[.ca] Napoleon (ISBN 0143037455)

You can never judge a book by its cover.:
I learned this the hard way. The hard cover's exterior is impressive and when you read Paul Johnson's quote at the back, you get the feeling that the author is writing about a subject he was tremendously impressed with. Read the book and it seems like Wellington's own secretary decided to spare a few words on Europe's greatest conqueror. A defining tragedy in a book lovers life is falling for an expensive hardcover on a very good subject and finding out that the book is absolutely pathetic. Even if i wanted to resell it, i would be cheating the person up front if i asked for more than a buck on this book!

Not an introduction to Napoleon:
I agree with some of the review "Brilliant Phillipic" by Martin Chorich. There is nothing wrong with deliberately writing a "brilliant polemic" with an agenda that is "pro" or "anti" in its very thesis. However, this is not a book for a general reader looking for a good introduction to Napoleon's life and the history of his times - you won't get an objective look at Napoleon's life, the reasons for his rise and fall, and his many positive accomplishments here. If you're interested in a "personal" biography that deals only in a passing way with the military history, try Vincent Cronin's wonderful and easy to read "Napoleon" - I especially enjoyed the appendix to this book, which goes into some depth about the unreliable contemporaneous sources that many later writers relied on without questioning them. If you're interested in a scholarly and thorough Napoleon biography that emphasizes the historical context and the Europe of the times, try "The Age of Napoleon" by Will and Ariel Durant. Generally recognized as the best military history of Napoleon is the massive "The Campaigns of Napoleon" by David Chandler.

Good essay on Napoleon:
This is not strictly speaking a biography. It is more an essay on the imact of Napolean. It is an attempt to place Napoleon in context of world events. Johnson's conclusions that he was the developer of the authoritarian state are absolutely correct. Napoleon was a fantastic military leader, and great self promoter and opportunitst who led France and Europe into disaster. Johnson puts forward a compelling case that Napoleon's memory should be scorned. It is hard to see how the French regard him as a national hero after his actions.

Brilliant Phillipic:
The people who don't like this book call it biased and lacking depth. These are the very qualities that make it a brilliant polemic that is really directed at the thinking of our times rather than an assessment of the past. What Johnson is really attacking is the sloppy romanticism that excuses dictators of their crimes due to their image as men of action. This form of thug chic most malevolently manifests itself in liberal bourgeois societies where so called progressive types are beguiled by the Hitlers, Lenins, Stalins, Maos, Castros, Ortegas and Saddams of the world. Yes, Johnson goes for the throat and holds back nothing. It needed doing.

A STARVED BOOK INSTEAD OF A FEAST:
When you go to the library you always see these Napoleon biographies, some bigger than an unabridged dictionary or larger than a radioactively mutated monster spider. So instead of committing your brain to such a long exercise you might instead pick up this little volume the thickness of a deck of playing cards. Don't bother. It would be better to read an encyclopedia entry on the famous emperor (or is that infamous?, as Paul Johnson, wants to persuade us). In this cursory glance at the life of Napoleon, the author has an agenda. He wants to show that in spite of the French mythology, Napoloen was simply the precursor for all the evil dictators that came after him. He was the model for Hitler and Stalin, maybe not consciously, but he set up the power base by which an oppurtunistic person can seize a country and proceed to remake it in his own image. Napoleon never cared about his country or his people, he was only interested in himself, causing the deaths of millions of Germans, Russians, English, and French soldiers and civilians. What are human beings to a man who does not see anyone but himself as worthy of that title? Napoleon is not even really seen as a great fighting man in this book. Johnson's big compliment is that Napoleon was a great map-reader and a man who relied on quickness and surprise, not as a great strategist. His disastrous invasion of Russia and the fact that in the retreat he abandoned his army does not really cast a good light on him. I was surprised at how lowly a man he appears to be. I do not know if this is the truth or simply Johnson's casting. I would have to read a true biography to get a better sense. The most amusing part of the book is his exile where this one-time ruler of Europe is reduced to lording it over a rocky island, spending most of his time gardening. You can almost picture tourists going there and saying "So, Bonaparte, how's that empire going, eh?" Johnson's conclusion is that Napoleon is remembered for all the wrong reasons. Instead of being seen as a Hitler-like figure, he is instead seen as a mythic figure of heroism and cultural enlightenment. The middle class man rising to the level of kings. I for one have never seen any one man as controlling a nation. It is the people that make the ruler. So instead of Johnson's indictment of this man, he should have thrown it in the laps of the French people, who allowed him to arise. It is still going today, this glorification of Napoleon as a symbol of a better vanished era of French power. In summary, I would pass up this book, and instead seek a longer work which would do justice to its subject without the politics of the author.