Napoleon: A Life Paperback – Illustrated, October 20, 2015

In this massive biography, Andrew Roberts has produced an epic review of Napoleon Bonaparte. He focuses on Napoleon the man rather than the myth. He succeeds at presenting a mostly-balanced account of his life, showing us a human being capable of inspiring immense respect and awe even 200 years after his feats. But we also see the failures of mind and body, with evidence aplenty of Napoleon’s more repulsive qualities. Overall, Roberts sees Napoleon’s contribution to history in a positive light, and this is evident throughout the book. But we also clearly see the common cliché regarding the corruptive influence power has on the mind. Even Napoleon's remarkable mind was susceptible to these influences.Roberts’s work is unique in that his is among the first biographies to leverage recently published primary documents that provide new windows into Napoleon and his character. This allows fresh glimpses of the man both at work and at play. What takes shape is a human being, not a God-like myth or statue with a rigid character. Napoleon, like most of us, changed throughout his life. He adhered to (or was influenced by) competing values that frequently fought one another for dominance within his mind. Who he was at 25 was very different than who he was at 40, and again at 50. The value of Roberts’s work is that it reveals the folly of casting an historical character like Napoleon in one specific light. Was he an idealistic revolutionary who believed in a society free from the prejudice and injustice of the old world? Was he a tyrannical despot who imprisoned his enemies and used war to advance his own personal interests? Casting him into molds like this is what we typically seem to do, but it simplifies what Roberts’s clearly shows is a story of far more complexity and contradiction.What this means is that Napoleon is too complex of a subject to summarize in a single paragraph. But a few sentences will give you an idea of the view of Napoleon through Roberts’s research. Napoleon was an enlightened agnostic with a love of knowledge and learning and a belief in their power to do good for all humankind. He was an intellectual of the highest order and was just as at home in a library as he was on a battlefield (in fact, he frequently traveled with his personal library). He adhered to enlightenment ideals blossoming during his youth that stressed liberty and merit as opposed to aristocracy and privilege. He was also a militarist, and it imbued him with discipline and courage. His capacity for knowledge, memory, and quick-thinking was truly legendary, and examples abound of his incredible memory even as late as his exile on Elba. He can relatively easily be associated with egomania and megalomania, and yet—for most of his life—he showed a capacity for self-reflection and self-criticism uncharacteristic of such a personality disorder. He displayed genuine concern for people under his charge. His staff members, as well as members of the army, are frequently quoted describing his hard work ethic but also his playful and caring attitude toward them. He was, in many ways, advanced for his time regarding social issues. He favored full equality for Jews and Protestants (indeed, all religions) and leveraged their talents. He was tolerant of homosexuality in an age where it was generally not tolerated: his veritable vice-ruler for much of his reign was Cambacérès, who was gay.But Napoleon’s faults are also laid bare in Roberts’s narrative. Throughout his life, he generally showed a lack of great integrity and a willingness to break rules to suit his own purposes. He clearly had a view of women that was not progressive, and did much to undermine the freedoms women gained during the Revolution. He naturally was an anxious man, and I believe that “impatience” is probably the character trait that persisted most saliently through every phase of his life. He lacked an understanding of economics, and this, more than any other mistake, was the root of his downfall (the infamous Continental System). He was not a bloodthirsty person in any sense, and his rule was very rarely characterized by repression based on terror. But he was directly responsible for needless executions on at least three occasions throughout his life, and humanity came second to victory when his army was on campaign. As caring as he could be with staff members and soldiers, he often completely lacked emotional intelligence when it came to his own family members (particularly his siblings). Here we see some of Roberts’s most vehement criticisms. Napoleon’s use of his siblings as rulers of client states defies beliefs that he long held (and fought for) regarding meritocracy, and also ignored the sheer lack of talent possessed by some of these family members.These kinds of ideological clashes, modeled here by Napoleon’s belief in meritocracy but pervasive practice of nepotism, illustrate what I like to call the “Napoleonic Paradox” or “Napoleonic Contradiction.” One cannot read Roberts’s work and not see the ironies presented in Napoleon’s life. There are numerous examples where beliefs and practices of one period of his life simply contradict those of other periods (or even the same period). This is not, I believe, traceable to any kind of inherent character flaw in Napoleon. Rather, it is the natural and (relatively) slow metamorphosis in a belief system over the life of a man—visible in many other famous statesmen reviewed in such a way. Roberts’s work gives us the chance to see these changes take shape. Overall, I believe it is fair to say that Napoleon’s idealistic and modest qualities began to give way to more megalomaniacal qualities after his victory at Austerlitz (1805) and especially after the Treaty of Tilsit (1807). It was here that he reached a level of power unlike any achieved by any other European for centuries. During the years of his zenith (1810-1812) and his subsequent downfall (1812-1814), we see a Napoleon generally unchecked by the modesty and reason more characteristic of his early years in power, and instead see a man corrupted by his awesome authority. But throughout all of his life, we see this war of ideals and practices vying for dominance within him. Napoleon himself does not seem to have been overtly conscious of many of these contradictions, or this war of ideas taking place in his subconscious.As far as Roberts’s writing style, the narrative is chronological, which makes sense for a biography and is easy to follow. Roberts does not spend much time analyzing the myriad evidence and relaying an argument to the reader. His goal, after all, is to use evidence to show Napoleon the man, providing us a deep-dish look at his successes and failures—the roundness and depth of a man. He does not have an overarching thesis he is using the evidence to prove. Some readers will love this, as it allows for the reader to form their own conclusions. Others may be frustrated that we rarely can catch our breath and read, “what does it all mean?” This isn’t to say that Roberts does not offer opinions from time to time. He defends Napoleon in many of his most controversial moments (for example, the Cadoudal-Pichegru conspiracy and the execution of the Duc d’Enghien). He also specifically identifies Napoleon’s exaggerations or outright lies, and does not shy away from criticizing his decisions (Roberts believes Napoleon only has himself to blame for the disaster in Russia in 1812 and his final defeat at Waterloo in 1815, among others).If you like to read about battles, oddly enough this “biography” provides a great deal of detail. There is plenty in the narrative regarding most of the battles Napoleon took part in, usually with detail on troop movements and the units involved. Lovers of military history will likely eat this up—others may find it tedious. The first group will likely be as disappointed as I was in the maps available—but this is a criticism I make of just about every military history book I review.Napoleon was a complex man. He lusted for greatness and was the epicenter of conflict for more than a decade. But we also see a man with good intentions, compassion, and an oft-doting father and husband. It is these stories of tenderness, combined with ones of ruthlessness, that make Roberts’s biography ultimately so effective. We are able to see Napoleon, not as an historical caricature, but as a man possessed of both awesome virtues and crippling faults. Napoleon's greatness and contribution to history is thoroughly revealed. So too are his foibles and failures. It is a story that often leaves you equal parts repulsed, impressed, and sympathetic. I can think of no possible better outcome for a biography.

Napoleon wasn’t quite the bastard he was made out to be or quite the military genius according to myth. But something more in the middle while creating a set of rights that are still used today.

Avant-Garde Politician: Leaders for a New EpochReading this book as a case study of leadership, historic processes and their intersections, the following lessons emerge:On leadership, Napoleon was unique, far above accepted classifications, such as "transformative leadership." He is a prime example of what I call in my recent book "prototype avant-garde politician." "He had transformed the art of leadership" (p. 802). However Napoleon, as some other history-swerving political leaders (and other types of "future makers") should be viewed as a "mutant": what made him uniquely "great" cannot be learned, such as outstanding multitasking and a unique combination between radically innovative generalship and revolutionary enlightenment reforms.Still, many useful lessons on leadership are provided by Napoleon, such as: reading a lot in history and political philosophy, being very inquisitive, hard-working, insisting on meritocracy, being interested in science and a patron of art, and relating personally to subordinates.Not less so, many lessons on what to avoid are provided by Napoleon's persistent errors, such as nepotism and engaging too much in micromanagement. Striking is the strange combination between interest in science and gross neglect of its military uses.Thus, he disbanded the military balloonist unit (p. 795, note) and did not develop a rockets capacity, despite their proved efficacy when used by the British (p. 682). This may well show that his interest in science was not profound.More important are two fundamental flaws which led to his ultimate personal failure: (1) Napoleon misread a critical feature of reality, namely Great Britain and its strength; and (2) he did not knowing when to stop, refusing reasonable peace opportunities, such as at the Congress of Prague (after his retreat from Russia) - apparently because of self-conceited imagining himself as a new Caesar (who was his main role model) . As stated in the text "... almost every other statesman of the day would have agreed to [the] terms. But the Emperor of France, the heir to Caesar and Alexander, simply could not bring himself to accept what he saw as a humiliating peace." (p. 661).On historic processes: Napoleon's career demonstrates the critical role of various forms of "luck," much more so than implied in the view of history as "contingent," or the treatment of Fortuna by Machiavelli. The author provides some examples (p. 269), but much more was at stake: All of his becoming Emperor was a result of counter-probabilistic chains of events, starting with the match between his basic traits and the situation into which he was born (fitting the contingency theory of leadership.On the intersection between leadership and historic processes: Napoleon was clearly a "Hero" impacting strongly on the future of Europe and beyond, being not only the last but the most important of the Enlightenment absolutist beneficent rulers (pp. 527-528). As put by the author "To large numbers of people across Europe Napoleon seemed to represent the ideas of progress, meritocracy and a rational future" (p. 529). And British historian H. A. L. Fisher was right in judging, as quoted in the book, that "Napoleon`s Empire shattered the obdurate crust of habit and substituted wide ideas...for narrow, slovenly, lethargic provincialism." (pp. 527-518).Given the many merits of this book, still it does not succeed to "re-enact history," as proposed by the philosopher of history R. G. Collingwood. Despite extensive reliance on letters by Napoleon no real insights into his mind are arrived at. Shorter discussion of the battles (from which no valid lessons for modern military affairs can be drawn), and more concentration on the interiority of Napoleon would have made the book more interesting, at least for me.As it is, the book makes good reading on a "grand adventure" and an important historic episode. But its lessons on leadership and the processes of history could have been better presented in 400 instead of 810 pages of text.Professor Yehezkel DrorThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem