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

[Kralizec]

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.

It always seemed to me that Napoleon was capable of brilliant victories and collosal blunders alike. He was good, but at times sloppy or stubborn. Since the French levy system could replace losses that would have crippled Prussia or any other kingdom, he could suffer an occasional setback, the rest of his battles would make up for it.

The impact of the Code Napoleon (later, Code Civil) can hardly be overstated, but there had been other monarchs who tried to pull of such a codification of similar proportions but failed due to their weaker position. It was the high level of centralization that had occurred that enabled it, and that was only in part Napoleon's doing. It's interesting to note, that after Napoleon had been exiled permanently he remarked that the Code was his greatest lasting contribution.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

Where to begin. Or where to end. You can fill a decently sized library with published opinions about Napoleon.

Was Napoleon that great? In my opinion, he was a great general, a great unifier. A giant of law. And a great hammer of progress, the man who put a bajonet in the hands of the enlightenment.
He was also a general who gambled and lost it all, a dictator, a divisive figure, the adventurer who lost Europe to the Restauration, the man who betrayed the Revolution.

I think general opinion varies along the above lines too. Overall, he still arouses the same sentiments today as he did when he was alive: Napoleon chastises France, bleeds her dry, betrays her, but his errors and crimes are forgotten in the drunk wallowing in the glory, the achievements, the grandeur.


I haven't read Robert Harvey's work. I googled for some reviews about his book. Few were very much in praise of it, his ‘The War Of Wars’. Below is what I think is actually a good summation of many reviews, not a proper review but an Amazon comment. I'll quote it, if only because the writer is named Louis:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

14 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
Readable but awful history, 29 Aug 2007
By Louis Davout (London, England) - See all my reviews

Robert Harvey writes well enough, as a former journalist should, but, on the basis of this book anyway, he is not much of a historian. Not only is the book littered with factual errors - incorrect dates, wrongly rendered names, false 'facts', etc. - but his interpretations and arguments leave a lot to be desired also. His treatment of Napoleon is a case in point. Harvey basically presents us with a rehash of the old black legend, belittling Napoleon's achievements wherever possible (no matter how implausibly) and besmirching his character at every turn. Napoleon was not without serious flaws, of course, but to present him as a grotesque caricature is poor history and does nothing to develop our understanding of him or the period he dominated. One presumes Harvey's loathing for Bonaparte comes in part from his equally evident 'little England' view of history, which is another major weakness of this book. The wars which raged from 1792 to 1815 were far more than just a struggle between Britain and France, yet the impression given by this book is that other states played bit parts at best. While occasionally critical of Britain and British figures, Harvey's patriotism (or should that be jingoism?) nevertheless shines through clearly and one gets the sense that he genuinely believes that Britain was almost solely responsible for 'saving' Europe from the 'nightmare' of Revolutionary and Napoleonic France. As someone who has read a lot about the era covered by this book, I would warn fellow fans of the period to steer clear, as they will find little new or interesting in it. Even less would I recommend it to readers new to the subject. Instead, I would advise anyone looking for a single volume covering similar ground to consider David Chandler's authoritative 'The Campaigns of Napoleon' which is unsurpassed in its military detail, David Gates's shorter but still excellent 'The Napoleonic Wars' or Michael Adams's 'Napoleon and Russia', which, despite the title, effectively covers the whole of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars and, by putting the relationship between France and Russia (instead of France and Britain) at the heart of the story, provides a host of interesting new insights.

As for Napoleon = Hitler. There are some remarkable parallels. But not that many. History does not repeat itself.
As for a historical judgement about the two, ask yourself this: if Europe would've been unified by the sword, in which Europe would you rather have lived? One that has the slogan 'Kill the Untermensch, make way for the Master Race'? Or one whose battle cry is Liberty, equality, fraternity? One that, along with its armies, brought standardised laws, the metric system, emancipation of Jews, abolition of the feudal system, a Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen?

[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.

[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.

[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.