Every time I read a biography or history I’m surprised at just how much I didn’t know about a particular time period. You’d think I’d just get it into my head that I just don’t know much. For example, most people in America know there was a French Revolution, and that at some point after that along came Emperor Napoleon Bonapart, who terrorized Europe for…some length of time…until he was stopped at Waterloo. But that is about as much as we’re taught in school, if at all.
But having read a positive review of the book by someone I tend to trust for non-fiction recommendations I decided to give “Napoleon: A Life”, by Andrew Roberts, a try. Roberts does his best to tell the truth about Napoleon, something which is amazingly hard to come by. Napoleon, as a political figure, got the political treatment. He had many enemies, and many friends who wanted to make nice with the new regime that followed his fall. There were also many people who wanted to cash in on his fame, but had to compete with the numerous other memoirs and biographies, and so had to make their version of the story more salacious to sell copies.
As a result much of what we have been told about Napoleon is exaggeration or outright lies. He was Europe’s favorite boogey-man when he was alive, and their favorite whipping boy when he was dead.
Roberts tries to set the record straight–as straight as it can be made from so many conflicting sources–and portray this larger-than-life figure as accurately as possible; the good, the bad, and the outright ugly. When he can’t find sufficient details to corroborate or deny certain stories he tells you. He identifies his sources in more than just footnotes (I know, because audio books don’t have footnotes). He tells you when accounts contradict.
The result is a reasonably accurate depiction of a man who transformed Europe, even while they were actively fighting against him. Yes, he was a dictator, but an enlightened one. His code of laws for France became the foundation for the laws of much of Europe–even after he was defeated. His loathing of corruption in government (one of the primary factors that made him take power in the first place) led to significant government reforms that were usually welcomed eagerly in the countries he conquered. Much of what he built during his short time in power remained after his fall–the people of those countries liked his changes and didn’t want to return to the old ways.
The royalists who gathered against him did manage to defeat him (after seven different coalitions to do so), but in the end he won. Most monarchs held their thrones only through significant reform and some ceding of power, while those who didn’t were overthrown sooner or later. It’s not often a single person can change the face of the world, but Napoleon did it.
What struck me most about the difference between history as I thought I knew it and the truth was that most of the time Napoleon was fighting defensively. He started very few of the wars in which he was involved. He just happened to thrash his opponents so soundly–at least in the earlier years–that he would gain territory in reparations. And he tended to defend France by taking the initiative and taking the battle to the enemy rather than sitting around waiting for them to come to him. They started most of the wars, but he finished them–and usually quite quickly.
But over two decades of war while often dramatically outnumbered took its toll on France and Napoleon both, and in the end the allies defeated him through sheer attrition. His disastrous invasion of Russia, in which he lost most of his army, was the opening his enemies needed, and they quickly exploited his lack of numbers. Indeed, it was only his defeat in Russia that allowed most of the nations the courage to oppose him, and suddenly he was so heavily outnumbered that even Napoleon couldn’t hope to beat them all. He certainly tried, but his few mistakes were costly ones, and he was eventually defeated as his supporters lost faith and deserted him, perhaps prematurely.
This was a fascinating look at history, and a view into a Europe I admit I really knew very little about. The politics, the machinations, the significant differences from the map of Europe we know today intrigued me. And let’s face it, without Napoleon, Jane Austen’s England would have been quite different. I enjoyed this opportunity to fill in a significant gap in my knowledge of history.