Napoleon: A Political Life

by Steven Englund

This sophisticated and masterful biography, written by a respected French history scholar who has taught courses on Napoleon at the University of Paris, brings new and remarkable analysis to the study of modern history's most famous general and statesman.

Since boyhood, Steven Englund has been fascinated by the unique force, personality, and political significance of Napoleon Bonaparte, who, in only a decade and a half, changed the face of Europe forever. In "Napoleon: A Political Life," Englund harnesses his early passion and intellectual expertise to create a rich and full interpretation of a brilliant but flawed leader.

Napoleon believed that war was a means to an end, not the end itself. With this in mind, Steven Englund focuses on the political, rather than the military or personal, aspects of Napoleon's notorious and celebrated life. Doing so permits him to arrive at some original conclusions. For example, where most biographers see this subject as a Corsican patriot who at first detested France, Englund sees a young officer deeply committed to a political event, idea, and opportunity (the French Revolution) -- not to any specific nationality. Indeed, Englund dissects carefully the political use Napoleon made, both as First Consul and as Emperor of the French, of patriotism, or "nation-talk."

As Englund charts Napoleon's dramatic rise and fall -- from his Corsican boyhood, his French education, his astonishing military victories and no less astonishing acts of reform as First Consul (1799-1804) to his controversial record as Emperor and, finally, to his exile and death -- he is at particular pains to explore the unprecedented power Napoleon maintained over the popular imagination. Alone among recent biographers, Englund includes a chapter that analyzes the Napoleonic legend over the course of the past two centuries, down to the present-day French Republic, which has its own profound ambivalences toward this man whom it is afraid to recognize yet cannot avoid. "Napoleon: A Political Life" presents new consideration of Napoleon's adolescent and adult writings, as well as a convincing argument against the recent theory that the Emperor was poisoned at St. Helena. The book also offers an explanation of Napoleon's role as father of the "modern" in politics.

What finally emerges from these pages is a vivid and sympathetic portrait that combines youthful enthusiasm and mature scholarly reflection. The result is already regarded by experts as the Napoleonic bicentennial's first major interpretation of this perennial subject.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, Politics, France, Biography Memoir, Military Fiction

608 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 6, 2003

Reviews

[Jonathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is for readers who already hold knowledge of Napoleon and his life. The author would often omit details, expecting the reader to already them, and provide further insights to the man. For many readers, this would be enlightening but being my first book in Napoleon, I was often left in the dark.

[Raully · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic biography for two reasons: 1) Englund fights against the modern temptation to lump Napoleon in with later dictators like Stalin; and 2) Englund takes the time to consider the cultural and political aspect of Napoleon's life. In taking a broader look at Napoleon's legacy within an intelligent humanitarian viewpoint Englund expands his biography beyond the merely historical viewpoint. Highly recommended.

[Joan · Rating 5 out of 5]

In retrospect, Napoleon: A Political Life is probably not the best book with which to start an exploration of Revolutionary or Napoleonic history. It is not written for the novice and England does not stray from his purpose to provide his readers with background. That caveat entered, the book is erudite, elegant, often charming, and so well written it is a joy to read. England’s vocabulary gave my Kindle dictionary a run for its money, and in future I will be larding my conversation with words like “dirigisme” and “pelf,” probably to everyone else’s annoyance. I ask you, how can you not love a book that prefaces a section this succinctly?

“Bonaparte departed Egypt on August 23 and, after a five-day stopover in Corsica (the last visit he would ever make to the island), landed in France on October 9. One month later, to the day, he and a cabal of politicians in office overthrew the Directory and established a Consulate. The next morning, he set to work, and in the space of thirty months, he oversaw the drafting of a new constitution for the Republic, ended the civil war in the provinces, secured more domestic tranquility for France than she had enjoyed in a decade, won the War of the Second Coalition against far larger armies than the First, and forced peace on a reluctant Britain after nine years of continuous Anglo-French warfare. Working with a superb team of associates, he then laid the legal, political, educational, and administrative foundations--the so-called blocks of granite--on which much of the French State stands to this day. Withal, he reconciled with this wife, purchased (with her) a small gem of a chateau named Malmaison, survived a murderous assassination attempt, and invented a tasty chicken in tomato sauce with no cream.”

[Jur · Rating 5 out of 5]

Epic biography of Napoleon, focussing on his acts as a statesman and on his political philosophy. While acknowledging that his military exploits laid the foundations for Napoleon's fame and political power, Englund argues that his political feats were as impressive and much longer lasting than his military legacy.

Writing about Napoleon's motivations and ideas is extremely difficult as Napoleon has tried so hard to influence his historiography. It also implies judgments on whether Napoleon was a heart a cynical and opportunistic power player or somebody who tried to stick to certain principles. Or whether he changed from one into the other and in which period?

I think Englund has done a great job of separating the wheat from the chaff. This Napoleon is much more interesting than the Corsican Ogre and Napoleon le Grand. This is almost a human being. Even if it's a man of uncommon talent, intelligence and energy. There are weaknesses, errors of judgment, post hoc rationalisations and petty insults enough to balance the scales.

That doesn't mean that an interesting version of Napoleon is more true than other versions. It just rings more true to my vision of how people, even Great Persons, are. That, probably is the great attraction of Napoleon: everybody can find in him the man we long to see.

[Gordan Karlic · Rating 5 out of 5]

Napoleon Bonaparte.
The man, the legend, Napoleon - I stole this line, fittingly, from God of War, because if there was one man that could take the title of God of War it was Napoleon.
The way he crushed his foes at Toulon, Marengo, Ulm, Austerlitz, Jena is stuff of legends.
He crushed forces of Austria, Prussia, Russia, United Kingdom usually all at once.
But one foe he couldn't defeat and that was Napoleon himself.
Steven Englund in an amazing book shows how the downfall of Napoleon was because Napoleon just didn't know where to stop, but then again would Napoleon be Napoleon if he knew when to stop, probably not.
But although this is a book about Napoleon it also books about human society, so many people rushed into there death for there beloved Emperor never asking why they do it.
Although this book shouldn't be for beginners and you need a lot of prior knowledge it is an amazing book, which I would recommend.

[Phil · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful read. It was as rich in history as it was with language. Anyone that complains not having enough historical knowledge around Napoleon doesn't get it.

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was the best bio on Napoleon I've come across. I was quite fed up with the plethora of books that demonize every aspect of Bonapart's life, and finally I've found what I believe to be a fair-minded review of the emperor. Englund isn't gushing about what an awesome man this Corsican was. Not at all. But he gives credit where credit is due without turning a blind eye to Bonapart's mistakes and faults. As some reviewers here mentioned, yes Englund's vocabulary is healthy & this wasn't a breeze to swiftly read thru, but it's well worth the effort.

This is by no means a psych evaluation of Bonapart but I believe I did come away with a much better understanding of his worldview.
Recommend.

[Marcia Estima · Rating 3 out of 5]

Uma biografia muito bem escrita, mas que não funcionou tão bem comigo. O autor escreve para quem tem já alguns conhecimentos básicos da história da Europa dos séculos XVIII e XIX. Pessoalmente senti-me muitas vezes perdida no meio de tantas referências que não percebia. Gostaria de ter lido uma biografia um pouco mais didática, mas claramente não fiz a melhor escolha nesse sentido.

[Jessica · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok, I am not even halfway through this - I started it like 2 years ago and its more of a pick up put down. I do like it, because I like history and I really enjoy biography pieces. I'll give my final verdict when I am done reading it - which will probably be like 2010!

[Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simply a crackerjack biography, and it changed the way that I look at both Napoleon and this period of history generally. Highly recommended.

[David Raz · Rating 2 out of 5]

I didn't finish this book, which is saying much. I'm not sure it is fair to review a book after reading only about a third, but I realized that it is not going to get better.
The problem with this biography is that the author assumes too much knowledge which I don't have. Maybe it is perfect as a second or third biography, but for someone like me who knows little about the person and the period, this book is simply inappropriate. I could see the intellectual prowess, but it mostly went above my head.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

There exists in France no official monument to Napoleon, save the tomb at Les Invalides built under the Second Empire. No street, no metro stop, no place recalls his name. Yet the French "cannot shut up about him". This rather extraordinary contradiction betokens republican France's deep ambivalence about the most towering figure in its history.

Being brought up in England, you catch glimpses of Napoleon as the bad guy in the wars of the early nineteenth century that have come to bear his name. Popular culture makes much of his diminutive stature and his megalomania (though he was not that short for the era, five foot three). London's place names - Waterloo, Trafalgar Square - commemorate those battles. And yet oddly, in English, Waterloo is synonymous with defeat rather than victory. We see things from Napoleon's point of view.

One of the chief virtues of Steven Englund's book is its even-handedness, its determination to show us all sides of Napoleon. We see in turn the passionate Corsican patriot, the idealist, the cynic, the warrior, the politician, the egomaniac, the self-mythologising exile. It is a complex, multi-faceted picture.

Englund, an American living in Paris, is chiefly concerned with the 'political' aspects of Napoleon's life. Accounts of battles are generally brief, a page or so at most. Napoleon's love life does not get much of a look-in. But there are detailed descriptions of how Napoleon seized power and held on to it, how he sought and gained legitimacy through public votes, military victories and even the blessing of the Pope - yet never felt entirely secure in that legitimacy.

A key strand to the book is the vexed question of whether Napoleon was the guarantor or the betrayer of the French Revolution (or something in between). And more broadly, should we see him as an authoritarian, or a progressive force - as an oppressor, or as one who helped and inspired others to shake off oppression? For Poland, carved up by Russia, Prussia and Austria in the eighteenth century, Napoleon's creation of the Duchy of Warsaw "illuminated all of subsequent Polish history" in laws, institutions and the national imagination. Napoleon even makes it into the Polish national anthem. But at the same time, Napoleon suppressed the Parisian press, quashed political opposition, and led thousands to their deaths long after it had become obvious to many in France that its war with its neighbours was unwinnable. Even in exile, this highly intelligent, thoughtful man did not arrive at self-knowledge, but indulged in long-winded and often self-pitying attempts to justify himself and exorcise his guilt.

But whatever else one thinks of Napoleon, one has to admit he was no ordinary man. If words like 'great' are to be used of anyone, they are to be used of him. Pozzo di Borgo, one of Napoleon's worst enemies, described him as "this phenomenon, the likes of whom we shall not see again; a moral and political universe unto himself... Still not understood... he is destined to remain a mystery, a sublime, gigantic shadow".

This is very much how Napoleon remains at the end of Englund's book - a sublime, gigantic shadow. Probably, this 400-odd-page tome is a shade too scholarly for a casual reader: there may be livelier and more accessible introductions to the subject. But it does do a good thorough job of synthesising the vast quantity of primary and secondary source material available. Producing a definitive life of Napoleon, or even an entirely cohesive narrative, remains a formidable challenge if not an impossibility. As the great man said himself on St Helena:

"I am destined to be the polemicists' green pastures, but I am hardly afraid of becoming their victim. In chomping down on me, they will bite into granite."

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 2 out of 5]

the wild Amazone

Abysmal Style
2/10

The style of this book is overblown, pretentious and distracting. A complete turn off. I want to know about Napoleon not marvel at the wonders of the author's linguistic creativity or be amazed by his oh-so-clever allusions.

Richard Webber

/////

Napoleon the nice?
6/10

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.

pnotley

/////

A lively read, an often-puzzling biography
6/10

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.

Sam A. Mustafa

/////

[Rick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. I thought it was an outstanding assessment of Napoleon and his entire career. It was a balanced assessment and quite fair I felt. The tradition in English language historiography tends to be rather negative and unfair going all the way back to British propaganda from the wars. This book is simply fair minded about Napoleon's considerable accomplishments, while pulling no punches about his failings. What emerges is a more positive portrayal than the typical view that permeates the English-speaking world. Napoleon's life is an absolutely remarkable story of someone with humble beginnings rising to incredible heights and then losing it all. Napoleon's talents surpassed those of any leader I have ever studied, but as if his life was a Greek tragedy, some of those talents that brought such incredible success, also eventually brought him down. This book did justice to Napoleon's remarkable story, and I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in history.

[Hersh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Steven Englund takes the reader through the political journey of Napoleon. In this excellent treatment written in a conversational style, the reader travels with Napoleon as he leaves Corsica in childhood and finally arrives at St. Helena.

The book is not a simple narration of life of Napoleon. And, that too itself would be quite an achievement given the mountain of deeds and events that covering his life requires. Read more here.

[Legens · Rating 4 out of 5]

An insightfully analytical treatment of Napoleon which eschews maneuvers, tactics, operations, and battles almost altogether. Instead, Napoleon's politics, his beliefs, his relationship with the Revolution, his state-building, and his (lack of) plan for a stable European order are explored. Some of the factual mistakes of a previous edition seem to have been purged from mine, which speaks to an alert editor/publisher.

[Roberto Leão · Rating 5 out of 5]

Um livro ultra-aguardado que li como quem bebe depois de uma maratona. Retrato belíssimamente escrito do homem, mas com um núcleo nos acontecimetos políticos definitivos para a sua ascensão e queda. Terminamos com a mesma contradição: como não admirar e odiar Napoleão? Como não querer imitar e temer que surja alguém assim de novo?

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent biography of Napoleon's life, with special attention paid (as the title suggests) to his politics. Overall, it felt more pro-Napoleon in tone, with frequent defenses of Napoleon against other historians' criticism. More dense and less narrative than some biographies, but very interesting and filled with detailed analysis.

[Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an amazingly fun read. It was erudite, beautifully-written, and filled with beautiful anecdotes and analysis. The historiographical tidbits were particularly fascinating. Although I think some people not familiar with the French Revolution or the Napoleonic Wars might find some aspects of this book mystifying or difficult, I still recommend it highly as a magnificent piece of writing.

[Matt Ely · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thorough and readable bio of one of those infinite white guys who did History. As much a picture of the times as of the man, which is about the best thing you can say about a biography. Although I feel like the author's last name lends a certain bias (review originally from May 2013)

[Luís Mainsel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ascensão e queda de um ditador que permanece como um herói em França… uma das personalidades que importa tentar perceber, para que melhor se possa tentar interpretar aquilo que num movimento inverso, se passa actualmente no conflito de Leste Europa

[Ted Brewster · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thorough life of Bonaparte, for the uninitiated, by a great historian.

[Carlton · Rating 5 out of 5]

By far, the most artful history of Napoleon and that era. It reads beautifully. I really enjoyed this book. No other bio necessary.

[Windsor · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best political book on Napoleon currently published. You wont find a better one I like that's for sure.

[LOL_BOOKS]

IF YOU WANT TO READ A BOOK ON NAPOLEON I'D GO WITH THIS ONE.

[Oolalaa · Rating 4 out of 5]

15/20

[Susan Webb · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not an easy read but enlightening.

[Loren · Rating 2 out of 5]

Only attempt this book if you have an incredibly deep vocabulary and are already versed in the history of Napoleon. The writer chooses to use $100 words throughout, writes more like a dry thesis writer and assumes you already know a great deal about Napoleon from the get go. This book is more to flesh out his political history then it is to really learn anything about him. Don't recommend it

[Katerina · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was a struggle for me to push myself through. The author assumes a greater working knowledge of Napoleon than I had. In addition, he uses an impressive vocabulary and throws in literary references. This is not a book I would suggest for introducing yourself to Napoleon, but if you are interested in understanding what made Napoleon successful this may meet your needs.

[Tim Stafford · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tim here. A bit over-written, so not the best bio I ever read, but nevertheless I learned a lot about Napoleon and his age, a subject I missed in school. Most of the emphasis is on Napoleon's political evolution, as opposed to his military prowess.