"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