calculus, and Leonardo da Vinci essentially invented everything that was invented in the coming 300 years after his death. Aristotle wrote down the rules of logic, and Sun Tzu summarized the most important knowledge about warfare. But - what great feat did Napoleon do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F...ientes_023.jpg
http://www.marxist.com/images/storie...eat_moscow.jpg
http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/How...C12180863.jpeg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:B...8_brumaire.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Im...ial_throne.jpg

[Fragony]

after costing ewurope thusands of lives he ultimately achieed nothing and ended his life a hopeless failure. i have never understood why anyone respects the the dirty little midget.

Well he conquered europe, must be my more primal instics but I say that is quite an achievement. Read a diary of a french soldier (god was it terrible) how the people and soldiers in particular reacted to him, he was a force of nature that is rare. Besides his legendary military expertise he was also an icon, and what have we seen since him?

Damn you Spino you stole my point

[Peasant Phill]

I'm not particulary familiar with Napoleons' military skill, so I won't comment on that. I am however familiar with Napoleons' administrative achievements and I don't think that there are many that can rival with him on that aspect.

Some simple examples:

French and Belgian law (and probably others) is firmly based on that wich Napoleon introduced.

Napoleon suggested to his brother (who ruled Holland in his name) to use coins of the same size, worth and similar design as the ones in use in France to stimulate the trade between both countries. Can anybody say euro almost 2 centuries before its time?

[Vladimir]

Isn't he also responsible for imposing the metric system on Europe? We need a little kick in the pants to get that going.

[rotorgun]

While I shall not attempt to describe his considerable moral record, which was abysmal I daresay, I think that he was something of a genius. He had a great command of detail, much in the same way that Hitler did as well by the way, and he seemed to have an intuitive grasp of where to hit his enemies. He was also noted to be a brilliant Artillerist, for which he gained noteriety early on. I think that like all "great men"-his errors were monumental as were his triumphs. "Why he strides the narrow world like a collossus, and we mortal men must move about his legs to find for us dishonorable gaves"-Julius Ceasar-Shakespear

here is an interesting link deserving of a good read:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/resea.../c_genius.html

I think of a line from the film Waterloo, in which the Duke of Wellington (Christopher Plummer) comments after being surprised at how quickly Napoleon (Rod Steiger) moved on him at Charleroi. Looking down at a map of the campaign area he says "My God, but how he does war honor!"

[Rodion Romanovich]

Isn't he also responsible for imposing the metric system on Europe? We need a little kick in the pants to get that going.

No the metric system was introduced (and the old system became illegal) before Napoleon came to power. It was done by the legal revolutionary government which Napoleon overthrew by coup d'etat. Napoleon in fact relegalized use of the old system, but with slight adjustments. You have to thank the French revolution for the metric system, not Napoleon.

[Geoffrey S]

I think a key issue is that people focus on how much he lost; more important in my opinion is that he had actually managed to gain that much in the first place. The fact that he was surrounded by so many able men comparable in military skill to himself I'd say is more positive than some make out: clearly he was doing something right if he was keeping them going in the same direction, keeping them loyal, and using them effectively. That must have required qite some respect and skill.

But - what great feat did Napoleon do?

He remade Europe into what we see today, for a start.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I think a key issue is that people focus on how much he lost; more important in my opinion is that he had actually managed to gain that much in the first place.

He weakened his country and caused the defeat of the revolutionary ideas of freedom, justice, equality before the law, and chances of achievments and self-fulfillment in life not depending on how rich your parents were.

The fact that he was surrounded by so many able men comparable in military skill to himself I'd say is more positive than some make out: clearly he was doing something right if he was keeping them going in the same direction, keeping them loyal, and using them effectively. That must have required qite some respect and skill.

It wasn't respect and skill, but scare tactics and propaganda. Propagandaic indoctrination at school age and at special military training camps. Telling them they were fighting for the revolution, when they were only fighting to satisfy Nappy's hunger for land and thirst for blood.

Being able to command people to do what you want isn't really that hard if you have come to a position of power. Look at such a total failure as George W Bush - almost the entire US Army does exactly what he wants because they are given no other choice.

He remade Europe into what we see today, for a start.

Hitler and Stalin also "made Europe into what we see today". Such a statement is not necessarily positive. All credit Napoleon fans give Napoleon really belongs to the Revolution and the people's fight for freedom and justice. Napoleon did not want to fight for these things, he wanted to fight. And to fight, he pretended he fought for these things and abused the trust of the masses while he was still too weak to be deposed of, and once he had deployed all the tools of a dictator to be able to terrorize and murder any dissenters, he went even more mad and backstabbed and invaded his allies in Spain and invaded Russia. And when in Spain the people revolted because they didn't like being raped and murdered at the whims of some alcoholized mob of French soldiers, he executed masses of civilians, using methods of occupation which clearly inspired Adolf Hitler during his occupation of France and other countries during ww2. Napoleon also inspired Hitler with his use of propaganda, his use of secret police and control over the population, and with his references back to ancient and Medieval times.

[KrooK]

He was great.
People who criticise him tell that he could do things better that he did. But they forget that he was the one who "did" not "could do". He was his great marshals but wasn't it show of his greatness - he could have found brilliant generals and let them develop their skills.
His victories were magnificent too. Truth is that Napoleon never lost big battle when terms were equal. When he was loosing opponents usually had big advantage (like Lipsk or Waterloo).
All in all he was great IMO.

[AntiochusIII]

He weakened his country and caused the defeat of the revolutionary ideas of freedom, justice, equality before the law.

He harmed it in France; he brought it to Europe.

You seem to ignore the fact that Bonaparte's rise was set in the backdrop of constant warfare between Revolutionary France and just about everybody else. In that respect, Napoleon's military genius was one of the pillars which held the remnants of the Revolution together for as long as it did. The Old Powers were thirsty for blood and France's struggle was one of total victory or total defeat.

Being able to command people to do what you want isn't really that hard if you have come to a position of power. Look at such a total failure as George W Bush - almost the entire US Army does exactly what he wants because they are given no other choice.

There's an immense gap between a President of a modern superpower and a Consul/Emperor of a 1800's European country. Bush sits in the White House with professional generals fighting the actual war while Napoleon marches with his army from one end of Europe to another.

Even then GWB's ineptness as commander-in-chief shows through.

Besides, what chance do you think that a US general can pull off a successful coup d'etat? Just about as close to zero as it gets. Bonaparte himself was a general who pulled off a successful coup d'etat. In that sense he was merely the first among equals. Equals don't tend to follow each other long...but the marshals of the First Empire did.

[Geoffrey S]

He weakened his country and caused the defeat of the revolutionary ideas of freedom, justice, equality before the law, and chances of achievments and self-fulfillment in life not depending on how rich your parents were.

His country was already in shambles after this great revolution had utterly failed to achieve equality and justice to all, descinding into a bloody anarchy. Considering the backdrop I find his achievements all the more remarkable. And as AntiochusIII very rightly points out, he did bring such values to the rest of Europe, particularly in the Low Countries and the German states.

It wasn't respect and skill, but scare tactics and propaganda. Propagandaic indoctrination at school age and at special military training camps. Telling them they were fighting for the revolution, when they were only fighting to satisfy Nappy's hunger for land and thirst for blood.

And isn't that skill in its own fashion? No-one had done so quite that effectively before.

Hitler and Stalin also "made Europe into what we see today". Such a statement is not necessarily positive. All credit Napoleon fans give Napoleon really belongs to the Revolution and the people's fight for freedom and justice. Napoleon did not want to fight for these things, he wanted to fight. And to fight, he pretended he fought for these things and abused the trust of the masses while he was still too weak to be deposed of, and once he had deployed all the tools of a dictator to be able to terrorize and murder any dissenters, he went even more mad and backstabbed and invaded his allies in Spain and invaded Russia. And when in Spain the people revolted because they didn't like being raped and murdered at the whims of some alcoholized mob of French soldiers, he executed masses of civilians, using methods of occupation which clearly inspired Adolf Hitler during his occupation of France and other countries during ww2. Napoleon also inspired Hitler with his use of propaganda, his use of secret police and control over the population, and with his references back to ancient and Medieval times.

That's pretty angry. Napoleon changed the face of Europe; in my opinion, that is 'great', since the term does not imply a moral judgement to me, else how can anyone who ordered the deaths of thousands be considered 'great'?

[CountArach]

When you say Great, are we talking the whole, or militarily? I will make a larger post based on your answer to this.

[Julian the apostate]

I suppose that would also depend on whether you qualify it as him simply or him and his staff. Waterloo proved that Napoleons ability was severely limited without his chief of staff Berthier. Thus it seems like even from a military perspective everything depends on the men under you. Generals are great and all but a general with a bad chief of staff or worse bad NCOs is crippled.

From a political economic standpoint Napoleon was of course a general and of course thought that military power would translate to Frances domination of europe and that the other powers would stop sending armies

[Lord Winter]

I think its kind of ironic that most of the people arguing against Napolean adorn Alexander. Remember Alexander had his India to compare with (not quite a russia since he was only turned back), but certainly a failure. I think its remarkable that he not only overcame alot of land but did it against competent powers, instead of Alexander's degrading Persian Empire. Having a few mistakes or a short lived empire dosn't make you terriable, it just dosn't make you invincable. Which is not the same of not being great.

[Incongruous]

Ok, before his bloody coup Napoleone was at best just another runner many other men were far more admired by the army and people, Nappy was lucky to gain the cooperation with Talleyrand and Fuche men who kept his non-stop wars going. These three men allowed each other to gain power. He was the leader of a nation so millitary victory itself is only one facet. In politics and diplomacy he was an idiot and nothing more, his supposed great remaking of Frances political system was a complete sham, a puupet show to give his brutal autocracy some vestige of legitimacy.
I see in Harvey perhaps a man looking for reputation but also one who has seriuosly questioned the Napoleonic myth. Again this is me. Im only 18 and have only read really big books since 13.

[InsaneApache]

Not a great fan of Boneys personally. I remember the Wellington quote "They're coming at us in the same old style. Well, then we shall meet them in the same old style."

OTOH he did something remarkable in my book. He dismantled the Inquisition and took their records back to France (albeit a lot were lost along the way), freed the Jews from the ghettos and removed the compulsion for them to wear distinctive cone shaped hats. Rather a different take on him being an 18th century Hitler IMO.

[Pannonian]

Not a great fan of Boneys personally. I remember the Wellington quote "They're coming at us in the same old style. Well, then we shall meet them in the same old style."

OTOH he did something remarkable in my book. He dismantled the Inquisition and took their records back to France (albeit a lot were lost along the way), freed the Jews from the ghettos and removed the compulsion for them to wear distinctive cone shaped hats.

Did those hats have "D" written on them?

[InsaneApache]

Did those hats have "D" written on them?

Go stand in the corner.

[Rodion Romanovich]

OTOH he did something remarkable in my book. He dismantled the Inquisition and took their records back to France (albeit a lot were lost along the way),

Napoleon's reign of terror, rape and murder in Spain only saw the formal abolishment of the Inquisition. The Inquisition was de facto abolished more than 15 years earlier.

freed the Jews from the ghettos and removed the compulsion for them to wear distinctive cone shaped hats. Rather a different take on him being an 18th century Hitler IMO.

Hitler was considered a liberator in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland for driving out the Soviet oppressors. That didn't prevent him from being a massmurderer against Jews. Napoleon, being helpful to Jews, didn't prevent him from being a massmurderer against others. You can't say massmurder to one people is ok because the massmurderer did some good things to some other people.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Ok, before his bloody coup Napoleone was at best just another runner many other men were far more admired by the army and people, Nappy was lucky to gain the cooperation with Talleyrand and Fuche men who kept his non-stop wars going. These three men allowed each other to gain power. He was the leader of a nation so millitary victory itself is only one facet. In politics and diplomacy he was an idiot and nothing more, his supposed great remaking of Frances political system was a complete sham, a puupet show to give his brutal autocracy some vestige of legitimacy.
I see in Harvey perhaps a man looking for reputation but also one who has seriuosly questioned the Napoleonic myth. Again this is me. Im only 18 and have only read really big books since 13.

I agree completely

I think its kind of ironic that most of the people arguing against Napolean adorn Alexander. Remember Alexander had his India to compare with (not quite a russia since he was only turned back), but certainly a failure. I think its remarkable that he not only overcame alot of land but did it against competent powers, instead of Alexander's degrading Persian Empire. Having a few mistakes or a short lived empire dosn't make you terriable, it just dosn't make you invincable. Which is not the same of not being great.

Napoleon made far more disastrous mistakes than he did brilliant things, that's the problem. His arrogance and overestimating of his abilities, and hunger for power, for example. He should have realized in the first place that he wasn't suited to being anything else than artillery commander or communication link between his more able marshals (which is the role he held during the early victories). When he started to take more initiative in the field by commanding his marshals instead of being the one who communicated between them (and stopped listening to their advice), and didn't realize he had nothing to do on the throne of a country, he and France started losing massively. I don't think Alexander deserves much more credit than Napoleon, since he like Napoleon had his uber-high quality army given to him when he came to power. It isn't known much about how despotic Alexander was as a leader, but I guess we wouldn't admire him as much if we had known more about his personality. About Napoleon we do know what he did, as we do with Hitler.

His country was already in shambles after this great revolution had utterly failed to achieve equality and justice to all, descinding into a bloody anarchy. Considering the backdrop I find his achievements all the more remarkable.

The country was tired of the internal problems, and wanted any leader who would promise to end it. This could be done in two ways: establishment of law and order through police and methodical work by the revolutionary government as was being done, or through a military leader turning the country into a military dictatorship by claiming power and murdering or repressing the opinions of all dissenters. Note that Napoleon's coup d'etat happened at a time when the French republic was comparatively calm inside. The only threat against the Republic at that time was that its military had been weakened by Napoleon's defeat in Egypt.

And as AntiochusIII very rightly points out, he did bring such values to the rest of Europe, particularly in the Low Countries and the German states.

This is wishful pro-Napoleonic thinking. The Chmielnicki Uprising, 1648-1654 in Poland, and the Time of Troubles in Russia, 1598-1613, are two examples of very successful uprisings against nobility that happened in East Europe almost 100 years before. By 1800, the Englightenment ideas had eliminated most religious fundamentalism and authority over most of Europe anyway. The Spanish inquisition for example, was already gone in everything but name. The revolutionary ideas were spreading all over Europe without the help of Napoleon. In fact, it's more probable that Napoleon's imperialism was what above all prevented other countries, for example England, from having any revolution at the time, because it was easy for the authorities to argue that one shouldn't copy the behavior of a massmurdering maniac like Napoleon. The revolutionary ideas were certainly not helped to spread over Europe by the unprovoked backstabbing murder and raping expedition into Spain. Napoleon's actions in fact delayed revolutionary ideas from gaining influence in the rest of Europe, making it take until 1848 until anything noteworthy happened again, because who could talk in favor of the Revolutionary ideas when talking positively of these ideas was, by propaganda from the nobility and the likes, the same as talking positive of the massmurderer Napoleon?

And isn't that skill in its own fashion? No-one had done so quite that effectively before.

Propaganda is as old as civilization itself. It has been used since the time of medicine men and shamans in the earliest nature religions. It doesn't require skills, since the human brain by default trusts rather than critically evaluates, as has been shown by various experiments and scientific publications.

That's pretty angry. Napoleon changed the face of Europe; in my opinion, that is 'great', since the term does not imply a moral judgement to me, else how can anyone who ordered the deaths of thousands be considered 'great'?

I define greatness as something you should try to immitate. Napoleon is not somone I wish anyone would immitate.

[econ21]

I don't think Alexander deserves much more credit than Napoleon, since he like Napoleon had his uber-high quality army given to him when he came to power.

Alexander inherited a high quality army, that is true. Napoleon - I am not so sure. I think one of the things that makes him considered a great general is that he often took demoralised armies (as in his early Italian campaigns) or weakened scratch armies (as in 1813-14) to achieve striking victories. Indeed, if there is an idea that the French Napoleonic army was "uber-high quality", then Napoleon probably deserves a lot of credit for that achievement.

However, one under-emphasised aspect about the French Napoleonic military was it quantity rather than quality. Drawing upon the spirit of the revolution, inspired by Napoleon's militaristic goals and benefiting from demographics which gave France a relatively large population at the time, Napoleon started levying large quantities of men into the army. So when he achieved some of his great victories - e.g. at Ulm - he was doing so with great material superiority. His enemies gradually caught up with him - raising larger and larger armies - until you end up with some battles so large they cannot be decided in a day (Wagram, Moskowa, Leipzig). I guess Napoleon can take some of the "credit" for such mass mobilisations, but they do mean that some of his victories were less attributable to his own genius or the high quality of his troops than is commonly thought.

In many ways, the Napoleonic wars are a very suitable subject for a Total War game, as he seems to embody that philosophy - as increasingly did his opponents.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I was mainly thinking of the powerful artillery France had at the time:

"The Napoleonic artillery was a product of the change in French military theory that followed humiliations of the Seven Years War. Especially painful was the defeat at Rossbach where 42.000 French and their Allies were trashed by 21,000 Prussians under Fredrick the Great. The French artillery in that time was according to the "system" of de Vallerie. The cannons were strongly built, very powerful, but very ornate and far too heavy to handle in the field.

The old system was gradually replaced by so-called Gribeauval System. The new guns were designed for more rapid movements, on and off the roads. Gribeauval stressed mobility, hitting power and accuracy. His important innovation was the elevating screw used to adjust the range of the cannon by raising or lowering its breech. Another innovation was the prolong. It was a heavy rope 30 feet long and used to connect the gun and its limber when it was necessary to fire while retiring or to unlimber the gun while crossing some difficult obstacle."
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/ar..._Napoleon.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Ba..._de_Gribeauval
Perhaps Gribeauval was to Napoleon what Philip II was to Alexander?

Anyhow, I'm not arguing that Napoleon was a total failure, or calling him less capable than the average general of the era - just questioning why he is called a genius. So, I'm asking: can you provide enough examples of clever actions to outweight the failures? I do recognize the examples of credit, but disagree that they outweigh the failures.

[Peasant Phill]

Napoleon's actions in fact delayed revolutionary ideas from gaining influence in the rest of Europe, making it take until 1848 until anything noteworthy happened again, because who could talk in favor of the Revolutionary ideas when talking positively of these ideas was, by propaganda from the nobility and the likes, the same as talking positive of the massmurderer Napoleon?

I can't say I agree with you there. After Waterloo the United Kingdom of the Netherlands was formed as a dam against the revolutionary ideas still very much alive in France. It seems that heads of state of England, Prussia, ... still felt threathened by those revolutionary ideas.

And it didn't take until 1848 until anything noteworthy happened. The southern part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands revolted in 1830 and founded Belgium in 1831 with the most liberal constitution since then. A constitution which is still in use to this day I might add.