back
85 comments
This map is famous.

"Charles Minard's map of Napoleon's disastrous Russian campaign of 1812"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Joseph_Minard#/media/F...

What is the best single volume biography of Napoleon? Walter Scott wrote a long and detailed life of Napoleon but seems to be long out of print.
Napoleon: A Life by Andrew Roberts
How does it read? Does it takes a serious and insightful approach like Stephen Kotkin's biography of Stalin, or is it more BBC documentary level simplistic narrative?
I'm in the middle of it right now. It definitely doesn't suffer from pop-history. I also read Andrew Robert's Churchill biography and thought it was excellent. Not quite to the level of The Last Lion, but that's mainly because it's much shorter.
It's good - spends a lot of time debunking claims from previous bios and memoirs that dont hold up under an examination (e.g. some memoirs werent written until decades after the events, and others with fantastic claims were likely cash grabs as the authors were destitute). he sticks to the letters written by napoleon/written to him by others, and doesnt mince words during stuff like the slaughter at jaffa. there was a really interesting retelling of napoleon's near drowning during a sightseeing tour in egypt at the moses-parted-the-sea spot, and the grim telling of josephines back story helps the reader understand how her actions were part survival instincts instead of pure lust.
By the way, if anyone likes history flicks, I won’t recommend watching the new Napoleon, unless it’s a pirated hate watch.

The classic “Waterloo” remains undefeated

Seconded. If you don't already know your Napoleonic history, you'll find it impossible to follow, if you do, you'll find it impossible to endure, and in either instance you'll be bored to tears.
Very pithy! And almost certainly spot-on accurate. Thanks! You could have a side hustle in capsule movie reviews.

I'm plo[w|ough]ing my way through Adam Zamoyski's "Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna". It has lots of maps and pictures of the dramatis personae but it's still very confusing. And I know it's been simplified for a modern audience, and to keep the book to a reasonable length.

1. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/138831.Rites_of_Peace

Thanks for the feedback. I really do appreciate it. Under the advice of half the people I've ever known in my life, I recently decided to give becoming a writer a genuine crack. Of course, once you start trying to make this a reality the voices start spinning reasons why you're no good and bound to fail, so this little bit of encouragement made my day.

As for books, I recently picked up a copy of The Wars Against Napoleon on the (very) cheap by luck, so I'm about to devour that. It's not a meaty volume by any stretch, but I've been meaning to read it for the better part of a decade now, so better late than never.

I read andrew roberts napoleon front and back three times and I still love the new movie. must be the odd one out.

then again I love gladiator and walked into that one knowing it's not gonna be a real representation of historical accuracy. i am always curious what other folks interpretation of Napoleon (and other rome emperors for that matter) and it's very interesting to see this is what Ridley thinks of him. Definitely a new perspective worth dinner table chat.

Just to clarify, you're recommending Waterloo (1970) [0]?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_(1970_film)

Yes, they are. Enjoy and be astounded by the scale of it.
I just watched it. Considered it very funny. Let's just treat it as a comedy!
I assume you have seen it and didn't like it?
Watched it yesterday and hated it. I was looking forward to it too based on the trailers but it turned out to be a big hit ahistorical hit piece.

For example, no matter what you think of the guy, Napoleon was a bonafide military genius. In the movie, they made him seem like just one more of the bunch. Napoleon was famous for never being bothered by the gore of battle and the buzzing of billets, in the same vein as general Grant. In the movie they made him seem like a scaredy cat

In “Waterloo” you could see why French soldiers joined his cause in droves. Extreme charisma

I wanted to watch it but seeing the "ice lake trap" in the trailer I figured I should read some reviews before going. And yeah it seems brit propaganda about napoleon rather than actual facts, at least according to what I read.
The Brits are still but hurt by Napoleon. Despite having defeated him twice, and being allies with the French in two (!) world wars...
Why would it be Brit propaganda, we bested him...it would serve us better to paint him as the genius he was...
Perfide Albion is gonna perfide Albion… muscle memory. It’s fine.
Irish famine… indian famine… british people are the kindest and gentlest of all :)
Why doesn't the film mention the incoming german army at waterloo (from what I've read)?
Arguably, I know more about WW1 and 2 than the Napoleanic wars. I always had the impression so, tgat Napoleon came incredibly close to winning at Waterloo. Two things, mainly, sealed his defeat: one of his Generals failure to pin, defeat of aggressivle pursue Blüchers Prussian army and said armies arrival at the Battle of Waterloo. And arrival Napoleon didn't exepect due to his generals "failure" mentioned above.

I am not sure how history would have gone had Napoleon won there: France was again confined to its orld borders, Napoleons alliances across Europe were history and Spain a lot stronger. All in all, pretty much the situation he found himself in before the first coalition. Or maybe the Prussians would again have fallen in line, Great Britain exited the war. Highly unlickely so, if you ask me.

Is that the only thing to hate about it? That's it's ahistorical?

If someone was capable of separating the Napoleon they read about in books from the Napoleon on the screen and was interested in watching a movie with some good cavalry charges glued together by a story about some undeserving wuss finally getting his comeuppance, would you recommend it in that case?

No the movie really just was bad. I’m not even sure what the goal of the movie was. To make Napoleon look bad? To show his human side with his relationship with Josefine? Honestly afterwards I just have no idea. Really it was just a weird speed run through history. They just jumped from random event to random event over the course of like 25 years. Contrast this with the movie Lincoln which portrayed him during a relatively short period of his life. Ignoring everything else (there are many reasons why the Lincoln film is much better), the fact that the Napoleon film tries to cover so much really is an odd choice.

I personally would have walked out of the movie, but I was seeing it with a group of people and didn’t want to be too overly negative. (Afterwards I found out that most felt the same.)

Thanks. Looks like i won’t be wasting my time.
That’s a good question. No, I wouldn’t. It’s not one of Ridley Scott’s best works. I’d say if you enjoyed kingdom of heaven then you may like it.

I’d rather watch “The Terror” again

Man, "The Terror" is such good series, I love the eerie/dread feeling of the first season. The actors are top notch too.
Perfect review because i really did not like kingdom of heaven. Thanks!
Was it a lapse in his judgment to start marching on Russia 3 days after summer solstice?

That's not a question meant to be sarcastic: you know more about him than I do, so that always has seemed like a terrible choice of timing.

100 000 French soldiers caught typhus apparently.
It always puzzled me not just with Napoleon but a couple other recent European expansionist dictators, why they kept overextending their reach. Why did they not just stop at a reasonable point and reinforce the conquest, instead of losing it all.

Actually maybe Putin is one example where this may be in fact happening.

There are lots of reasons for this which the YouTuber Caspian Report covers well [0][1]. In short, it's to strengthen their warm water port access; Ukraine being relatively flat so making sure they control the lands up to the natural border of the Carpathian mountains lest NATO invades; et cetera.

[0] https://youtu.be/MkrLUFAcjH0?si=NHIYuq1xm4e-D0kT

[1] https://youtu.be/nR7XAcArAa0?si=lIyM2vWVF50LKvnu

If nato invades nukes are fired. I don't get all this other useless conjecture from these people.
> why they kept overextending their reach.

You dont seem to realize France was in an existential threat the whole time since the Revolution in 1789 up to when Napoleon was deposed.

There was never a time that they could have called it a day if they did not want it to turn back into a monarchy

But again what was the march on Russia for? Why not save those troops reinforcing the homeland instead of gallivanting who knows where in the middle of winter?
> It always puzzled me ...

They're criminal minds of a certain type, and criminal minds often harbor a secret compulsion to be stopped or caught.

> Actually maybe Putin ...

Maybe this is why democracies have been somewhat long-lasting, because no one mind bears the full madness of crimes of the magnitude e.g. the U.S. or Britain commit fairly continuously.

Are democracies long lasting? The longest lasting French Republic lasted from 1870 to 1940, 70 years. The current one started in 1958 so it will be the longest lasting by 2028. In contrast, the pre-revolution Kingdom of France lasted from 987 to 1792.
Super interesting point!
> they made him seem like just one more of the bunch

No? They showed how he excelled to eventual be crowned as a king of France due to his military's success.

We must have seen different movies, because this one didn't showcase any of his genius. Instead, they opted to show an unambitious little man (not talking about his height) whose fortunes are pushed forward by others rather than himself. Very odd indeed.
Even without the historical problems, it's a real weird movie.
Saw Napoleon today and it made him seem like a bumbling buffoon.
Naturlich, the movie is by an Englishman.