Was Napoleon I an "Unprincipled adventurer whose genius owes more to propaganda than to deeds"? [Quoted in D.G. Wright Napoleon and Europe (1984) p.93]

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

Katherine Brooks

D.G. Wright's view of Napoleon is justified, he was a terrific propagandist, as many of the worlds greatest dictators have been; however if all Napoleon's works were backed up by propaganda, then his legacy would have been flawed and therefore would not have lasted as long regardless of whether it is a good or bad legacy which is left behind. To discover whether Wright's view is not only justified but correct, several things need to be looked at, like Napoleon's personality and what it is about him that attracted so much attention. How much evidence there is in historical documents to support the theory that all Napoleon's genius owes more to propaganda than anything else. Or whether Napoleon's military actions show actual skill.

Records show that Napoleon's personality was domineering, and is what many people remember him for, his contemporary William Hazlitt, calls him a "tyrant by divine right"(1). Hazlitt sees Napoleon as a tyrant but claims there was a kind virtue about this quality. No one would disagree with the idea that Napoleon was tyrannical, but other's would contest the idea of this being a virtue, for example A.D. Harvey suggests that people should view Napoleon "not as general who became a dictator, but as a dictator who became a general"(1). One thing becomes clear about Napoleon is that many historians over the last two centuries have debated his actual character. Most would agree that he was a genius, and that he had a very prosperous career, Goethe goes as far to say, "His life was the stride of a demigod"(1). However some are less flattering Ugo Foscolo described Napoleon in 1814 just before his defeat at Waterloo as "a liar without a motive"(1). This seems an unfair accusation of Napoleon, he was renowned for his meticulous planning of events, down to the finest detail, according to Caulaincourt, one of Napoleon's closest friends: "The Emperor occupied himself with the most minute details. He wanted everything to bear the imprint of his genius" (2). Although what is written about Napoleon varies widely from source to source, the ones that can be trusted to be genuine are those that were written after Napoleon's demise. His personality is recorded in D.G. Wright's book Napoleon And Europe as being "many sided"(3 pg.25), but equally powerful whichever side he is showing, he could be both "cruel and vindictive" (3 pg.25), but the loyalty he showed to his family was just as dedicated. What this shows about Napoleon is that it as his personality differences are contested by so many people, it is difficult to see how there can be a clear judgement as to whether he was a genius, if Caulaincourt is correct and Napoleon did check and write every part of the many military maneuvers carried out because of his possessive nature, then it would seem, that Napoleon's military success was due to his genius.

This is a preview of the whole essay

There are several arguments that suggest that Napoleon was "an unprincipled adventurer", he took needless risks for example Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, where after he conquered what he wanted, having over run the country, he set about educating people about Egypt, but then when something new came to his attention, when he was needed back in France, he "was ruthless ...in the way he deserted his army in Egypt, in 1798" (4). He cared about people when they served the purpose that he wanted, and after that, they had to defend themselves. A further example of when Napoleon showed a lack of principles is when he showed the "egotism ... to invade Russia in 1812 with more than 600,000 men" (5), Russia would have been destroyed by an invasion this large, and Napoleon knew this. He wanted to show Europe that he could command such a large Military operation as an illustration that he was the best military commander of the time. However, Harvey points out that even this was not true " Though an outstanding general, he was not by any means the greatest general of his day. Wellington was never defeated... whereas Napoleon suffered three major defeats" (1). However in Russia, he was defeated by the actions of the Russians, who destroyed Moscow for him, so, as he could not benefit from plundering the town.

Napoleon bragged about the numbers of men he could lose, with no regard to the value of their lives. He claimed "he could afford to expend 30,000 men a month on the battlefield"(3 pg.6). It is voicing beliefs like these that lead people to the conclusion that he was an unprincipled adventurer.

His lack of principles are shown by his treatment of others, he was seen as harsh with people, especially those who he considered below him. Wright documents him as "thrashing servants, or even military subordinates, with his riding crop" (3 pg. 25).

He could not stand the idea of losing, which made him thirst for glory. He was shown to lack adequate judgement at times, due to ill health, because of this, it adds to the idea that he was an adventurer. He made risky decisions, which were often costly. Another of the reasons for his misjudgments was the fact that he did not sleep properly, and had a very interrupted sleep pattern, with increased his irritability.

As he took control of the government as well as the army, his attention naturally became more divided, but because of his desire for military glory, he did not make the decisions about the running of France for himself. There are many things in French history, that Napoleon is given unfair credit for; for example the Napoleonic code, the civil government system and the metric system. These were all the work of other people that had began while "he was still an unknown artillery subaltern" (1), however most of the work that went in the Napoleonic code, or code Napoleon were based on his own ideas.

There are however factors that show that Napoleon was a principled military leader. He fully exploited the innovations in Warfare, he used the newest forms of military skill. The French Infantry and Cavalry were among the best in Europe, and were used more effectively with the infantry fighting in squares to keep all angles covered, to have better defense (5). Napoleon was among the first Generals to be able to mobilize massive armies; he also initiated the idea of self-contained Corps D'Armee of between 15,000 and 30,000 men advancing separately. Although Napoleon showed some signs of irrational behaviour towards his ranks, it was not his general conduct, he believed in fair treatment. His rule as Emperor of France was not without flaws but he was able to establish the Code Napoleon, which is still the basis for the laws in France today. However he did not write this set of rules independently he had help from Pope Pius VII, which shows that he was willing to accept help from other areas, when it suited him. All this shows that Napoleon could be fair when it suited his ends to be so. There are more examples of when Napoleon was an "Unprincipled adventurer". Although the examples that show him to have been principled outweigh them in forms of merit, so it would seem that D.G. Wright's view of Napoleon is not fully justified.

Napoleon did rely heavily upon propaganda, during his reign; it allowed him to stay in control, of everything that was said, in public about him. The worlds greatest dictators of the late 19th and early 20th centuries are often compared to Napoleon, depending on the levels of control that they have over there "people", and on the areas of where they took over. Mussolini and Hitler have been compared to Napoleon because of their successes in controlling the government, this was done by censorship of the press and controlling what was printed about them. They like Mao and Ataturk, received near-Napoleonic status, through precision, if Mao had combined his skills of warfare, with Hitler's ability for charming the crowds then there would have been another man, with Napoleon's capabilities. Mao used the same form of propaganda, as Napoleon did, he had his "little red books" which were full of his own quotations, and any one who did not follow what he said, was betraying their country. He used impressionable students to do his work for him. Napoleon, may not have printed his work in to books to show people how he thought they should live their lives, but he did rely on those who were weaker than him, like young soldiers to enforce, his ideals. Other forms of censorship and propaganda that Napoleon used were the Police, who censored what was said in the press and the theatre. They kept an eye out for "subversion and sedition, and produced daily reports on the movements of individuals into cities... and on public attitudes and moral" (4). Wright suggests that one of the ways Napoleon was able to motivate his army was by promising them "glory, promotion and loot" (3 pg.8), he used forms of propaganda or blackmail as a way of keeping his army on his side. Propaganda was very important to the way Napoleon controlled France, however it does not seem to outweigh the fact that some of Napoleons greatest works were due to his genius. He used propaganda, as all politicians do to highlight further the actual work that he was doing.

Napoleon's genius is showed through his precision in warfare. The wars that Napoleon was involved in were generally well though out and timed to exact moments of invasion. He did make mistakes with some of the battles fought and they could have had drastic consequences, however this was never the intention. Napoleon had a desperate thirst for glory, which if not achieved lead to dire consequences among the ranks of his army. Napoleon's reputation according to Emsley was largely down to his success at warfare on land, "Napoleon failed to understand the significance of seapower" (4). Napoleon was only successful when there was no other major power around. Before Napoleon invaded Egypt, one of his greatest military opponents died, which was fortunate for Napoleon, because otherwise the Military campaign might not have as successful. A lot of Napoleon's success in war comes from opportunities being used to there full advantage. As I have said earlier in the essay, Napoleon makes full use of the situation, and in his early career, usually manages to turn a situation around to his full advantage. Some of the battles that Napoleon had been involved in show this for example, Egypt, not only did he out rightly conquer it. He turned the situation around. He did not just over run the country; he set about educating the people of Egypt, and Europe about the heritage she had, as Black says, "Napoleon was no mere conqueror.... He sponsored a major program of intellectual and archaeological study of the country". However, Rapport comments that the British thwarted this plan. This shows that Napoleon was not purely interested in military gains. He wanted to lead to further education of the French.

In conclusion, the idea of the Napoleonic legend can be flawed depending on the historical point of view taken. Napoleon like many leaders of powerful country had his successes and his failings. Napoleon was a good diplomat, and he did not spend all of France's money on building statues and commemorations to himself. However due to his temperament, he can be considered unreliable. D.G. Wright's comment that he was an "unprincipled adventurer whose genius owed more to propaganda than to deeds" is however far from the correct view that should be had of Napoleon. Most of his judgements in warfare were well calculated. He did make errors, and he could be heavy handed with the treatment of people. Nevertheless, he was a good commander, and he was generally fair unless pushed to his limits. He did use propaganda but only to back up the things that he was actually doing.

Bibliography

1. Harvey A.D. "Napoleon- The Myth", History Today- January 1998

2. Caulaincourt- Document 2, "Napoleon and Europe", D.G. Wright, Longman 1998

3. Wright D.G. "Napoleon and Europe", Longman, 1998

4. Emsley C. "Napoleon 1- Successes and Failures", History Review- November 1995.

5. Collins I. "Variations on the theme of Napoleon's Moscow Campaign" History- The journal of Historical Association, Volume 71- 1986

6. Black J. "Napoleon and Europe", History Today- January 1998.

Rapport M. "Napoleon's Rise to Power", History Today- January 1998.

Draz J. "Europe between Revolutions 1815-1848", Fontana History of Europe 1981.

Gildea R. "Barricades and Borders", Oxford University Press, 1996.