What do you think?
Rate this book
Napoleon
With a new introduction by Andrew Roberts.'A penetrating interpretation...No one with a serious interest in the Napoleonic period can afford to ignore it. ' - Times Literary SupplementWhether viewed as an inspired leader or obsessed tyrant, Napoleon has divided opinion for over 200 years. Few individuals have left such a mark on history. Georges Lefebvre's classic work, published in Routledge Classics in one paperback volume in English for the first time, is a definitive portrait of the Napoleonic era.Lefebvre's history sweeps us from the lightning coup d'etat of 18 Brumaire in 1799 to his final downfall amidst the wheatfields of Waterloo. More than a biography, it is a brilliant survey of the turbulent age Napoleon inaugurated in his attempt to redraw the map of Europe, from the Peninsular War to the invasion of Russia. The cast includes his antagonists - Pitt the Younger, Wellington, Metternich and Tsar Alexander - and his allies - the wily Minister of Police Fouche and Talleyrand, the 'Prince of Diplomats'. Lefebvre's account is equally clear-eyed about Napoleon's genius and his flaws. Napoleon's determination to emulate Caesar and Augustus condemned Europe to more than a decade of war and economic crisis, but he also built an empire, introducing educational, administrative and financial initiatives that are still in place today.Georges Lefebvre (1877-1959) One of the foremost historians of the Twentieth Century and known as the 'historian's historian', he held the chair of the French Revolution at the Sorbonne . His The French Revolution is also available in Routledge Classics.
600 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1932
17 people are currently reading
425 people want to read
About the author
Georges Lefebvre
152 books23 followersGeorges Lefebvre was a French historian, best known for his work on the French Revolution and peasant life.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
May 26, 2013
BOOK REVIEW: NAPOLEON by GEORGES LEFEBVRE
Although Lefebvre was a Marxist historian writing in 1935-1936, his book is nevertheless the 'Great Man' type of work that the Marxist school were very much against. He wrote while Hitler was in power in Germany and there are conscious and subconscious allusions to the dictator throughout this book. He uses the Nietzschean phrase 'the will to power' several times in reference to Napoleon as if it was simply Napoleon's unbridled ego that led to the many wars of the early C19th. He lays the blame for war squarely at Napoleon's feet.
Few people realize that after Nietzsche died in 1900, his sister Elisabeth gathered together his unfinished notebooks and published them as The Will to Power: Attempt at a Revaluation of all Values. She was feted by the Nazis and told Hitler that her brother would have welcomed him and Nazis philosophy. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Yet the philosopher's views as espoused by his sister, were very much in favour with Hitler and his cronies. This support with such a highly regarded academic background appealed to the dictator's vanity. In return for this endorsement, Elisabeth became a virtual sainted grandmother of the Third Reich. However, she reinterpreted many of Nietzche's ideas and warped his views in order to please her powerful new patron.
Elisabeth inferred that her brother Friedrich would have been a supporter of Hitler's anti-semitism. In fact, Nietzsche ended his friendship with Wagner because of the latter's anti-semitism and spoke of the anti-semite as being the lowliest type of person - the exact opposite of what Elisabeth was saying to Hitler. The Nazi dictator's own philosophy of Social Darwinianism - that the strongest should survive and that the devil could take the hindmost - could be bolstered by the now warped ideas behind the theory of the will to power, hence Hitler made use of it. Thus Nietszche became the so-called 'Philospher of the Third Reich' and has often been unfairly denigrated subsequently because of this.
Hitler persecuted and murdered the Jews - Napoleon gave them equal rights, and freed them from unfair restrictions throughout the territories under his control. And he was the first person to suggest that they should be given a homeland of their own in the Holy Land.
Napoleon was unlike Hitler, Stalin and Mao in other respects. Those three dictators eliminated all opposition. Despite repeated treachery from Talleyrand, Fouché, Bernadotte and many others, Napoleon did not have them executed. Indeed, he even invited Cadoudal - who have been plotting to murder him - to become an officer in his Army. Also, despite innumerable assassination attempts upon his life by D'Artois, the 'legitimate' heir to the vanished Bourbon throne, paid for by English gold, Napoleon did not respond in kind by trying to murder the British monarch.
Lefebvre goes out of his way to blame Napoleon for 'all the wars' and states that the Coalitions against him were only reacting to his plans of conquest - this despite the fact that Napoleon was usually attacked first by the other powers before he crushed them in battle. Neither does Lefebvre mention that after 1805, Napoleon could easily have deposed Francis of Austria; after 1806 he could have deposed Frederick William of Prussia - but he did neither; and after 1807 he could have really put the Tsar in his place - yet Alexander was treated incredibly leniently at Tilsit.
Lefebvre, despite his main Orwellian thesis i.e. 'Napoleon bad - Allies good', then goes on to describe Tsar Alexander's ambitions and empire-building plans and his unsated desire for more and more territory to add to his beloved Russian homeland. (Long before Alexander, the Russians sent the Second Kamchatka expedition to Alaska from 1733-1743 and soon had vessels trapping sea otters off the Alaskan coast and subsequently down the Pacific Northwest as far south as California.) In fact, Lebevre goes into great detail about the Tsar's plan to attack France in 1811 - the very best and most detailed explanation of Alexander's treachery - when he was supposed to be an ally of Napoleon - I have ever read. This casts Napoleon's invasion of 1812 in a completely new light. In the end, both powers were determined upon war and it was simply a question of who could get their strike in first.
Lefebvre states that Napoleon wanted a quick battle in 1812 and then a new settlement with Alexander to ensure the success of his Continental System. Lefebvre's grasp of the economic, social and cultural aspects of this period in European history is superb - be it about Prussia, Russia, Austria, 'Germany' or even the minor states. His use of detailed records of imports, exports and trade statistics add to the fullest explanation of each powers diplomatic and trading status I have ever come across. His conclusion that England greedily viewed the seas as totally its own domain should come as a surprise to no one. He could have made more of the fact that with its command of the seas, no other power was able to grab as much land and as many colonies as the British, then and subsequently, even outdoing Russia in the end.
Lefebvre's Napoleon is an erudite and scholarly work that still reads like a novel - it is exciting, thought provoking and stimulating. Certainly five stars.
Copyright 2013 John Tarttelin FINS
(Legion of Merit)
A SOULADREAM PRODUCTION
Although Lefebvre was a Marxist historian writing in 1935-1936, his book is nevertheless the 'Great Man' type of work that the Marxist school were very much against. He wrote while Hitler was in power in Germany and there are conscious and subconscious allusions to the dictator throughout this book. He uses the Nietzschean phrase 'the will to power' several times in reference to Napoleon as if it was simply Napoleon's unbridled ego that led to the many wars of the early C19th. He lays the blame for war squarely at Napoleon's feet.
Few people realize that after Nietzsche died in 1900, his sister Elisabeth gathered together his unfinished notebooks and published them as The Will to Power: Attempt at a Revaluation of all Values. She was feted by the Nazis and told Hitler that her brother would have welcomed him and Nazis philosophy. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Yet the philosopher's views as espoused by his sister, were very much in favour with Hitler and his cronies. This support with such a highly regarded academic background appealed to the dictator's vanity. In return for this endorsement, Elisabeth became a virtual sainted grandmother of the Third Reich. However, she reinterpreted many of Nietzche's ideas and warped his views in order to please her powerful new patron.
Elisabeth inferred that her brother Friedrich would have been a supporter of Hitler's anti-semitism. In fact, Nietzsche ended his friendship with Wagner because of the latter's anti-semitism and spoke of the anti-semite as being the lowliest type of person - the exact opposite of what Elisabeth was saying to Hitler. The Nazi dictator's own philosophy of Social Darwinianism - that the strongest should survive and that the devil could take the hindmost - could be bolstered by the now warped ideas behind the theory of the will to power, hence Hitler made use of it. Thus Nietszche became the so-called 'Philospher of the Third Reich' and has often been unfairly denigrated subsequently because of this.
Hitler persecuted and murdered the Jews - Napoleon gave them equal rights, and freed them from unfair restrictions throughout the territories under his control. And he was the first person to suggest that they should be given a homeland of their own in the Holy Land.
Napoleon was unlike Hitler, Stalin and Mao in other respects. Those three dictators eliminated all opposition. Despite repeated treachery from Talleyrand, Fouché, Bernadotte and many others, Napoleon did not have them executed. Indeed, he even invited Cadoudal - who have been plotting to murder him - to become an officer in his Army. Also, despite innumerable assassination attempts upon his life by D'Artois, the 'legitimate' heir to the vanished Bourbon throne, paid for by English gold, Napoleon did not respond in kind by trying to murder the British monarch.
Lefebvre goes out of his way to blame Napoleon for 'all the wars' and states that the Coalitions against him were only reacting to his plans of conquest - this despite the fact that Napoleon was usually attacked first by the other powers before he crushed them in battle. Neither does Lefebvre mention that after 1805, Napoleon could easily have deposed Francis of Austria; after 1806 he could have deposed Frederick William of Prussia - but he did neither; and after 1807 he could have really put the Tsar in his place - yet Alexander was treated incredibly leniently at Tilsit.
Lefebvre, despite his main Orwellian thesis i.e. 'Napoleon bad - Allies good', then goes on to describe Tsar Alexander's ambitions and empire-building plans and his unsated desire for more and more territory to add to his beloved Russian homeland. (Long before Alexander, the Russians sent the Second Kamchatka expedition to Alaska from 1733-1743 and soon had vessels trapping sea otters off the Alaskan coast and subsequently down the Pacific Northwest as far south as California.) In fact, Lebevre goes into great detail about the Tsar's plan to attack France in 1811 - the very best and most detailed explanation of Alexander's treachery - when he was supposed to be an ally of Napoleon - I have ever read. This casts Napoleon's invasion of 1812 in a completely new light. In the end, both powers were determined upon war and it was simply a question of who could get their strike in first.
Lefebvre states that Napoleon wanted a quick battle in 1812 and then a new settlement with Alexander to ensure the success of his Continental System. Lefebvre's grasp of the economic, social and cultural aspects of this period in European history is superb - be it about Prussia, Russia, Austria, 'Germany' or even the minor states. His use of detailed records of imports, exports and trade statistics add to the fullest explanation of each powers diplomatic and trading status I have ever come across. His conclusion that England greedily viewed the seas as totally its own domain should come as a surprise to no one. He could have made more of the fact that with its command of the seas, no other power was able to grab as much land and as many colonies as the British, then and subsequently, even outdoing Russia in the end.
Lefebvre's Napoleon is an erudite and scholarly work that still reads like a novel - it is exciting, thought provoking and stimulating. Certainly five stars.
Copyright 2013 John Tarttelin FINS
(Legion of Merit)
A SOULADREAM PRODUCTION
February 1, 2019
More of a treatise on the Napoleonic era than a biography, this sprawling book delves into every aspect of France's post-revolutionary administration, and suffocates the reader under tons of details regarding bureaucracy, war campaigns, politics, and European economics. Perhaps my timing was off, but I found it to be simply indigestible.
July 29, 2021
Belloc strikes again. He makes history exciting, entertaining, fascinating. I wish we had been given his books in history classes in school. I would have turned out a way better person after graduating. Knowing history is so important.
April 1, 2017
An epic account of the rise and fall of Napoleon.
Wide in scope; detailed, and authoritatively written.
A great introduction to the Napoleonic era.
Wide in scope; detailed, and authoritatively written.
A great introduction to the Napoleonic era.
July 14, 2023
Chi si appresta a questa importante nonché faticosa (più di 800 pp.) lettura deve essere avvertito. Non vi troverà infatti la classica cronaca delle gesta del Bonaparte, né un ritratto e neppure il minimo che ci si aspetta da una biografia, ossia l’obiettivo puntato sul suo soggetto. ‘Ma come?‘, si dirà; è possibile intitolare un libro ‘Napoleone‘ senza raccontare il personaggio-Napoleone, con le sue pose e gli aneddoti più o meno fantastici che lo connotarono?
Sì, eccome. Ed è anche possibile raccontare Napoleone senza neppure citare se non di sfuggita le grandi campagne e battaglie; Borodino e Waterloo non vengono neppure nominate, e Wellington fa capolino solo una volta nel finale! Roba da non credersi, in condizioni normali un libro come questo andrebbe gettato nel cestino. È solo dopo due centinaia di pagine e un po’ di sudore freddo che comprendiamo il senso di questa pazzesca operazione. A Georges Lefebvre, semplicemente, non interessa scrivere sull’Imperatore quel che l’opinione pubblica già conosce, un po’ perché sarebbe inutile (non sarebbe comunque possibile abbellire ancora un mito così impresso nella memoria collettiva) e un po’ perché la sua formazione marxista e la sua sensibilità personale confliggono con l’idea dell’esaltazione individuale. Se volete la solita minestra, dice Lefebvre, rivolgetevi pure alle consuete biografie romanticheggianti e magari a ‘Guerra e pace‘.
Non sarebbe però neppur onesto ritenere questo lavoro fra quelli contrassegnati dal classico determinismo storico, e anzi Lefebvre riconosce sin dal principio il fatto che Bonaparte fu di quei rarissimi uomini capaci di guidare la storia anziché esserne guidati come il cane della favola di Seneca. Solo, egli non lo ritiene il super-uomo delineato dalla fantasia popolare; ma chi, invero, crede più a queste cose, oggi? Soprattutto, ritiene che il Napoleone più importante e memorabile non sia stato il generale sul campo, bensì il legislatore, il politico e, per così dire, l’intrallazzatore diplomatico. ‘Napoleone‘ trascura quindi sconfitte e vittorie militari perché le ritiene, le une e le altre, figlie non del genio strategico militare ma delle scelte, giuste e sbagliate, compiute dall’imperatore dei francesi durante la gestione del potere. Il libro, a costo di annoiare tutti, sceglie di diventare in primo luogo un enorme e dettagliato saggio di storia politica ed economica, focalizzato sull’Europa della cosiddetta ‘epoca napoleonica‘ (1799 – 1821).
Il risultato è impressionante anche perché impressionante è l’erudizione profusa da Lefebvre nel descrivere nei dettagli più minuti ogni singolo aspetto della storia continentale di quel periodo. Si ha la sensazione di potersi perdere, in questa oceanica trattazione. Ma soprattutto è impressionante come, alla fine di questa lettura così poco convenzionale, si percepisca la profonda attualità di molti dei temi ivi affrontati. L’Europa dei tempi di Napoleone, tra guerre causate da crisi economiche, monarchi ambiziosi e statisti imbroglioni, desta la nostra simpatia e ci ricorda da dove veniamo e dove siamo di nuovo finiti.
“Il nome d’imperatore è una parola come ogni altra; quegli che lo porta deve avere altri titoli per presentarsi ai posteri”
Sì, eccome. Ed è anche possibile raccontare Napoleone senza neppure citare se non di sfuggita le grandi campagne e battaglie; Borodino e Waterloo non vengono neppure nominate, e Wellington fa capolino solo una volta nel finale! Roba da non credersi, in condizioni normali un libro come questo andrebbe gettato nel cestino. È solo dopo due centinaia di pagine e un po’ di sudore freddo che comprendiamo il senso di questa pazzesca operazione. A Georges Lefebvre, semplicemente, non interessa scrivere sull’Imperatore quel che l’opinione pubblica già conosce, un po’ perché sarebbe inutile (non sarebbe comunque possibile abbellire ancora un mito così impresso nella memoria collettiva) e un po’ perché la sua formazione marxista e la sua sensibilità personale confliggono con l’idea dell’esaltazione individuale. Se volete la solita minestra, dice Lefebvre, rivolgetevi pure alle consuete biografie romanticheggianti e magari a ‘Guerra e pace‘.
Non sarebbe però neppur onesto ritenere questo lavoro fra quelli contrassegnati dal classico determinismo storico, e anzi Lefebvre riconosce sin dal principio il fatto che Bonaparte fu di quei rarissimi uomini capaci di guidare la storia anziché esserne guidati come il cane della favola di Seneca. Solo, egli non lo ritiene il super-uomo delineato dalla fantasia popolare; ma chi, invero, crede più a queste cose, oggi? Soprattutto, ritiene che il Napoleone più importante e memorabile non sia stato il generale sul campo, bensì il legislatore, il politico e, per così dire, l’intrallazzatore diplomatico. ‘Napoleone‘ trascura quindi sconfitte e vittorie militari perché le ritiene, le une e le altre, figlie non del genio strategico militare ma delle scelte, giuste e sbagliate, compiute dall’imperatore dei francesi durante la gestione del potere. Il libro, a costo di annoiare tutti, sceglie di diventare in primo luogo un enorme e dettagliato saggio di storia politica ed economica, focalizzato sull’Europa della cosiddetta ‘epoca napoleonica‘ (1799 – 1821).
Il risultato è impressionante anche perché impressionante è l’erudizione profusa da Lefebvre nel descrivere nei dettagli più minuti ogni singolo aspetto della storia continentale di quel periodo. Si ha la sensazione di potersi perdere, in questa oceanica trattazione. Ma soprattutto è impressionante come, alla fine di questa lettura così poco convenzionale, si percepisca la profonda attualità di molti dei temi ivi affrontati. L’Europa dei tempi di Napoleone, tra guerre causate da crisi economiche, monarchi ambiziosi e statisti imbroglioni, desta la nostra simpatia e ci ricorda da dove veniamo e dove siamo di nuovo finiti.
“Il nome d’imperatore è una parola come ogni altra; quegli che lo porta deve avere altri titoli per presentarsi ai posteri”
April 29, 2021
Für mich nicht lesbar. Das ist eine einzige Auflistung von Fakten ohne jegliche Einordnung. Personen werden genannt ohne sie vorzustellen, Zahlen und Daten ohne was dazu weiter zu erläutern.
Ich verstehe nicht für wen dieses Buch sein soll. Entweder kennt man den kompletten Hintergrund schon, dann frage ich mich aber wozu man dieses Buch noch lesen muss? Oder man kennt so wie ich die Geschichte grob und ist vollkommen verloren nach 50 Namen, die man alle einzeln nachschlagen muss. Getreidepreise steigen oder sinken um bestimmte Werte, aber welche Auswirkungen hat das?
Finde die Hauptaufgabe eines Autors ist es die Fakten zusammenzutragen UND in einen Kontext zu fassen, damit der Leser dies nicht tun muss. Auch die Armeebewegungen sind überhaupt nicht illustriert. Ich muss also jedes Dorf nachschlagen und mir selber eine Route erstellen.
Ich bräuchte, um dieses Buch wirklich komplett zu verstehen und zu erfassen, locker ein Jahr. Personen, Daten, Bewegungen etc. Das ist es mir nicht wert.
Ich verstehe nicht für wen dieses Buch sein soll. Entweder kennt man den kompletten Hintergrund schon, dann frage ich mich aber wozu man dieses Buch noch lesen muss? Oder man kennt so wie ich die Geschichte grob und ist vollkommen verloren nach 50 Namen, die man alle einzeln nachschlagen muss. Getreidepreise steigen oder sinken um bestimmte Werte, aber welche Auswirkungen hat das?
Finde die Hauptaufgabe eines Autors ist es die Fakten zusammenzutragen UND in einen Kontext zu fassen, damit der Leser dies nicht tun muss. Auch die Armeebewegungen sind überhaupt nicht illustriert. Ich muss also jedes Dorf nachschlagen und mir selber eine Route erstellen.
Ich bräuchte, um dieses Buch wirklich komplett zu verstehen und zu erfassen, locker ein Jahr. Personen, Daten, Bewegungen etc. Das ist es mir nicht wert.
July 30, 2025
Napoleone è la Repubblica
Il titolo e fuorviante, infatti non è proprio una biografia di Napoleone. Per esempio l'infanzia di Napoleone è descritta in mezza pagina, così come i suoi ultimi anni da deportato a Sant'Elena. Se è vero che la Coalizione ha visto in Napoleone l'uomo della Repubblica e della Rivoluzione, la sua incarnazione (nonostante egli in sé si era discostato dalla Rivoluzione volendosi equiparare agli altri Re d'Europa e fondare la sua Dinastia) allora la scelta è ottima. Per l'autore Napoleone e la Rivoluzione sono inscindibili.
Non consiglierei questo libro per chi intende iniziare a leggere Napoleone senza saperne molto. Lo ritengo più un libro di approfondimento (Così come ''Napoleone e il Grande Impero''). A parte la lentezza delle prime 100 pagine comunque il libro inizia a farsi molto interessante dando uno sguardo molto vasto a tutto l'assetto europeo e globale. C'è molta economia e statistica, ma molte cose sono veramente interessanti. Sono 460 pagine.
Il titolo e fuorviante, infatti non è proprio una biografia di Napoleone. Per esempio l'infanzia di Napoleone è descritta in mezza pagina, così come i suoi ultimi anni da deportato a Sant'Elena. Se è vero che la Coalizione ha visto in Napoleone l'uomo della Repubblica e della Rivoluzione, la sua incarnazione (nonostante egli in sé si era discostato dalla Rivoluzione volendosi equiparare agli altri Re d'Europa e fondare la sua Dinastia) allora la scelta è ottima. Per l'autore Napoleone e la Rivoluzione sono inscindibili.
Non consiglierei questo libro per chi intende iniziare a leggere Napoleone senza saperne molto. Lo ritengo più un libro di approfondimento (Così come ''Napoleone e il Grande Impero''). A parte la lentezza delle prime 100 pagine comunque il libro inizia a farsi molto interessante dando uno sguardo molto vasto a tutto l'assetto europeo e globale. C'è molta economia e statistica, ma molte cose sono veramente interessanti. Sono 460 pagine.
September 2, 2025
Contrary to what the title might suggest, this is not a biography of Napoleon but more of a political, diplomatic, and economic history of Napoleon's reign from 18 Brumaire to St. Helena. As with Lefebvre's other titles on this era, it is very thorough but dry and assumes that the reader is already well-versed in the subject matter. That said, it covers a lot of ground in great detail. Recommended for enthusiasts.
April 18, 2019
Took a while but can honestly say, yes, cover to cover.
December 19, 2016
Le storie di Napoleone, con le sue grandi vittorie e i colpi di genio vengono descritte da uno storico inglese.
March 18, 2020
A magisterial work, with an excellent translation.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews