The Ridley Scott film opens today, and so, not surprisingly, I’ve been spending a lot of time over the past couple of weeks talking about Napoleon. I also did another short essay about him, this time for TIME magazine: https://time.com/6337581/napoleon-obsession-essay/. Since it is in open access, I’m taking the liberty of reposting it here, in case anyone is interested:
I also wonder whether or not the fascination with Napoleon arises from the friction between, on the one hand, the horrible human cost and, on the other hand, a constructive legacy in some parts of Europe that ensures that the myth of Napoleon as revolutionary liberator tenacious. So there was the carnage in Europe and overseas, the restoration of slavery in the French colonial empire (or what remained of it) and the stifling of democracy. But there was also the Napoleonic Code which when it was introduced in some places was quite revolutionary; the social stability offered (where the regime put down roots) by the workings of the law and the gendarmerie or local versions of it; and memories of Napoleon as bringer of freedom (in Poland, for example, where he still features in the national anthem). I can certainly think of historians who fall either onto one stool or the other - Napoleon the ogre, or Napoleon the liberator - or who fall between them: Napoleon as a bit of both...
I read this article with great interest, as I am an admirer both of Napoleon and Professor Bell!
Napoleon's legacy is a topic so complex that it would be hard for anyone to put their arms around it, and it's especially difficult for younger Americans studying history. Part of the reason for this - in my opinion - has to do with our modern (and American) understanding of power structures which are more and more delineated by race or other visible identity factors. For many young Americans, "white people" can be largely grouped together as the recipients of generally favorable historical treatment... and certainly in the year 2023, most white men in Europe or North America have a great deal of freedom and opportunity...
But 1788 was a very different time in Europe, and most Europeans did not enjoy legal, economic, or social freedom in the least. Nor was upward mobility a reality. (Napoleon's journey from minor nobility to Emperor dazzles us, but he would never have made the same journey if born a rung or two down the social ladder). In truth, most white people in Europe lived hopeless lives, and a large number of white people in Eastern Europe could be quite literally defined as serfs/slaves.
So the tremendous amount of freedom that Napoleon brought to the largely-White population of Europe can be easily overlooked in the year 2023, because the typical white Frenchman or German or Pole is so long removed from the horrors of peasantry or serfdom. And historical interest has shifted to the uplifting of populations that were admittedly not valued by Napoleon (or Washington or Jefferson).
But it is safe to say that Napoleon brought a LOT of freedom to a LOT of people.
The problem with the really disappointing Napoleon film and many of the historians who likely delighted in it... is that late 18th century leaders and thinkers were not just a bunch of overdressed white men with silly customs and inflated egos. The world that existed before 1789 and the world that existed after 1815 speak to how extraordinary Napoleon really was. The next two generations of Europeans reflected on Napoleon's life as "back to the future" ... how sad that they had to open a history book to see what a brighter future might look like! His nephew's subsequent election to Emperor puts democratic numbers behind that very sentiment.
The idea of Authoritarian leaders has been a hot topic for the last decade. Probably because so many Americans and Europeans cannot even comprehend a world in which the typical citizen is without freedom. But in 1804 and 1848, the "Napoleon" brand was not synonymous with the typical citizen's oppression... it was quite certainly the opposite.
Glad to see this, especially now when monarchy is resurgent and republics, both aristocratic and democratic ones, are being threatened by one-person rule, which we now call “autocracy” rather than monarchy. Sorry to see that the French First Republic was not included in your death toll.
Great piece! Thank you for this.
I also wonder whether or not the fascination with Napoleon arises from the friction between, on the one hand, the horrible human cost and, on the other hand, a constructive legacy in some parts of Europe that ensures that the myth of Napoleon as revolutionary liberator tenacious. So there was the carnage in Europe and overseas, the restoration of slavery in the French colonial empire (or what remained of it) and the stifling of democracy. But there was also the Napoleonic Code which when it was introduced in some places was quite revolutionary; the social stability offered (where the regime put down roots) by the workings of the law and the gendarmerie or local versions of it; and memories of Napoleon as bringer of freedom (in Poland, for example, where he still features in the national anthem). I can certainly think of historians who fall either onto one stool or the other - Napoleon the ogre, or Napoleon the liberator - or who fall between them: Napoleon as a bit of both...
I read this article with great interest, as I am an admirer both of Napoleon and Professor Bell!
Napoleon's legacy is a topic so complex that it would be hard for anyone to put their arms around it, and it's especially difficult for younger Americans studying history. Part of the reason for this - in my opinion - has to do with our modern (and American) understanding of power structures which are more and more delineated by race or other visible identity factors. For many young Americans, "white people" can be largely grouped together as the recipients of generally favorable historical treatment... and certainly in the year 2023, most white men in Europe or North America have a great deal of freedom and opportunity...
But 1788 was a very different time in Europe, and most Europeans did not enjoy legal, economic, or social freedom in the least. Nor was upward mobility a reality. (Napoleon's journey from minor nobility to Emperor dazzles us, but he would never have made the same journey if born a rung or two down the social ladder). In truth, most white people in Europe lived hopeless lives, and a large number of white people in Eastern Europe could be quite literally defined as serfs/slaves.
So the tremendous amount of freedom that Napoleon brought to the largely-White population of Europe can be easily overlooked in the year 2023, because the typical white Frenchman or German or Pole is so long removed from the horrors of peasantry or serfdom. And historical interest has shifted to the uplifting of populations that were admittedly not valued by Napoleon (or Washington or Jefferson).
But it is safe to say that Napoleon brought a LOT of freedom to a LOT of people.
The problem with the really disappointing Napoleon film and many of the historians who likely delighted in it... is that late 18th century leaders and thinkers were not just a bunch of overdressed white men with silly customs and inflated egos. The world that existed before 1789 and the world that existed after 1815 speak to how extraordinary Napoleon really was. The next two generations of Europeans reflected on Napoleon's life as "back to the future" ... how sad that they had to open a history book to see what a brighter future might look like! His nephew's subsequent election to Emperor puts democratic numbers behind that very sentiment.
The idea of Authoritarian leaders has been a hot topic for the last decade. Probably because so many Americans and Europeans cannot even comprehend a world in which the typical citizen is without freedom. But in 1804 and 1848, the "Napoleon" brand was not synonymous with the typical citizen's oppression... it was quite certainly the opposite.
Glad to see this, especially now when monarchy is resurgent and republics, both aristocratic and democratic ones, are being threatened by one-person rule, which we now call “autocracy” rather than monarchy. Sorry to see that the French First Republic was not included in your death toll.