- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 51,760
- Reaction score
- 14,179
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I have teased the review of this book for sometime. However between changing life events, and a move to California it has taken me some time to finish one read through of the book, then a second read through. This is a monstrous book, it's almost 1000 pages before footnotes, most of which are translated from French in the original sources, As I do not read French this is a limitation on my ability to check the work, but nothing strikes me as wrong.
Andrew Roberts is an English author and historian, He was educated at Cambridge, and among other things is a visiting professor at the King's War College in London. He is a public intellectual who from what I can tell has a neocon political outlook. He has written other scholarly books including on Winston Churchill, Nazi Germany, and a lot of obscure books on The Great War.
This book follows Napolean, from his birth on the Island of Corsica in the Mediterranean Sea, to his involvement in the French revolution, to his rise to power as Emperor of the French, to his downfall, return to the throne, and final exile on the island of Saint Helena in the south Atlantic ocean. As I have mentioned this book is enormous and no one will actually read five or six posts of walls of text nor is this a scholarly assignment. Therefore I am going to review the writing style of the book and explain some things I found interesting.
Roberts seems to be generally a fan of Napoleon. While he fairly characterizes Napoleon's faults (more on that to come) there seems to be a lot of justification for them. An example of this is when he references Napoleon's many affairs, he qualifies by claiming Napoleon only did this because Josephine cheated on him first and he needed to prove he wasn't a cuck (this is a paraphrase, but only barely, Robert's exact quote was "he took a mistress to defend against charges of cuckholdry") He also defends Napoleon's decision to abandon his army in Egypt by claiming that France needed him more in Paris than in Egypt. There is a lot of this Napoleon apologia throughout the book. The fact Roberts is a war college professor will not shock anyone who reads this book. There is insane levels of detail complete with maps and equipment lists for every battle, whereas many political moves of Napoleon and his government are only covered in scant detail. I think the book may be too academic, compared to the biography I read of Francisco Franco, which was well paced and a page turner, this book is very droll. Reading it is a chore, and in my opinion it focuses far too heavy on the military side of Napoleon.
But on to Napoleon himself. One thing that strikes me is how Napoleon was an incredible micromanager, there is frequent references in the book to Napoleon personally giving orders to censure or reprimand minor officials way out in the provinces, or sending letters to minor events or festivals. Napoleon also seems to have been incredibly petty. He basically bumbled his way into war with Britain and Russia, whereas more skilled diplomacy would've avoided both and likely saved the throne of Bonaparte. Despite ending the French Republic's persecution of the Catholic church and signing a concordant with the Vatican, he also got in to pointless disputes with the Pope that could've been avoided, like when his brother married an American woman (oh btw I didn't know this, Napoleon's great nephew from this marriage , Charles Bonaparte, was US Attorney General) he strong armed the Vatican into annulling the marriage so he could marry his brother to a princess from another country. Napoleon's micromanagement of his family was another giant fault.
I think the narrative of Napoleon one can derive from this book is that of a go-getter who managed to promote himself far beyond his pay grade, and once he reached the top his administration began to falter as his more narcissistic personality got him in to avoidable conflicts that ended his reign. Of course, I think a biography like this could've been shortened by about 250 pages.
3/5 for Napoleon.
Link to where you can purchase:
Amazon.com: Napoleon: A Life (9780143127857): Roberts, Andrew: Books
Andrew Roberts is an English author and historian, He was educated at Cambridge, and among other things is a visiting professor at the King's War College in London. He is a public intellectual who from what I can tell has a neocon political outlook. He has written other scholarly books including on Winston Churchill, Nazi Germany, and a lot of obscure books on The Great War.
This book follows Napolean, from his birth on the Island of Corsica in the Mediterranean Sea, to his involvement in the French revolution, to his rise to power as Emperor of the French, to his downfall, return to the throne, and final exile on the island of Saint Helena in the south Atlantic ocean. As I have mentioned this book is enormous and no one will actually read five or six posts of walls of text nor is this a scholarly assignment. Therefore I am going to review the writing style of the book and explain some things I found interesting.
Roberts seems to be generally a fan of Napoleon. While he fairly characterizes Napoleon's faults (more on that to come) there seems to be a lot of justification for them. An example of this is when he references Napoleon's many affairs, he qualifies by claiming Napoleon only did this because Josephine cheated on him first and he needed to prove he wasn't a cuck (this is a paraphrase, but only barely, Robert's exact quote was "he took a mistress to defend against charges of cuckholdry") He also defends Napoleon's decision to abandon his army in Egypt by claiming that France needed him more in Paris than in Egypt. There is a lot of this Napoleon apologia throughout the book. The fact Roberts is a war college professor will not shock anyone who reads this book. There is insane levels of detail complete with maps and equipment lists for every battle, whereas many political moves of Napoleon and his government are only covered in scant detail. I think the book may be too academic, compared to the biography I read of Francisco Franco, which was well paced and a page turner, this book is very droll. Reading it is a chore, and in my opinion it focuses far too heavy on the military side of Napoleon.
But on to Napoleon himself. One thing that strikes me is how Napoleon was an incredible micromanager, there is frequent references in the book to Napoleon personally giving orders to censure or reprimand minor officials way out in the provinces, or sending letters to minor events or festivals. Napoleon also seems to have been incredibly petty. He basically bumbled his way into war with Britain and Russia, whereas more skilled diplomacy would've avoided both and likely saved the throne of Bonaparte. Despite ending the French Republic's persecution of the Catholic church and signing a concordant with the Vatican, he also got in to pointless disputes with the Pope that could've been avoided, like when his brother married an American woman (oh btw I didn't know this, Napoleon's great nephew from this marriage , Charles Bonaparte, was US Attorney General) he strong armed the Vatican into annulling the marriage so he could marry his brother to a princess from another country. Napoleon's micromanagement of his family was another giant fault.
I think the narrative of Napoleon one can derive from this book is that of a go-getter who managed to promote himself far beyond his pay grade, and once he reached the top his administration began to falter as his more narcissistic personality got him in to avoidable conflicts that ended his reign. Of course, I think a biography like this could've been shortened by about 250 pages.
3/5 for Napoleon.
Link to where you can purchase:
Amazon.com: Napoleon: A Life (9780143127857): Roberts, Andrew: Books