[.ca] Napoleon: A Political Life (ISBN 0684871424)

Napoleon the nice?:
Well, no, not exactly. But this is certainly the most positive recent biography of the Emperor, many of which compare him to Hitler. Steven Englund's new work is a not altogether satisfactory hybrid. On the one hand it is well aware of recent scholarship and frequently refers to it in the notes. On the other hand it is less detailed and less informative than one might expect. Ian Kershaw devoted 1,400 pages of text to Hitler, not counting notes. By contrast Englund devotes about 475 pages and here less is less. Compared to recent biographies such as Paul Preston's Franco, Richard Bosworth's Mussolini or Herbert Bix's Hirohito, this is a less successful book. Another problem lies in its basic thesis. It is complex: Napoleon was a vain man who lusted for military glory and who ultimately failed because he refused to compromise at key points in his reign. But at the same time he was also the advocate of a vaguely progressive reform (which in my view seems to get vaguer as time goes on). The problem with this thesis is not that it is untrue. Indeed it is basically true. But it is poorly presented and argued, with certain lacunae on the way and a certain apologetic tone. As one reads the book we are reminded of Napoleon's virtues. He was a brilliant general, obviously, such as the quartet of victories he won in five days a few months before his first abdication. He was capable of genuine love (unlike Mussolini and Hitler). He was willing to listen to the advice of people who disagreed with him, he was capable of being calm and reasonable towards people who had crossed him. (Indeed one future conspirator was automatically promoted to general while imprisoned for another plot.) He also possessed genuine courage, getting up after his horse was killed under him, daring opposing French soldiers to either join him or kill him just before the Hundred Days. His reign allowed a certain rule of law and a certain toleration. During his reign he made useful contributions to French society with a more efficient bureaucracy, a new law code, some improvements to education, financial stability, and French stability. Having said all that, there is a certain indulgence in Englund's account. Some of this can be allowed. It is true that Napoleon arranged the judicial murder of the Duc D'Enhigen, but the Allies had been involved in disingenuous plots that involved assassinating French officials. It is true that Napoleon, in his diplomatic proceedings, showed bad faith and aggressiveness. But often his enemies did as well. Yes, Napoleon instituted censorship and had perhaps 2,500 people imprisoned. But many of these were actually rebels or brigands, and there was nothing like the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of summary executions after the restoration in 1815. But there are also problems. There are slips in Englund's account: the Gracchi brothers were second century BCE, not third; the inflation France faced in the 1790s was not the first in history; the June 1799 "coup" was not directed against Neo-Jacobins, but a neo-Jacobin impeachment of the executive; Napoleon's second wife was not the niece, but the grand-niece of Marie Antoinette. Englund is vague and diffuse about how Napoleon was able to appeal to his soldiers, or when he decided that he wished to become emperor once and for all. One of the most striking things about Napoleon's rule was how popular politics seemed to vanish and poltical dissension apparently evaporated. Englund has little to say about this, aside from the fact that Napoleon was genuinely popular. On questions such as the Neo-Jacobins whom Napoleon overthrew in 1799, or the nature of national consciousness in France and the rest of Europe, or about religious feeling under the Empire, Englund has little to say. Likewise Englund argues that while French occupation could be rough, it did have some progressive aspects. Perhaps, but Englund does not provide the detailed (and somewhat less optimistic) discussion that David Blackbourn and James Sheehan gave in their histories of Germany, nor does Englund really confront the harsher case by Timothy Blanning or Simon Schama. The overall significance of the Empire for the French economy is not made clear, and while Englund notes that there was prosperity he does not dispel the feeling that it was ultimately peripheral. Particularly striking for me is that Napoleon's attempt to reestablish slavery in Haiti is only given a page, while the tens of thousands of Haitians who died as a result of this attempt are not mentioned at all. As the book goes on Napoleon becomes more ruthless, less willing to hear other people's advice, more contemptuous of the revolution's legacy and less deserving of our sympathy. There are surprisingly few monuments to him in Republican France. One is reminded how for centuries European monarchs have schemed and plotted for glory and how, for nearly two decades the second son of a minor Corsican noble systematically beat and humiliated them. One is reminded of the oceans of sycophancy that have surrounded dynastic rulers and then remembers that Napoleon is the one monarch who actually did something to deserve his. One might say that is all the monument Napoleon needs. More important, it is all he truly deserves.

Excellent:
Centuries after his death, Napoleon Bonaparte still stymies biographers. What to make of this amazingly dynamic figure who forever changed the world around him? Is the French Emperor the prototype for 20th century fascist dictatorship, with a strong centralized state dedicated to iron hand rule over a subject populace? Was Bonaparte nothing but a vicious and petty warlord, whose own lust for glory and battle guided the destiny of France in the early 19th century? Or was Napoleon, the so-called "New Man", the dream of an absolute leader guided by the humanist principles espoused by the European enlightenment? If anything, Bonaparte defies almost all characterizations. He was a politician as well as a military leader, a fact often ignored in other biographies. As a very astute political player, Napoleon presents a multi-faceted persona, a fact recognized in Steven Englund's excellent biography. Englund's Napoleon is somewhat sympathetic, a man dedicated to certain ideals and his own ascendancy. The way to the top is a stunning tale, and Englund tells it as well as anyone else. One of the best parts of Englund's book is the emphasis he places on Napoleon's early life on Corsica. I find this is a part of Bonaparte's psyche that is often ignored, to the detriment of in depth studies. The fractious politics on the little island had a great deal to do with the developing political theories of Napoleon, as he experienced power and competition for the first time. The rise and fall of his erstwhile ally, Paoli, mirrored his increasing disenchantment with truly enlightened politics. At the same time, young Napoleon was no doubt developing a chip on his shoulder as he was educated along with the rich and powerful of French royalist society. These bluebloods shunned rustic Napoleon, who, from an early age, had to fight for everything he had. As a young officer, the vivacious Napoleon was already far ahead of his years in maturity, intelligence, and understanding of the momentous political tidal waves that were ripping apart French society. In a time of indecision, he was a dangerous man indeed. Englund writes of the rise of Napoleon as well as I've ever seen it. Napoleon did not lead a division into Paris, did not institute a military dictatorship on a whim. One of the most impressive things about Napoleon's ascension was the fact that his actual military power was rarely used by him in order to assume control of the country. Instead, Napoleon shrewdly pushed his way into the new revolutionary institutions formed after the death of Louis XVI through shrew maneuvering and bold action on the battlefield. He was strong enough to dominate his opponents, but subtle enough to avoid most criticism. I found the actual mechanics in Napoleon's power grab to be stunning in their complexity and genius, a point Englund does not gloss over. Equally impressive is the avenue through which Napoleon, inexplicably, managed to be crowned emperor of a nation that had just executed its monarch. Napoleon's reign as monarch was an experience of contrasts. Through his military power, Napoleon managed to effectively conquer almost all of Europe. He solidified his control of France proper, initiating a whole new spate of civil law. I thoroughly agreed with Englund's notion that Napoleon was a beneficial presence in some instances, especially if one agreed with the Enlightenment. His restructuring of representative mechanisms and the courts of Europe preceded similar improvements made decades later. However, Napoleon's own recklessness ruined him in the end, as he never successfully made use of his conquered states, preferring to constantly denigrate and abuse their resources. Englund's biography is so successful on two different planes. On is the writing itself. While the book is not overly simplistic, but it is very engaging. Englund has a wonderful ability to convey facts without drowning in them, writing in a very airy style that often mixes his own insightful comments with historical events. The other reason this book is such a joy is because of its exhaustive research. Every opinion and supposition seems very well grounded in voluminous research and evidence. I found the book eye opening and extremely interesting.

A political account of the Corsican Emperor of the French:
Stephen Englund is a person who has immersed himself in a study of Napoleon since childhood. His research in the complex politcial world of nineteenth century Europe is well done. Napoleon emerges from Englund's book as something of a Renassiance soldier of fortune, The little corporal rose from a lieutenant of artilleryin the Republic army to become the titan of nineteenth century Europe, Napoleon as delineated by Englund is seen as a complex man of warth and cruelty. Bonaparte loved his family and France. He was a man who believed in strong authoritan rule whose Code Napoleon and military victories and defeat placed an indelible impact on France. This book is slow reading. Englund's style is replete with long words and is written in a lapidary, anecdotal style reminiscent of an earlier era of histographic authorship. I fraknly was bored by much of the intricate politcs involved in the countries conquered, ruled and opposed by Empire France. The accounts of battles are brief relating to how they affected Napoleonic politcal stratgey. The personal life of Napoleon is briefly chronicled but the interest remains focused on politics, Those wanting the best account of the military aspects of Napoleon's rule would be better served by reading David Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon. The Army of the Empire has been well presented by the work of Elting. This work should not be used as an introduction to the Napleonic world. It is somewhat specialized and lacks good maps. Many of the characters are assumed to already be familiar to the reader. This book is useful for the information it conveys. It is worth the time spent in reading it. Recommended for history buffs but not for those with only a general interest in the man and the European landscape of post-Revolutionary France.

A lively read, an often-puzzling biography:
Englund generally stays true to the implications of his subtitle, "A Political Life." This author, whose previous work sprawls from Princess Grace of Monaco to an explication of Hollywood-era blacklisting, does give the reader a reasonably focused portrait of Napoleon as a political animal, motivated and moving by political will above all other considerations. I teach a college course on Napoleonic history, and I originally considered this book as a text. I've decided against it, and not simply because Englund employs a needlessly florid prose (just how many times should an author describe something as "otiose," or a policy as "tergiversated?") I ultimately decided against the text because it is laden with cross-references and skips around fairly liberally in chronology (which would be fine for more experienced readers of this period), yet fails to deliver much depth or novelty of analysis. Englund makes the odd factual error or oversimplification, such as when he names Blücher as the allied commander at Lützen and Bautzen, or demonstrates a lack of perception on non-French sources, such as when he claims that Napoleon nicknamed his second wife "Louise" (all Habsburg females were called by their second names - "Marie" was family tradition.) He also makes some unsubstantiated assertions, such as claiming that Prussia's Queen Luise led a "reactionary" faction in Berlin, in conjunction with Stein and Hardenberg (two less-reactionary Prussians would be hard to imagine.) Ultimately I find this volume somewhat disappointing. Englund has a tendency to include himself in the telling: He slips frequently into the second person and present tense, references pop-culture and tourism, frequently conjures up Hitler (though he finally asserts that he's not making that comparison) and even concludes with an autobiographical essay on how he became interested in Napoleon by playing with miniature soldiers. (I surely don't begrudge him that interest; I just don't think it has any place in a serious work of history.) Englund does do us a favor that is rare among Napoleonic biographers: he includes an extended historiographical essay at his conclusion. This, actually, would have been better as its own book, expanded and developed, because the world doesn't really need another Napoleon biography. We need instead a clear-headed analysis of the ways in which Napoleon's biography(ies) have evolved over the past 200 years. *That* ultimately tells us a lot more about Napoleon's place in history.

A flawed, but human Emperor:
Breaking from the common theme of Napoleonic biographies, Englund ditches miltary strategy, tactics and love affairs, preferring to focus on the political man behind the throne. For Englund, Napoleon is not the idealistic conqueror, but neither is he the tyrannical imperialist. He is, instead, a work in progress, influenced and shaped not only by philosophers like Rousseau and political figures like Paoli and Robespierre, but also by the turbulent events through which he lived. Englund does a great job of illustrating Napoleon's transition from a young, impressionable patriot and idealist, into a pragmatic and efficient ruler, a product of his many influences and encounters. While exposing many of Napoleon's faults as a ruler, Englund makes no qualms about also recognizing the successes he achieved, first as consul, and later as Emperor. The end result seems to cover both viewpoints effectively. All the better is that Napoleon becomes "human," and like all of us, he has his triumphs and his faults. While one can easily want to yell at the dead Emperor for his persistent antagonizing of the European continent, one can also see him as a man who feels as though he carried the weight of France on his shoulders, and his alone. Englund does a fantastic job attempting to balance the pro/con approaches to Napoleonic study. Great read. Definitely worth checking out for anyone wanting a fresh look at l'Empereur.