According to British historian Munro Price over 200,000 books have been written about Napoleon Bonaparte.  There is a fascination with the French dictator that historians have addressed for over two centuries, and currently Hollywood has produced its own version of Napoleon.  Today the most recognized biographies of Napoleon are written by British historians that include the three volume work of Michael Broers, and the single volume by Andrew Roberts which approaches 1000 pages.  Obviously, if one is to put pen to paper concerning Napoleon, the result will be a rather long monograph.  One of the latest contributions to the Napoleon genre is by Polish historian, Adam Zamoyski entitled, NAPOLEON: A LIFE though shorter than Roberts’ work by 250 pages it is a comprehensive look at the French leader that digs a little deeper into his thought process and ultimate decision making than previous works.

Zamoyski has written a thorough and workmanlike biography focusing on Napoleon’s personal life, domestic issues and relationships, his ideology, domestic and foreign threats to his reign, along with insights and details pertaining to the battlefield and the diplomatic movements of the period.  In doing so the reader should acquire an intimate knowledge of Napoleon – what made him tick, what was his belief system, and determine his place in history.

(François Gérard (1770-1837), Portrait of Josephine de Beauharnais, 1801, oil on canvas, 178 x 174 cm/70 x 68.5 in. Hermitage Museum, Russia)

What sets Zamoyski’s work apart is the context that he places his subject.  According to the author Napoleon should be seen as “a visible symptom of the sickness of the times, and as such bore the blame for the sins of all.”  Zamoyski argues that Napoleon did exhibit extraordinary qualities, but in many ways was quite ordinary.  To credit Napoléon as a genius for his many victories, overlooks the worst disaster in military history as he single-handedly destroyed the great enterprise he took years to create. Undoubtedly he was a brilliant tactician, but he was no strategist, as his miserable end attests to.  Further, Zamoyski argues that Napoleon was not an “evil monster.”  He was selfish, violent, and egocentric, but there is no evidence that he inflicted suffering needlessly.  His motives  and ambition are akin to Alexander I, Wellington, Nelson, Metternich, Blucher, Bernadotte and others whose careers adjoined Napoleon.  In addition, if one examines British actions in India, Canada, and Egypt; Austrian measures in Poland and Italy; Prussian activities in East and Central Europe; and Russian movements across Central Asia, one should conclude he was nothing more than the embodiment of his age.  Throughout the monograph Zamoyski develops these themes and integrates a great deal of Napoleon’s personal life and beliefs.

(Empress Marie-Louise, by François Gérard 1810 © Louvre Museum)

According to Zamoyski, Napoleon’s Corsican lineage plays a significant role in his emotional development and worldview due to how the French government treated his family and the Corsican people in general.  As the French Revolution evolved into the “Reign of Terror” and the authoritarian rule of the Directory and the European wars that ensued Napoleon learned that the rules of chivalry did not apply, and only winning mattered.  Zamoyski argues that “the dreamy romanticism of his youth had been confronted with the seamy side of human affairs, and at the age of twenty-four he had emerged a cynical realist ready to make his way in the increasingly dangerous world in which he was obliged to live.”

Zamoyski’s portrayal does an excellent job recounting Napoleon’s relationships with Josephine de Beauharnais who he married in 1805 and divorced in 1810, and Marie-Louise, the Habsburg Archduchess who took her place.  The detail is striking, providing insight into Napoleon’s emotional state and his genuine love and caring for both women.  At times Zamoyski goes overboard as he relates Josephine’s numerous affairs and Napoleon’s adolescent love for Marie-Louise. 

Along with the women in his life Napoleon’s family is placed under a microscope, particularly his brothers.  First, Lucien, a rather egoistic individual in his own right who helped Napoleon become First Consul during the Brumaire Coup and then lived his life according to his own needs rather than conforming to his brother’s wishes.  Second, Joseph who believed he should have been the French Emperor, not his brother who reigned in Italy and later made a mess of his rule in Spain – a rather incompetent individual.  Third, Jerome, a total military failure, and lastly, Louis, Napoleon’s favorite who would deal with psychological issues and became king of Holland but angered his brother when he refused to support the Continental system.

(Charles Maurice de Talleyrand)

A key component in understanding Napoleon’s mindset is his approach to diplomacy which for him was an extension of the battlefield.  Zamoyski’s nimbly account recounts Napoleon’s negotiations and relationships with Austrian Chancellor and former ambassador to France, Klement von Metternich, Russian Tsar, Alexander I, Charles Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor, and French Foreign Minister Charles Maurice de Talleyrand who initially supported Napoleon, but turned against him when he believed the Emperor’s expansionist policies went too far. Zamoyski integrates many other key figures into the monograph that includes lesser royal figures, French generals, Russian, English, Prussian, and Austrian figures.  In reading Zamoyski’s account it conforms to A. J. P. Taylor’s classic THE STRUGGLE FOR THE MASTERY OF EUROPE, 1815-1848.

One can draw many insights from Zamoyski’s analysis as he argues that Napoleon was a dichotomy in that he felt insecure next to the monarchs of Europe because he lacked their “bloodlines,” as he referred to himself as  “parvenue.”  On the other hand, he saw himself as a supreme leader creating his own emperorship defeating the monarchies that he compared himself to.  Zamoyski does a wonderful job describing the Napoleon-Alexander I relationship as the French autocrat had little respect for the Russian monarch but grew to respect him as he ultimately could not bend Alexander to his will despite professions of love and respect.  Other important insights involve the opposition to Napoleon in France from Jacobins and Royalists.  A number of coups are discussed, and it is clear in Napoleon’s mind that the only way to remain popular and maintain domestic support was to keep delivering victories on the battlefield as opposed to obtaining peace.  For Napoleon war was the tool to tamp down unrest in the military and domestic sphere no matter how much opposition he encountered.

(Klement von Metternich)

Zamoyski relies a great deal on previous research particularly, Napoleon’s invasion of Russia.  His decision making and battlefield conduct are laid out clearly as he quotes from his previous book, 1812: NAPOLEON’S FATAL MARCH ON MOSCOW. Particularly interesting is Napoleon’s admission that invading Russia was a grievous error –  a rare confession. One of the highlights of Zamoyski’s work is his reliance on Napoleon’s remarkable correspondence, personal reflections, and notes left by those close to him to create an exceptional portrait of the French Emperor.

(Alexander I)

Zamoyski’s depiction of Napoleon is enhanced as he tackles his domestic program.  The Code de Napoleon, the Concordat with the Papacy, and his educational system are well known, but reflect interests apart from the conduct of war. However, relying on Napoleon’s letters as he describes his cultural interests, his plans for museums, opera houses, wide boulevards and other cultural and architectural projects allowing the reader to acquire a sense of Napoleon’s desires, not only to conquer and spread his “continental system” throughout Europe, but also to encourage and foster intellectual pursuits.

Zamoyski’s achievement in this book is to bring to life Napoleon as a person, not just a military leader, and political ruler.  He describes a man who viewed the world through the lens of a game of chess, and people, religion, morality, affections, and other interests as pawns in a game where pieces needed to be moved and used as the situation called for.  To Zamoyski’s credit his monograph is eminently readable and deeply researched making it an important contribution to  Napoleonic literature.