Napoleon the Great

I read my first biography of Napoleon (Felix Markham's) back in 1965, and have read dozens more books on him since. This is the best I've read. It is distinguished by drawing on a study of Napoleon's 33,000 letters (published by the Fondation Napoléon in 2004, a third of which have never been published before) and an impressive array of primary and secondary sources. Alongside this, Roberts has visited all but 7 of Napoleon's 60 battlefields in the company of military experts, and key locations throughout Napoleon's life including Elba, the Route Napoléon and St Helena. It is an enthralling and insightful read, his command of the correspondence enabling him to illustrate the great man's protean mind as he juggled the immediacies of campaigns and battles with the minutiae of matters across an extraordinary range of subjects back home. The character studies of those around him are vivid. In his conclusion (the penultimate chapter, the final one "Envoi" being a sentence or two on what happened to all the other leading characters in the story after Napoleon's death) Roberts sums up his life and career, and sets out to justify his choice of title, which he does convincingly. Roberts makes a powerful case for Napoleon's powers as a civil administrator who shaped much of what is great about France today. He could perhaps have made more of Napoleon's wish not to bring destruction on French soil by fighting on in 1814 and 15 as compared with his cavalier attitude to causing carnage abroad, but there we are - a life like Napoleon's is likely to be rich in contradictions. The book is generously illustrated with 86 illustrations crammed into 24 colour plates. There are 29 maps, perhaps the least satisfactory aspect of the book as they don't always relate to the text in the most helpful way (places and features mentioned which don't appear on the map) and I've seen better battlefield maps, which don't do justice to Roberts's vivid descriptions. But these are always a challenge as the dispositions on the battlefield can change radically during the battle. A sloppy proof reading error (in the Penguin edition, presumably copied from the original hardback) on the map showing the movement of the Grande Armée from the Channel coast to the Rhine August-October 1805, prior to Austerlitz, says "1803" in the heading, which may confuse some people. One myth dispelled - it has always been said that when Napoleon gave the order to his gunners to fire on the ice across which the Russians were fleeing at Austerlitz that thousands of Russians were drowned, but Roberts tells us that recent excavations of reclaimed land at the lake have come up with only a dozen corpses and a couple of guns.

It was a Frenchman who recommended to me that I read Andrew Roberts’ 'Napoleon the Great'. He was impressed by the balance and impartiality that a British biographer had brought to his study of a man still too often seen as a kind of mythical hero in France, but as a monster in Britain. It’s certainly an excellent antidote to that kind of thinking, and one I personally needed, as I’ve tended to share the view of Napoleon as a military dictator whose overthrow was much to be desired. That’s not to say that the figure that emerges from Roberts’ account is not still a military dictator. Indeed, in his ‘Conclusion’ Roberts makes clear that Napoleon was first and last a military man: '… it was from the ethos of the army that he took most of his beliefs and his assumptions. The army imbued him with a strong belief in the importance of applied intelligence, hierarchy based on merit, law and order, hard work, mental toughness and physical courage, as well as contempt for self-serving lawyers and politicians.' What’s more, what he overthrew in his military coup was indeed a cabal of self-serving lawyers and politicians, by no means the ideal of a democratic republic that we all might admire. And while in general terms, I can find little to like about a military dictatorship, there is much to be said for ‘applied intelligence, hierarchy based on merit, law and order, hard work’. Roberts shows that Napoleon strove hard to create a France imbued with these values. Indeed, as he points out, many of Napoleon’s achievements in these fields have lived on in a way his purely military successes have not. Most notably, this is true of the foundations of law both in France (the <i>code Napoléon</i>) and in other countries whose constitution he profoundly transformed. Promotion on merit, except when it came to putting family members into positions of power, often far beyond their abilities, was a principle he sought to establish and, as an aspiration at least, it lives on strongly today. Moreover, he did away with the privileges of classes to move towards a system based on equality before the law. And Roberts describes Napoleon’s extraordinary capacity for hard work, revealed even in such simple measures as the sheer number of letters he wrote, or his capacity to issue instructions about such matters as the musical performances in Paris while on the eve of a major battle. Nor, as Roberts makes clear repeatedly, was he a tyrant. He allowed a certain level of dissent and, while he moved against opponents who became too threatening, with rare exceptions he stopped far short of persecuting, let alone murdering them. Indeed, the nations that banded together to defeat him, were far crueller and far more iniquitous than he ever was. With the possible exception of Britain, where parliamentary rule was strong, allowing the potential at least of a slow move towards some measure of democracy, the major powers arrayed against him – Austria, Russia and Prussia – were such that his regime, with all its faults, seemed deeply preferable. Roberts hasn’t, however, written a hagiography. He doesn’t disguise the many faults of his subject: the vainglory, the nepotism, for instance, but also the occasions when he did drift close towards tyrannical behaviour (such as in the murder of the Duc d’Enghien, as brutal as it was unnecessary), or the errors of judgement that he frequently made. For instance, he failed to see that militarily many of his enemies had learned from his own innovations, so that towards the end of his career they were ready for the kind of brilliant strokes that had won him victories in the past. Worse still, he often overestimated his own strength and capacity, most notably in the invasion of Russia. It cost him both his prestige and his most reliable forces (he took 500,000 men into Russia and brought only 50,000 out). That loss made his ultimate downfall inevitable. Roberts provides an excellent, detailed and well-rounded picture of an extraordinary man, just as my French friend promised. Anyone interested in Napoleon and his period would do well to read this biography. You won’t be disappointed, either by the writing, or by the lessons it teaches.

Incredible book with a huge scope that was massively enlightening on the life and deeds of Napoleon. Before reading this I had little appreciation of just how meteoric his rise to power was - or indeed how young he was when this was all underway. As well as covering all the main historic moments, the book also paints a vivid picture of Napoleon's psyche and the emotional rollercoaster that accompanied his journey, leaving you with some pity towards how he's treated by those closest to him - albeit not being entirely blameless himself, his tendency towards micro-management being one of his greatest strengths while also working against him. I did genuinely really enjoyed this book, it's well written and engaging and kept me coming back. That being said, I did have some frustrations - namely that it would occasionally introduce new key figures with little introduction as to who they were or where they had originated from. There will just be a new name referenced and suddenly they're playing a pretty major part in the events of the day or are carrying a Marshal's baton - sometimes context alone was enough to piece things together and sometimes not. Naturally I was awaiting Waterloo as the natural crescendo of the story, the high water mark - but unfortunately it almost felt like it was covered much more briefly than some of the earlier battles with much lower stakes for our protagonist. Just felt like it was almost brushed over and felt like a bit of an anti-climax to a key event I'd been looking forward to reading about in detail. All in all, a very good read.

This is a brilliant book. Andrew Roberts has a way with words that reads like a real adventure story bringing history to life as if it were yesterday. I felt he presented a real person with the talents and the flaws that we all possess. He just happened to have them in abundance and made most 25 year olds seem a bit lazy by comparison. I knew very little about Napoleon until I came across the BBC 3 part show Roberts brought to the screen. I would go as far as to say that it was only a name from history about a little guy who was a bit of a dictator, of ridicule and perhaps for his wife Josephine. How wrong could I have been. It was an engaging and lively history program with quick wit and comment from Roberts himself with a pragmatic approach to human frailties. The BBC show took me to the book and whilst the 3 parter was great, the book is brilliant. It is as some say a solid read weighing in at 900 pages and yet Napoleon was a remarkable character and lived a very active life. I cant imagine the book being any shorter truth be told. Like some I am not particularly interested in the real detail of the battles and yet without them its hard to get real handle on the way the man thought. Roberts enjoyment of his subject is contagious. I have since reading this book on trips to Paris found myself with a very different perspective on the city. He shone a very bright light on the man and the myth telling the story with a lighter filter than most from a British victor's perspective. I left the book feeling Napoleon had been judged unfairly by history and that he did indeed deserve the title Napoleon the Great. I am now off to read Napoleon and Wellington by the same author. I highly recommend this book if you lead people and are interested in gaining insight into inspiring those around you.

I read this book about six months ago. Out of two dozen books (of all genres) I read in 2015 it's my top pick. If you're not well versed in Napoleon it reads like a a swashbuckling adventure novel. I've found that many historical books can get the reader bogged down in intricate detail. I guess authors have to find that delicate balance between catering for the novice and the fanatics. The book brings us through Napoleon's early years, highlighting the experiences that had a formative effect on him (such as his hatred of the mob) his switch of allegiance from Corsica to France. Roberts retells some fantastic stories from Napoleon's campaign in Italy where he began his rise. The Bridge at Lodi being a standout. Napoleon's achievements in administration in Milan are hard to fathom. Ultimately it led to the birth of modern Italy. Then there's the love triangles whilst in Egypt, the brilliant triumph of the squares over the Marmalukes in Egypt, the crossing of the Sinai and the massacre in Acre. Napoleon's daring crossing back to France culminates in the coup d'etat. Roberts explains the genius of Napoleon with detailed commentary and research from the battles of Austerlitz and Marengo. The tactics, formations, conditions and interactions between chiefs of staff are laid out in detail. The one criticism is the maps are not up to the same standard as the writing. Perhaps a future edition will right this but I needed to cross reference maps on the Internet. On to Russia and the battle of Borodino at the time the biggest battle in history concentrated in a short perimeter. The tragedy in Russia enfolds and the downfall begins. All through the story Roberts gives us little nuggets - quotes, stories from interactions with soldiers, Napoleon's brief visit to British shores. These give us as close an impression as possible of the real character. Roberts does admire Napoleon as an enlightened man (notwithstanding his actions at Acre) whom promoted science, art, freedom or religion and instigated law reforms. The image of Napoleon as a war monger is the impression that Roberts dispels given it was the coalitions that repeatedly declared war on him. Some day this book will be made into an epic movie.

I think this is a fantastic book for anyone, especially for someone like me who has only started to read recently and this is my first biography book. Considering this is a biography, then such a book cant go into that kind of further details about in 2 areas...coming in to power and the other was on the people around him. So I've ordered Rites of Peace as well as Napoleon: The Path to Power which I'm hoping will be excellent follow up books. Regardless I still believe this is a fantastic biography and is written well.

This is a magnificent book and a pleasure to read. It focuses on what went on around Napoleon himself in appetising detail. One is struck by the fascinating combination of a brilliant, pleasant and sociable man with a strong sense of humour, a grand organiser, infernal micro-manager, bully and tyrant, exaggerator and liar, a man who inevitably started to lose his magical connect with the men serving under him and ended up being all too often lied to. There is enough detail to fathom a little more carefully some of his actions, such as the Russian campaign, and all that he attempted in order to maintain peace and avoid it. Apart from Britain, which spent massive sums to encourage others to stand up to Napoleon, alliances with France were constantly shifting. As the author tells us, more declarations of war were made against Napoleon than he made himself. His expansionist ideas came up against some formidable reactionaries in Prussia, Russia and Austria, and a competitive Britain that had already rid itself of absolute monarchy but was equally afraid of social upheaval. For all the good and bad he created, his country must have been in an awful depression after his demise. Has it ever recovered?

Having read Julian Jackson's biography of de Gaulle earlier this year, with its cross-references to Napoleon's life, I felt the need to expand my virtually non-existent knowledge of the emperor. Perhaps we are inclined in the UK to see him through the prism of Trafalgar and Waterloo, but in many ways Britain is peripheral to the military campaigns that seemed to be a constant feature of Napoleon's rule (although Pitt and his successors funded much of the continental military opposition to France during this period). Roberts is determined to argue against the view, apparently prevalent in much of the British writing about Napoleon since WW2, that Napoleon was a sort of precursor of Hitler. I am not sure that this necessitates making the case for him being entitled to the moniker "the Great", but he was clearly a very different sort of ruler to Hitler and had many non-military positive achievements to his credit. Nevertheless, it might be a good idea for me now to read a more sceptical appraisal of the man. The comparison with Hitler brings to mind Napoleon's catastrophic Russian campaign. I am not sure that I am very clear from Roberts' book why Moscow was the target of his campaign, rather than St Petersburg, which was the capital and, I should have thought, rather more accessible. The only explanation seems to be that he was drawn into the heart of Russia by the Russian army, but I may of course missed the point somewhere along the line! It is certainly the case, as Roberts points out, that Napoleon had learnt elsewhere that conquering a capital did not necessarily mean that you had control of its territory. There are lots of maps and these will be useful to readers who have a better understanding of battlefield manoeures than I do. I would have found it helpful if everywhere mentioned in the text had been featured on the maps. But this is a quibble. The book is well-written and very engaging - and almost makes one believe that its subject was as well!

I enjoy reading this book. It is packed with dates and events; I could only read it for about an hour at a time. The author knows his subject very well.

Great!!!!

A thorough and captivating portrayal of Napoléon Bonaparte, one of the most successful generals of the French revolutionary armies.

History was my favourite subject in school. Yet I had never read a biography of Napoleon and had a very sketchy idea about him. I picked up the book as it was amongst the most reviewed books on Napoleon. Mr. Andrew Roberts has written a well researched and a single volume history of Napoleon though running into 800 pages. He has read the private papers of Napoleon, visited the battle grounds and also read memoirs of other about him. One has a mental impression of emperors and the character of Napoleon stood out in sharp contrast. Some of the things that stood out were: 1. Napoleon was born without priveldge and went onto become the most powerful man in the world and whose writ ran over a very large part of Europe. More than cunningness and murdering opponents, his rise is to do with his ambition, energy, leadership, organisational capabilities and intellect. His desire to learn new subjects, and his ability to master them came as a surprise. 2. He is a great motivator of his soldiers and his armies love him. He also uses propaganda and is very careful about public opinion and public image. This later costs him, as he is not willing to compromise on the boundaries of the French state, in which public opinion is one consideration. His view that too much freedom for press is dangerous is interesting. 3. He is very forward looking and believes in meritocracy, equality before law, rational government, upholding legal contracts, secularism and efficiency. These principles are not just for French but for all the subjects of the empire. His rule is not only about him, but also about his subjects. 4. As he grows powerful, he moves away from the principle of meritocracy and appoints his siblings to important position. This costs him dear. 5. His philosophy of taking decisions early and nipping the problem in the bud is interesting. His shooting of 300 protestors ensures that for over 30 years, mobs made no attempt at violence in Paris. As he says, "art of policing is in punishing infrequently but severely." 6. He is a great general and stays close to the battle and his troops. There is no way that his opponents could have beaten him in the earlier part of his carrier, though as the author points out that luck also favoured him. His downfall comes as his opponents emulate him and the invasion of Russia. Russians keep on abandoning the cities and avoid a fight with his armies. 7. One weakness is his lack of appreciation of the benefits of free trade. Putting restrictions on trade with England makes his empire economically weak and in a way led to his downfall. Good economics always makes for good economics on the long run. Despite his wars, Napoleon came across as a tragic figure. He forgives people who have led him down. He does not effect a regime change in either Russia or Austria Hungary, but comes to an agreement, though on his terms. The same individuals came after him and ensured that he is no longer allowed to rule or even live in France. They wanted him dead. His wife eventually does not come and join him at Elba. He is exiled to St. Helena which he knows will be his final resting place. The French revolution and his new ideas ensured that new ideas were constantly at war with the old Europe (as much as Napoleon and the others). The real legacy is that the ideas of French revolution did not die but laid the foundation of a modern Europe. His opponents (except Britain) such as empires of Austria Hungary and Russia withered away. The countries where he planted ideas of nationalism i.e., Italy and Germany went on to dominate Europe in the 20th century. All in all a very well written book on one of the great figures of the human history. I give it my highest recommendation.

This nonfiction book traces Napoleon's life from birth to death, drawing on numerous writings produced to date and enriched with numerous references. I greatly appreciated the author's approach, which highlights the differences of opinion on certain events, particularly regarding the death toll. I highly recommend this book.