In 1789, the revolution swept the old aristocracy from power in France. A few years later, Napoleon Bonaparte, the legendary Corsican, emerged as the new strong man. Through conquest he became the scourge of the nineteenth century, a man both feared and admired. His armies set foot in most countries on continental Europe, and whatever the outcome, change followed. After his defeat, nothing would ever be the same. But what should we today think about a man who in some ways modernized a reluctant Europe through victories on the battlefield? We asked professor Michael Broers of Oxford University, an expert on Napoleon.
top of page
bottom of page
“The natural pride of men of war could not accept the idea the Napoleon had committed great faults; not a soldier thought that defeat was the results of his poor combinations. They blamed those of Leipzig, of 1814 and of Waterloo, solely on treason. This word is the veil that blinded the believers from the flaws of their idol and the illusions that it created explains the attachment to the name of Napoleon”
Colonel Rumigny, ADC to General Gérard. Quoted by Andrew Field - Waterloo, Rout and Retreat -Barnsley 2017 - p304
Napoleon the moderniser? Can’t see how replacing an existing monarchy with a brother/nephew or brother in law of Napoleon was terribly modernising. He didn’t even modernise warfare much, the technology at the end of the period was pretty much what it was at the beginning. I can’t help but wonder how many potential investors and engineers were left behind in the snows of Russia. Or on a muddy field in Belgium. How much human material fell victim to his vanity of la glorie?