Napoleon: A Life Paperback – Illustrated, October 20, 2015

In this detailed but accessible biography by Andrew Roberts, we get what is arguably the defining biography of Napoleon for our generation. It covers the life of this giant of history, showcasing his monumental achievements and their impact on history, but also his flaws and mistakes.Although generally a positive portrait, Roberts does not shy away from criticisms of Napoleon's conduct, such as the Jaffa massacre or the murder of the Duke d'Enghien. Nor does it hide Napoleon's flaws as a person, such as his temper and his tendency to meddle in the love lives of his family.Mostly though, the biography celebrates Napoleon's talents, achievements, & personality. One really gets a good idea of Napoleon's charm and what he might have been like in person. It also showcases his incredible capacity for work and searing intellect. His achievements speak for themselves, but I personally liked the details of his non-military achievements as much as his famous victories, and the book spends considerable pages highlighting his civil achievements. The code Napoleon, which remains one of the most influential law texts today, is a great example of his lasting legacy. (The book also deals with his diplomatic and economic failures such as the continental system).As for Napoleon's campaigns, Roberts does a fine job describing the political situation before the battle, the marches and maneuvers, as well as the flow of the actual battle. I found this part accessible and easily understood, with detailed maps marking the units helping to paint a fine picture of Napoleon's famous victories and defeats. It also gives good reasoning on why Napoleon won and why he lost. Mostly Napoleon's defeats were instances where he doesn't follow his own military maxims. Overall Roberts does a great job illustrating Napoleon's campaigns for the layman and amateur military historian, but for those that want a really detailed analysis of his battles, they should also read "The Campaigns of Napoleon" by David Chandler, the defining classic on the military side of Napoleon's career.I highly recommend this book for those that want to read the definitive biography on Napoleon. This is the first biography that incorporates many personal letters Napoleon wrote that wasn't published until recently, so it really does give a more detailed look at his personality. Yes it is highly positive portrait, but I wouldn't call it a hagiography either. I found it fairly balanced overall.If there are any criticisms, it would be that the chapter on the Waterloo campaign was a bit shorter than I expected, but it gets to the core issues. I would have also liked a longer analysis on Napoleon's impact and influence on our politics and institutions after his death, although these are mostly woven into the chapters where his individual policies are written about. Personally though I would have liked a chapter at the end summarizing what this giant of history's lasting historical legacies were. Regardless I give this book 5 stars, I don't think you can go wrong if you want to know about Napoleon's life and times.Does Napoleon deserved to be called the great? Or was he a blood thirst tyrant? We have to look at him through the lens of the times he was in. Was Napoleon more of a dictator than any other of the reining monarchs in Europe or the world at the 18/19th century? Many of his laws were quite liberal by the standards of the day including his treatment of the Jews, especially compared to other European countries like England.Was he especially blood thirsty? Well most of the Napoleonic wars were declared against him by successive coalitions so again, is he any worse than the others? In fact one of his greatest mistakes in following the Russians deep into Russia was due to the desire to have a pitch battle as soon as possible so the war can be shortened and a political settlement reached. Yes he was overly ambitious in attempting to spread French influence at the expense of other European powers, resulting in war. However that was par of the course in the age of Empires.Luckily for us times have changed since. If any lessons can be drawn by the story of Napoleon, it was that political mistakes can not be compensated by battlefield victories. Napoleon was no doubt a genius, however his ambitions and personality got the better of him, and as a result he made a series of unsustainable peace treaties at the expense of other powers which would guarantee animosity. His desperate last campaigns against overwhelming enemy numbers were a direct result of this mistake. Our current political leaders will do well to remember it.* it's also worth getting the audiobook. Narration was great and it's really convenient to listen to while you are on the train or car.

In this massive biography, Andrew Roberts has produced an epic review of Napoleon Bonaparte. He focuses on Napoleon the man rather than the myth. He succeeds at presenting a mostly-balanced account of his life, showing us a human being capable of inspiring immense respect and awe even 200 years after his feats. But we also see the failures of mind and body, with evidence aplenty of Napoleon’s more repulsive qualities. Overall, Roberts sees Napoleon’s contribution to history in a positive light, and this is evident throughout the book. But we also clearly see the common cliché regarding the corruptive influence power has on the mind. Even Napoleon's remarkable mind was susceptible to these influences.Roberts’s work is unique in that his is among the first biographies to leverage recently published primary documents that provide new windows into Napoleon and his character. This allows fresh glimpses of the man both at work and at play. What takes shape is a human being, not a God-like myth or statue with a rigid character. Napoleon, like most of us, changed throughout his life. He adhered to (or was influenced by) competing values that frequently fought one another for dominance within his mind. Who he was at 25 was very different than who he was at 40, and again at 50. The value of Roberts’s work is that it reveals the folly of casting an historical character like Napoleon in one specific light. Was he an idealistic revolutionary who believed in a society free from the prejudice and injustice of the old world? Was he a tyrannical despot who imprisoned his enemies and used war to advance his own personal interests? Casting him into molds like this is what we typically seem to do, but it simplifies what Roberts’s clearly shows is a story of far more complexity and contradiction.What this means is that Napoleon is too complex of a subject to summarize in a single paragraph. But a few sentences will give you an idea of the view of Napoleon through Roberts’s research. Napoleon was an enlightened agnostic with a love of knowledge and learning and a belief in their power to do good for all humankind. He was an intellectual of the highest order and was just as at home in a library as he was on a battlefield (in fact, he frequently traveled with his personal library). He adhered to enlightenment ideals blossoming during his youth that stressed liberty and merit as opposed to aristocracy and privilege. He was also a militarist, and it imbued him with discipline and courage. His capacity for knowledge, memory, and quick-thinking was truly legendary, and examples abound of his incredible memory even as late as his exile on Elba. He can relatively easily be associated with egomania and megalomania, and yet—for most of his life—he showed a capacity for self-reflection and self-criticism uncharacteristic of such a personality disorder. He displayed genuine concern for people under his charge. His staff members, as well as members of the army, are frequently quoted describing his hard work ethic but also his playful and caring attitude toward them. He was, in many ways, advanced for his time regarding social issues. He favored full equality for Jews and Protestants (indeed, all religions) and leveraged their talents. He was tolerant of homosexuality in an age where it was generally not tolerated: his veritable vice-ruler for much of his reign was Cambacérès, who was gay.But Napoleon’s faults are also laid bare in Roberts’s narrative. Throughout his life, he generally showed a lack of great integrity and a willingness to break rules to suit his own purposes. He clearly had a view of women that was not progressive, and did much to undermine the freedoms women gained during the Revolution. He naturally was an anxious man, and I believe that “impatience” is probably the character trait that persisted most saliently through every phase of his life. He lacked an understanding of economics, and this, more than any other mistake, was the root of his downfall (the infamous Continental System). He was not a bloodthirsty person in any sense, and his rule was very rarely characterized by repression based on terror. But he was directly responsible for needless executions on at least three occasions throughout his life, and humanity came second to victory when his army was on campaign. As caring as he could be with staff members and soldiers, he often completely lacked emotional intelligence when it came to his own family members (particularly his siblings). Here we see some of Roberts’s most vehement criticisms. Napoleon’s use of his siblings as rulers of client states defies beliefs that he long held (and fought for) regarding meritocracy, and also ignored the sheer lack of talent possessed by some of these family members.These kinds of ideological clashes, modeled here by Napoleon’s belief in meritocracy but pervasive practice of nepotism, illustrate what I like to call the “Napoleonic Paradox” or “Napoleonic Contradiction.” One cannot read Roberts’s work and not see the ironies presented in Napoleon’s life. There are numerous examples where beliefs and practices of one period of his life simply contradict those of other periods (or even the same period). This is not, I believe, traceable to any kind of inherent character flaw in Napoleon. Rather, it is the natural and (relatively) slow metamorphosis in a belief system over the life of a man—visible in many other famous statesmen reviewed in such a way. Roberts’s work gives us the chance to see these changes take shape. Overall, I believe it is fair to say that Napoleon’s idealistic and modest qualities began to give way to more megalomaniacal qualities after his victory at Austerlitz (1805) and especially after the Treaty of Tilsit (1807). It was here that he reached a level of power unlike any achieved by any other European for centuries. During the years of his zenith (1810-1812) and his subsequent downfall (1812-1814), we see a Napoleon generally unchecked by the modesty and reason more characteristic of his early years in power, and instead see a man corrupted by his awesome authority. But throughout all of his life, we see this war of ideals and practices vying for dominance within him. Napoleon himself does not seem to have been overtly conscious of many of these contradictions, or this war of ideas taking place in his subconscious.As far as Roberts’s writing style, the narrative is chronological, which makes sense for a biography and is easy to follow. Roberts does not spend much time analyzing the myriad evidence and relaying an argument to the reader. His goal, after all, is to use evidence to show Napoleon the man, providing us a deep-dish look at his successes and failures—the roundness and depth of a man. He does not have an overarching thesis he is using the evidence to prove. Some readers will love this, as it allows for the reader to form their own conclusions. Others may be frustrated that we rarely can catch our breath and read, “what does it all mean?” This isn’t to say that Roberts does not offer opinions from time to time. He defends Napoleon in many of his most controversial moments (for example, the Cadoudal-Pichegru conspiracy and the execution of the Duc d’Enghien). He also specifically identifies Napoleon’s exaggerations or outright lies, and does not shy away from criticizing his decisions (Roberts believes Napoleon only has himself to blame for the disaster in Russia in 1812 and his final defeat at Waterloo in 1815, among others).If you like to read about battles, oddly enough this “biography” provides a great deal of detail. There is plenty in the narrative regarding most of the battles Napoleon took part in, usually with detail on troop movements and the units involved. Lovers of military history will likely eat this up—others may find it tedious. The first group will likely be as disappointed as I was in the maps available—but this is a criticism I make of just about every military history book I review.Napoleon was a complex man. He lusted for greatness and was the epicenter of conflict for more than a decade. But we also see a man with good intentions, compassion, and an oft-doting father and husband. It is these stories of tenderness, combined with ones of ruthlessness, that make Roberts’s biography ultimately so effective. We are able to see Napoleon, not as an historical caricature, but as a man possessed of both awesome virtues and crippling faults. Napoleon's greatness and contribution to history is thoroughly revealed. So too are his foibles and failures. It is a story that often leaves you equal parts repulsed, impressed, and sympathetic. I can think of no possible better outcome for a biography.