Napoleon: The Man behind the Myth

by Adam Zamoyski

A landmark new biography that presents the man behind the many myths. The first writer in English to go back to the original European sources, Adam Zamoyski’s portrait of Napoleon is historical biography at its finest.

Napoleon inspires passionately held and often conflicting visions. Was he a god-like genius, Romantic avatar, megalomaniac monster, compulsive warmonger or just a nasty little dictator?

Whilst he displayed elements of these traits at certain times, Napoleon was none of these things. He was a man, and as Adam Zamoyski presents him in this landmark biography, a rather ordinary one at that. He exhibited some extraordinary qualities during some phases of his life but it is hard to credit genius to a general who presided over the worst (and self-inflicted) disaster in military history and who single-handedly destroyed the great enterprise he and others had toiled so hard to construct. A brilliant tactician, he was no strategist.

But nor was Napoleon an evil monster. He could be selfish and violent but there is no evidence of him wishing to inflict suffering gratuitously. His motives were mostly praiseworthy and his ambition no greater than that of contemporaries such as Alexander I of Russia, Wellington, Nelson, Metternich, Blucher, Bernadotte and many more. What made his ambition exceptional was the scope it was accorded by circumstance.

Adam Zamoyski strips away the lacquer of prejudice and places Napoleon the man within the context of his times. In the 1790s, a young Napoleon entered a world at war, a bitter struggle for supremacy and survival with leaders motivated by a quest for power and by self-interest. He did not start this war but dominated his life and continued, with one brief interruption, until his final defeat in 1815.

Based on primary sources in many European languages, and beautifully illustrated with portraits done only from life, this magnificent book examines how Napoleone Buonaparte, the boy from Corsica, became ‘Napoleon’; how he achieved what he did, and how it came about that he undid it. It does not justify or condemn but seeks instead to understand Napoleon’s extraordinary trajectory.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, France, European History, Audiobook, War

728 pages, Hardcover

First published September 6, 2018

About the author

A historian and a member of the ancient Zamoyski family of Polish nobility. Born in New York City and raised in England. He is Chairman of the Board of the Princes Czartoryski Foundation. On June 16, 2001, in London, England, he married the artist Emma Sergeant.

Reviews

[Sumit RK · Rating 4 out of 5]

"What A Novel My Life Has Been!" ~ Napoleon

Napoleon, A life, is an interesting take on Napoleon and his life. Mr. Zamoyski has crafted an intriguing account of Napoleon's life, relying mainly upon the accounts and impressions that he left upon his contemporaries. The focus of this work is more upon social and political history of the Emperor and is less on battles and campaigns.

The book traces Napoleon’s rise from his not so humble beginnings in Corsica & his education at the military academy of Brienne to his rise as a military star, his military campaigns of Italy, Syria and Egypt, his coronation as Emperor and his many campaigns incl the disastrous one against Russia. We finally conclude with his banishment to Elba, his final defeat at Waterloo and death in 1821.

The story of Napoleon has been written many times before. So, What makes this biography different? I would say two major things in particular;

Firstly, Adam Zamoyski works to discover the man behind the legend. He discards the mythology and hero worship and aims to get as close as possible, to Napoleon the man. Napoleon is instead presented as a flawed human with both genius and faults, both an extra-ordinary general and at times a coward, at times a calculated genius and a whimsical dictator at others. There are many shades to the enigma, which is perhaps why he is still so fascinating even today. Throughout the book, Zamoyski tells the personal side of Napoleon’s life—his complicated relationship with his family, his relationship, his friendships his political rivalries, his hopes, his triumphs and his failures. This book does not hesitate to be critical if needed. So, if you are looking for a glowing tribute to Napoleon, this book may not be the answer.

Secondly, Instead of focusing on his military campaigns, the author chooses to focus on the prevailing situations which influenced his decisions. Zamoskyi warns readers in his introduction that he examines the military aspects of Napoleon's life only as he feels they effected his political and personal situation. This leads to an uneven study of the military aspect of Napoleon, heavily emphasized in the beginning and much less so by the 1812 campaigns in Russia. Waterloo receives barely a page and a half. Personally, I thought this aspect was disappointing. Napoleon’s battles and his military achievements formed a much important part of his life than any other modern ruler. It’s much like reading a biography of Alexander the great, without focusing of his military campaigns.

Overall, at 500 pages, it’s a detailed and well researched book. The author was able to deconstruct Napoleon’s life piece by piece, separating myth from reality. A good read for those interested in learning more about French history and those who want to learn more about Napoleon.

Many thanks to the publishers Perseus Books & Basic Books, the author Adam Zamoyski and NetGalley for the ARC.

[Nika · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Fortune is a fickle courtesan," Napoleon once said.
His life is an example of this.

As the author notes at the beginning, his main goal in writing this book was "to examine how he became ‘Napoleon’ and achieved what he did, and how it came about that he undid it." Having finished this biography, I would say that he largely succeeded in conveying his perspective.
It was a long, involved read, but the page count is justified given how eventful Napoleon's life was. All the principal episodes of his life and career are covered without overwhelming the reader with details.
Adam Zamoyski portrays Napoleon as a great general and tactician, yet a poor strategist. According to the author, Napoleon usually acted tactically, responding to circumstances without an overall strategy. While I tend to agree with this assessment, especially given how Napoleon's career ended, I would add that the distinction between tactics and strategy is often blurred and easier to discern in hindsight.
Zamoyski points out that "Napoleon did not start the war that broke out in 1792 when he was a mere lieutenant and continued, with one brief interruption, until 1814." He adds that responsibility for the hostilities cannot be placed squarely on one side or the other because "all the belligerents must share the blame."

We will examine the transformations that Napoleon - born Napoleone Buonaparte - experienced throughout his life. He began as a young, somewhat idealistic man who wished to help his native Corsica gain independence. He then became a French officer imbued with the ideas and ideals of the French Revolution. He appears to have been loyal to the revolutionary authorities, successfully fighting the enemies of the French Republic, until the coup that granted him power and made him the first consul. Having consolidated power, he was not a dictator, at least at first. He probably truly wanted to serve the nation, basing his legitimacy on the nation's will. Modernizing reforms were carried out. The financial situation was more or less stabilized after the turbulent years of the Directory. Roads and bridges were built. Napoleon and his team supported the arts and sciences. The famous civil code was introduced. Socio-political institutions were built and strengthened.
However, as the saying goes, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Napoleon's policies and ways of handling matters grew increasingly despotic, hectoring, and voluntaristic.
Increasing grandiosity also marked his foreign policy. One example of Napoleon's voluntarism was his treatment of Holland and his brother Louis, whom he declared King of Holland.
It is interesting how Napoleon was perceived in the lands he conquered. His image mutated from liberator to oppressor. Initially, many regarded him as a liberator, even though the French often plundered the conquered territories' wealth. However, the opposition and resentment against Napoleon and his French troops grew.
While Napoleon didn't deem it necessary to change anything after his military successes, his opponents were learning from him and modernizing their military forces. Furthermore, the French emperor thought, he could rely on the manpower of the territories he conquered and draft more people into his armies. Bonaparte was not as reckless with the lives of his soldiers as is sometimes assumed.
With such enterprises as the military involvement in Spain, which ultimately failed, Napoleon outstretched his capabilities.

After divorcing his first wife, Josephine, the emperor needed to find a bride with a royal pedigree.
Napoleon wished to marry the young sister of Alexander I who had just turned fifteen to cement an alliance against the British and to tickle his vanity. But the Russian tsar was stalling, never seriously considering giving his sister to the French emperor, and Napoleon made up his mind to marry Marie-Louise, the eighteen-year-old daughter of the emperor of Austria.

Napoleon was a master of propaganda, with a talent for self-promotion and making a big show out of even a small victory. He knew how to rally people to his persona. He carefully crafted his own image through numerous announcements about his successes. He often exaggerated the losses of his enemies and downplayed the French casualties. Yet, exaggerating and embellishing victories requires that victories be achieved. Over the years, Napoleon fashioned an image of himself as "someone out of the ordinary, courageous, wise, modest, but also decisive and above all successful."
Believing in his destiny, he often showed bravery and steadiness under fire and did not spare himself. His self-confidence had an assuring effect on people in moments of crisis.
But when the course of events turned against him, his armies were outnumbered and Paris was threatened by the foreign powers, the emperor of the French was forced to admit defeat and abdicate. Fortune that had long favored him seemed to have abandoned him.

The author offers a balanced account of Napoleon’s downfall. Did it begin in Spain or with his decision to invade Russia? Was Napoleon's defeat at the Battle of Leipzig the beginning of the end?
The war with Russia was a rather improvident move. The French emperor hesitated, not seeing the purpose of this new war. But if he wanted to successfully enforce the Continental blockade and maintain his system in Europe, he needed Russia to be in line with his policies. If he could not achieve this by negotiation, which he obviously preferred, he would fight. Napoleon was accustomed to relying on military means to solve problems. The fact that he saw the legitimacy of his rule in his victories and military glory made him particularly eager not to show weakness. He always sought a strong position from which to negotiate on his terms.
These, coupled with the intransigence of the Russian tsar, led Napoleon to invade Russia. He had allies, if untrustworthy, who were forced to join his army.
Even after crossing the Niemen, Napoleon hoped to reach a peace settlement with Tsar Alexander I, believing that the Russian ruler had been manipulated by his entourage and the British. He underestimated Alexander’s determination to confront him.
Having spent his childhood maneuvering between his father (Pavel I) and grandmother (Catherine II), Alexander developed a certain plasticity and ability to hide his true intentions.

After he had had to abandon the remnants of his army in Russia and hastily return to Paris, Napoleon seems to have had several opportunities to save the situation and extricate himself from the looming fiasco. For instance, he could have played on the conflicting interests of the allies (Prussia, Russia, Austria, and Britain). He could have accepted the Austrian peace proposals, which were quite favorable to France, given the circumstances and the fact that the French resources were diminishing while those of its enemies were growing. Victor at Austerlitz and Marengo, the mature Napoleon was still a great general who knew how to win battles, but he failed to seize some of the opportunities that could have prevented his downfall.

Napoleon was denied death on the battlefield or by attempted suicide. He was sent to Elba. His decision to try to return to power, when he left his exile on the island of Elba, landed in France, and dashed for Paris, quickly turned into another disaster. The Bourbons, who had been restored by the allied powers, were not popular, except in some staunchly royalist regions. This allowed Napoleon to return to the scene and install himself as the ruler of France.
But after the defeat at Waterloo, Napoleon was forced to abdicate the second time. Some of his entourage encouraged him to "dare the last time," seize dictatorial power, and galvanize the French population by declaring ‘la patrie en danger’. However, this time Napoleon was not ready to dare. He was reluctant to unleash civil unrest. The author describes him as "curiously detached and incapable of reaction." But perhaps he was able to see that all his efforts would be in vain. As he himself said on one of those days, "I did not come back from Elba in order to flood Paris with blood." He did not want to aggravate the debacle and go down in history as a man who brought destruction to his capital.
Circumstances, it should be added, encouraged Napoleon's decision to escape from Elba.

Napoleon had plans to flee to the United States but ended up boarding the British ship. It seems that Napoleon may have hoped to find asylum in England. In his own words, he wished, "like Themistocles, to come and sit by the fireside of the British people." He was to be sent to the island of St Helena in the South Atlantic to spend the rest of his life.
You almost feel sympathy for this fatally wounded lion, but then you start thinking about the more than 50,000 men who were killed and injured at Waterloo in the wake of Napoleon's return to power.
The fallen emperor appears to have had a tendency in his last years on St Helena to exonerate himself and find fault with others. His bitterness during his captivity on the island is psychologically understandable, and many would probably behave this way if they happened to have it all and then lose it all. However, he revealed his manipulative side by portraying himself as a 'victim' of unjust persecution by British 'jailers.'
With Napoleon's death, he began a new life as a myth.

The author does not seem to like Napoleon, and it can be felt in his description of Napoleon's appearance. He insists Napoleon be short, though some assessments say he was of medium height. Zamoyski cites eyewitnesses who described Napoleon as small and short and were unimpressed by the French ruler's looks. I would add that the way someone's physical appearance is perceived owes much to the beholder.
In describing the relationship between Napoleon and Maria Walewska, the author seems to lend credence to a certain rumor.
I would have liked to see more excerpts from Napoleon's letters in this biography.

The book's strength lies in the author's evenhandedness in addressing the subject matter. If he does not sympathize with Napoleon, he does not sympathize with anyone else either. He often highlights the mediocrity of Napoleon's opponents, especially in war.
Zamoyski mentions that the British exploited Bonaparte’s actions in Jaffa (Palestine), where he ordered the execution of the prisoners and the French troops sacked the town taken by assault, in their propaganda. But "British troops behaved no better during the concurrent war in India against the Mahrattas, or later in the Peninsular War."

To sum up, if you are going to read more than one biography of Napoleon, I recommend including this one.

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are two books by the same name,” Napoleon: A Life”. This one is by Zamoyski and was published in 2019. The other is by Andrew Roberts and published in 2015. I read it in 2015 and found it to be an outstanding biography of Napoleon. The reason I decided to read Zamoyski’s book was his attempt to debunk the fantasy, myth and exaggeration of Napoleon’s life. Zamoyski attempts to reveal more about Napoleon’s personal life than did Roberts.

The book is well written and researched. Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) has had so much written about him. I have been fascinated by Napoleon since I was a child. Therefore, I have read much written about him. A book must have a hook or different approach to entice me to read it. Zamoyski primarily portrays Napoleon as a self-made opportunist. The author attempts to reveal Napoleon’s skills and talents as well as his flaws. Zamoyski states Napoleon was a tactician not a strategist. That is the opposite opinion from most historians. Napoleon was gifted in many areas from mathematics to logistics. He also imposed his theory of how governments should operate on Europe. He also rewrote the legal system and it is still in use today. Zamoyski continued the falsehood about Napoleon’s height. He was 5’7” which was the average height of a French man in that era. This book is easy to read and well worth the effort.

I read this as an audiobook downloaded to Audible. The book is twenty-seven hours and ten minutes. Leighton Pugh does a good job narrating the book. Pugh is an actor and audiobook narrator.

[Brett C · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The people want only me...I am not only the emperor of the soldiers, I am the emperor of the peasants, the plebians of France...that is why despite the past, you can see the people gather to me. There is a bond between us." pg 640

This was a remarkable read in my opinion. Adam Zamoyski wrote a smooth narrative that retained my interest from start to finish. Napoleon was a complex man driven with high internal expectations that transferred into his everyday life. Zamoyski was able to articulate Napoleon's dual-sided life: the genius, the master, and the forward-thinker putting France first; on the other hand, the weak minded, insecure, and stubborn flawed hero who put himself first.

This started from childhood and his Corsican upbringing that would resonate with his for the rest of his life. His career began at a young age with military school, commissioning as a new officer, climbing the ranks within the military bureaucracy, and evenetually becoming influential in politics to become Emperor.

What set Napoleon apart from his peers was his application and his intellectual curiosity as a young man (pg 25). He was a voracious reader throughout his entire life; he viewed himself as the grunt soldier at heart ready to endure hardship, but the knowledgeable warrior, the "military monk" (pg 407) ready to outmanuever any opponent before him. This would continue throughout his life as politics overcame his life. As a man of action with a military background and a mathematical mind, Bonaparte had a clear idea of how to proceed with the task he had set himself (pg 297).

After some time in the French military machine, he emerged a cynical realist ready to adapt to the dangerous world that came out of post-Revolution France (pg 70). This careful blend of attitude and action created the image of Napoleon most people conjure up

Buonaparte had become adept at disregarding his superiors and bypassing their instructions without giving offense, employing flattery where necessary. He also knew when to force the issue and to intimidate in order to have his way. pg 73

His successes continued and he became more diplomatically impactful with military success in the Italian campaign and the Egyptian expeditionary campaign. His military career started to blend into politics as his popularity grew among the upper echelons of French politics. But again at heart, he saw himself as the soldiers' soldier

His treatment of the troops under his command had been designed from the start not only to make them more effective as fighting men but to turn them into his men. He had achieved the first aim by giving them victory: nothing acts on the soldier's self-esteem like success. pg 119

Napoleon's political climb after his Egyptian and Syrian campaign was the turning point to where he eventually became Emporer of the French Empire. Yet his flaws were the downfall that would eventually lead to his abdication, the success of the multilateral coalition forces against France, the defeat at Waterloo, and his imprisonment by the English on St. Helena island. The Russian campaign was a prime example of his military might but also an unnecessary expenditure of French resources, manpower, and casualties that drove a wedge between Napoleon and the French political body.

The [Russian] operation was not only a magnificent feat of arms; it was an extraordinary demonstration of the resilience of the Napoleonic military machine and of his ability to inspire men of well over half a dozen different nations to fight like lions for a cause which was not theirs. pg 562

Overall I would highly recommend this narrative biography on Napoleon. The readability and fluidity was what kept me engaged in this 670-page endeavor. I learned a great deal and enjoyed this book. Now I will see the movie this weekend only to hope it accurately reflects the story. Thanks!

[Anthony · Rating 4 out of 5]

He Was Napoleon

Count Adam Zamoyski wanted to write this book ‘not to justify or condemn, but to piece together his life.’ Zamoyski wanted to tell the story of how he achieved what he did and then when it came down to it, how he undid it all. Napoleon defined an age and to Zamoyski he is very much a product of his times and the figure of the era he lived in. Perhaps no other human has become central to a particular period of history for so long like Napoleon has. Yes, Genghis Khan or Adolf Hitler waged war which changed the world, the Victorian Period is named Queen Victoria, but Napoleon was his era. Zamoyski believes that Napoleon’s success was not through a genius never seen before, but rather through an insatiable desire for power. This was also the cause of his downfall. Zamoyski has already touched on this idea in his excellent 1812 book.

Born into provincial nobility in 1769 on the island of Corsica, the young Napoleon was a veracious reader who through being able to prove his noble blood was accepted into the Military Academy of Brienne and the Ecole Militaire in Paris. He studied Alexander the Great,
Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great and Charlemagne. Alongside Machiavelli, Rousseau and Goethe. All contributed to the development of a young man unknowingly about stride into one of the most catastrophic events in human history. His world would be turned upside down and only through military and political success would he survive.

When the horrors of the French Revolution came Napoleon’s outlook on humanity changed, his romanticism died when faced with reality. His destroyed a Royalist stronghold supported by British, Spanish and Sicilian troops at Toulon in 1793. This was his first test and as Zamoyski writes he showed he was a brave and very cool commander. Promoted to brigadier general at 24, the Bonaparte name was becoming famous. Campaigns in northern Italy in 1796 followed where he was given independent command. Success followed success and no one looked to be able to stop his ascent to the top. Italy was a defining moment as he was his won man, shown to be a leader of men. It was here that he met many of his future marshals. From here The Directory sent him to campaign in Egypt. But hubris was already infecting Napoleon by this time. He failed to take Acre, was heavily defeated at the Battle of Nile, through the genius of another: Horatio Nelson. This campaign was a disaster, he even embarrassingly tried to convince Ottoman pashas he would convert to Islam if they would follow him. They didn’t believe a word of it.

He cast this campaign into the dustbin and left his troops behind, racing back to Paris to overthrow The Directory and form the Consulate in 1799. The Revolutionary Wars were over the Napoleonic ones had just begun. Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of the French Republic in 1804, in a position only Richelieu or Louis XIV could only have dreamed of. He was at the height of his power in the following years with the sunning victories at Austerlitz, Marengo, Ulm and Jena, followed by the Peace of Tilsit and the Continental System imposed, whereby European ports were closed to British ships. But with Nelson’s victory at Trafalgar in 1805, Britain still controlled the seas. Therefore the Continental System didn’t work, as it could trade with elsewhere rather than other European states. It in fact had the opposite effect, as it drove Russia away who couldn’t itself trade with Britain. In invading Russia in 1812 to bring it back into the fold, Napoleon sealed his own fate. From here it was a rapid decline. His own judgement and miscalculations heavily contributing to his downfall. This all came to a climax at Waterloo in 1815 and his subsequent exile to the island of Saint Helena where he died in 1821.

Zamoyski is an excellent writer and in my opinion has written one of the best books in popular history on the Napoleonic Wars; his 1812. Napoleon: The Man behind the Myth is good and provides an overview of the controversial upstart emperor, however there are details missing. Take notice that this is much shorter than other competing biographies. However, these can be supplemented with other books even by Zamoyski himself. Zamoyski does touch on thematic elements to Napoleon’s life such as the women in it, Josephine de Beauharnais and Marie Louise of Austria, plus his string of mistresses. There is also the complex relationship with his immediate family and his friends and political rivals. But for me, more here is needed. The strangest thing is that there is no conclusion or analysis, Napoleon dies and the book ends. What's the overall message from the author around the man himself? Something which is debated and constantly under contention even today. This is better than Napoleon the Great by Andrew Roberts, Zamoyski although still a fan of Napoleon, is more realistic and clearly not trying to sell a tagline. The magic cleary left Napoleon after 1810 and mistake after blunder cost him everything. In summary, to me the subject is fascinating and I have tried to devour every book on the subject on my path and clearly I recommend this book!!

[Boudewijn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much has been written about Napoleon and I expect you could fill half of New York’s Public Library with them. Loved by many, feared and hated by many others, resulting in an often romantic way of describing Napoleon’s life or depicting him as a mass murderer. This book, by Adam Zamoyski, stands somewhere in the middle: it focusses more on the person Napoleon rather than his achievements on the battlefield. It gives an objective view of (as the title says) “man behind the myth” with his insecurities and other lesser qualities. It was a refreshing and easy to read biography of one of the most fascinating figures in history.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Napoleon: A Life, by Adam Zamoyski, is a fantastic new biography of Napoleon Bonaparte, one of Europe's most interesting 19th century statesman. Napoleon was born into a relatively well off aristocratic Corsican family, who were grappling with identity and status in recently annexed Corsica. Napoleon's family would court both Corsican nationalists and French occupiers, mercurially playing sides off, switching allegiances, and trying to gain status, save face, and become wealthier. Napoleon as a young child was sent to mainland France to join the military, and as a young child and a budding man would embrace military matters, and seek identity both as a French officer and a Corsican nationalist. These two sides were clearly in conflict, and when the French revolution broke out, Napoleon would be enthralled by Republican ideas, writing poetry, prose and yearning for Corsican freedom along Republican lines. He found a patron in France willing to help support his families ambitions, and on his fathers death, would exert increasing influence over family affairs, even though his older brother Joseph was technically the family head. He had numerous younger siblings, and over the years would influence them, put them in positions of power, and continually look after his family first, almost as an instinct.

Napoleon would join battle frequently during the turbulent revolutionary years, and began to make a name for himself as a talented artillery officer. Due to the cut throat nature of French politics, and the civil war between Royalists and Republican forces, Generals were in short supply, either due to their Royalist sympathies, or from being executed or forced to flee. Napoleon's talent saw him defeat a French landing force in Southern France, and his talents were recognized quickly. He would eventually rise to the rank of General quite rapidly, and sent off to command the Army of Italy, a side show meant to keep Savoyard forces at bay while the main Army of the Rhine cut across Germany to confront the Austrian Empire. However, Napoleon won a series of stinging victories, with Savoy and much of Lombardy quickly succumbing to his forces, and winning a string of battles against the increasingly vulnerable Austrians. Napoleon at this point began to entertain thoughts of greater power, and would frequently make diplomatic decisions that would usually be the provision of the French government, including armistices and ceasefires with belligerent states in Italy. The government would grow wary of Napoleon's power, but could not shy away from his talent and his ability to command. Napoleon was often a illusive figure, diminutive, disheveled, self loathing; but he had an infectious charisma and fiery passion for action that bound people to his will. Couple this with his ability to multitask to extreme degrees, and his ability to remember small details about his subordinates, even after long periods of separation, made him a dynamic and effective leader of armies and an excellent politician.

He would use his influence to gain even greater power, eventually being sent by the Revolutionary government to invade Egypt - then in principle part of the Ottoman Empire, but de facto independent. The thought was that the Ottoman's would relish some semblance of control in the restive region and may in fact welcome the French in a region that other European powers were coveting. However, this was not the case - the Porte reacted by sending in armies, and Napoleon was to decisively defeat these, as well as numerous British and allied landings. First, Malta was seized from the Knights of St. john, then Egypt quickly fell, and Napoleon marched up the Levant as well. However, the lack of supplies due to British blockade, and the growing lack of morale in the armies began to take their toll, and Napoleon would return to Egypt proper to administer the French colony. This was short lived, growing geopolitical trouble on the mainland forced Napoleon's recall.

The politicians of Revolutionary France had reached a crisis. Public opinion had soured on revolutionary politics, as the ongoing civil war, pressure from external forces, and a growing political and economic crisis was encouraging many Generals and politicians to consider seizing power in various forms of coups. Napoleon was widely popular both with the army and the public, and his deft hand in negotiations, as well as his unstoppable and overbearing personality, made him a natural fit for seizing power. Originally he planned to rule with three others, while maintaining some of the semblances of democratic government. His brother, a member of the legislative house, forced a vote on Napoleon as a caretaker, but many did not agree. This lead to a fascicle vote where most of the council walked out after soldiers were brought in to try and frighten the delegates into voting in favour. While this was unpopular with the ruling elite, most of the general population craved stability after years of warfare, leading to either general acquiescence and even some welcoming the initiative.

Napoleon in power quickly sidelined his ruling partners, marginalized the democratic government, and set about reorganizing the state in a more autocratic fashion. His coup was not welcomed in Europe, and he set about stabilizing France's geopolitical position. Belgium was annexed, as was Savoy proper, and puppet kingdoms and Republics were set up in much of Norther Italy. Venice was subsumed by Austria, and her Adriatic possessions taken by France. This was short lived, as Napoleon was beset by Austrian forces hostile to his government, eventually marching on Vienna and defeating a combined Russian and Austrian force. he also annexed the East bank of the Rhine, and set up puppet states in a Confederation of the Rhine, which included Württemberg,
Baden and Bavaria, among other small German states. Prussia, originally an ally of France, turned on her and was quickly routed, with the country occupied and much reduced by enlarging Rhine states and creating two new entities - Westphalia and the Grand Duchy of Poland. Napoleon would face opposition from Britain, and eventually was forced to invade Naples, the Papal States, Spain and Portugal. Napoleons brothers were installed in Spain, the Netherlands, northern Italy and Neuchatel, with other relatives and close associates installed in various Duchies and small kingdoms across the land. Genoa was annexed, as was the Papal States. The Swiss were incorporated, as was Catalonia. many other possessions, like Illyria, Malta, the Ionian Islands and so on were incorporated into a growing French Empire, and most of the mainland was under French influence.

Napoleon also presided over massive reforms in France. France became and Empire, and Napoleon its hereditary Emperor. He closed down inefficient systems of government, instead presiding over the minutia of government

[Marks54 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Napoleon would not fit well into today’s discussions about grown children still living at home with their parents and having troubles getting launched and figuring out their careers. No shiftless twenty something here! In his twenties (1789-1799) he went from being a young Corsican nobody to a military hero, political dictator in a coup d’etat (first consul) and the conqueror of much of Europe. By 40, he would still have made the lists of up and coming military leaders, along with being Emperor. And then, things went off the rails.

Adam Zamoyski has written a fine biography on one of the most written about people ever. It is shorter the Roberts’ 2015 book, primarily due to less material about particular battles and campaigns. Zamoyski’s book excels at showing how Napoleon moved through the stages of his amazing life and how he adapted or failed to adapt to his rise. He has a clear perspective about his subject - that he is much closer to being a normal person than is generally recognized, albeit one with great talents who found himself in the right situation and the right time and generally figured out what to do about it, at least at first. That he ultimately fell from power is not surprising - who has really managed to pull off world domination? What is astonishing is what he accomplished in such a brief life, both good and bad. Zamoyski is well aware of the complexity of his central character and tries to present Napoleon as best as he can. He generally succeeds. While he has a clear perspective on Napoleon, he does not overdo it in attempting to instruct the reader.

It would be foolish to try to summarize the life of one of the most written about people ever. Every battle, every government initiative, every relationship have all been the subject of separate books - or at least worthy of mention. What struck me were the principles that could easily be articulated on the basis of this biography, many of which are highly relevant to political and business leaders today.

1) Confidence will get you a long way, especially in battle and even if you are short, young, and inexperienced. Be sure to learn from your experiences of taking chances.

2) In volatile times, it is important to “spin” what you do if you wish to remain a successful military and political leader.

3). Confidence can readily turn into stubbornness with terrible consequences when the world changes. It is less helpful in pursuing poor decisions rather than risky good ones.

4) Never ever believe your own PR “spin”. Do believe in and be critical of your ability to rationalize bad decisions.

5) If you employ a winning strategy against the same set of opponents over an extended period of time, they may learn how to counter your moves and even apply your own strategy against you. If your opponents are using your strategy too, you no longer have a competitive advantage.

6) “Diminishing Returns” are real in a wide range of situations and make the danger of continuing a strategy too long a serious one.

7) Flashy tactics are exciting and fun; building a sustainable and well administered enterprise is not fun and yet necessary for any long term success. Napoleon actually had some skills here too.

8) DO NOT EVER INVADE RUSSIA.

9) DO NOT EVER INVADE THE MIDDLE EAST.

10) DO NOT EVER GET INVOLVED WITH SMALL UNCONVENTIONAL “GUERILLA” WARS.

11) If you do not understand an opponent’s strategy, it might prove worthwhile to think more about it than you have already. Just because you do not understand it does not mean there is no strategy.

12) If your trusted associates and subordinates counsel you against a course of action, pay attention.

13) Avoid letting others (soldiers, employees, associates) bear more of the costs of your decisions than you do.

14) Expansive nationalism provides a nation with short term benefits in manpower and commitment but becomes problematic when other states adopt the same strategy. See WW1.

Get the idea? It is hard to blame Napoleon too much once it is clear how easy it is to perpetuate his mistakes, even given access to what happened to him and others after him.

There is a lot in Zamoyski’s book and it is well worth reading.

[Sarah ~ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Napoleon: A Life - Adam Zamoyski


لدي الكثير من الأفكار والتعليقات حول هذا الكتاب، لكن ستكون هذه المراجعة مقتضبة فأنا مرهقة حقًا..
من المعلومات المتعارف عليها بين القراء حول هذا الكتاب أن كاتبه متحامل على نابليون وكان قاسيًا عليه، لكن وللغرابة أجد أنه كتاب جيد ومحايد تقريبًا، لغته معتدلة ولا أرى أي هجوم من أي نوع ولا أراه متحاملًا بل وضح الأحداث التاريخية وحاول تحري الدقة كثيرًا في أكثر من مناسبة. وكان حتى عادلًا في ما يخص فشل حملته على احتلال عكا وما صادفه من صعوبات في الطريق مثلًا.
لا أدري كيف يعتبر كتاب مثل هذا وكأنه كتاب يتحرى مثالب نابليون في حين كان منصفًا وربما أكثر من منصف بل أقرب لمتسامح، إن كنت أريد قراءة كتاب عن شخصية تاريخية لا أعرف عنها الكثير، فأريده أن يكونَ مثل هذا الكتاب.
مأخذي الوحيد على الكتاب أنه كان سريعًا في تغطية لأحداث حياة نابليون الحافلة، صحيح أنه 700+ صفحة لكن كنت أود لو يستفيض أكثر في عدة مواضع .

كتابي القادم سيكون أيضًا عن نابليون وهو كتاب يوصف بأن كاتبه يرفع نابليون لعنان السماء ويعظمه، لنرى ماذا سيقول.

[Klaas Bottelier · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The man behind the myth”, the subtitle says it all, even if you have read books about Napoleon before I still recommend this one, it is a very well researched and in-depth view on Napoleon as a person, an excellent read.

This was some quality writing, as I expected from Adam Zamoyski, he always brings history to life so well. Very well researched, the bibliography at the end of this book was 19 pages long, the Napoleonic era is clearly Zamoyski’s specialty (as evidenced by his other works).

I took my time with this tome, it was a slow but excellent read on a subject that interests me a lot, the Napoleonic era. Much has been written about Napoleon and I had read a biography and several books about this time period before, yet this book stands out, it focused more on the person Napoleon rather than his achievements on the battlefield or elsewhere. Full of personal communications between him and his loved ones, staff and even his rivals.

Was there ever a more controversial man in history? Loved and venerated by many, hated and feared by many others. This book highlights both his good qualities of which there were many as well as his bad qualities of which there were many. And for this reason, he remains one of the most interesting men in history to me.

Napoleon’s life reads as one big adventure, and he was undoubtedly an audacious man. One of his generals said of him that he was an “extraordinary man” who possessed something which set him apart and lent him authority, “It is to dare, and to keep daring and he carries that art to the limits of temerity”.

What stands out is that he was so much more comfortable on a battlefield, speaking to his troops than he was in Paris, playing the political field and speaking to politicians, even if he did get things done as an administrator. Some might say his life may have been more in danger at home in Paris, than it was out on a battlefield where bullets seem to have respected him more than the politicians of Paris, this was especially true in that tumultuous time before he became consul (and later emperor).

Napoleon had an incredible work ethic, both as a general and as a politician, and he drove those around him like slaves. He was hard to work with but often he did get great results.
He was also a master of propaganda, he blew up events when it suited his image and reduced them to nothing when it didn’t.

He would often be overly dramatical, and this worked to his advantage as he could sell himself, his exploits and his dreams very well but also to his disadvantage as many people around him would grow tired of his overly theatrical behavior, his fits of anger and such. Quite a few people that stood by him at one point betrayed him in the end.

He looked at most things very pragmatically, he was mostly just interested in what got him the best results, this was clear even with something like religion. He could not be considered a true believer, he disliked much about scripture, but he thought that atheism was "destructive of all social organisation, as it robs Man of every source of consolation and hope". He thought that a proper religion was "a vaccine for the imagination" inoculating people against "all sorts of dangerous and absurd beliefs".

One of the things that drove him when he acted as consul of France was that “he believed that his only title to rule rested on his making France greater than she was when he had come to power”. He succeeded initially, he made many administrative changes and he did succeed in making French territory larger, and then he became emperor and things started to change. "He does not appear to have worked out in his own mind the ultimate purpose or the limits of the empire he was building". From 1806 onwards he no longer built monuments for the nation or the army, but for the person of the emperor. A clear shift of focus that was also important for the way he was viewed by people back then and even today. For the countries around him that saw him as a liberator before he turned into an oppressor. It is well described how Napoleon's decisions after he became emperor slowly but surely laid the grounds for the downfall of himself and the French empire.

And he started making bad decisions as a commander as well, before that fateful march into Russia and towards Moscow, Napoleon seemed to not really know what he was going for in this campaign, writing: "I feel myself propelled towards some unknown goal". Zamoyski adds: "He had assembled the greatest army the world had ever seen, with no specific goal; by definition, aimless wars cannot be won”. The march into Russia in 1812 proved to be his downfall, another great book by Zamoyski is written about this disastrous campaign: "Moscow 1812, Napoleon's Fatal March", I’ve read this as well and it is probably my favorite history book, highly recommended.

When the French empire was about to crumble and Napoleon's armies were outmatched he couldn’t handle that very well, when it was time to negotiate and sue for peace he kept delaying and delaying until peace talks blew up, "he could envisage only one way of reasserting his right to rule, by redeeming himself on the battlefield, and as a result threw away his last chance of keeping the throne of France".

And then of course there was his return from exile, the Hundred Days as it is called, "a tragic-glorious chapter in the emperor's march through history", his last attempt at regaining his former glory which ended at the battle of Waterloo and his exile to St. Helena.

All very interesting, what a life Napoleon has lead, so many ups and downs, such adventures. A man of many talents as well as many flaws. And although one of his talents was a talent for self-promotion it cannot be denied he is one of the most fascinating figures in history.

[Literary Redhead · Rating 5 out of 5]

NAPOLEON: A LIFE goes deep into the psyche of the Emperor of the French in this myth-shattering, beautifully written biography. “What a novel my life has been!" Napoleon once said of himself, as the author spins a compelling narrative of the boy born into a poor family, by twenty-six an army general, transformed into a brilliant military commander through marriage with an older woman who seduced him. Within a few years he helmed Europe with power unseen in modern history, his downfall equally stunning. Historian Adam Zamoyski cuts through shopworn mythology to deliver a true portrait of a true legend, set against the scrim of European Enlightenment. Zamoyski wrote the acclaimed 1812: Napoleon’s Fatal March on Moscow and its sequel Rites of Peace, among others. 5/5

Pub Date 09 Oct 2018   

Thanks to Perseus Books, Basic Books and NetGalley for the review copy. Opinions are fully mine.

#Napoleon #NetGalley

[Carolyn Harris · Rating 4 out of 5]

A detailed and engaging biography of Napoleon I with a focus on his early years in Corsica and experiences during the French Revolution before his rise to power. Zamoyski argues that these formative years shaped Napoleon's later reign as Emperor as Napoleon never considered himself to be secure in his position compared to the hereditary monarchs in Europe and sought constant military victories to reinforce his legitimacy as ruler.
As the focus of the book is on Napoleon's early years, later events such as the retreat from Russia and the Hundred Days are discussed comparatively quickly. Zamoyski also keeps the focus firmly on Napoleon's own experiences rather than the wider history of his times and the Emperor's contemporaries are only discussed in terms of his perception of them. As a result, the analysis of Empress Josephine, the Bonaparte siblings, French generals and foreign rulers is a bit one dimensional. The audiobook is very well read by Leighton Pugh.

[Josiah · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm completely bemused as to why this book was written. It is not, as the subtitle suggests, a look at the man behind the myth- there is barely any analysis of the myths surrounding Napoleon, and Zamoyski even unironically at one point refers to Napoleon as 'the Great Man'- an enormous red flag for what is advertised as a counter to Robert's Napoleon the Great. Ultimately this is Yet Another Napoleonic Narrative, of which there are far too many, and therefore unfortunately superfluous. The best narrative of Napoleon is Forrest, because it is short (c.300 pages); anything longer needs to justify its length by being more than a 'then he did x, then he did y, then Josephine annoyed him, then he conquered z.' This, unfortunately, does not overcome that hurdle.

[Dean · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best biograhy I've ever read so far!!!
Readable like an adventure novel...

Filled with historic facts about Napoleons life, but never dull or boring.
Sheding much light on the historic roots of the european nations.

Also the age-old conflict between Europe and Russia is explain, and decisively clarified!

For me Adam Zamoyskis book was an eye opener which enabled me to grasp and understand much of the history from Europe and the roots of many problems and tensions this ancient and proud continent continues to face...

Dean;)

[Liviu · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent biography of Napoleon from a Polish perspective; not as detailed as s ay the recent awesome one of A Roberts or as comprehensive as A Castelot's reference biography, but very engaging and presenting a fairly balanced image of the emperor within the context of his times; while the author avoids simplistic villains/heroes (except of course the Tsar who is the ultimate villain quite understandably, with Napoleon in mnay ways presented as his dupe who really wanted the Tsar's friendship even when he invaded Russia), the book offers lively portraits of all the main personages of the napoleonic saga; highly recommended

[Justyna]

Na razie DNF, ale w tym roku zamierzam dokończyć. Cesarza nie można ot tak zostawić!

***
Mam wrażenie, że ta książka powstała specjalnie dla mnie ❤️

[Matti · Rating 4 out of 5]

Im Großen und Ganzen hat mir diese Biographie gefallen, leider Gottes war sie allerdings nicht durchweg so spannend, wie auf den Blurbs, auf dem Buchrücken, angepriesen. Das Wichtigste ist jedoch, dass mir Zamoyski einen guten Überblick verschafft hat, ohne, wie Willms in "Tugend und Terror" mich, den Leser ohne Französischkenntnissen, mit einer Überfülle französischer Begriffe zu überlasten.
Das Bild, das Zamoyski hier von Napoleon gezeichnet hat, ist schön differenziert. Weder verherrlicht er Napoleon, noch redet er dessen Erfolge klein. Am besten gibt das wohl ein Zitat eines alten Freundes Napoleons wieder, Mathieu Molé:
"Er war weder gut noch schlecht. Weder gerecht noch ungerecht, weder geizig noch großzügig, weder grausam noch mitfühlend; er war gänzlich politisch."

[Sarah Hörtkorn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Was für ein beeindruckendes (Lebens-)Werk! Mit Kühnheit, Beflissenheit, Machtgier und Täuschung stets seine Ziele verfolgt und letztlich als kleiner Mann gestorben. In die Geschichte geht er als einer der Großen ein, die er sein Leben lang bewunderte.

[Thorben · Rating 5 out of 5]

Aufstieg und Fall eines Mächtigen - ein Leben wie eine griechische Tragödie.
Der Autor, der nach eigener Aussage um eine differenzierte Erzählung abseits gängiger Dämonisierungen und Heroisierungen bemüht ist, kann sich trotz allem einer subtilen Sympathie für seine widersprüchliche Hauptfigur nicht erwehren.

Wen das nicht stört (und das tut es mich natürlich nicht), der findet hier in einer Biografie ein mitreißendes Lesevergnügen.

P.S. Mais je n‘aimais pas la fin.

[José Manuel Rodríguez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Falar de Napoleão Bonaparte e cobrir tudo o que essa figura histórica fez em seu caminho se tornaria uma tarefa complicada mesmo para o mais acadêmico dos historiadores.
Para Adam Zamoyski, autor desta biografia impecável, o trabalho foi árduo e detalhado, pois conseguiu reunir nestas páginas a figura do imperador da Europa sem seu uniforme militar e concebê-lo como o homem de carne e osso e que por sua vez foi um esplêndido estrategista que conseguiu dominar todo o terreno por onde pisou.

600 páginas de pura história e experiências bem detalhadas, com fundamentos verificáveis, é um verdadeiro deleite ler este livro que pessoalmente apreciei cada página e cada parágrafo, uma biografia que se lê e pega você, uma biografia que me atrevo a chamo de enriquecedor e verídico, pois o autor soube usar muito bem todo o material recolhido e deixou testemunho de uma investigação tenaz em uma extensa bibliografia.
Napoleão, uma das figuras mais emblemáticas da história universal, é revelado neste livro. Seus medos, seus desejos e até mesmo suas lágrimas, o homem mais ambicioso da história da França finalmente foi mostrado pelo que ele era, um estrategista militar sem igual, um homem implacável, mas imensamente humano, uma figura que você odeia ou amor ou também medo, o homem por trás do mito.

[Melkor von Moltke · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've always been intrigued by Napoleon, although it can at times be difficult to dig through the mythos that surrounds him. As this book reveals, quite a bit of that mythos was built up by the man himself, a shameless self promotor. Mr. Zamoyski digs deeply into this man who proved so influential and reveals a complicated man. Throughout his career Napoleon inspired both love and hatred, and, in spite of his often poor manners and childish behavior, he possessed a charisma that even his opponents had to acknowledge was spell binding.

Mr. Zamoyski has crafted an intriguing account of Napoleon's life, drawing a great deal on the accounts and impressions that he left upon his contemporaries. The focus of this work is less on battles and campaigns and more upon social and political history of the Emperor. His courtly life and the odd attempts he made to recast himself as a dynast, particularly his strange emulation of the Bourbons, are delved into in great detail.

In spite of the already long length of this work, I found myself wanting more details of particular events that are just glossed over. There are quite a few events that were briefly touched upon that I wish Mr. Zamoyski would have delved deeper into. I also felt that the ending left a bit to be desired, like the fates of Napoleon's family, step-children, Marshals, opponents, and others who played significant roles in the Emperor's life.

All in all, I enjoyed this extensive outline of Napoleon's life very much, with my biggest complaint being that I want more.

I received a copy of this book through netgalley.

[Ian Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very extensive and well-researched book that covers the life of Napoleon. It is well-written and shows a wealth of detail, including the background, such as life in Corsica, in Paris, and finally on St Helena. It was hardly surprising Napoleon escaped from Elba; we see his stay there was only financed for two years. What was he supposed to do? It also shows the general incompetence and prejudice of the time. His "jailer" (he was told he was not in jail, but what else was it?) on St Helena declared there was nothing wrong with Napoleon when he was vomiting blood and could hardly stand. He died a few days later; so much for being in good health. The book shows the general lack of honour amongst some of his associates, and of those whom he negotiated with. It shows the nature of post-revolutionary France once it overcame "the terror", and in many ways it was Napoleon who cemented in a more civilised society. Napoleon, according to the book, took overall power largely because he did not trust the more venal nature of those who would take it otherwise. Not that Napoleon lived in poverty; far from it. It also argues that war was more or less forced on Napoleon. The aristocrats and royalty of Europe would never forgive the revolution, and only restoration of the Bourbons would satisfy them. Unfortunately for them, Napoleon quickly showed he was one of history's truly great military commanders.
Which gets me to what I see as the main flaw of the book: with all the details of his private life and the lives of those around him, his military ability is strangely ignored. After reading this, I had no particular idea of how he did it. This becomes of particular importance later in his life. Most people seem to blame the Russian winter for his decline, but this appears to be wrong. After Borodino, Napoleon marched into Moscow, and for a month, did nothing. He had two options: retreat from Russia and hope for peace, or chase after Kutuzov and clean him out. He did neither, Kutuzov re-armed, then Napoleon finally decided to leave Russia but the winter came. Another point. Young Napoleon won most of his battles by superior manouevre, he won Austerlitz that way, but come Wagram, he abandoned it. Why? Following Russia, Napoleon still won most of his battles, but they were inconsequential. The reason was that the loss of men in Russia was not that important (and as an aside, he handled the retreat extremely well, and most would have lost everything). What was important was that he lost a lot of artillery, but even more importantly, he lost most of his horses, and these could not be replaced quickly. An important feature of battles of the time was once one side started to retreat, the cavalry would start cleaning up. Retreats generally lost most of their artillery and this was difficult to replace because economies were much less productive then, and of course, the winner gaained the captured artillery that still worked. Which gets to the near end. He was offered peace with restricted territory, but he turned it down. Why? As a very superior General he must have known the lack of horses meant he had no effective cavalry, so even if he won the battle the opposition would have everything for the next one, but for casualties. He was always very badly outnumbered, so an aggressive war of attrition made no sense. In short, there is something seriously missing from the book, and after all, it is his ability at military command for which we remember him.

[Aidan Mc Carthy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't get it!!!. Adam Zamoyski 's main Napoleonic thrust is that Napoleon was a "very ordinary man", and he tells us this again and again!!!!
My point is simple, if Napoleon was such a "very ordinary man" why did he (Zamoyski) spend so much time and effort writing a huge tome about a "very ordinary man". If he was that ordinary (like the rest of us) we would never have heard of Napoleon.
I prefer this opinion of Napoleon by Hendrik van Loon written in 1921.

"Here I am sitting at a comfortable table loaded heavily with books, with one eye on the typewriter and the other on Licorice the cat, who has a great fondness for carbon paper, and I am telling you that the Emperor Napoleon was a most contemptible person. But should I happen to look out the window, down upon Seventh Avenue, and should the endless procession of trucks and carts come to a sudden halt, and should I hear the sound of the heavy drums and see the little man on his white horse in his old and much-worn green uniform, then I don't know, but I am afraid I would leave my books and the kitten and my home and everything else to follow him wherever he cared to lead. My own grand-father did this and Heaven knows he was not born to be a hero.... If you ask me for an explanation, I must answer that I have none. I can only guess at one of the reasons. Napoleon was the greatest of actors and the whole European continent was his stage. At times and under all circumstances he knew the precise attitude that would impress the spectators most and he understood what words would make the deepest impression.
At all times he was master of the situation.
Even today he is as much a force in the life of France as a hundred years ago"......

There have been 300,000 + books written about this ordinary man….

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Book: Napoleon: The Man Behind the Myth
Author: Adam Zamoyski
Publisher: ‎ William Collins (18 October 2018)
Language: ‎ English
Hardcover: ‎ 752 pages
Item Weight: ‎ 1 kg 140 g
Dimensions: ‎ 15.9 x 5.3 x 24 cm
Country of Origin: ‎ India
Price: 1070/-

At the very onset the author declares: “My aim in this book is not to justify or condemn, but to piece together the life of the man born Napoleone Buonaparte, and to examine how he became ‘Napoleon’ and achieved what he did, and how it came about that he undid it…”

Among other aspects this book informs the reader that Napoleon was a very professional administrator and organiser who adapted to the present needs the ideas of the former generations.

He was a master of details and systematic in all that he did. By making merit the basis of staffing, he was able to secure the services of well-organized persons. He could himself work 18 hours a day and demanded the utmost amount of work from others.

The man once marched 90 miles in three days after the Dresden campaign in 1814.

During the four days of the Waterloo campaign, he was on hose back for 37 hours and slept only for 20 hours out of the 96.

He could with no trouble see the feeble spots in the line of the enemy owing to his magnificent power of surveillance.

His power of striking hard and summarily at the crucial point was of great value in view of the lack of unity among the forces of the Coalitions. He followed up his victories with great vigour. He usually made the most of the opportunity offered to him.

Napoleon rendered great services to France. His victories saved France from foreign enemies. He established a strong and efficient Central Government and thereby saved France from anarchy.

His life and that alone stood between France and civil war.

He gave France a sound system of laws. He promoted education and took active measures to improve trade and industry. He relieved the finances of France by compelling other nations to support French armies. He issued no paper money and imposed no income-tax. However, it is pointed out that after the Treaty of Tilsit, he brought misery to France.

Had Napoleon died in 1807, France would have been grateful to him. His determination to humble England was at the root of all his troubles.

Critics say that Napoleon was the tyrant of Europe. He was not content with the natural frontiers of France. He wanted to extend his authority over other countries of Europe and rule them in a despotic manner. War and despotism were inseparable and ingrained parts of his nature. He wished to suppress Europe by France and Britain by means of Europe.

The Continental System was an attempt to unite Europe against Great Britain. His bitterness against England is clear from the following words: “Our Government must destroy the English monarchy or it must accept itself to be destroyed by these active Islanders.” Napoleon desired to follow in the footsteps of both Alexander, the Great, and Charlemagne. His ambition was not limited to Europe alone and he had a strong desire to go to the East and this is clear from the following words uttered in 1812: “We are going to make an end of Europe, and then to throw ourselves and become masters of India.”

Adam Zamoyski, a British historian of Polish origin, and the author of the bestselling ‘1812: Napoleon’s Fatal March on Moscow’ and its sequel ‘Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna’, divides this book into 44 chapters that run to almost 750 pages.

But not for once while reading this tome did I feel bogged down.

Who was the man then, behind the myth?

Well he was a man with the following qualities:

1) He was the incarnation of the middle-class qualities then coming to the fore. However, he did not fit into the name of a stock exchange and was the villain of a melodrama.

2) He was the symbol of the revival of the Italian condottiere.

3) He was the champion of great France, the central character of her demand for the “natural boundaries”.

4) He was a ‘consummate bourgeois’ who was always intent on the preservation of peace, but was driven to war by the consecutive provocations of all the Powers.

The rule of Napoleon was neither that of a thwarted Prometheus nor the scourge of an Attila nor the violence of an unchecked Jacobin. His rule was one of mixed blessings.

The long period of French ascendancy in the arts and sciences, the universality of the French language and the force of French arms prepared many regions for his domination. The intrinsic strength of revolutionary principles had been alert, intelligent and enterprising bureaucracy that Napoleon built up, helped not a little to popularise those principles in the annexed and occupied territories.

There was also the incalculable force of Napoleon’s genius, directed towards selecting and driving his assistants, supervising their activity, correcting their weaknesses, elaborating suggestions and gathering into a mighty whole the many divisions of administrative policy.

On the debit side must be mentioned his secret police agents, spies, a muzzled press, a rigid censorship and the stifling of all hostile criticism. It shows the suppression of political liberty and introduction of despotism.

The continental blockade made French customs agents and inspectors prosperous. Goods were confiscated. The avenues of trade were choked up by a ruinous tariff. Prosperity was destroyed. Brutal administrators, armies of occupation, heavy war indemnities, astounding taxes and the weight of recruitment awakened national responses against Napoleon.

Religious feeling also turned against him when he became the oppressor of the Catholic church.

The author shows that Napoleon first mobilized a whole nation for war, exploited the French Revolution and deliberately created for himself a vast popular charisma. Compared by the feats of modern dictators, the deviations of Napoleon were limited.

He had no tanks, aircraft or rockets. However, his conscript armies swept over whole countries and in some transformed the social order permanently. After referring to the achievements of Julius Caesar, Constantine, Charlemagne, Charles V, Alexander, the Great, Chenghis Khan, Timur, Babur, Emperor Tai Tsu of the Ming dynasty, Emperor Sheng-Tzu of Manchu dynasty, it can be rightly concluded that no one before Napoleon had mastered peoples who were themselves through superior technology, organization and sea power the potential rulers of the whole world and so glimpsed the prospect of a world empire.

It is true that Napoleon failed to vanquish the British, but his conquest of western and central Europe was of world import in a new way.

The reason is that what happened in Europe then concerned all mankind leading in the 2oth century to wars fought literally for global domination.

Napoleon was the first, as Hitler was the most recent, European dictator to attempt it.

Moreover, most preceding conquerors had been out more to dominate the world than to change it. Napoleon was an 18th century cosmopolitan who wanted to rationalize and reform, sweep away traditional hierarchies and throw career open to talent.

He was the first great conqueror who believed in the modern idea of progress. He intended to enhance the lives of his subjects, not just to order and exploit them. While he cynically employed the old religious and dynastic cults to sustain his power, he remained a Voltaire a rationalist, watching himself with ironic aloofness.

Being an outsider and an adventurer he relished his fabulous achievements with an artist or conductor’s perception. Unlike most military conquerors, he was an intellectual.

He was a born writer and a phrase-maker. He loathed and feared the common people and he lost his Will and courage before civilian violence.

Like Alexander, Napoleon wanted to construct and in a technologically superior civilization actually to improve. John Bowle concludes by saying that those who take the sword are apt to perish by it.

Though for a short time a great statesman, he began and ended as a military adventurer. He was a butcher and a colossal egoist, yet a man great vision, of brilliant and versatile personality and with that flair, force and indefatigable industry which in any sphere of life we call genius.

In tune with the author thus, we can wrap up –

“He was undoubtedly a brilliant tactician, as one would expect of a clever operator from a small-town background. But he was no strategist, as his miserable end attests.

Nor was Napoleon an evil monster. He could be as selfish and violent as the next man, but there is no evidence of him wishing to inflict suffering gratuitously. His motives were on the whole praiseworthy, and his ambition no greater than that of contemporaries such as Alexander I of Russia, Wellington, Nelson, Metternich, Blücher, Bernadotte and many more. What made his ambition so exceptional was the scope it was accorded by circumstance.

On hearing the news of his death, the Austrian dramatist Franz Grillparzer wrote a poem on the subject. He had been a student in Vienna when Napoleon bombarded the city in 1809, so he had no reason to like him, but in the poem he admits that while he cannot love him, he cannot bring himself to hate him; according to Grillparzer, Napoleon was but the visible symptom of the sickness of the times, and as such bore the blame for the sins of all.

There is much truth in this view ………….”

A masterful work of history --- the man behind the mask – the human behind the myth, ladies and gentlemen!!

Most recommended.

[Eric Davidson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Much better than the version by andrew Roberts...

Looking back this book has the essential theme that i like in every biography, focusing soley on the character. It skips most of the battles, looking instead to his reactions and hobbies during the times with a in-depth yet somewhat misguided analysis of his character. Its hard to think that someone who was accomplished ever existed, if he had walked into a room you would think he was just flesh and bones and yet an entire era was named after him. Its because of him that i found what i will probably see as my favourite book: The sorrows of young werther, as such anything else is just a bonus. I am still yet to read Julie by Rousseau or The poems of ossian, which were often read to him at night (This makes me feel better about listening to audiobooks, espically that of Werther at night). Overall the book shows a character like that of Roosevelt (Ted) but perhaps more grounded, by this i mean a man who faced depressive, volatile, existantial and even suicidal moods. Reading his writings of 'On suicide' gave me great relief that almost anyone can get to the point of such dire and pessimistic thoughts and yet go on to conquer life. Plus i love the fact that he pried open a case full of books while on st helena, small details like this made the final third of the book incredible to read, espically considering that it is usually during this point of a book that an author and myself tend to run out of steam instead this was perhaps the best part (the first third, the rising of Napoleon, being the most fascinating).

[Jonathan Blanks · Rating 4 out of 5]

Upon reading War and Peace, I realized I didn't really know that much about Napoleon so I wanted to learn more. I happened upon this biography and am glad I read it. It's very well written, and at times quite funny, but if you're looking for a hagiography or military history, this isn't that. It's less of a critique of Napoleon's character than it is an explanation of how his mind must have operated and his dealings with those closest to him.

Perhaps more than most people, Napoleon is filled with contradictions, and Zamoyski brings them to the fore. He was gauche and unkempt, but at the same time, he was magnetic and charming. He had flashes of strategic genius, but would often fail because of his gargantuan ego. He could operate professional relationships with guile, but much of his personal life was nothing short of ridiculous. Whatever one thinks of him, it is remarkable that a man like Napoleon accomplished as much as he did and is remembered in the way that he is.

I will probably read another biography that deals more directly with his military campaigns--Zamoyski recommends several books in the foreword, including books I was considering when I bought his.

[Alexander Günther · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eine resumierende Gesamtdarstellung, dazu pointiert, kenntnissreich und gut geschrieben ohne je Gefahr zu laufen zum Anekdotenschwank zu mutieren.

https://vivaperipheria.de/2022/10/07/...

Etwas in der Art suchte ich vergebens für #Frankreich. Daher griff ich kurzentschlossen zu Zamoyskis Napoleon-Biografie. Eine gleichermaßen respektlose wie würdevolle Lebensbeschreibung. Und nun zu Frankreich...

[Theo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book. Highly recommended. Did not read anything about Napoleon before and this is a great biography to start with. Well researched it provides a lot of insight in Napoleon's drivers, character and personality. And boy, was he treated badly at the end of his life by the English. Shame on them!

[Innes Chalmers · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel like this extraordinary man lived at least ten lives, his one term of existence was so full of incident.

Not having read any C18-19 European history since school, other than the dramatized references of Hugo and Tolstoy, I found this helpful and engaging.

[Steven Z. · Rating 4 out of 5]

According to British historian Munro Price over 200,000 books have been written about Napoleon Bonaparte. There is a fascination with the French dictator that historians have addressed for over two centuries, and currently Hollywood has produced its own version of Napoleon. Today the most recognized biographies of Napoleon are written by British historians that include the three volume work of Michael Broers, and the single volume by Andrew Roberts which approaches 1000 pages. Obviously, if one is to put pen to paper concerning Napoleon, the result will be a rather long monograph. One of the latest contributions to the Napoleon genre is by Polish historian, Adam Zamoyski entitled, NAPOLEON: A LIFE though shorter than Roberts’ work by 250 pages it is a comprehensive look at the French leader that digs a little deeper into his thought process and ultimate decision making than previous works.

Zamoyski has written a thorough and workmanlike biography focusing on Napoleon’s personal life, domestic issues and relationships, his ideology, domestic and foreign threats to his reign, along with insights and details pertaining to the battlefield and the diplomatic movements of the period. In doing so the reader should acquire an intimate knowledge of Napoleon – what made him tick, what was his belief system, and determine his place in history.

What sets Zamoyski’s work apart is the context that he places his subject. According to the author Napoleon should be seen as “a visible symptom of the sickness of the times, and as such bore the blame for the sins of all.” Zamoyski argues that Napoleon did exhibit extraordinary qualities, but in many ways was quite ordinary. To credit Napoléon as a genius for his many victories, overlooks the worst disaster in military history as he single-handedly destroyed the great enterprise he took years to create. Undoubtedly he was a brilliant tactician, but he was no strategist, as his miserable end attests to. Further, Zamoyski argues that Napoleon was not an “evil monster.” He was selfish, violent, and egocentric, but there is no evidence that he inflicted suffering needlessly. His motives and ambition are akin to Alexander I, Wellington, Nelson, Metternich, Blucher, Bernadotte and others whose careers adjoined Napoleon. In addition, if one examines British actions in India, Canada, and Egypt; Austrian measures in Poland and Italy; Prussian activities in East and Central Europe; and Russian movements across Central Asia, one should conclude he was nothing more than the embodiment of his age. Throughout the monograph Zamoyski develops these themes and integrates a great deal of Napoleon’s personal life and beliefs.

According to Zamoyski, Napoleon’s Corsican lineage plays a significant role in his emotional development and worldview due to how the French government treated his family and the Corsican people in general. As the French Revolution evolved into the “Reign of Terror” and the authoritarian rule of the Directory and the European wars that ensued Napoleon learned that the rules of chivalry did not apply, and only winning mattered. Zamoyski argues that “the dreamy romanticism of his youth had been confronted with the seamy side of human affairs, and at the age of twenty-four he had emerged a cynical realist ready to make his way in the increasingly dangerous world in which he was obliged to live.”

Zamoyski’s portrayal does an excellent job recounting Napoleon’s relationships with Josephine de Beauharnais who he married in 1805 and divorced in 1810, and Marie-Louise, the Habsburg Archduchess who took her place. The detail is striking, providing insight into Napoleon’s emotional state and his genuine love and caring for both women. At times Zamoyski goes overboard as he relates Josephine’s numerous affairs and Napoleon’s adolescent love for Marie-Louise.

Along with the women in his life Napoleon’s family is placed under a microscope, particularly his brothers. First, Lucien, a rather egoistic individual in his own right who helped Napoleon become First Consul during the Brumaire Coup and then lived his life according to his own needs rather than conforming to his brother’s wishes. Second, Joseph who believed he should have been the French Emperor, not his brother who reigned in Italy and later made a mess of his rule in Spain – a rather incompetent individual. Third, Jerome, a total military failure, and lastly, Louis, Napoleon’s favorite who would deal with psychological issues and became king of Holland but angered his brother when he refused to support the Continental system.

A key component in understanding Napoleon’s mindset is his approach to diplomacy which for him was an extension of the battlefield. Zamoyski’s nimbly account recounts Napoleon’s negotiations and relationships with Austrian Chancellor and former ambassador to France, Klement von Metternich, Russian Tsar, Alexander I, Charles Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor, and French Foreign Minister Charles Maurice de Talleyrand who initially supported Napoleon, but turned against him when he believed the Emperor’s expansionist policies went too far. Zamoyski integrates many other key figures into the monograph that includes lesser royal figures, French generals, Russian, English, Prussian, and Austrian figures. In reading Zamoyski’s account it conforms to A. J. P. Taylor’s classic THE STRUGGLE FOR THE MASTERY OF EUROPE, 1815-1848.

One can draw many insights from Zamoyski’s analysis as he argues that Napoleon was a dichotomy in that he felt insecure next to the monarchs of Europe because he lacked their “bloodlines,” as he referred to himself as “parvenue.” On the other hand, he saw himself as a supreme leader creating his own emperorship defeating the monarchies that he compared himself to. Zamoyski does a wonderful job describing the Napoleon-Alexander I relationship as the French autocrat had little respect for the Russian monarch but grew to respect him as he ultimately could not bend Alexander to his will despite professions of love and respect. Other important insights involve the opposition to Napoleon in France from Jacobins and Royalists. A number of coups are discussed, and it is clear in Napoleon’s mind that the only way to remain popular and maintain domestic support was to keep delivering victories on the battlefield as opposed to obtaining peace. For Napoleon war was the tool to tamp down unrest in the military and domestic sphere no matter how much opposition he encountered.

Zamoyski relies a great deal on previous research particularly, Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. His decision making and battlefield conduct are laid out clearly as he quotes from his previous book, 1812: NAPOLEON’S FATAL MARCH ON MOSCOW. Particularly interesting is Napoleon’s admission that invading Russia was a grievous error - a rare confession. One of the highlights of Zamoyski’s work is his reliance on Napoleon’s remarkable correspondence, personal reflections, and notes left by those close to him to create an exceptional portrait of the French Emperor.

Zamoyski’s depiction of Napoleon is enhanced as he tackles his domestic program. The Code de Napoleon, the Concordat with the Papacy, and his educational system are well known, but reflect interests apart from the conduct of war. However, relying on Napoleon’s letters as he describes his cultural interests, his plans for museums, opera houses, wide boulevards and other cultural and architectural projects allowing the reader to acquire a sense of Napoleon’s desires, not only to conquer and spread his “continental system” throughout Europe, but also to encourage and foster intellectual pursuits.

Zamoyski’s achievement in this book is to bring to life Napoleon as a person, not just a military leader, and political ruler. He describes a man who viewed the world through the lens of a game of chess, and people, religion, morality, affections, and other interests as pawns in a game where pieces needed to be moved and used as the situation called for. To Zamoyski’s credit his monograph is eminently readable and deeply researched making it an important contribution to Napoleonic literature.