Napoleon

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant Phillipic
Review: The people who don't like this book call it biased and lacking depth. These are the very qualities that make it a brilliant polemic that is really directed at the thinking of our times rather than an assessment of the past. What Johnson is really attacking is the sloppy romanticism that excuses dictators of their crimes due to their image as men of action. This form of thug chic most malevolently manifests itself in liberal bourgeois societies where so called progressive types are beguiled by the Hitlers, Lenins, Stalins, Maos, Castros, Ortegas and Saddams of the world.

Yes, Johnson goes for the throat and holds back nothing. It needed doing.

Rating:
Summary: Sloppy prejudice passing as objectivity
Review: This "biography" is so stuffed with sloppy inaccuracies that it's hard to know where to begin. To take two examples at either end: in Chapter 1 we are told that Bonaparte's brother Luicen became King of Holland! For Johnson's information, it was Louis. Final chapter: we're informed that while on St Helena Napoleon befriended the young Betsy Briars. Her name was Betsy Balcombe -"The Briars" was the name of her father's house. To carry on listing all such factual errors would require too much time and space for a book so little deserving in either. Johnson is a die-hard British snob who is determined to debunk Napoleon at all costs, including historical accuracy.

Rating:
Summary: Paul Johnson does not care much for Napoleon
Review: This book is a good short life of Napoleon. The problem that I have with it is that Johnson is convinced that Napoleon's real contribution to western civilization is to be the creator of the dictatorical state. I think that this is reading far too much into things and that he is reaching here. Most of the elements that Napoleon used to preserve himself in power (such as the secret police) had existed in previous versions under other regimes. Roman emperors opened the mail of their citizens as did Louis XIV. They also used propaganda to varying degrees of effectiveness. This was an important part of kingship. One gets the impression that Johnson's problem is not so much with Napoleon as it is the French Revolution in general. He also appears to have set out to research a book on Napoleon and came away from the experience with a great deal of admiration for the Duke of Wellington (who was no bargin when he was prime minister later in the UK). He does also tend to downplay Napoleon's military skill, insisting on crediting subordinates instead. However, it is the mark of a good leader if he can attract good subordinates to realize his ambitions, something Johnson does not appreciate. Napoleon's legacy was not nearly as black as Johnson portrays it, it might have been more useful to try for a more balanced approach.

Rating:
Summary: Tabloid journalism, not history.
Review: This book is not an introduction to Napoleon, however it might serve as an introduction to Paul Johnson.

Paul Johnson is not an historian but a right-wing tabloid journalist. If you like reading off-the-wall conspiracy theories about communists, fascists and liberals you will love this book. If you are looking for a book that has even the vaguest sense of the life of Napoleon you will have to look elsewhere.

This short book could be read in one sitting but is not worth the time. There are no footnotes; almost certainly because he did not consult any source material to write the book. The few details he actually provides about the man are full of countless factual errors and wild distortions. There are no maps; geography is irrelevant to this story.

What could have been an interesting point-of-view, had it been supported by facts, is turned into an outrageous thesis defended by hearsay. These are the same problems that Paul Johnson has brought to a wide variety of topics in his other books (Modern Times, History of Christianity, History of the Jews, History of the American People, Intellectuals). If this were a freshman history paper it would barely rate a C-. This is what happens when one uses an anti-intellectual approach to writing "history."

Rating:
Summary: Good essay on Napoleon
Review: This is not strictly speaking a biography. It is more an essay on the imact of Napolean. It is an attempt to place Napoleon in context of world events. Johnson's conclusions that he was the developer of the authoritarian state are absolutely correct. Napoleon was a fantastic military leader, and great self promoter and opportunitst who led France and Europe into disaster.

Johnson puts forward a compelling case that Napoleon's memory should be scorned. It is hard to see how the French regard him as a national hero after his actions.

Rating:
Summary: "The Opportunist Incarnate"
Review: This is one of several volumes in the Penguin Lives Series, each of which written by a distinguished author in her or his own right. Each provides a concise but remarkably comprehensive biography of its subject in combination with a penetrating analysis of the significance of that subject's life and career. I think this is a brilliant concept. Those who wish to learn more about the given subject are directed to other sources.

While preparing to comment on various volumes in this series, I have struggled with determining what would be of greatest interest and assistance to those who read my reviews. Finally I decided that a few brief excerpts and then some concluding remarks would be appropriate.

On Johnson's approach to his subject: "It is one of the contentions of this book that Bonaparte was not an ideologue but an opportunist who seized on the accident of the French Revolution to propel himself into supreme power....He believed in his stars, like the ancient Romans he admired (insofar as he admired anyone). He felt he had a destiny, and most of his life he was confident in it. But, sure as he was of what destiny intended for him, he nonetheless was determined to wrest it from events with his own brain,arms, and will." (Page 7)

Bonaparte and the French Revolution: "Bonaparte would not have possessed the ruthless disregard of human life, of natural and man-made law, of custom and good faith needed to carry it through without the positive example and teaching of the Revolution. The Revolution was a lesson in the power of evil to replace idealism, and Bonaparte was its ideal pupil." (Page 29)

On Bonaparte "declension": "There are material reasons for [it]. But there was a metaphysical reason, too, embracing the intellectual, cultural, and spiritual dimensions. He had once been 'a man whose time had come.' In the second half of the 1790's, Bonaparte was an embodiment, all over Europe, of the protest against the old legitimists, their inefficiency, privileges, obscurantism, and misuse of resources, above all the talents and genius of youth. Thus he prospered and conquered. By 1813, however, he was out of date. His time had gone." (Page 140)

These brief excerpts correctly indicate how Johnson correlates information about an especially turbulent period in late-18th and early-19th century European history with his own analysis of arguably the most influential, indeed most disruptive (if not most destructive) figure at that time. It is Johnson's conclusion that "bonapartism" -- with its deification of force and war, the all-powerful centralized state, the use of cultural propaganda to apotheosize the autocrat, the marshaling of entire peoples in the pursuit of personal and ideological power -- "came to hateful maturity only in the twentieth century, which will go down in history as the Age of Infamy." From Johnson's perspective, mankind failed to learn from the example of Bonaparte "the central lesson of history: that all forms of greatness, military and administrative, nation and empire building, are as nothing -- indeed are perilous in the extreme -- without a humble and contrite heart."

Hopefully these brief excerpts and comments will encourage those who read this review to read Johnson's biography. It is a brilliant achievement.

Rating:
Summary: "The Emperor has no clothes"
Review: This treatise, on one of the most written about figures in history, is an indispensable addition to the literature of Napoleon, and of the history of western civilization. Of the several Penguin Lives biographies that I have read and enjoyed, I believe that Napoleon had the most pronounced effect on my understanding of the subject in question.

Although others have commented on the author's lack of discourse on Bonaparte's military actions, and of the writer's alleged anglophile bias, this criticism seems to be missing the point of the specific topic and of the Penguin series in general. This invaluable series of biographies was not intended to give the definitive word on any particular person. The books are intended to give insight into aspects of the characters that may not have been well established in previous texts, and are clearly the opinion of the book's author.

Napoleon's military mastery is often noted in this book, and the author effectively uses quotes from Napoleon's enemy counterparts to enhance the general's stature. However, the author too notes faults and over exaggerations about the general's reputation. As to the charge of English favoritism, the author has an elitist attitude (e.g., he provides numerous quotes and aphorisms in French without the benefit of a translation), but otherwise the allegation lacks a foundation of truth.

The author's central thesis is that Napoleon was far from the romantic, heroic populist. He, according to the author, was an egotistical opportunist who cared little about those who blindly followed him. He fled lost battles ahead, and perhaps over the bodies, of his troops. He waged wars that resulted in millions of casualties, and incalculable loss of property. The author is on shaky ground with his view that Napoleon was the model for the 20th century political monsters such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others, and he offers only analogies, not proof.

The book does not try to defeat the impression that Napoleon was the most significant military figure in history. It only seeks to balance his military accomplishments with how his activities significantly impacted on the rise of totalitarianism in the years after Napoleon. For this purpose, the author should be complimented, and the book should be widely read.

Rating:
Summary: A story of an individual changing the course of history
Review: This work by Uber-historian Paul Johnson is short and direct. To write about such an interesting character as Napoleon in a double-spaced 186 pages means that much will be left out, and that indeed is what has occurred. However, for the reader who appreciates being stimulated by history this is a terrific book for learning the salient points in the timeline of Napoleon's rise and fall.

The overarching theme for me is: How did one man starting at 16 years old become ruler of France by the age of 28, terrorize most of Europe, change the geopolitics in North and South America, and do it in such a short span of time? Beyond his military deeds Napoleon also established the French civil code known as the Napoleonic code, created consistancy in weights and measures, instituted major revisions by centralizing the administration of France, created the bank of France, and also the university of France. To say that he could multi-task is an understatement. He was born with uncommon talent, and a will and determination to use it to its fullest.

To merely allege that he was power mad would belie his skill as a military commander, arguably the greatest in world history. He was also a master at using his human resources by virtue of excellent leadership and an unusually keen mind. The book recounts the names and dates of his major battles and campaigns without offering too much extraneous information. The inquisitive reader can take this blueprint and read of each in the many books already in print citing his forays with the seven coalitions which were formed to align against his Grand Armee.

Johnson outlines Napoleon's behavioral and operating characteristics, plus and minus, Within that context it's notable how Napoleon achieved that which made him an enduring historical figure and what in turn brought him back to earth. He is not the first nor the last great man, for good or evil, who will change the balance of power in the world. Looked at through that lens this is an excellent primer on Napoleon and I highly recommend it to the would-be scholar who hasn't the time to study him in depth, but wants to find the nexis of Napoleon's connection to historical events.

Rating:
Summary: A STARVED BOOK INSTEAD OF A FEAST
Review: When you go to the library you always see these Napoleon biographies, some bigger than an unabridged dictionary or larger than a radioactively mutated monster spider. So instead of committing your brain to such a long exercise you might instead pick up this little volume the thickness of a deck of playing cards. Don't bother. It would be better to read an encyclopedia entry on the famous emperor (or is that infamous?, as Paul Johnson, wants to persuade us).

In this cursory glance at the life of Napoleon, the author has an agenda. He wants to show that in spite of the French mythology, Napoloen was simply the precursor for all the evil dictators that came after him. He was the model for Hitler and
Stalin, maybe not consciously, but he set up the power base by which an oppurtunistic person can seize a country and proceed to remake it in his own image. Napoleon never cared about his country or his people, he was only interested in himself, causing the deaths of millions of Germans, Russians, English, and French soldiers and civilians. What are human beings to a man who does not see anyone but himself as worthy of that title?

Napoleon is not even really seen as a great fighting man in this book. Johnson's big compliment is that Napoleon was a great map-reader and a man who relied on quickness and surprise, not as a great strategist. His disastrous invasion of Russia and the fact that in the retreat he abandoned his army does not really cast a good light on him. I was surprised at how lowly a man he appears to be. I do not know if this is the truth or simply Johnson's casting. I would have to read a true biography to get a better sense.

The most amusing part of the book is his exile where this one-time ruler of Europe is reduced to lording it over a rocky island, spending most of his time gardening. You can almost picture tourists going there and saying "So, Bonaparte, how's that empire going, eh?"

Johnson's conclusion is that Napoleon is remembered for all the wrong reasons. Instead of being seen as a Hitler-like figure, he is instead seen as a mythic figure of heroism and cultural enlightenment. The middle class man rising to the level of kings. I for one have never seen any one man as controlling a nation. It is the people that make the ruler. So instead of Johnson's indictment of this man, he should have thrown it in the laps of the French people, who allowed him to arise. It is still going today, this glorification of Napoleon as a symbol of a better vanished era of French power.

In summary, I would pass up this book, and instead seek a longer work which would do justice to its subject without the politics of the author.

Rating:
Summary: Clear, Consise and Hold's Napleon to Account...
Review: Written by the prolific British historian Paul Johnson, this small volume on Napoleon Bonaparte is part of the excellent new series of "Penguin Lives" which is a series of concise biographies of major historical figures written by distinguished writers. "Napoleon" is not a hagiographical account of the famous French general's life. Johnson is a historian who isn't afraid to make judgments and this account is one, which holds Bonaparte up to moral scrutiny and finds him responsible for the long series of wars that bear his name. The hardships that the continent of Europe had to endure and the loss of millions of lives are laid at the doorstep of "Le Emperor's" tremendous ego. Johnson clearly sees him as an opportunist who took advantage of the power vacuum left after the bloodletting of the French Revolution. Napoleon, like many 20th century dictators recognized that revolutions provided an opportunity for those who were ruthless enough to seize power. Johnson's Napoleon is a charismatic man but one who doesn't truly care for the men who won him glory and bore the brunt of his insatiable lust for power. The author succeeds well at describing the battles and campaigns that made up Napoleon's life and as usual, he is particularly adept at sketching the character of Napoleon's generals and ministers. The constant death and mayhem are enlivened by humorous anecdotes about Napoleon's love life, which was the subject of much ribaldry in the British Army, when they intercepted one of his love letters. Johnson does give credit to a man who, after all, rose from nothing to attain great power. As the Emperor of France, he did institute much needed reforms, some of which are still in place in the France of today, but more than anything, Paul Johnson sees Napoleon as a man who came out of the chaos of revolution to dominate an epoch and become a precussor to the bloody tyrants of the 20th Century - Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Hussien - who each built their cult of personality on the Napoleonic model. Jeffrey Morseburg