As a major new film explores the life of the French emperor, Matt Elton asks historians Laura O’Brien and David Andress how we can make sense of the diverse and contradictory aspects of Napoleon’s character and career
Matt Elton Before we start thinking about Napoleon’s legacy, we should explore a key aspect of his story: just how great a military commander was he, and what were his greatest successes?
David Andress He’s one of the greatest military commanders of all time. He was also a highly charismatic individual and, every time you talk about Napoleon, you have to bear that in mind alongside the fact that he was a terrible person, politically speaking. He was staggeringly successful at doing things with military force – the problem was, that wasn’t always a good idea. The story of Napoleon’s life from the mid-1790s onwards is essentially one of balancing his personal charisma, drive, ambition and outstanding leadership qualities with what he actually did in the political sphere, the systems he set up, and what they said about what he thought about everyone else who wasn’t him.
Laura O’Brien I completely agree. One of the reasons he continues to excite such interest is the tendency to view him through a binary prism: he is either the worst person who ever lived, or a perfect genius who was really hard done by. This is the classic historian’s answer, but we need to think about his reputation in a more complicated, nuanced way. We have to recognise what Napoleon achieved – which was exceptional – and the way he was able to capture the imagination to such an extent that he still informs how we understand leadership.
How did Napoleon’s early life shape his worldview and how he saw himself?
LOB Probably the most important early formative event was being sent to a military academy in 1779, when he was nine. He spent the next five years in that very austere environment, and noted later how it taught him to survive in hard situations. He was likely very badly bullied: people joked about his accent, and the fact he didn’t speak French very clearly. He became interested in the idea of Corsican independence in this period, and in the fact that he was Corsican above all.
Although he did have a difficult time, and wasn’t an academic superstar by any means, he did get on quite well. He probably wasn’t the lone genius – the isolated child ploughing a lonely furrow towards a future destiny – that he and some of his future biographers wanted him to be viewed as.
DA Thinking of yourself a
