here about the rape of Europe by the Grand Army, the thrones illicitly
grabbed for the useless Bonaparte siblings, the huge handouts and
benefices given to the venal marshals, the exploitation (no other word will
do) of the satellite states for the sole benefit of France. On St Helena
Napoleon defended his autocracy by saying that it was a regrettable
temporary necessity. This reminds one only too forcibly of the equally
'regrettable' need for the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia in 1917,
pending the coming of the communist utopia. For Napoleon, as for
Lenin, the time was not ripe, but for such men it never would be. The
imperatives of charismatic leadership do not permit a benign abdication
of such men in face of an era of peace and pluralistic democracy. This is
not to concede the ludicrous claims of his opponents that they were
fighting for 'freedom' against tyranny. The only possible rational
response when faced with the blinkered and mindless reactionary
fanaticism of Alexander I, Metternich, Louis XVIII - to say nothing of
the unsavoury political trio of Liverpool, Castlereagh and Wellington -
ranged against Napoleon and his money-grubbing acolytes is 'a plague on
both your houses'.
The legend of Napoleon as political saviour can be safely laid to rest. A
close analysis reveals that he has also been severely overrated as a military
commander. There is much hyperbole of the 'greatest captain of all times'
variety, but this cannot survive critical scrutiny. He had two great
victories, at Austerlitz and Friedland, but otherwise his record was not
outstanding. He won Marengo only because of Desaix and achieved a
great victory at Jena-Auerstadt only through Davout. He scraped through
Wagram by the barest of margins, was fought to a standstill by the
Russians at Eylau and Borodino, and lost badly at Leipzig and Waterloo.
He was at his best when commanding smaller armies: it is significant that
his best campaigns overall were those of Italy in 1796---f)7, Egypt in
1798-99 and France in r8r4, when he fought a series of smaller
engagements against an enemy not present in overwhelming numbers.
There can be no denying that Napoleon occupies a high rank in the
military history of the ages, but he cannot be counted among the handful
of peerless commanders. There is nothing in his record to compare with
Alexander the Great's undefeated record in the four battles of Granicus,
Issus, Gaugamela and the Hydaspes, or with Hannibal's amazing quartet
of victories over the Romans at Ticinus, Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae.
Nor can he compare with a commander like Genghiz Khan's Subudei,
who was undefeated in a thirty-year career of battles in Mongolia, China,
Persia, Russia and Hungary. At his peak Napoleon never faced another
commander who was nearly his equal in talent. Compare this with
marcin
(Marcin)
#1