"The War's Against Napoleon" is a book written by two members of the International Napoleonic Society, General Michel Franceschi (who is apparently a Corsican, just like Napoleon) and Ben Weider. Curiously, the latter author is a former president of the International Federation of Bodybuilders!
Both Franceschi and Weider are great admirers of Napoleon Bonaparte, and their book portrays Napoleon as a friend of peace, a liberator of the oppressed and a great visionary who envisioned something like the European Union already two centuries ago. They even claim that Napoleon was something of a democrat. Those who betrayed Napoleon at various points in his career are in for a good whipping, including Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, who later became king of Sweden and Norway.
Naturally, a book of this kind isn't *entirely* convincing. After all, it could be argued that the Holy Alliance was better at keeping "peace", that the Swiss were more democratic than the French, or that Napoleon certainly didn't want Haiti to be liberated. And what about The Grand Pensionary Schimmelpenninck?
Still, I recommend the book. Napoleon is often depicted as some kind of monster, a megalomaniacal conqueror similar to Hitler and Stalin. This is certainly how he was depicted, at least subliminally, in Swedish high schools during my teens. Somehow, we all assumed that the British were the good guys who saved the world from this maniac. And while Bernadotte wasn't necessarily portrayed as a great hero (he was, after all, something of an autocrat who conquered Norway - and we were all supposed to be good democrats and pacifists), he was nevertheless seen as an exciting and exotic character due to his illustrious past. For a long time, I wondered how on earth people like Hegel, Goethe or Nietzsche could admire this man.
Well, at least we didn't see him as the Antichrist!
If this is how you have been brought up to see Napoleon Bonaparte, this book will provide some needed antidotes. And no, I don't agree with everything the authors say. They have obvious problems with the French intervention in Spain, for instance. Nor are they very successful in proving the emperor's democratic and liberal leanings. Napoleon was hardly a man of "peace" or "democracy", but he was no Hitler either. The view of Napoleon as some kind of early fascist is ridiculous.
Personally, I think Napoleon wanted to control Western Europe while securing the neutrality of the traditional rulers of Central and Eastern Europe, in order to strike the main blow at Britain. Perfidious Albion, of course, wanted to restore the Bourbons! This view of Napoleon would explain a lot of things, for instance why he didn't export the French revolution to Prussia, Austria or Russia. Instead, he let the rulers of these nations keep their thrones even after defeating them in military battle. He only insisted on a break with the British. Note also that he didn't emancipate the Russian serfs, despite ample opportunity. Nor did Napoleon want to conquer Russia itself. The march to Moscow was a punitive expedition against the czar, who had broken the blockade of Britain. Indeed, as long as Russia was a French ally, Napoleon had no objection to its territorial expansion at the expense of pro-British Sweden. While this certainly sounds like great power politics, it's nothing on the scale of Hitler or the Mikado. It's also unclear why the British aren't seen as quite mad - they almost *succeded* in conquering the whole world...
"The Wars Against Napoleon" isn't the most objective book around, but perhaps it can wake up those used to the British view of history from their dogmatic slumber.
Incidentally, you may also want to check out the website of the International Napoleonic Society. Their book section contain many interesting titles...
No comments:
Post a Comment