Napoleon: A Life

Historian Adam Zamoyski has written a wonderfully detailed biography of Napoleon that is especially strong on his character and his personal life. His view of Napoleon is a balanced one: not a hero, but not a villain, either. Zamoyski says Napoleon was rather an ordinary man in extraordinary times. Unlike other historians, Zamoyski does not think Napoleon was a genius. If he had been a genius, according to Zamoyski, he would not have presided over the worst military disaster of the time, the Russian campaign of 1812. But Zamoyski has no doubt that Napoleon was a brilliant tactician. He was less successful as a strategist, which is why he eventually lost his empire.Zamoyski's biography is excellent on Napoleon's family background and early years. He was born Napoleone Buonaparte, one of many children of a Corsican family that had vague claims to nobility and, while not exactly poor, was certainly not rich. He did not adopt the spelling Napoleon Bonaparte until 1796, around the time of his marriage to his first wife, Josephine. Napoleon grew up speaking Corsican, an Italian dialect, and he never did learn to speak French very well. He was never a very good public speaker. At the age of ten, Napoleon was sent to the military academy, where he was bullied because he was so short, and because his French was so bad. He was rather an indifferent student, finishing forty-second in a class of fifty-eight. At first he wanted to be a sailor, but eventually he chose the artillery, because he was excellent at mathematics. He was also a big reader, which continued throughout his life. In fact, the young Napoleon wrote novels and poetry, which still survive, even though, as Zamoyski says, they were not very good.Another strength of Zamoyski's biography is what he says about Napoleon's personal life and relations with women. The young Napoleon was very awkward with women, and was ill at ease in society. He never completely lost this awkwardness. As a young officer, he became engaged to Désirée Clary, the daughter of a Marseille merchant, but Zamoyski suggests he did not truly love her. He thought she would make a good wife, at that point in his career. His letters to her have the tone of a lecturing schoolmaster. Then, after his first victory at the siege of Toulon, he was made a general at the age of twenty-four. As a general, he wanted connections to Parisian high society and the political world, and, in a Parisian salon, he met the beautiful widow Josephine and fell in love with her at first sight. Josephine did not feel the same way about him, but she wanted money, after her first husband had been guillotined during the Terror and his property confiscated, and she also wanted a father figure for her two children. Napoleon and Josephine were married in 1796. Désirée, who really did love Napoleon, was heartbroken at first. Eventually she married one of Napoleon's marshals, Bernadotte, and the couple became King and Queen of Sweden.According to Zamoyski, Napoleon never stopped loving Josephine, in spite of his frequent infidelity, which began during his Egyptian campaign of 1798-9. Josephine began to care for him as well, even though she never did love him as much as he loved her. Zamoyski believes the rumors that she was unfaithful to him when he was off on his various campaigns. Napoleon certainly believed she was unfaithful and was deeply hurt by it, even though he never seemed to think his own infidelity would hurt her. But Sandra Gulland, in her excellent trilogy of novels about Josephine, says there was no truth to these rumors, and they were spread by Napoleon's enemies. No matter what the truth was, Napoleon loved Josephine even after he divorced her because she could not give him a child, and, as emperor, he needed an heir. They remained close and frequently corresponded, and he visited her when he could. He also stayed close to her two children by her first marriage. He was heartbroken by the news of her death, and, when he went to exile on St. Helena, he took a lock of her hair with him. Josephine was also very popular with the people of France and with the army, who thought she brought him good luck. It is an interesting coincidence that Napoleon's worst defeats happened after his divorce from Josephine. Of course, by that time he was older and in poor health, which likely contributed to his defeats on the battlefield.Napoleon's second marriage, to the Austrian princess Marie-Louise, produced the longed-for son and heir. Of course, this was a political marriage, but Napoleon was very affectionate towards his young wife. But the marriage was unpopular with the people of France. Napoleon wanted Marie-Louise and their son to join him in exile on Elba, and eventually on St. Helena, but her father, the Austrian emperor, took his daughter and grandson back to Austria with him. It did not take Marie-Louise very long to take a lover, whom she eventually married after Napoleon's death.Zamoyski is also strong on the formation of Napoleon's political beliefs. As a young officer, Napoleon supported the ideals of the French Revolution. He also believed in independence for Corsica, and for a while he was torn between his loyalty to Corsica and his service to France. But when the Corsican leader Pasquale Paoli refused any support to him and his family, Napoleon threw in his lot with France. Napoleon wrote a treatise as a young man, where he said France should be a republic, but with a strong leader at the head of it. According to Zamoyski, Napleon's political beliefs were always authoritarian, even as a young man. Later, as First Consul and then as emperor, of course, they became even more so.Zamoyski does not go into as much detail about Napoleon's battles as other biographies do. I have heard that Andrew Roberts' biography is much stronger on the battles and military campaigns. But Zamoyski does give detailed accounts of some of the most important battles of Napoleon's career, especially the Italian campaign, the Egyptian expedition, the Battle of Austerlitz, and, of course, the disastrous Russian campaign. What he says about the Egyptian expedition is especially interesting. Napoleon took many artists and scientists with him in order to learn about ancient Egyptian civilization, and much of what we know about ancient Egypt goes back to this expedition, where of course, the Rosetta Stone was found. But, at the same time, Napoleon went to Egypt with the typical colonialist attitude of wanting to bring "civilization" to the people of Egypt. He also underestimated the Egyptians as fighters, which contributed to the disaster there.Also, Zamoyski is strong when writing about Napoleon as a propagandist. Throughout his career, he manipulated his reports from the battlefield to show himself in the best possible light, frequently exaggerating the number of enemy dead and wounded, and diminishing the number of dead and wounded on his own side. The people of France believed his reports, since there was no way of verifying the numbers at the time, and that contributed to their belief in him as a victorious hero. Napoleon never stopped believing in his destiny, his "star," as he called it.Zamoyski thinks there were several reasons for Napoleon's downfall, beginning with the Russian campaign. He made some very poor decisions there, including staying in Moscow too long and taking the wounded with him when the army retreated. The wounded were receiving good care where they were, and only slowed the army down during the retreat, where most of them died. One interesting point that Zamoyski makes is that the character of Napoleon's army changed in the last years. At the beginning, they were all French, and they thought they were spreading liberty to Europe. But, as more and more men were killed, the army came to consist of men of many different nationalities, many of them raw recruits, who did not really want to fight and did not know what they were fighting for. Napoleon's enemies, such as the Russians, were fighting for their countries, and that made a difference.The account of Napoleon's exile on St. Helena, where he was badly treated by the governor there, brings this biography to a heartbreaking close. I would have liked to see a little more about what happened to various members of Napoleon's family after his exile, but that information is easily found elsewhere. Zamoyski's biography reads well, in spite of its length of over 700 pages (670 pages of text). Since Zamoyski is Polish, he had access to Polish and Russian sources that were unavailable to other historians. I highly recommend this biography to anyone interested in Napoleon and his times, even though people whose main interest is the battles will have to look elsewhere.

Great tome for learning about Napoleon and France for any history buff.

A conventional biography of one of the more interesting men in history. Here the author, Mr. Zamoyski, trains his eye of the personal aspects of Napoleon's life, including his extended family and many loves, while also presenting the political and military context of his rule. It helps one to understand current European events with this background.Those seeking an in-depth analysis of his many battles should keep seeking; here they are usually covered superficially.Napoleon, like Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill, has had many volumes written about him. This one is reasonably good and even-handed for the reader wishing to be introduced to the one who upset the map of Europe over two hundred years ago.(I am in the camp that sees Napoleon as one who caused untold misery and death for no good reason, except the quest for personal glory.)

Zamoyski does exactly what he says in the introduction to this book. Zamoyski tries to understand Napoleon as a flesh-and-blood man who had incredible talents and glaring flaws. The military aspects here are quite lean but, as Zamoyski also points out, Andrew Roberts' own biography of Napoleon covers the battles and campaigns in more detail.That said, Zamoyski treats Napoleon quite fairly. Both talented and insecure, Napoleon's skill on the battlefield was enhanced by a great talent for political spin. Combined with an undying ambition, Napoleon could seemingly achieve anything. But this also turned out to be an enduring flaw in Napoleon's armor. The most original part of Zamoyski's biography is this conundrum: Napoleon made himself a hero, but was then forced to become one. Zamoyski convincingly argues that the need to fulfill his own heroic persona led Napoleon to risk everything. Setbacks only forced Napoleon to double-down on his own heroic attempts to save France, leading to his own downfall.In summary, read this book if you want to understand Napoleon as he was. Those looking only for his military feats would be better served with other books.

Excellent and balanced. Just enough of the battle details to make clear what happened, but not so much to turn it into a book on military tactics.

Very gripping story. The author has quite an adequate point though sometimes it seems like he denigrates Napoleon's personal enemies in his favour.Reading this book helped me understand a lot about Napoleon. He was undoubtly a talanted man with his (childish) romantic ideas of XVIII's romantism. This is why many couldn't understand him.But Napoleon is nevertheless responsible for death of thousands and millions of French. All these casualties may have not taken place if he was down to Earth

This is a thoughtful, well-balanced, well-written biography of a fascinating man who dominated Europe at a crucial moment in history. Zamoyski's portrait of Napoleon is entirely convincing, pointing out his virtues while not glossing over his many flaws.

An excellent read on the life of Napoleon, his family, France and Europe during the early 19th century... Fascinating read.... Enjoy!

Wonderful look at the life of one of the greatest humans our planet has ever produced. Very well written and engaging

Raramente mi è capitato di leggere un soggetto tanto interessante narrato in maniera così bella.....

Brilliant book.

Fue un regalo para mi marido.La edición es muy buena, llegó en la fecha señalada y es muy buen libro.

Long read. But worth it.