Napoleon

His Part in My Downfall

by David Commerford, UK

There are just times when a man has to do what a man has to do. So here I am writing in defence of someone who I never met, who could not speak the same language as me and who died 176 years ago. Over the years this man and the period in history that bears his name, have cost me hundreds, if not thousands of pounds, in books, wargames figures, paints, scenery, trips to shows, museums etc. Countless hours of my time reading, painting, arguing with fellow gamers. Worn nerves from partners asking what the hell I am wasting my time on and why have I not put the kids to bed yet. Still it goes on. The last representation of said person I had the misfortune to witness was on TV in Sharp's Waterloo where in keeping with most of Mr.Cornwell's liberties with history the producers had chosen to portray him as under weight for that period in his life and sporting the most ridiculous headgear I have ever seen. Still, I suppose it was no dafter than L'Enfonceur crashing through the gates of La Haye-Sainte (were there two of him or did he just have an aversion to ringing the door bell every where he went?) Now I won't deny it's been good viewing and raised interest in the period but from my personnel point of view Mr Bean and King George's SAS men had grown a bit wearing by the end of final series. However, top marks for Richard Moore and company keeping it looking right even when the story lines beggared belief. Having said that it was not the size of Le Tondu's hat (yes, I have seen one of real ones) that prompted this missive but rather the tone of Paddy Griffith's opening section in his article in Edition 34. Now I have read and enjoyed many things written by Paddy over the years and paid good money to read them but this was just a little to much. While the main body of the article raised many valid points about the Revolutionary Army and the transition to the Empire period; the opportunity to play Slag the Corsican could and perhaps should. have been resisted. To begin with an invocation of Correlli Barnett is guaranteed to get the dander up of anyone inclined to a balanced view of Napoleon's place in history being, as it is, one of the most jingoistic interpretations I have ever had the misfortune to read. Blundering to Glory Of course not all of the mans success can be a attributed to genius, a much over worked word if ever there was one, but if you want a more dispassionate view, Owen Connelly's Blundering to Glory gives a realistic alternative view to the "Bonapartist hype" Paddy refers to. Perhaps it takes an American to have a more detached view of these matters. Personally speaking I have not noticed much of the alleged "upsurge of Hero Worship" of late. In successive First Empires we have had John Salmon saying what a crap statesman he was and Paddy giving his military reputation both barrels ! So what have I got to say for him ? Well firstly lets have a bit of balance. He was not God, he did not walk on water. He may have had an ego the size of Alaska but nobody in his line of work ever got to the top by being overly modest. Further more he has always been the subject of at least as much negative publicity as adulation. Starting in his own time with James Gilroy's cartoons and Surgeon Henry's post mortum comments on the size of his genitals ! Oh, on the subject of size, I hate to disillusion all of you obsessed with the vertically challenged but please note, he would have met the height requirement for the Fusiliers of the Guard, although he would have missed the cut for the Grenadiers (5ft 9in) by a good two and half inches. It is a well worn fact but people were, on average, smaller in those days, as if you didn't know. I seem to recall he has also been compared, in terms of being short, once being a corporal and a dictator, to Herr Schicklgruber. Though to the best of my knowledge, while being instrumental in getting a lot of people killed, he was not responsible for the systematic murder of several million Jews and political dissidents. In the latter regard the unfortunate Duc d'Enghien barely rates a mention. Standards of the Age Which brings me to my next point. While the moralists amongst us will argue one death is to many (in which case what are you doing reading this magazine given the nature of this publications main topic) those who decry Napoleon and his wider achievements would do well to consider the standards of the age in which he lived. The economic, legal and social reforms he introduced, particularly during the Consular period, expertly described by David Markham in Edition 35 , gave practical meaning to the work of the Revolution and were in advance of those governments that sort to overthrow him. One only has to look how quickly the Bourbon's turned back the clock on their return to see what the hereditary rulers of Europe thought of his work. It should be remembered that by the time of 18 Brumaire the Revolution was effectively dead. The leading players had already killed each other off or were looking for soft jobs for themselves. Barras for example was already in secret negations with royalists outside France for the restoration of Fat Louis in return for a large exchange of cash. As for Paddy's point that other generals could have staged a coup if Napoleon had not. Who else would have done it ? Augereau did not have the intellect. Bernadotte was known to be one of the closest rivals and what a fine catch he would have made. The man with the Death to Kings tattoo who espoused liberty so much when offered the job he became one himself ! The Jacobins would have turned the place upside down and Louis XVIII would been back inside a month. At least Nappy had the ability to create his own role. As for Paddy's assessment that a truer test of greatness would have been for Napoleon to sort things out, secure internal and external peace and then step aside. Wrong man, wrong time, wrong place. There have been similar acts of philanthrophy through history, I suppose, but very few if any occurring in a post revolutionary period have had any long term result other than to lead to reactionary forces being returned to power. Particularly where stable democracy has not been secured first. Let us not forget that in the early 1800's democracy, which I take to mean equal rights, universal voting power, free elections, accountable government etc. in the modern sense did not exist anywhere. Why expect Napoleon to be the instrument of change in this regard ? Given his background and experience of the Revolutionary period where government by committee had led only to political murder on a grand scale and his own period of imprisonment why should he have taken the chance? On the matter of the "Good thing, Bad thing" debate. It is funny I have never heard this connection in quite the same way with some of the other acknowledged Great Leaders/Generals Napoleon is generally bracketed with. True, the population of Europe would have been larger with out him but given the limitations of technology available to them, Alexander and Caesar managed to kill off their fair share of humanity, most of them living a long way from Macedonia and Rome as I recall. How about someone still alive in Napoleon's own lifetime, Frederick the Great. One has to consider the effect on the population of Prussia in of a war that lasted seven years and left the nations boundaries pretty much where they started from at the end of it all (a bit like someone else don't you think?). Would attitudes to him be different if he had fought against Britain rather than been allied to it ? It's funny how many pubs called the King of Prussia disappeared in 1914 ! Mistakes Having said all that it cannot be denied that as a grand strategist Napoleon made some colossal mistakes. Why invade Spain and Russia ? Let alone try and hold down both at the same time. Both would seem to illustrate his lack of understanding of the role of sea power, not to mention patience. It is ironic that if he had concentrated his efforts in sealing up the Baltic rather than trudging of toward Moscow the Continental System would have eventually worked. By the time of the invasion the Royal Navy had been enforcing a year round blockade of French and Allied ports for nearly ten years. During the later part of which they had been effectively cut off from their main source of timber for masts and spars. Replacement stocks were starting to look more than a little thin. In due course the wear and tear would have forced the British to think of other options. However as a straight forward general he must be rated in the top flight. Genius ? Well how do you define it ? The Italian Campaign, Austerlitz, 1814 all had the magic touch. The destruction of the Prussian Home for Older Generals in 1806 ? Well as they say in boxing you can only beat what they send against you. Which reminds me. OK, he did not innovate to any great extent, only put what others had created to good use, but do you have to be an innovator to pass the acceptance test ? Who gives the pass mark for military genius ? Surely the standard varies over time in accordance with the education and training of the military class and the age in which one lives. For example, generals of the 14th and 15th Century commanded by right of birth not talent. Any self respecting Legatus Legionis would have taken them to the cleaners. Indeed tactics most wargamers learnt at their mothers knee would have elevated you to sainthood, if they did not burn you as a witch first. In my youth I was taught that Montgomery was a great general because he won in North Africa. As the years have past I find that Rommel had so over extended what little supply the Royal Navy and Royal Airforce had left for him that by El Alamein he could not go backwards let alone advance any further. At that point Monty hit him with such a superior force that when you look at it on paper you can't see how he could lose. Genius ? Innovator ? or just someone who had seen so much in 1914 - 18 he wasn't prepared to take risks anymore. Then there's Marlborough. Top bloke our John, finest British general bar none, in my view. Never invested a town he did not take, never fought a battle he did not win. My point, well all his major victories were won on the same game plan; pressure the flanks and when they shift their ground stuff everything up the middle ! Luckily for the Duke his opposition took their time to work this out and even at Malplaquet when seeing it for the fourth time they could not stop it happening, only raise the "Butchers Bill" in their attempt. QED you are only as good as the suckers let you be. Trivial Pursuit question of the day. What was the largest battle in European history before Wagram ? No ? I didn't know it was Malplaquet either. Clever and Ambitious In terms of Napoleon, my personal view is that what we have here is a very clever, incredibly ambitious man who may or may not have had good intentions in "betraying" the Revolution for fear of something worse. Who then found like Cromwell or Lenin he was surrounded by sycophants and incompetents and at first could not and later would not, let go of the controls. Also, unlike Cromwell, he rather liked it. With the benefit of more than a hundred years of hindsight, he was completely unrealistic in terms of what was possible and what was not. Beating the Russians in the field in 1812, the overall sweep of the 1813 campaign given the army at his disposal, assuming that Blucher would ever give up his unfortunate habit of getting Russians killed in 1814 and trying to win by remote control in Spain; all were not going to happen. However, not only did win more battles than he lost, his victories so overawed his opponents that only the strategy of personal avoidance adopted in 1813/14 ensured his long term defeat. He was certainly a genius in terms of those around him and the things he attempted nobody else dared to think of. If this led to his defeat it was because this level of imagination is seldom tempered with caution. The Hundred Days ? Well it nearly worked. If nothing else it proved his refusal of the terms offered by the Allies before his 1814 defeat, to allow him to rule France on its natural frontiers, was the right choice for the rest of Europe. It would never have worked for him and nor I suspect for them either. He would have to push them, or they him, at some point. Neither side would have need much of a reason. If his legacy, post Waterloo, still gets us all writing about him to this day God alone knows what would have happened if they had allowed him time to rebuild in France. Next time he might have found the Nelson he needed. Then we all might be driving on the wrong side of the road ! Bibliography Chandler D.- The Campains of Napoleon, Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Far from impartial but still the best all round study of the man and his methods in the English language. Connelly O.- Blundering to Glory Napoleon's Military Campains, Scholarly Resources Inc. Thoughtful alternative view of historical events giving more allowance to combination of circumstances than one mans ablity to control them. Cronin V.- Napoleon, Penguin Books Very accessable biography, short on the usual military angles but long on personnal background and character interpretation. Private and public life as well as socio-economic aspects of his career. Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #37 Back to First Empire List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1997 by First Empire. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com