The Lives of Napoleon
historytoday.com
historytoday.com
I've also enjoyed https://youtu.be/uRUfFeTmuc8 Henri Guillemin's 6 hours long presentation (French only, sorry). As someone who was only given a positive point of view growing up of Napoléon, I really appreciated the other side of the story.
[1] https://open.spotify.com/show/6xbzk3HMnP0pRohjm6hBvz?si=9lZi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Macnamara [note: this wiki page omits the mention of the above visit]
I remember watching a B/W (50s?) film on N. (and wish I could recall the title) where a completely revisionist/conspiracy story of his 'fantastic' return from Elba to France was told. In that film, an English visitor basically green lighted his return to France based on revised geopolitical calculations of the British.
So, to conspiracy fans' delight, we find another British "Macnamara" in Wiki (whose bio is rather thin) [1] but at least includes this delicious little factoid: "Macnamara's personal assistant in 1935–36 was the Soviet spy Guy Burgess."
Very little is ever said (afaik) in general popular accounts and histories of Napoleon Bonaparte about the role of Bankers in his rise, fall, rise, and final fall. Dickens, in his A Tale of Two Cities (with one of the said "cities" possibly a wink-wink reference to the City of London) does have English characters in the employ of a certain "Tellson's Bank" that mysteriously have rather liberal freedom of movement between the two nations during the general period of the French Revolution.
https://askinglot.com/what-is-tellsons-bank
"Tellson's Bank, Temple Bar, Fleet Street, London, England It is thought that Charles Dickens based Tellson's Bank on Child & Co Bank located at 1 Fleet Street in London. The bank is now owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_%26_Co.
Oh, fun. Banksters of the world Unite! /g
Years ago I was at first Tuesday in London and thought that VC looks just like that Napoleonic bankers portrait that in all the history books - looked down and the name badge was "Rothschild" .
In one of the films on F.R. (either Danton (1983) or La Révolution Française (1989)) Robespierre makes a remark to the committee at the night of the arrest of Danton, Desmoulins, Séchelles, and Philippeaux, along the lines of 'if we don't move now, he'll have funding from the bankers in three days'.
This gets lost in the nationalist history that were written in the next 100 years.
Money and supplies is valuable, but the Russian Army broke the French army. Russian intelligence borrowed deep into the French state and had all the information Russian light cavalry cut Napoleon of from information and made him blind. Russian light cavalry captured his communication and that is how they learned Paris was not defended. Russia supplied the largest amount of troupes.
Russia was Prussias senior partner. German historians make a great deal about the 'Volkssturm' but in reality the Prussian army was dependent on the Russian state. Prussian artillery was using Russian artillery.
Check out:
> Russia Against Napoleon: The True Story of the Campaigns of War and Peace
Instead of negotiation an end to war they attempted to take much of Europe and Napoleon continued that.
Peace was temporary and only as long as you followed what Napoleon wanted.
Russia tried peace with Napoleon but they realized that Napoleon only accepted piece if he was in control and could dedicated all policies they should. Once they didn't he invaded.
But I'm not a historian, just a guy who likes reading and I haven't read anything yet that justifies for example when a modern day French Presidents honors Napoleon.
I think it's best to remember history as it is, no worship or mixing it with present-day politics needed. Learning from history can be useful, but actions of historical individuals should also be seen in context of the world they lived in.
Historically, most of the Anti-French coalitions were led, and financed, by the British. So they are as much guilty of the Napoleonic Wars as Napoleon himself.
Do yes, Napoleon definitely is on of history's greats. Definitely worth remembering. And he would be even more so if he was a true class a a-hole. These people definitely should never be forgotten.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Minard.p...
Trigger warning: dead Frenchmen.
The "best" most successful leaders don't get soundly beaten over and over again and eventually lose everything.
> Right up there with people like Alexander the Great.
Highly questionable, Alexander the Great actually won and won everywhere and didn't lose his empire until he died.
Napoleon is vastly overestimated in Western history. Not to mention that he left his solderers behind multiple times after his mistakes had gotten them captured over and over again.
He literally was the commander in control of the worst military failure in basically all of human history.
He had initiative and was a good battle leader at the helm of the most powerful country that was already very successful before he took over, but as all around military commander and strategist he had serious problems.
> Historically, most of the Anti-French coalitions were led, and financed, by the British. So they are as much guilty of the Napoleonic Wars as Napoleon himself.
The British are responsible French revolutionary armies moving into Netherlands, Norther Italy, Egypt and Switzerland? Britain is responsible for Napoleon leading 600k people into Russia?
After the Revolution the Revolutionary government including were seriously attempting to expand in all directions peace was very temporary. Russia tried peace with Napoleon but only subservience was good enough and that trigger an invasion.
> Do yes, Napoleon definitely is on of history's greats. Definitely worth remembering. And he would be even more so if he was a true class a a-hole. These people definitely should never be forgotten.
I agree he should be remembered, as most history should.
Was he power hungry? Sure. More than others? I don't think so, just more successful. Russia, at that time, was the only continental power left as a potential ally of the British. Which had opposed the French in every single war before. So yes, it was a viable campaign. One that cost him everything in the end. It was, IMHO, the last period which allowed for decisive battles. And Napoleon was really good at those.
He had issues in diplomacy. No surprise as the upstart among old nobility, so. And his economic policies were lacking as well. Doesn't mean that he is among the best military leaders so far. And again, a lot of his policies were really progressive. And sure, he built upon the Revolution. Nobody exists in a vacuum, Alexander built on his father's achievements. Ceasar on the Roman Republic. Just like everyone else.
> Only to come back and get a very close loss at Waterloo.
Even had he won at Waterloo, there was 0% change it would not have ended the same way.
> That makes two serious defeats.
Actually far more then two.
> Wellington was a worthy opponent so.
Wellington is overrated, the reason Waterloo is so hyped its because its the only victory of the British on land and they did that with Prussian support. The Russian defeated Napoleon more then anybody else, and likely the Austrians after that.
> So yes, it was a viable campaign.
I'm not gone say it was not viable. But in terms of risk reward it was still bad strategy. He had many political options other then full on invading Russia.
> He had issues in diplomacy. No surprise as the upstart among old nobility, so.
They actually made amazing offers to him the he refused.
> Just like everyone else.
I would agree. I don't think he was uniquely bad. I'm just saying that I don't really think he ranks among the very best general/statesmen.
Sorry need to pick on the word "modern" because it insinuates these things only happened in the past and are out of the question today when we just have adapted the techniques to get away. Therefore I much recommend Treasure Island[1] which goes into the crimes of "modern" colonialism (French, British, US). In case of France especially interesting is Gabon and it's role until today in financing and legitimizing French wars. If one believes only a fraction of the things in this book it would justify the same language applied to our current systems.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands:_Tax_Havens_a...
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230236738_8
Seems like he ended it in some places - no ?
The paper basically mentions this here:
> First, by the eighteenth century feudalism was primarily (but not solely) a system of property law rather than a mode of production or a form of social domination.
So basically their argument is that the type of property law changed under Napoleon. And that is probably fair (I need to read the whole paper). But I would say that 'ended feudalism'. Its probably a good thing, I would agree.
I must admit I don't know enough about property relation in France. I would like to read this paper in more detail. I read far more about Russia and Britain, stemming form my dislike of France.