June 17, 2003
Napoleon, criminal megalomaniac
I visited Napoleon's tomb for the first time in my early 20s. It was a visit without any particular agenda; I had a strong interest in military history at the time, motivated more by curiosity than by any desire to pass judgement. Yet when I entered the mausoleum, all I could think about was the waste. The names of the Corsican's great battles appeared around the rotunda, each a slaughter of epic proportions. But for what? Raw conquest.
Elsewhere I had visited museums devoted to the world wars; if they celebrated anything, it was fighting back, resisting the conqueror. Yet here in the heart of Paris, it was the other side being enshrined and openly venerated. I had never before thought of Napoleon as evil, but now I had to get out, out into the air and sunlight. I've never looked at Napoleon the same way since, nor at the French.
It seems, however, I am in good company. In this review, Victor Davis Hansen takes on both Napoleon and Alexander, for good measure:
Why do so many western intellectuals excuse thuggery and whitewash the crimes of megalomaniacs? I have received more angry mail, for example, over a brief article I published a few years ago called "Alexander the Killer" than about anything I have ever written. And the myth of Napoleon, like that of Alexander the Great, is also deeply enshrined in our collective romance—to question either risks real outrage.The book under discussion is Paul Johnson's Napoleon, in the Penguin Lives series -- a strong counter to the dangerously romanticized view of Napoleon peddled by the likes of Dominique de Villepin. If you can't read the book, at least read Hansen's review.
UPDATE: Eugene Volokh remarks on French schools named after Robespierre.
Posted by David on June 17, 2003 4:17 PM
I guess Napoleon is somewhat romanticized but I have never thought of him as anything but one of the "bad guys." Maybe it's because he has been a frequent target of ridicule in American comedy.
Posted by: Lynn S on June 19, 2003 8:55 PM
Yes Napoleon suffered from some psychological megalomania which meant he wanted war for its own sake and was incapable of seeing any other power as an ally on equal standing. His undoubted early military genius kept his ascendancy until losing his navy at Trafalgar and his army after the 1812 Russian campaign. His pragmatic self-interest and division of the spoils of Europe amongst friends and relatives meant he enjoyed the support of elites almost until the end. It was only from 1813 when, defeated at Leipzig and forced back to the French frontier, that the writing was on the wall. Moreover by 1813 France was for the first time forced to fully mobilise its own money and manpower for the war. The unpopularity in France of such a potential "people's war" eased disquiet at the faded hero's 1814 abdication.
Posted by: Mark on April 5, 2005 8:37 PM
gmail.com