Andrew Roberts (1) (1963–)

Morally bankrupt and startlingly ignorant, most offensively when Roberts is putting forward the truthful elements of where Enlightenment reason bests Middle East irrational superstition but doing so with a philosophy at best alarming, at worst absurd!

Perhaps a more in-depth review once my soul calms; in the meantime, Professor Stephen Howe sums up my case: rel="nofollow" _target="_top">http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/a-history-of-the-e....… (more)

I came to this big book, Napoleon: a life by Andrew Roberts, with purpose, after reading Balzac’s The Black Sheep, a book which (for me) prompted the question: How and why did the French allow an Emperor to be installed so soon after a people’s Revolution? Not only did this book answer my question but it also opened doors to so much that is fascinating about power and opportunity.

A very brief answer to my question (by page 240) is: Right time and place, and good luck. Napoleon was a wide reader. His Corsican/Italian/noble heritage served to provide him with a scholarship to a French military school but at the same time distance him from the distractions of the French boys who were his fellow students. Having specialised in artillery, he soon proved himself an able strategist and a brave and meticulous commander. Although only in his 20s, he rose rapidly, not just through ability but because many of the higher ranks had either left France or been weeded out in the Revolution because they came from the ruling class. His foreign military adventures kept him from the political intrigues in Paris that characterised the post-revolutionary Governments. At the outset, he was an able propagandist. As head of the army in Italy, his artfully constructed reports ensured that his victories captured the public imagination and the massive financial ‘contributions’ and cultural treasures sent back to France not only kept the post-revolutionary economy afloat, but conferred some immunity from criticism. These spoils of victory also ensured that the lot of both the common soldier and the common citizen was vastly improved under his leadership. He took care to foster an esprit de corps that not only gained him military successes but also loyalty. After returning from Egypt (not so successful) much of the Government had descended into corrupt incompetence. He was perceived by the people as a capable hero returning to save France. He then took the opportunity to fill a leadership vacuum during a bloodless political coup, where he conducted his own coup within a coup and become First Consul supported by a new Constitution that centralised power and sanctioned absolute control. Two years into his ten-year term, a motion by the Senate to increase his term by another ten years turned into being First Consul for life. This was overwhelmingly endorsed by the people in a plebiscite as was the notion, two years later that he should be crowned Emperor.

For most of his life Napoleon was both a skilled and extremely competent leader who surrounded himself with men of talent. He was a tireless and tenacious administrator. He was never afraid to ask questions that would reveal his ignorance and was known for his clarity, precision and ability to co-ordinate widely dispersed facts and opinions. His refrains when chairing meetings were, is this fair? and, is this useful? His civil achievements were the product of the rationalising universalism of the Enlightenment.

Essentially a compromise between Roman and common law, the Code Napoleon consisted of a reasoned and harmonious body of laws that were to be the same across all territories administered by France, for the first time since the Emperor Justinian. (p. 276)

It’s remarkable that cartoons by greats such as James Gillray, that portrayed him as short (he was of average height) have endured to shape public perceptions of him to this day. Reports from those that worked closely with him, such as valets and servants, consistently praise his calm benevolence as an employer who was considerate and forgave errors in such a way as to inspire life-long loyalty to the extent that many of them wanted to follow him into exile.

More than half the book is about major battles: Marengo, Austerlitz, Eylau, Friedland, Wagram Borodino, Dresden, Leipzig and Waterloo. Here the book falls short. He does his best but it seems beyond Andrew Roberts’ capacity to bring the battles alive. Instead, all the shifts in troops, artillery and fortunes become too hastily drawn and convoluted to properly comprehend. I really wanted to feel present at these battles and understand how they could turn on trifles.

Napoleon’s decline is heart-wrenching. It’s a tribute to Roberts that I should feel so. This is a wonderful biography of an amazing man with a grand vision. Life is always short. Napoleon enlarges what we might think is possible.… (more)