...is what I first thought caused the gentleman to faint in the Oval Office the other day. That, or Dr Oz telling the world that EVERY citizen of the United States is going to lose over 300lbs in one year because of the new cheap price for the 'fat drug'. Oz math.

Having grown up in the US, I learned almost nothing about European history in school. Once we kicked George III out, Europe ceased to exist until WWI (briefly) and then again beginning w/WWII. What little I learned came from independent reading, which was more than a little spotty. This bio, at the beginning, frequently refers to events of the French Revolution, seeming to assume that the reader is already familiar therewith (author Alan Schom was educated in US and England, now lives in France, so a safe assumption at home but not in the American market). It was the French Revolution and the rebuilding of the French military that gave Bonaparte his big chance.

Of course it's tempting to see parallels between "The Little General" and Anus Orange. They share haughtiness, arrogance, headstrongness (headstrength ?), impatience, an expectation of personal loyalty which is never returned, a breathtaking capacity for outrageous, easily discredited lies, and extreme cruelty. (The revolutionaries sent many of their countryman to the guillotine; Bonaparte mowed them down with batteries of cannon.) Both were philanderers (but so was everyone in French leadership, apparently -- Josephine was dating Napoleon every other night, and on the other nights alternating between two other men). Where he differs is that he had more education, more intelligence, more knowledge of strategy and tactics, and more actual accomplishments, often winning against fantastic odds after having risen from financial ruin after his family was forced to flee Corsica. Oh, and let's not forget he regarded Russia as an enemy. So the differences are perhaps more informative than the similarities. Both less than admirable men, in most regards, but able to convince/threaten/brainwash/kidnap others to follow them, often beyond any remotely reasonable expectations. Sadly, not the only such examples in our history. It is sadly necessary to study such men to be better prepared to deal with them.

When I say "less than admirable", I am reflecting the fact that the most impressive quote by NB I have yet come across is the following: "Calm has been completely restored in Cairo ... every night we have another thirty or so heads lopped off." The heads in question were Egyptian, mostly Arab, despite NB claiming to have "rescued" Egypt from Ottoman rule to "free" the populace from oppression. So much for la mission civilisatrice.

I feel like I'm way behind on catching up with my reading list; why not make it worse by adding something?

Last edited Fri Nov 14, 2025, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Obviously, many authors have written about Napoleon; in this case there was some emphasis by publisher and author that this is a single-volume work. So the alternatives may be daunting.

That probably has a lot to do with the fact that I never read a book specifically about Napoleon.

(Interesting tidbit: Gaspard Monge, Joseph Fourier, and a number of other accomplished scientists were invited by Napoleon on his Egyptian campaign. The Institute they founded survived Napoleon's time, but the building was burned and most of its contents destroyed during the "Arab Spring" revolt.)

I just finished the chapter on Egypt -- the Egyptian campaign was a military disaster, with Napoleon losing (or abandoning!) two-thirds of his initial force of 33,000 men and almost all of his ships. But when he returned to France, the populace was still celebrating the news of his earlier victories and greeted his arrival with wild enthusiasm! As one of his detractors put it, "the devil's spawn has the devil's luck", or as we might call it today, failing upwards.

Knowing the details of the Egyptian campaign (which few did at the time; BP was a truly audacious and prolific liar) might have provided some warning about how that "let's invade Russia next" idea was likely to work out.



ETA: I've since learned Schom's book has been very controversial, especially his conclusion that Napoleon was poisoned. Hard to know whether this is just due to a Napoleon-worshipping "old guard" or genuine shortcomings of his work. He also wrote a controversial report claiming that Switzerland had established concentration camps on its soil during WWII. So .... take with a grain of salt, at least.

...pile of reading before me. It's a hole in my historical knowledge.

One never knows, I may get to it. Thanks.