Napoleon: A Political Life

Steven Englund's Napoleon: A Political Life (available in paperback from Harvard) is a book that should satisfy both the interested lay reader and the professional historian. It will satisfy the lay person because it tells a fascinating story about one of history's most interesting and influential human beings, and it tells it exceptionally well. In the process, the reader will gain insights into how a topflight scholar advances his or her field of knowledge. It will please academics because Englund presents a nuanced revision of the current myths about Napoleon, who, after two hundred years, still stirs passions among his admirers and detractors as though he were living today. The author focuses on Napoleon's evolving political thought and strategy and how his contemporaries actually responded to him, not how we wished they had responded to him. A virtue is that Englund avoids smoothing out Napoleon's past choices and actions through hindsight: Englund emphasizes that actual history is messy; it doesn't come in tidy packages. The greatest of men, the very few like Napoleon, leave behind an altered world. Englund draws on Christian Meier's masterful biography of Caesar. He frequently compares Napoleon to Caesar, but Napoleon left behind many more permanent structures in France and across Europe thna Caesar did Rome: law code, a system to govern the localities from the center, the Legion of Honor, and in Paris, monuments and buildings and sewer system and roads. People who won't like the book will most likely object to two things. (1) It's not a history primer. Englund assumes the reader is conversant with eighteenth-century history history though not at the level of the professional historian. (2) Englund devotes almost as much time to wars and battles as he does to other issues, both domestic and international. But, especially when discussing Napoleon and his times, Clausewitz was right: war is an extension ofpolitics. Another objection may be that Englund doesn't condemn Napoleon roundly enough. He admires him but sees what disaster his overweening ambition led him to in the end. Highly recommended.

I came to this book thinking that it would focus entirely on the political dimension of Napoleon's life. This is not the case. Napoleon: A Political Life might exclude the word 'political' from its title and be just as fitting, for Englund spends a great deal of time on Napoleon's relations with Josephine, his brothers, the exiles, etc.. In fact, in the introduction (at the end of the book), Englund states that he almost subtitled the book "Empire of Circumstance." The great strength of the book is its writing style. Englund really captures the drama of the Little Corsican's life, and he sweeps the reader up in it. All of the politics of Napoleon's life is, as you would expect, well covered, but so is his personal and military life. Never did I feel overburdened with detail, and never was the text wanting for humour. There is, however, some merit in the argument posted by some of the other reviewers that the book assumes too much in the way of background knowledge. This is not an introduction to Napoleon for the novice. While I would not go so far as to say that you need have already read another book on Napoleon to enjoy Englund's work, you should certainly have a reasonable idea of the political zeitgeist he worked in, particularly the French revolution and the foreign (especially British) reaction to it. Ideally, you should also have taken a course in French at some point in your life (and not completely forgotten it). Englund has a somewhat irritating habit of dropping les mots francais at random, and often without translation (although most of the more important French phrases are translated, most of the minor ones are not). C'est la vie. One of my favourite parts of the book was the analysis of Napoleon's legacy: his admirers and detractors, whence he is glorified, and whence he is ignored. Englund is the most balanced Napoleonic author I have yet encountered, seeming to genuinely sympathize with (and synthesize from) those who love and those who hate the l'Empereur. Perhaps the highest compliment for a book, I plan to reread this one.

Centuries after his death, Napoleon Bonaparte still stymies biographers. What to make of this amazingly dynamic figure who forever changed the world around him? Is the French Emperor the prototype for 20th century fascist dictatorship, with a strong centralized state dedicated to iron hand rule over a subject populace? Was Bonaparte nothing but a vicious and petty warlord, whose own lust for glory and battle guided the destiny of France in the early 19th century? Or was Napoleon, the so-called "New Man", the dream of an absolute leader guided by the humanist principles espoused by the European enlightenment? If anything, Bonaparte defies almost all characterizations. He was a politician as well as a military leader, a fact often ignored in other biographies. As a very astute political player, Napoleon presents a multi-faceted persona, a fact recognized in Steven Englund's excellent biography. Englund's Napoleon is somewhat sympathetic, a man dedicated to certain ideals and his own ascendancy. The way to the top is a stunning tale, and Englund tells it as well as anyone else.One of the best parts of Englund's book is the emphasis he places on Napoleon's early life on Corsica. I find this is a part of Bonaparte's psyche that is often ignored, to the detriment of in depth studies. The fractious politics on the little island had a great deal to do with the developing political theories of Napoleon, as he experienced power and competition for the first time. The rise and fall of his erstwhile ally, Paoli, mirrored his increasing disenchantment with truly enlightened politics. At the same time, young Napoleon was no doubt developing a chip on his shoulder as he was educated along with the rich and powerful of French royalist society. These bluebloods shunned rustic Napoleon, who, from an early age, had to fight for everything he had. As a young officer, the vivacious Napoleon was already far ahead of his years in maturity, intelligence, and understanding of the momentous political tidal waves that were ripping apart French society. In a time of indecision, he was a dangerous man indeed.Englund writes of the rise of Napoleon as well as I've ever seen it. Napoleon did not lead a division into Paris, did not institute a military dictatorship on a whim. One of the most impressive things about Napoleon's ascension was the fact that his actual military power was rarely used by him in order to assume control of the country. Instead, Napoleon shrewdly pushed his way into the new revolutionary institutions formed after the death of Louis XVI through shrew maneuvering and bold action on the battlefield. He was strong enough to dominate his opponents, but subtle enough to avoid most criticism. I found the actual mechanics in Napoleon's power grab to be stunning in their complexity and genius, a point Englund does not gloss over. Equally impressive is the avenue through which Napoleon, inexplicably, managed to be crowned emperor of a nation t

Breaking from the common theme of Napoleonic biographies, Englund ditches miltary strategy, tactics and love affairs, preferring to focus on the political man behind the throne. For Englund, Napoleon is not the idealistic conqueror, but neither is he the tyrannical imperialist. He is, instead, a work in progress, influenced and shaped not only by philosophers like Rousseau and political figures like Paoli and Robespierre, but also by the turbulent events through which he lived. Englund does a great job of illustrating Napoleon's transition from a young, impressionable patriot and idealist, into a pragmatic and efficient ruler, a product of his many influences and encounters. While exposing many of Napoleon's faults as a ruler, Englund makes no qualms about also recognizing the successes he achieved, first as consul, and later as Emperor. The end result seems to cover both viewpoints effectively. All the better is that Napoleon becomes "human," and like all of us, he has his triumphs and his faults. While one can easily want to yell at the dead Emperor for his persistent antagonizing of the European continent, one can also see him as a man who feels as though he carried the weight of France on his shoulders, and his alone. Englund does a fantastic job attempting to balance the pro/con approaches to Napoleonic study. Great read. Definitely worth checking out for anyone wanting a fresh look at l'Empereur.

According Englund, Napoleon is not the tryant depicted in Alan Schom's biography, rather his is a pragamatic ruler that allowed a certain amount of judicial independence in France. Englund writes that only a small number of French citizens were actually imprisoned during the Napoleonic era and that judicial institutions would sometiemes overturn the government's decisions. Englund believes that Napoleon had a postive role in the countries that he occupied since the basis of strong centralized states were developed in Italy and Germany. However Englund is highy critical of Napoleon's handling of foreign policy since he angered the monarchies of Europe by creating the Republic of Genoa in 1803, and then outraged the Russians by expanding the French satellite of Poland in 1809. Both of these actions, Englund states trapped Napoleon into an unwinnable war. I would strongly reccomend this book to anyone who is interested for a new view of the Napoleonic era.