What do you think?
Rate this book
The Age of Napoleon
THE AGE OF NAPOLEON is the biography of an enigmatic and legendary personality as well as the portrait of an entire age. J. Christopher Herold tells the fascinating story of the Napoleonic world in all its aspects — political, cultural, military, commercial, and social. Napoleon’s rise from common origins to enormous political and military power, as well as his ultimate defeat, influenced our modern age in thousands of ways, from the map of Europe to the metric system, from styles of dress and dictators to new conventions of personal behavior.
478 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1963
23 people are currently reading
572 people want to read
About the author
J. Christopher Herold
12 books17 followersJ. Christopher Herold (1919-December 10, 1964) was born in Czechoslovakia of Austrian parents. The family moved to Germany in 1939, and shortly afterwards Herold emigrated to the United States.
Herold received a Bachelor of Science degree in political science from Columbia University. Fluent in 6 languages, he served with Army intelligence in World War II. After the war, he became assistant editor at Columbia University Press, and later editor-in-chief at the Stanford University Press.
Herold wrote a number of books on European history, such as “The Swiss Without Halos” (1948), “Joan, Maid of France” (1952), “The Mind of Napoleon” (1955), and “Mistress to an Age: A Life of Madame de Staël” (1958).
Herald died in New York at the age of 45.
Herold received a Bachelor of Science degree in political science from Columbia University. Fluent in 6 languages, he served with Army intelligence in World War II. After the war, he became assistant editor at Columbia University Press, and later editor-in-chief at the Stanford University Press.
Herold wrote a number of books on European history, such as “The Swiss Without Halos” (1948), “Joan, Maid of France” (1952), “The Mind of Napoleon” (1955), and “Mistress to an Age: A Life of Madame de Staël” (1958).
Herald died in New York at the age of 45.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
July 21, 2011
By chance, I happened to find this little treasure of Napoleonic history in a bookstore as I was looking for another biography on a French ruler. I didn't expect much, considering the other two books I read about Napoleon ("Napoleon Bonaparte" by Alan Schom, and "Napoleon" by Paul Johnson), the authors were committed to tearing the man apart page by page, in particular with the somewhat exaggerated classification of a tyrant. I grew disappointed, realizing that I might be among one of the only 'Bonapartists' who actually hold the nineteenth century general in high regard.
I'm glad to say that I stumbled upon this unnoticed historical narrative with gratitude to the author, having my disappointment moderately lessened by his superb scholarship.
Herold, too, does have something of an admiration for Napoleon as he tells his story. This isn't to say he paints the French emperor in a gleaming light for propaganda purposes; in fact, he does (rightly so) take to issue his many faults, including his later despotic mannerisms in the chapter titled "The Road to Tyranny". Yet, throughout it all, he is able to remain unbiased and defensive against the harsher accusations, notably war-mongering and psychopathy. And I believe that is what Napoleon is lacking, which Herold gives: an 'apology', which neither praises nor slanders (in the rigid definitions of the words).
Herold clearly writes to those who already know Napoleon and understand the background he lived in. Therefore, it would give one a fair amount of aid to read over some of the important events of the period, if only to avoid the confusion of jumping back and forth Herold does from one year to the next.
The book starts off at a good pace, shedding light on Napoleon's earlier upbringing, highlighting where his worldy beliefs stemmed from, finally pointing him in the direction of Roman-esque military glory. It was also interesting to examine his relationship with his family--something Schom and Johnson relatively dismiss. His mother, Letizia, and his younger sister Pauline (Napoleon's favourite of his siblings) are unfortunately missing (overall) from the story, which I believe would have given Napoleon's affectionate side a little more consideration to his criticisms of insensitivity.
The author then does a quick, but timed change of tempo, springing the adventure into the French Revolution (which is where our hero was born), and going over each major event in the era, from the Alps of Italy, to the deserts of Egypt, the crowning of the Corsican, the blunders of Russia, and, of course, End Game at Waterloo.
Something of a detour however, was Herold's third chapter entitled "Ideas in Conflict", which discussed the major intellectual traditions of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, including nationalism and romanticism. I personally loved the glossing over philosophical and artistic figures, like Goethe, but I can imagine many reading this part distracting to the overall narrative, even if it was helping to introduce the French Revolution. One could simply skip the chapter and not miss any of the relevant details of Napoleon's life.
What the text ultimately lacks is, naturally, its simplification of the iconic battles--which undoubtedly were the highlight of Napoleon's career. Herold has no affinity for military strategy, but he does his best considering that isn't a subject many historians invest their time with. Perhaps it would have done Herold better to have a co-author on the battlefield masterpieces of Austerlitz and Jena. It is definitely odd to talk about a military man without a thorough depth into his military performances.
Above all, what I enjoyed the most was the author's insights into Napoleon himself. It's clear Herold knows his subject well, and isn't willing to circle around and under-value his personality, narrowing in only on what is inhuman, dismissing the 'human' in him--for that is what many who have written on him before have done. He defends him for simply being Napoleon--no one else. And to nit-pick over details, such as 'Was Napoleon's career a product of his genius, or simply a product of luck?' is, as Herold points out, petty.
What he suggests is not to look at the man's legacy, and what he left behind for others to take up, but to the man himself, and picture him as a work of art. This is a talented individual who pulled himself up from the depths of a normal life, fashioning himself into a colossus of modern history if with no other means than ambition and vision, which no man since the Romans seemed to have done.
It's a recommended book for those who love history, or are just keenly curious about Napoleon's life as I am. A well-written historical biography!
I'm glad to say that I stumbled upon this unnoticed historical narrative with gratitude to the author, having my disappointment moderately lessened by his superb scholarship.
Herold, too, does have something of an admiration for Napoleon as he tells his story. This isn't to say he paints the French emperor in a gleaming light for propaganda purposes; in fact, he does (rightly so) take to issue his many faults, including his later despotic mannerisms in the chapter titled "The Road to Tyranny". Yet, throughout it all, he is able to remain unbiased and defensive against the harsher accusations, notably war-mongering and psychopathy. And I believe that is what Napoleon is lacking, which Herold gives: an 'apology', which neither praises nor slanders (in the rigid definitions of the words).
Herold clearly writes to those who already know Napoleon and understand the background he lived in. Therefore, it would give one a fair amount of aid to read over some of the important events of the period, if only to avoid the confusion of jumping back and forth Herold does from one year to the next.
The book starts off at a good pace, shedding light on Napoleon's earlier upbringing, highlighting where his worldy beliefs stemmed from, finally pointing him in the direction of Roman-esque military glory. It was also interesting to examine his relationship with his family--something Schom and Johnson relatively dismiss. His mother, Letizia, and his younger sister Pauline (Napoleon's favourite of his siblings) are unfortunately missing (overall) from the story, which I believe would have given Napoleon's affectionate side a little more consideration to his criticisms of insensitivity.
The author then does a quick, but timed change of tempo, springing the adventure into the French Revolution (which is where our hero was born), and going over each major event in the era, from the Alps of Italy, to the deserts of Egypt, the crowning of the Corsican, the blunders of Russia, and, of course, End Game at Waterloo.
Something of a detour however, was Herold's third chapter entitled "Ideas in Conflict", which discussed the major intellectual traditions of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, including nationalism and romanticism. I personally loved the glossing over philosophical and artistic figures, like Goethe, but I can imagine many reading this part distracting to the overall narrative, even if it was helping to introduce the French Revolution. One could simply skip the chapter and not miss any of the relevant details of Napoleon's life.
What the text ultimately lacks is, naturally, its simplification of the iconic battles--which undoubtedly were the highlight of Napoleon's career. Herold has no affinity for military strategy, but he does his best considering that isn't a subject many historians invest their time with. Perhaps it would have done Herold better to have a co-author on the battlefield masterpieces of Austerlitz and Jena. It is definitely odd to talk about a military man without a thorough depth into his military performances.
Above all, what I enjoyed the most was the author's insights into Napoleon himself. It's clear Herold knows his subject well, and isn't willing to circle around and under-value his personality, narrowing in only on what is inhuman, dismissing the 'human' in him--for that is what many who have written on him before have done. He defends him for simply being Napoleon--no one else. And to nit-pick over details, such as 'Was Napoleon's career a product of his genius, or simply a product of luck?' is, as Herold points out, petty.
What he suggests is not to look at the man's legacy, and what he left behind for others to take up, but to the man himself, and picture him as a work of art. This is a talented individual who pulled himself up from the depths of a normal life, fashioning himself into a colossus of modern history if with no other means than ambition and vision, which no man since the Romans seemed to have done.
It's a recommended book for those who love history, or are just keenly curious about Napoleon's life as I am. A well-written historical biography!
March 29, 2013
A very readable and enjoyable book and makes for a good introduction to Napoleon. It neither glorifies not crucifies him. What is amazing about the man is the young age at which he attained power, particularly given his peasant background. He was ruling much of Europe in his early thirties. Also many of his battles were only fought with 100,000 to 200,000 soldiers and his invasion of Russia with 250,000 to 300,000.
Napoleon’s aim was more to subjugate by treaties than by annihilation. He was no Genghis Khan or Hitler – but knew how to cajole and use power to dominate by treaties. While his troops were abusive (in Spain and Russia), the governments eventually established in Italy, Germany and Spain were no more liberal or democratic then the proxy regimes put up by Napoleon.
The inevitable comparisons with Hitler can be made. Napoleon was not filled with hatred like Hitler. His sole purpose was to dominate or lead. He did not have an ideological agenda that hemmed him in. The pre-Napoleonic Europe was dominated by aristocratic-monarchy states. The post-Napoleonic world was made up of nation-states – France, Germany, Italy, and Russia.
Napoleon’s aim was more to subjugate by treaties than by annihilation. He was no Genghis Khan or Hitler – but knew how to cajole and use power to dominate by treaties. While his troops were abusive (in Spain and Russia), the governments eventually established in Italy, Germany and Spain were no more liberal or democratic then the proxy regimes put up by Napoleon.
The inevitable comparisons with Hitler can be made. Napoleon was not filled with hatred like Hitler. His sole purpose was to dominate or lead. He did not have an ideological agenda that hemmed him in. The pre-Napoleonic Europe was dominated by aristocratic-monarchy states. The post-Napoleonic world was made up of nation-states – France, Germany, Italy, and Russia.
July 30, 2016
This book was originally written in 1963 but the prose seemed to me as lively and fresh as anything written today. The author clearly enjoys the period, including Napoleon the man and Napoleon the legend; but he manages to stay remarkably objective, which is not always easy.
If you're thinking of reading this book then it might be useful to know what this book is and is not about.
It is not:
1. About the French Revolution. It would probably be useful to read up a bit on this subject beforehand.
2. A 'Dummy's Guide'. The author assumes that you've heard of and know a bit about the subject already and you will know a bit about, for example, Caesar, Nelson etc.
3. A biography of Napoleon. The clue is in the title; it is about the 'Age' of Napoleon. There is of course quite a lot of biographical info about Napoleon as he is quite prominent in the 'Age of Napoleon'.
4. A military book about Napoleon's wars. The actual military details are largely absent in this book, which suited me. You'll need to look elsewhere if you want a book on his military tactics and strategies.
It is:
1. About the period from the rise of Napoleon to his banishment to St. Helena. It covers as much as possible; as such there is a chapter on the intellectual and scientific advances leading up to the French Revolution and beyond.
2. A book that covers the subject thematically and does not tell the story strictly chronologically. But then aren't most historians faced with this dilemma?
3. Global in outlook. Although most of the action takes place in Europe, the author also explains how it affected the Americas, India and North Africa.
4. Very humorous. At least I thought so.
5. Very quotable. As proof, see some of the quotes that I've added to GoodReads' quotes.
6. Quite long. But certainly not dull.
I'll admit that I'm still confused over much that happened in this period, though this book has helped illuminate quite a lot. I still don't understand why Napoleon invaded Russia though...
If you're thinking of reading this book then it might be useful to know what this book is and is not about.
It is not:
1. About the French Revolution. It would probably be useful to read up a bit on this subject beforehand.
2. A 'Dummy's Guide'. The author assumes that you've heard of and know a bit about the subject already and you will know a bit about, for example, Caesar, Nelson etc.
3. A biography of Napoleon. The clue is in the title; it is about the 'Age' of Napoleon. There is of course quite a lot of biographical info about Napoleon as he is quite prominent in the 'Age of Napoleon'.
4. A military book about Napoleon's wars. The actual military details are largely absent in this book, which suited me. You'll need to look elsewhere if you want a book on his military tactics and strategies.
It is:
1. About the period from the rise of Napoleon to his banishment to St. Helena. It covers as much as possible; as such there is a chapter on the intellectual and scientific advances leading up to the French Revolution and beyond.
2. A book that covers the subject thematically and does not tell the story strictly chronologically. But then aren't most historians faced with this dilemma?
3. Global in outlook. Although most of the action takes place in Europe, the author also explains how it affected the Americas, India and North Africa.
4. Very humorous. At least I thought so.
5. Very quotable. As proof, see some of the quotes that I've added to GoodReads' quotes.
6. Quite long. But certainly not dull.
I'll admit that I'm still confused over much that happened in this period, though this book has helped illuminate quite a lot. I still don't understand why Napoleon invaded Russia though...
October 10, 2016
I actually read only portions (maybe 2/3) of this book because I was doing research about a particular era and the book follows Napoleon later in time than was necessary for me. Finished reading a couple of months ago but left it on my Currently Reading list because I thought I might finish it anyway, just for the sake of finishing. Facing reality now!
I would probably recommend this as a thorough introduction to Napoleon’s life and military career for those not too familiar with French political and military history. I fall into that category, and am grateful for Herold’s clear, no-nonsense style. For the serious scholar approaching this book, however, I would express reservations. Herold offers a lot of data without providing even a glancing source—would it have killed him to say “According to X Scholar” and put together a bibliography? I’m not demanding rigorous footnotes here.
Also sometimes troubling to me, though entertaining, was Herold’s tabloid style of description. Speaking of guarded letters that Napoleon wrote to his family, Herold remarks, “Already he was aware that the political world was a jungle where a man had to eat or be eaten, and that to avoid being eaten one had to dissemble.” About the start of war in 1796: “The Allies opened hostilities with a self-confidence bordering on madness.” Characterizing French soldiers: “Unlike the stolid automata opposing them, the French citizen-soldiers were individualists.” These sweeping remarks make for swift reading but have to be taken with a grain of salt when not backed up.
As someone who focuses almost exclusively on British history, I found this book very helpful in offering a more Europe-wide perspective on the Napoleonic Wars. Herold offers lots of detail about events and dates, enabling me to construct a detailed chronology of the period of interest to me. So I guess I’d recommend it for certain people for certain purposes.
I would probably recommend this as a thorough introduction to Napoleon’s life and military career for those not too familiar with French political and military history. I fall into that category, and am grateful for Herold’s clear, no-nonsense style. For the serious scholar approaching this book, however, I would express reservations. Herold offers a lot of data without providing even a glancing source—would it have killed him to say “According to X Scholar” and put together a bibliography? I’m not demanding rigorous footnotes here.
Also sometimes troubling to me, though entertaining, was Herold’s tabloid style of description. Speaking of guarded letters that Napoleon wrote to his family, Herold remarks, “Already he was aware that the political world was a jungle where a man had to eat or be eaten, and that to avoid being eaten one had to dissemble.” About the start of war in 1796: “The Allies opened hostilities with a self-confidence bordering on madness.” Characterizing French soldiers: “Unlike the stolid automata opposing them, the French citizen-soldiers were individualists.” These sweeping remarks make for swift reading but have to be taken with a grain of salt when not backed up.
As someone who focuses almost exclusively on British history, I found this book very helpful in offering a more Europe-wide perspective on the Napoleonic Wars. Herold offers lots of detail about events and dates, enabling me to construct a detailed chronology of the period of interest to me. So I guess I’d recommend it for certain people for certain purposes.
May 24, 2007
This book was quite a surprise--it was very well written and really captured some of the interesting human details of Napoleon's life. It was not at all dry and I think it shows quite well how personality, psychology etc. really play into world events specifically through leadership.
December 27, 2009
I read this book as a follow-up to War and Peace. Like any book that is read for a purpose that differs from those intended by the author, it hit its mark and at times it strayed somewhat afield.
My intent was to fill in the historical setting of War and Peace and this book delivered on this intent with true succinctness. Rather than delving into every detail Napoleon’s life, The Age of Napoleon covered the key events that resulted in his rise to imperial power; the political nature of the countries (and the sovereigns) that he conquered or attempted to conquer; and the events that followed his ruinous retreat from Russia. Along the way, the author strives to define Napoleon’s overall though process, personality, character, and goals. These topics comprised most of the book so I was generally captivated from start to finish.
With this said, the other extraneous-to-my-purpose topics that were covered included the political philosophies that were being explored at the time and the colonial world outside of Europe. These subjects are primarily covered in two separate chapters, so these distractions were brief and not long-lived. Others, however, may find this information of interest.
The author’s style is academic in nature. He presents his facts and theories in a manner that would be consistent with a history professor. Thus, the book comes across a bit dry. This would be especially true if you are familiar with the works of more recent historical authors that strive to make history more suspenseful and/or entertaining.
My intent was to fill in the historical setting of War and Peace and this book delivered on this intent with true succinctness. Rather than delving into every detail Napoleon’s life, The Age of Napoleon covered the key events that resulted in his rise to imperial power; the political nature of the countries (and the sovereigns) that he conquered or attempted to conquer; and the events that followed his ruinous retreat from Russia. Along the way, the author strives to define Napoleon’s overall though process, personality, character, and goals. These topics comprised most of the book so I was generally captivated from start to finish.
With this said, the other extraneous-to-my-purpose topics that were covered included the political philosophies that were being explored at the time and the colonial world outside of Europe. These subjects are primarily covered in two separate chapters, so these distractions were brief and not long-lived. Others, however, may find this information of interest.
The author’s style is academic in nature. He presents his facts and theories in a manner that would be consistent with a history professor. Thus, the book comes across a bit dry. This would be especially true if you are familiar with the works of more recent historical authors that strive to make history more suspenseful and/or entertaining.
August 13, 2017
It is difficult to say that Napoleon is a forgotten figure of history, but his relevance and his romantic hold on our sentiments just doesn't seem to be what it used to. This book is really, really well written and offers an expansive (sometimes too expansive) picture of his era and his impact across the globe.
Author J. Christopher Herold is insightful, witty and has some really good turns of phrase, including this one, about the English during the Napoleonic wars:
"Yet while 'Fight to the death!' was the slogan, 'Comfort as usual' characterized the daily lives of the more respectable elements of the population. Impassioned patriotism filled the halls of Parliament and the columns of the press; if verse could kill, Wordsworth alone would have been the Corsican Usurper's undoing; but it Miss Jane Austen's novels, which give a more faithful picture of English country life than do patriotic histories, contain one single reference to the fact a war was going on, this writer has not found it."
Author J. Christopher Herold is insightful, witty and has some really good turns of phrase, including this one, about the English during the Napoleonic wars:
"Yet while 'Fight to the death!' was the slogan, 'Comfort as usual' characterized the daily lives of the more respectable elements of the population. Impassioned patriotism filled the halls of Parliament and the columns of the press; if verse could kill, Wordsworth alone would have been the Corsican Usurper's undoing; but it Miss Jane Austen's novels, which give a more faithful picture of English country life than do patriotic histories, contain one single reference to the fact a war was going on, this writer has not found it."
September 28, 2013
Neither the best nor the worst work of history I've read; it did fill a significant gap in my knowledge of Napoleon's impact on the formation of the modern world.
"Napoleon was not eager to liberate Latin America; yet his aggression in Spain did just that. He was not anxious to make a world power of the United States; yet his sale of the Louisiana Territory did just that. He had no desire to create German unity; yet by reducing the number of sovereignties from more than three hundred to thirty-six (in order to create useful puppet states rather than to benefit Germany) and by fanning German nationalism, which was directed against him, he did more for German unity than any man except Bismarck. There is no evidence that he wished to unite Italy, but he gave the Italians just enough taste of national independence to set the Risorgimento in motion. He had no desire to strengthen the spiritual power of the pope and sought to foster Gallicanism instead; the result he achieved was to discredit Gallicanism forever and to give the papacy a moral authority it had not had for centuries. The last thing he desired to do was to undermine the institution of monarchy, on which he based his entire edifice; yet by treating kings as if they were postmasters, by demonstrating the utter moral decay of European monarchy, and by his own anachronistic imperial mummery Napoleon dealt monarchy as destructive a blow as did the executioner who beheaded Louis XVI." (pp. 456-7)
"Napoleon was not eager to liberate Latin America; yet his aggression in Spain did just that. He was not anxious to make a world power of the United States; yet his sale of the Louisiana Territory did just that. He had no desire to create German unity; yet by reducing the number of sovereignties from more than three hundred to thirty-six (in order to create useful puppet states rather than to benefit Germany) and by fanning German nationalism, which was directed against him, he did more for German unity than any man except Bismarck. There is no evidence that he wished to unite Italy, but he gave the Italians just enough taste of national independence to set the Risorgimento in motion. He had no desire to strengthen the spiritual power of the pope and sought to foster Gallicanism instead; the result he achieved was to discredit Gallicanism forever and to give the papacy a moral authority it had not had for centuries. The last thing he desired to do was to undermine the institution of monarchy, on which he based his entire edifice; yet by treating kings as if they were postmasters, by demonstrating the utter moral decay of European monarchy, and by his own anachronistic imperial mummery Napoleon dealt monarchy as destructive a blow as did the executioner who beheaded Louis XVI." (pp. 456-7)
January 21, 2021
Among the more negative interpretations of Napoleon, Herold is among the best. He at least understands Napoleon's appeal and he is a capable writer to boot. However, the contention that Napoleon's effect on history is more limited than it seems does not parse out. Even more so is Herold's contention that Napoleon, while smart, was anti-intellectual, even separate from the current of ideas. Whatever he did that was "progressive" was an accident, while he was also a forerunner to dictatorships, a comparison that always strikes me as vapid. No doubt the dictators of the last 100 years have drawn inspiration from Napoleon, but at least Herold is sharp enough to realize Napoleon himself was far less cruel, spiteful, and hateful than the Hitlers and Maos our age.
The Napoleon of these pages is a cold, calculating man without scruples and cruelty, defined by his dynamic will and lack of intellectual curiosity. I do not agree, but Herold does make his case with more skill than most.
The Napoleon of these pages is a cold, calculating man without scruples and cruelty, defined by his dynamic will and lack of intellectual curiosity. I do not agree, but Herold does make his case with more skill than most.
November 17, 2019
This may be the best history book I’ve ever read. The last 100 pages are just as compelling as a first-class novel. It is also a gold mine of information for people (like me) who have a general awareness of the Napoleonic Era but little knowledge of specific facts and details. The chapters covering France’s occupation of Spain and Napoleon’s impact on countries beyond Europe were especially enlightening—I was all but clueless about the consequential relationship between the Spanish war and independence movements in the Americas.
December 30, 2018
Though more than 50 years old, Herold’s book is extraordinarily readable, approachable, and fair. He provides an even-handed assessment of Napoleon and his time. He does so with humor and without getting bogged down in the gritty details that sometimes accompany military histories. Highly recommend for someone seeking a birds-eye view of an extraordinarily complex era in world history.
December 23, 2016
Napoleon is the original, the classic egomaniacal dictator. Gotta learn it.
March 18, 2017
A very good essay of not just Napoleon, but also the age in which he rose to power and would ultimately influence. Highly recommended for anyone who wants to know how he affected the modern age.
May 11, 2020
Overall this was a well-written and compelling read. The author tells a great story about an era of history which I knew little about. He does a good job of analyzing the character of Napoléon and it often feels like you’re almost in the room with Napoléon as the book tells his story.
The book has a few sections that slow the narrative down. Chapters 3, 7 and 9 could be skipped without losing much, especially chapters 3 and 9. I personally found 3 to be interesting and worth the read, but there’s no doubt it’s a strange aside in the main storyline.
Chapter 9, on the other hand, seems like just an excuse for the author to talk about “other stuff going on in the world at the time”. It has only the most tangental link to the main thread of the book.
Overall, I really enjoyed the author’s ambivalence about Napoléon. Was he a hero or a monster? Both? Neither? You’ll probably make up your mind about it by the end but he leaves you in suspense for quite a while. You end up sympathizing and appreciating a lot of Napoleon’s good qualities while contrasting them with the truly despicable ones.
There’s a sense of justice and a sense of tragedy in his downfall. Regardless of your final judgement on the man, the story really is epic. Herold does a good job bringing this out.
My most significant frustration with Herold’s treatment of the era is that he was clearly a desperate lover of the French Revolution, going out of his way to lionize it and it’s successors. Everywhere he is inserting moral judgments about how things would have been so much better if it weren’t for those damn Christians and their traditions. He whines regularly about the workers false consciousness (my use of the phrase, he doesn’t use it). Even after pointing out the horrific nature of the Revolution’s executions and program of political terror he is at a loss to understand why the Spanish people didn’t invite the same thing to happen there. There seems to be a sense that while there may have been missteps by the new order, all that is good and right in the world is contained in the push for socialism. I don’t know if he was a socialist personally, but given his complaints that none of the early historians of Napoléon were socialists (and therefore all their histories are tainted by ideology, haha) it sure sounds like it.
My final piece of evidence on this is his wild misrepresentation of the horrors of the “reactionaries”. I will use examples at the end of the book since they are freshest in my mind.
He describes the royalist response to the revolts in Lyon in 1831 and 1834 as “incredible brutality”. In actuality, the first revolt was put down without any bloodshed, and the highest number of casualties any historian will credit in the 1834 revolt is 600 insurrectionists dead, perhaps as low as 100. Compared to the tens of thousands killed by the Revolution, hardly “incredible brutality”.
When discussing the June Days Uprising in Paris, he characterizes it as the royalist shaving “massacred the Parisian workers”. Knowing his penchant for exaggeration, I looked it up. 3000 dead insurrectionists. However, there were also 1500 dead troops, which to me sounds more like the results of a relatively small scale battle than a “massacre”.
I think this is seen this way because Herold fundamentally sympathizes with the Revolts. So rather than calling it a bloody uprising, he calls it a massacre. How could it be a massacre if there was so much reciprocal violence? It makes perfect sense if you go into your interpretation believing that the workers had every right to rise up and the royalists were entirely at fault for not simply rolling over and accepting the revolutionary government’s legitimacy.
Lastly he makes the claim that the “atrocities and sufferings... inflicted on mankind... when compared to Hitler’s Third Reich or even... Louis XIV... seem almost negligible.”
I’ll give that Napoléon was nowhere near as bad as Hitler, but Louis XIV?? Is he insane?? To try and compare the reign of history’s most notorious criminal to that of Louis XIV beggars belief. Nothing vaguely comparable happened under Louis. Nothing anything like the death and destruction Napoléon caused happened under Louis. This is just a desperate attempt to justify the Revolution by reference to some vague or mischaracterized wrongdoing by pre-revolutionary leaders.
Overall though, the book was a good read and I’m glad I gave it my time.
The book has a few sections that slow the narrative down. Chapters 3, 7 and 9 could be skipped without losing much, especially chapters 3 and 9. I personally found 3 to be interesting and worth the read, but there’s no doubt it’s a strange aside in the main storyline.
Chapter 9, on the other hand, seems like just an excuse for the author to talk about “other stuff going on in the world at the time”. It has only the most tangental link to the main thread of the book.
Overall, I really enjoyed the author’s ambivalence about Napoléon. Was he a hero or a monster? Both? Neither? You’ll probably make up your mind about it by the end but he leaves you in suspense for quite a while. You end up sympathizing and appreciating a lot of Napoleon’s good qualities while contrasting them with the truly despicable ones.
There’s a sense of justice and a sense of tragedy in his downfall. Regardless of your final judgement on the man, the story really is epic. Herold does a good job bringing this out.
My most significant frustration with Herold’s treatment of the era is that he was clearly a desperate lover of the French Revolution, going out of his way to lionize it and it’s successors. Everywhere he is inserting moral judgments about how things would have been so much better if it weren’t for those damn Christians and their traditions. He whines regularly about the workers false consciousness (my use of the phrase, he doesn’t use it). Even after pointing out the horrific nature of the Revolution’s executions and program of political terror he is at a loss to understand why the Spanish people didn’t invite the same thing to happen there. There seems to be a sense that while there may have been missteps by the new order, all that is good and right in the world is contained in the push for socialism. I don’t know if he was a socialist personally, but given his complaints that none of the early historians of Napoléon were socialists (and therefore all their histories are tainted by ideology, haha) it sure sounds like it.
My final piece of evidence on this is his wild misrepresentation of the horrors of the “reactionaries”. I will use examples at the end of the book since they are freshest in my mind.
He describes the royalist response to the revolts in Lyon in 1831 and 1834 as “incredible brutality”. In actuality, the first revolt was put down without any bloodshed, and the highest number of casualties any historian will credit in the 1834 revolt is 600 insurrectionists dead, perhaps as low as 100. Compared to the tens of thousands killed by the Revolution, hardly “incredible brutality”.
When discussing the June Days Uprising in Paris, he characterizes it as the royalist shaving “massacred the Parisian workers”. Knowing his penchant for exaggeration, I looked it up. 3000 dead insurrectionists. However, there were also 1500 dead troops, which to me sounds more like the results of a relatively small scale battle than a “massacre”.
I think this is seen this way because Herold fundamentally sympathizes with the Revolts. So rather than calling it a bloody uprising, he calls it a massacre. How could it be a massacre if there was so much reciprocal violence? It makes perfect sense if you go into your interpretation believing that the workers had every right to rise up and the royalists were entirely at fault for not simply rolling over and accepting the revolutionary government’s legitimacy.
Lastly he makes the claim that the “atrocities and sufferings... inflicted on mankind... when compared to Hitler’s Third Reich or even... Louis XIV... seem almost negligible.”
I’ll give that Napoléon was nowhere near as bad as Hitler, but Louis XIV?? Is he insane?? To try and compare the reign of history’s most notorious criminal to that of Louis XIV beggars belief. Nothing vaguely comparable happened under Louis. Nothing anything like the death and destruction Napoléon caused happened under Louis. This is just a desperate attempt to justify the Revolution by reference to some vague or mischaracterized wrongdoing by pre-revolutionary leaders.
Overall though, the book was a good read and I’m glad I gave it my time.
December 13, 2020
This was an excellent book. It was both a portrait of an era and a portrait of a man, told with the kind of clear and forthright style that leaves the mind feeling refreshed after reading. J. Christopher Herold manages to capture both the spirit of glory and romantic adventure that swept Europe during the quarter century following the French Revolution, as well as the unrivalled cunning of the man who manipulated it all for his own ends.
He shows how General Bonaparte had a brilliant knack for seizing opportunities and winning through sheer boldness, as well as how frequently he was saved by luck or by the actions of a level-headed subordinate. Something like a million men died in his wars of conquests, and by the end of it all, France had been pushed back to exactly the same borders that it had before. But meanwhile the USA had doubled its territories, Latin America had wrenched its independence from Spain, Russia had asserted itself as the saviour and master of Europe, and Canadians had managed to burn down the White House.
One of the questions that led me to this book was whether something like an 'Age of Napoleon' is an essential phase in the development of all civilizations: the overthrow of the land-based aristocratic order by the merchant class, the arming of the commoners to create the first mass armies, the opportunistic leader that scrambles to the top amid the ensuing carnage. A couple of possible parallels come to mind, but those will bear further inquiry.
He shows how General Bonaparte had a brilliant knack for seizing opportunities and winning through sheer boldness, as well as how frequently he was saved by luck or by the actions of a level-headed subordinate. Something like a million men died in his wars of conquests, and by the end of it all, France had been pushed back to exactly the same borders that it had before. But meanwhile the USA had doubled its territories, Latin America had wrenched its independence from Spain, Russia had asserted itself as the saviour and master of Europe, and Canadians had managed to burn down the White House.
One of the questions that led me to this book was whether something like an 'Age of Napoleon' is an essential phase in the development of all civilizations: the overthrow of the land-based aristocratic order by the merchant class, the arming of the commoners to create the first mass armies, the opportunistic leader that scrambles to the top amid the ensuing carnage. A couple of possible parallels come to mind, but those will bear further inquiry.
February 15, 2023
Going ‘napoleon mode’ rn
May 10, 2020
This well-illustrated volume lays out the basics of Napoleon's career trajectory as well as historical developments in the countries of the era. The myths are punctured in favor of showing a man who suffered from hubris. Enjoyable overall.
May 4, 2020
So beautifully written I found myself making handwritten notes of some sentences which are closer to poetry than to prose. In particular, I found the concluding chapter summarizing the life and times of Napoleon to be the book's best. If the rest of the book was as outstanding I would have awarded it a five star rating. The reason I hesitated giving the whole book the highest rating is that this book may be too challenging for a reader without any knowledge of Napoleon or his times. The author clearly assumes that his reader will have some familiarity with the subject. It also needs to be noted that this book is not a pure biography as such, but a tour of the age and time of Napoleon viewed through the prism of Napoleon's life.
March 31, 2010
This book is part biography, part history book as it tells the story of Napoleon in the context of the times he was in: political, cultural, military, economic and social.
I will tell you this up front. Going into this book I knew little to nothing about Napoleon. Literally, aside from knowing that he was a dictator, that he was considered a bad guy, and that the Louisiana Purchase was due to him, I knew nothing else. That stood to be to my detriment in attempting to read this book. It assumed you knew the basics, that you had read the cliffnotes on his life, or that you had a basic historical background in all of Napoleon's battles and activities during this period, which I did not. Following these chapters was almost impossible, and at times I was very lost and caught myself re-reading pages to see what I could have missed.
He also consistently talked down to the reader, which I thought was rich considering this was obviously not a book for beginners or meant to be an introduction to the period as the blurb on the back might lead you to think, but a book written for fellow history buffs like this guy was. He also was pretty denigrating to any theories that didn't agree with what he thought about what happened during the period. The negativity at times was a bit of a turn off.
To his credit he did have a great sense of humor, and in a very droll way had you laughing once in a while as he relayed some anecdote about Napoleon or his battles. And, once he started going back and explaining in a little more detail stuff he said before, it got to be pretty interesting. And, I admit, I did walk away with a basic understanding of what had occurred during that time frame. In the regency era novels I read after reading this book I had a much better grasp of just what was being discussed about the men "serving abroad" during the regency and just what they must have went through serving in Egypt, in Russia, in Spain and at Waterloo.
That being said, that knowledge was hard won. I would recommend you keep looking for a book that gives a more "user friendly" approach to introducing the average reader to the age of napoleon. This book is not meant for light reading!
I will tell you this up front. Going into this book I knew little to nothing about Napoleon. Literally, aside from knowing that he was a dictator, that he was considered a bad guy, and that the Louisiana Purchase was due to him, I knew nothing else. That stood to be to my detriment in attempting to read this book. It assumed you knew the basics, that you had read the cliffnotes on his life, or that you had a basic historical background in all of Napoleon's battles and activities during this period, which I did not. Following these chapters was almost impossible, and at times I was very lost and caught myself re-reading pages to see what I could have missed.
He also consistently talked down to the reader, which I thought was rich considering this was obviously not a book for beginners or meant to be an introduction to the period as the blurb on the back might lead you to think, but a book written for fellow history buffs like this guy was. He also was pretty denigrating to any theories that didn't agree with what he thought about what happened during the period. The negativity at times was a bit of a turn off.
To his credit he did have a great sense of humor, and in a very droll way had you laughing once in a while as he relayed some anecdote about Napoleon or his battles. And, once he started going back and explaining in a little more detail stuff he said before, it got to be pretty interesting. And, I admit, I did walk away with a basic understanding of what had occurred during that time frame. In the regency era novels I read after reading this book I had a much better grasp of just what was being discussed about the men "serving abroad" during the regency and just what they must have went through serving in Egypt, in Russia, in Spain and at Waterloo.
That being said, that knowledge was hard won. I would recommend you keep looking for a book that gives a more "user friendly" approach to introducing the average reader to the age of napoleon. This book is not meant for light reading!
July 4, 2012
This is a cleverly written book with a little information about Napoleon, and a lot of information about the times he lived in and the effect he had on Europe and much of the world.
At some point I'll have to read a history that actually talks about Napoleon himself, in depth. Initially, the author goes into a few details (born in Corsica, not France; military education; was able to take advantage of the need for stability that people felt near the end of the French Revolution), but as the focus shifts to larger themes, chronology starts to break down. I spent a certain amount of time wanting to scream at the author, "who the heck is this duc d'Enghien whose death you keep referring to?" before he finally went back and explained.
On the other hand, that's kind of missing the point of the book. It really is about the *age* in which Napoleon lived and operated. There are explorations and explanations of the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany (which wasn't a united country at the time, but rather a very large collection of principalities), Russia, and "The New World" including the United States (which made the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon), Haiti, and various Spanish colonies that were affected by Napoleon's conquest of Spain.
The second chapter was particularly dizzying to me. It felt like a mad rush through the philosophy and art of the 18th and 19th centuries. I think if I knew a bit more about these topics to begin with, I'd probably understand more about how he was piecing them together. Instead, I held on with my fingertips and tried to hang on as best I could.
The best part of the book is the writing. Funny, thoughtful, and engaging. It must have been difficult trying to balance breadth (all of Europe and most of the rest of the world) with depth, but I think he did a really good job.
At some point I'll have to read a history that actually talks about Napoleon himself, in depth. Initially, the author goes into a few details (born in Corsica, not France; military education; was able to take advantage of the need for stability that people felt near the end of the French Revolution), but as the focus shifts to larger themes, chronology starts to break down. I spent a certain amount of time wanting to scream at the author, "who the heck is this duc d'Enghien whose death you keep referring to?" before he finally went back and explained.
On the other hand, that's kind of missing the point of the book. It really is about the *age* in which Napoleon lived and operated. There are explorations and explanations of the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany (which wasn't a united country at the time, but rather a very large collection of principalities), Russia, and "The New World" including the United States (which made the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon), Haiti, and various Spanish colonies that were affected by Napoleon's conquest of Spain.
The second chapter was particularly dizzying to me. It felt like a mad rush through the philosophy and art of the 18th and 19th centuries. I think if I knew a bit more about these topics to begin with, I'd probably understand more about how he was piecing them together. Instead, I held on with my fingertips and tried to hang on as best I could.
The best part of the book is the writing. Funny, thoughtful, and engaging. It must have been difficult trying to balance breadth (all of Europe and most of the rest of the world) with depth, but I think he did a really good job.
April 19, 2011
This book was an adventure to read. 3.5 stars. The author is witty and insightful, and treats his subject with objectivity.
The author concludes that Napoleon was a man of extreme opportunism, intelligence, ambition, bravery and conservatism. There can be no doubt Napoleon impacted the world, however the author insists that while Napoleon was not the hero of the French Revolution as he claimed, he was the wrecking ball paving way for a new world order. While the ideas of the French revolution (Enlightenment and Nationalism) surely spread as a result of Napoleon, it might have been an entirely accidental result of his conquests. For example, the sheer ass kicking that Napoleon laid down to the Prussians several times created a need for the monarchy to free the serfs and liberalize the laws. He also contributed to German nationalism by French example and common enemy.
I thought that this book could have been a little more exciting, as surely given the sheer wit of Napoleon and his contemporaries one should be able weave an engrossing narrative with ease. However the battles are described dully, and the author spends too much time criticizing his various subjects. Napoleon was a fool, but everyone else was even more foolish. I get it. In hindsight we can see that Enlightenment, Industrialization and Nationalism was to take hold, and surely we have a better bird's eye view of the large global conflicts, so I grew a little tired of the author's critiques.
All in all, I received from this book more than a working knowledge of the Age of Napoleon in an entertaining way and for that, mission accomplished
The author concludes that Napoleon was a man of extreme opportunism, intelligence, ambition, bravery and conservatism. There can be no doubt Napoleon impacted the world, however the author insists that while Napoleon was not the hero of the French Revolution as he claimed, he was the wrecking ball paving way for a new world order. While the ideas of the French revolution (Enlightenment and Nationalism) surely spread as a result of Napoleon, it might have been an entirely accidental result of his conquests. For example, the sheer ass kicking that Napoleon laid down to the Prussians several times created a need for the monarchy to free the serfs and liberalize the laws. He also contributed to German nationalism by French example and common enemy.
I thought that this book could have been a little more exciting, as surely given the sheer wit of Napoleon and his contemporaries one should be able weave an engrossing narrative with ease. However the battles are described dully, and the author spends too much time criticizing his various subjects. Napoleon was a fool, but everyone else was even more foolish. I get it. In hindsight we can see that Enlightenment, Industrialization and Nationalism was to take hold, and surely we have a better bird's eye view of the large global conflicts, so I grew a little tired of the author's critiques.
All in all, I received from this book more than a working knowledge of the Age of Napoleon in an entertaining way and for that, mission accomplished
January 20, 2014
Certainly not a towering work of history or biography, but a pretty pleasant ride through a book that serves both purposes at once. The book focuses on Napoleon's rise and exploits, but intersperses Napoleon's story with stories about the countries, ideas, and people involved. The effect is to create not a just another "life of Napoleon" but to bring the reader (especially the American reader, like me) some context into the fascinating era that brought forth a Napoleon, and how Napoleon's 15 year tear through Europe affected the map and cultures we see today.
Herold is witty and snappy, making this book pretty easy reading. One detraction I have is that it has a bit of a learning curve for those who aren't bringing much foreknowledge about 18th and 19th century European history to the party. I think Herold assumes that you've heard of a lot of the major players, like the Bourbon monarchs, Czar Alexander, or Madame de Stael. He doesn't neglect some summary characterization for the completely uninitiated, but it still can feel like a whirlwind of names and locations until you start getting your bearings.
Maybe that's just an admission of my ignorance. Anyway, I liked the book more than 3-star rating, which would be a history book sufficiently thorough in its subject, but without notable literary flair. It would fall dramatically short compared to a book like Team of Rivals, though, so it's a 4.
I guess a two-star book would be a book with enough facts to make it passable, but written artlessly, or missing major pieces of interest in the story. A one would be something obnoxious, unreadable, untrue, in poor taste, or overtly manipulative.
Herold is witty and snappy, making this book pretty easy reading. One detraction I have is that it has a bit of a learning curve for those who aren't bringing much foreknowledge about 18th and 19th century European history to the party. I think Herold assumes that you've heard of a lot of the major players, like the Bourbon monarchs, Czar Alexander, or Madame de Stael. He doesn't neglect some summary characterization for the completely uninitiated, but it still can feel like a whirlwind of names and locations until you start getting your bearings.
Maybe that's just an admission of my ignorance. Anyway, I liked the book more than 3-star rating, which would be a history book sufficiently thorough in its subject, but without notable literary flair. It would fall dramatically short compared to a book like Team of Rivals, though, so it's a 4.
I guess a two-star book would be a book with enough facts to make it passable, but written artlessly, or missing major pieces of interest in the story. A one would be something obnoxious, unreadable, untrue, in poor taste, or overtly manipulative.
July 25, 2013
Not quite what I was expecting, which was a more or less straightforward biography of Boney. Until the last 10 pages or so, the author didn’t really give any insight into what drove him. Why did he do the things he did? It almost seems like he did them because he could, which maybe is the answer. So many things seem to almost have been handed to him, or at least there wasn’t much objection. I mean, come on--he kidnapped the Pope and held him prisoner for several years!! How does someone get away with that? And make himself Emperor? Not a lot of insight also into what else was going on that could allow all of this to happen, except some strange detours into current philosophy. And too much detail on all the battles.
August 30, 2014
Actual Rating: 3.5
While it contained a lot of good information, I felt as though J. Christopher Herold's format was not for me. I understand it is difficult to find a way to convey information about complex international affairs, but it was so helter-skelter that I could not get into the flow of the history without having it disrupted as we moved to a different part of the world.
One of the high points, however, was the fact that Herold opened my eyes to Napoleon, who was more myth than man, and showed me the man who wanted to be magnificent. It was not sympathetic, per se, but I did enjoy his perspective on Bonaparte.
While it contained a lot of good information, I felt as though J. Christopher Herold's format was not for me. I understand it is difficult to find a way to convey information about complex international affairs, but it was so helter-skelter that I could not get into the flow of the history without having it disrupted as we moved to a different part of the world.
One of the high points, however, was the fact that Herold opened my eyes to Napoleon, who was more myth than man, and showed me the man who wanted to be magnificent. It was not sympathetic, per se, but I did enjoy his perspective on Bonaparte.
January 17, 2017
Great history of Napoleon's France. More than just a military or political history, Herold gives you a real flavor of the age, expressing as well as I've ever seen the build-up and consequences of the French Revolution and what it meant for countries that aren't France (though certainly for France). Herold looks at the era's philosophies, and trends in many fields that combined to form an era that was bound to birth a Napoleon Bonaparte. And so it did. A great read. It's a shame more modern histories aren't written in this form and style. And with this much wit--it's genuinely funny in many places.
January 16, 2017
Wish I had read this book back when I got it which was likely about the time it was published. There is a great deal of history that I was missing. In approximately 1963 I had the opportunity to read a book (more like a pamphlet) titled "Napoleon in Victory and Defeat" by Lt Col Stacey, Canadian Army Historical Section which was quite different in scope as it was written for study by Canadian Army Officers. The details in this book of how Napoleon returned from exile were unknown to me. I found this quite interesting.
July 23, 2020
An odd book really. I would have described this as more a book using Napoleon to frame an overview of the state of and relationships among the European monarchies than a book about the man himself (which fits with the title, I guess). Worse, there are many unsubstantiated and quite unbelievable claims about various members of the royal families that caused me to question the validity of the whole book. Interesting in a general sense but not a book I would recommend as a reliable primer on the period.
September 12, 2013
I really enjoyed this book because it balanced information about Napoleon with the times that he lived in. I wanted to avoid the Napoleon biographies which seem to talk a lot about his family relationships and try to psychoanalyze his decisions and relationships. Herold gives a lot of good historical background and I especially appreciated his historic discussions of all the other countries where Napoleon had an impact.
December 6, 2016
As the title implies, this book is less a conventional biography of Napoleon than a survey of the age he lived in and his impact on events, particularly in Europe. The last chapter, on his "Legacy and Legend", was the most instructive. The chapter about the "Spanish Ordeal" was perhaps the most memorable. Herold was an exceptional writer whose prose kept me engaged throughout, even in chapters where the subject matter was less interesting.
January 4, 2017
This book is a largely successful attempt to paint the Napoleonic Era’s impact on the world as well as on France. Necessarily, it is sketchy and at times numbing in its detail. But it is the first time I have been able to visualize the impact of Napoleon on all the continents, from Australia to (and particularly) South America. And his domestic impact from the Code Napoleon to the departmental system.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews