NAPOLEONNAPOLEONEveryone knows that Napoleon likes power and glory, but what is less known is that he likes money too: wealth and luxury. More than Genghis Khan or Alexander, he owes much to chance and favorable circumstances in his rise to power. He is an able soldier, but a bad manager and a poor diplomat. He is a leader, but not a great leader, not even a statesman. He makes bad choices in the selection of his collaborators, and acts sometimes like a dreamer that has lost all sense of reality. He is impatient, selfish, undisciplined, doesn't tolerate criticism and does not spare the life of his men.
In foreign politics, he doesn't know how to rally and win over the conquered nations and thus secure the stability of his Empire. His home politics is just as disastrous. It leads to economic crisis, unemployment, poverty and social disorder. He will leave behind an exhausted France.
Even from a military point of view, he is not such a genius as we could have been led to believe. After the early brilliant victories, come several severe defeats with serious consequences. The loss of Egypt, the failure in Spain and the disaster in Russia clearly show that, as a war leader and chief of staff, Napoleon is inferior to both Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great.
1- A controversial personality
1- A controversial personality
Napoleon Bonaparte is a controversial character. The Historian Henri Guillemin sees in him an unscrupulous individual, a bandit, a genuine rascal that thinks only of getting rich at other people's expense. He takes advantage of his position as army general to perform vast "looting raids" in several countries of Europe. Other historians see in him a great man, honest, the Savior of France.
He is a short man with a puny look but considerable physical resistance. There is much talk about his fascinating charm, which very few people can resist. He possesses an exceptional strength of intellect, that sees fast and clear, a swiftness of adaptation of his mind to the most intricate questions. He goes from one problem to another entirely different with ease. Like Hitler, Napoleon has a gift for simplification; he sums up with lucidity the most complicated questions. In spite of justified criticism, it is dangerous to deny any exceptional worth to his character. The expression "military genius" could even be somewhat applicable to some of his campaigns.
He succeeds in keeping his cool in times of danger. He has a good eye and shows decision. But these fine qualities are counterbalanced by serious deficiencies. First, he doesn't want to be loved, he wants to be feared. He likes glory, but money even more. We find in him a taste for "power for the sake of power", a thirst for domination. Just like Hitler, he uses sometimes feint anger as a mean to terrify the person he is speaking to, like he did with king Charles IV of Spain. On the other hand, he shows sometimes a leniency that is nothing more than weakness, for instance when he releases the Prince of Hatzfeld (guilty of espionage) because his wife had thrown herself at his feet begging for mercy.
At the beginning of his military career, Napoleon was neither a very zealous-, nor a conscientious officer. He multiplied the "absence of leave" and was, as some historians will call him, a "perpetual soldier on leave". In seven years (1785-1792), he will be at his post only thirty two (32) months. In spite of this scandalous and pitiful service record, he is promoted captain in 1792. This doesn't look very serious. In June 1791, he had been appointed lieutenant. Even though he was still captain in September 1793, we find him brigadier-general three months later (22nd December, 1793). Let's say it again: this does not look very serious (very credible) at all. In October 1795, he will even be promoted major-general, Commander in Chief of the Inland forces ("l'Armée de l'Intérieur").
Napoleon's rise to power is one of a politician general, a civil war general enjoying the protection of several influential friends in the government, all this being favored by social disorder and even anarchy throughout the country. He knew how and when to grab his chance and a favorable occasion when it arises.
He often pursued dreams that lack any clearness and could even look contradictory. Selfishness and the love of glory are the distinctive imprints of his character. He is sure of himself, but he knows that willpower and daring are nothing without favorable circumstances. His clearness of mind and his ever active imagination leave him no concern for details. He will exploit to the fullest the dangerously good occasions and the enormous luck offered by a France torn apart by revolution and Europe at war.
He is doubtless a brilliant general that knows how to command and inspire his soldiers devotion and loyalty. But he is also an extremist like Hitler, prone to the "everything or nothing at all". If we compare the words of Napoleon in 1814: <<in three months, either the enemy will be driven away from our soil, or I will be dead !>> to those of Hitler in 1923: <<either the national revolution (the putsch) will succeed, or I shoot myself in the head with this revolver>>, we see that both men are fanatics, extremely emotional personalities.
Napoleon makes bad choices in his selection of close collaborators and associates. Talleyrand, minister of Foreign affairs,is a selfish and corrupted man. He will betray France and his emperor for money. Fouché, the minister of Police is a competent and efficient individual, but also plotter (schemer) and ungrateful. He will betray Napoleon as well. The Emperor will dismiss him too late and take him back too soon. You can either keep the likes of Fouché (if you watch them closely) or have them shot by a firing squad.
It has been said of Napoleon that he was a good judge of men's character. It is not true for Talleyrand and Fouché, nor was it true for others of his collaborators - for instance Bernadotte -; they will all betray him. This is a major weakness. Every time he goes to war on foreign soil, he must come back in a hurry because they are plotting his downfall in Paris. Why ? Because he didn't make the right choice of collaborators and friends. As soon as he leaves Paris, the plots and conspiracies start again. This does not happen once, but ten times ! At Marengo, in Spain, during his Return from Russia, etc...
Talleyrand will give away secret military information to foreign powers in exchange for cash money: to the Austrian Metternich, to the Tsar of Russia. Napoleon, having uncovered another plot (1)from the same individual, will punish Talleyrand only slightly (by taking away his office as Great Chamberlain). This will induce him to betray even more. This is an unmistakable sign of weakness. Talleyrand is one of those men that must be crushed and trampled down, otherwise he will take his revenge.
Once again, miscalculation ! The fact that Napoleon has no children and no real heir is auspicious to any kind of conspirations. With so much schemers, intriguers and plotters in Paris, the slightest military defeat becomes dangerous and could bring about the downfall of the Empire.
Just like Hitler, Bonaparte is a selfish impatient man for whom human lives have little or no value:
<<I would never do in two days what can be done in two hours, even if it means losing one hundred thousand (100 000) men>>. Nothing seems impossible to him, his strength of imagination drives him constantly ahead. But the opposite view is that futile hopes and presumptuous calculations make him lose the sense of reality.
Just like Hitler near the End, who loses contact with the real world, Napoleon refuses to give up hope after the fall of Paris and dreams of an ultimate attempt to take it back from the enemy. After the defeat in Russia, he still believes he could have 400 000 men at his command in the spring to resume the offensive. He hopes to take up again the struggle against the Tsar and this time win the victory. His optimism clouds him the harsh reality. He can oppose only one soldier to five against Blücher and Schwarzenberg. He still thinks, even outnumbered, that he can beat them in manoeuvering to separate both armies.
It is then that all generals and field-marshals will betray him. Murat, Bernadotte, Ney, Lefebvre, Macdonald, Oudinot, etc... Napoleon will write in March 1814: <<I am not obeyed... I have never been so badly served>>. But did he resort to the right means and go about the right way to command obedience ? He corrupted his generals with too much money and too much luxury; they have therefore no desire or inclination to fight for him, because wealth makes them selfish and lazy.
He may complain openly: <<This is what happens when you hire men that have neither common sense nor personal vigour>>. The fault (mistake) lies entirely with him because he made a bad choice in selecting them. <<Everywhere I am not, they make mistakes>>, when one hires only incapable men and incompetents, he condemns himself to constantly restore or redeem their mistakes and do everything by himself. Napoleon will learn this the hard way.
But why did he choose incompetent individuals to assist him ? In his early days, he listened to qualified people, he even asked for their counsel. With age though, selfishness sank in, with contempt for other human beings and overconfidence in himself. He will allow around him only mediocre minds. He isolates himself gradually as he concentrates all power in his hands. He believes to be right against everyone else's opinion. For instance, he refuses to listen to the First Lord of the Admiralty Decrès, but Decrès is right and the French fleet will be destroyed at the battle of Trafalgar.
He only keeps weak and subservient men around him, who will all betray him in the end. A true leader knows how to choose his collaborators and friends. In this regard, Napoleon is not a true leader.
Not tolerating any criticism or advice, nor even any independent opinion, having no one of stature around him, no man of character on whom he could rely, he is then quite alone to make all decisions. He must take care of everything by himself, be all the time and everywhere present, which is impossible.
Wishing too much to control and manage everything, his mind would wear out and tire. It would take only one wrong move, blunder or "faux pas" to bring the downfall of the empire. He rejects many times genuine peace offers against the advice of those few wise men still trying to approach him. He then seems to be sacrificing his country to his personal ambition.
This ambition will sometimes make him forget his military duty. For instance, his refusal to obey orders and rejoin his post in Vendée. But there is worse. In charge of the expeditionary force in Egypt, he abandons his men and his command and returns home to France without authorization and out of his own initiative. In all armies of the world this is called abandoning his post in times of war. He is liable of court-martial and public execution (firing-squad). He abandons again the remnants of his army in Russia to come back to Paris. In Spain, the same thing, he leaves his army and gives command to someone else.
Napoleon lacks perseverance, he doesn't carry out his deeds (actions) to the end (contrary to Genghis Khan). He is an unstable and changing man. Besides, at the beginning of the Russian campaign, he doesn't have the same personal dynamism, the same physical strength or this swiftness of decision anymore. The Russian war coincide with his personal decline. Lack of vigour, lowering of the curve of his fortune and destiny, he becomes incapable of daring, sluggish and inactive.
Napoleon brags of having bought generals of the opposing armies during the campaign of Italy. Everything is possible with him when it comes to money. His power ensures him wealth and luxury.
War brings him glory and personal prestige, it secures inner peace for the country, but above all war is a business that must bring in money. In Russia, he believed to go towards enormous profits. In Italy, Prussia and Austria the razzia and looting raids bring in lots of money. Napoleon will get rich while one million of his soldiers die on various battlefields.
It has been said that Napoleon's ambition was excessive, that he has gone too far and made mistakes. It is true. First, the conquest of so many countries results in the fact that he is not anymore a French monarch but an European emperor. If France remains the axis and the root of his power, he thinks of amalgamating, fusing or melting down (if you wish !) the whole continent into a Federation of states of which he becomes sole leader. Paris, in his design, must become the Capital-city of Europe.
Raised in less than ten years, this phenomenal structure may very well impress the masses, yet clear minded individuals notice cracks in its foundation, so that any severe shock or impact could bring about its collapse. The emperor is the only one who believes in the duration of the Empire. All around him, many have doubts; they think of tomorrow, they know it won't last and look for profitable retirement plans.
France paid a terrible price for keeping Napoleon so long as its leader. He harvested many young lives and brought mourning and grief to many homes. He committed severe blunders. The war in Russia, and even more the one in Spain, were not necessary at all. A kind of power intoxication seized him when, at the height of his might, he saw his Empire spread over half of Europe. But this empire had no natural bases and could not last very long.
One must admit that, in most cases, he has been the aggressor. The many territorial infringements on other countries will make all the nations and princes of Europe rise against him. He silenced Russia, made Austria collapse, forced Prussia to withdraw, resurrected Poland and humiliated the Pope. He goes too far. He has trespassed the boundaries of power and success. He cannot alone uphold this overgrown structure. The napoleonic empire is not that strong. It is built only on one man, and this man is mortal. There is an accumulation of hatred of too many vanquished. An exhausted France barely obeys him any more.
To put on the liabilities of the great napoleonic adventure, there is the loss of numerous human lives brought about by ten years of war. But much more serious is the loss of France's natural border and its isolation, then it will remain suspect for a long time to other European powers as a potential danger and troublemaker. Napoleon leaves behind a diminished France.
Notes:
(1) Talleyrand and Fouché have conspired together
the downfall of Napoleon and thought of Murat to replace him.
Internet Address: giskhan@ca.inter.net
J.C.Rochfort (Webmaster) #107, 5970 21th avenue, Montreal, P. Quebec, CANADA H1X 2G4
Donations are welcome, but we don't need them to maintain this site. If you ever consider a donation, just send a cheque to J.C. Rochefort at the address above.
Don't forget to include a LARGE
SASE (Self addressed and stamped envelope).
Note that our best stuff is not
on the Internet.
© October 2002 Jean-Claude Rochefort. All rights
reserved.
A restricted copyright also
applies to John Gisogod, solely for the chapters NAPOLEON and Hassan Ibn
Sabbah © January 2003
