10 ms·

How Good Was Napoleon? (2007)

104 points by diodorus 12y ago

teach 12y ago
SO much passive voice. Somebody needs to run that article through Hemingway.[0] [0] http://www.hemingwayapp.com/ http://www.hemingwayapp.com/
- themartorana 12y ago
  That's like running Andrew Wyeth[1] through a Bob Ross app. [0] Writing is art, it doesn't always need to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator or bereft of its voice. [0] I loved Bob Ross. [1] I originally had "Picasso" but the styles were too disparate for the point. Still, props to @krapp for the ERB link.
  - krapp 12y ago
    (sigh.) I can't resist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGN5xaQkFk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGN5xaQkFk0
  - teach 12y ago
    I understand your point, but I strongly disagree. First, you're saying that the author of this piece -- a military general and historian -- used hard-to-read passive voice throughout because of his extreme demonstrated mastery of the art of writing. He truly considered and wrestled with each sentence. I don't believe that one bit. Also, I disagree with your assertion that artisans should avoid learning the fundamentals of their craft, or that doing so somehow robs the work of its "voice". It reminds me of a fourteen-year-old guitarist who doesn't see the need to learn scales or music theory. "I'm not going to be some cookie-cutter musician, man. My music is going to be original and unique!" This article would be much better if it had gone through an editing phase or two.
    - indlebe 12y ago
      >It reminds me of a fourteen-year-old guitarist who doesn't see the need to learn scales or music theory. >music theory Scales can almost be self-learned and a good chunk of rock musicians don't know anything about music theory, and can't read music. Many excellent musicians and artists are autodidacts.
    - stonogo 12y ago
      You still haven't demonstrated that you understand what "passive voice" even is. I think you'll find this article doesn't make particularly frequent use of it.
    - iopq 12y ago
      I enjoyed the article. Maybe the author doesn't care about writing as much as the content of the article? I certainly don't care to edit this post to your aesthetic standards, or even posts on my blog. In fact, most of what I write is awful. But does it make my points any less true?
    - JetSetWilly 12y ago
      Why are there so many people who pick up poorly founded superstitions about language and then insist and sneer how right they are? Folk don't go about making hilariously arrogant and and ignorant claims about say, maths, but with language all bets are off. Maybe they think that because they can speak English they are an expert? There was nothing wrong with the article as regards the "passive voice" and like most people who moan about the passive voice you likely don't understand what it is: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922 Mentioning that hilariously bad app Hemingway makes it worse. Running Hemingway through hemingway is fun - it gets mutilated.
- eru 12y ago
  The writing could be improved and made more forceful, but I don't see much passive voice in there. Are you sure that word means what you think it means? (And the hemingway app is pretty crappy as far as natural language processing goes.)
hooande 12y ago
Napoleon was indeed a very good general, rightfully considered as one of the greatest of all time. This very well written and insightful article takes his legend down a peg or two, which is certainly justified. The invasion of Russia was one of history's greatest follies, The Little Corporal was cavalier with the lives of his men and his strategic brilliance was inconsistent at best. But his strengths often made up for his short comings and he was better than almost all of the comparable generals of his day. His victory at Austerlitz stands as one of the great military achievements and best executed battles in history. Literally a textbook example of movement, timing and coordination. The common perception is that after Napoleon returned from Elba he lost much of his strategic and tactical flair, throwing his men into meat grinders. This is mostly true, but most of the opposing generals also had very high casualty rates. Napoleonic warfare was dominated by the Fog of War, they had no satellites or drones to help them plan and maneuver. Napoleon had a sixth sense for visualizing a battle that unfortunately came and went. On his good days he was better than many who have ever lived. On most days, he was simply average. That's as much as most of us could ask for, and it was enough to dominate a continent at the time. History is filled with intelligent and technically capable generals, but only a few who had a style that set them apart. Hannibal and Robert E. Lee come easily to mind, along with others. Napoleon's genius of movement and logistics were groundbreaking, and the lessons apply to more than warfare. He was the original "Move fast and break things". He taught military history that being faster and better organized was enough to build a seemingly unstoppable snow ball effect of victories. His downfall instructs that even the best preparation cannot defeat a dangerous and unpredictable shifting landscape.
- meric 12y ago
  I suggest you read about Yi Sun-Sin also, considered the greatest naval commander of all time (Not a general). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin
- spacecowboy_lon 12y ago
  Napoleon is normaly considered one of the "great captains" the gereral consensus is that the great captains are Ceaser, Hannibal Alexander, Churcill (John not Winston) Wellington and Napoleon.
alricb 12y ago
> Jonathon Riley served in Bosnia and Iraq, where he was the general officer commanding British forces. A British officer who doesn't think highly of Napoleon? This is my surprised face. > This is implicit in Karl von Clausewitz’s celebrated but often misquoted (and still more often misunderstood) remark that ‘war is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means.’ Can this guy read German? Because that seems like an over-translation of the simple „Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln“ (title of section 24, chapter 1, book I of Vom Kriege). I would also note that Napoleon failed in the end, but that he did quite well in the meanwhile. He continued the Revolutionary Wars, and so was doomed to face the forces of reaction, who would never ally with him with any kind of sincerity. It's possible that his military successes blinded him to the possibility of stability through diplomacy, but could he really have allied with the Habsburgs? He also had to contend with an ascendant Britain, willing to exploit her insular position to its full advantage through her renewed Navy and her economic strength. But just a few years before the French Revolution, Britain had come close to losing it all; with no allies on the continent to distract France, she might have lost not just her colonies, but her dominant naval position, which was so essential in Napoleon's defeat.
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  Napoleon had many of the same advantages as with the War of Independence, once France and Spain were allied he had a naval numerical advantage and at many points an isolated Britain. Even the revolutionary French and Spanish Navies had shown a marked lack of interest in the kind of daring fighting that marked British admirals (partially due to the esprit de corps created after Byng's shooting). Nelson's breaking the line was not a new tactical invention, it was just something that most shied away from. Perhaps we British officers (I'm RN) appreciate our heroes a little more because they fought outnumbered yet achieved crushing victories, and they achieved their ultimate strategic objectives. Despite being aristocrats dealing with men who were often "scum" seemed to care far more their lives than the supposedly revolutionary Napoleon. Wellington was not only a great general but fought peace as a diplomat in Paris, and later as a Prime Minister. Wellington even sought out Napoleon's former mistresses and seduced them in Paris.
ArkyBeagle 12y ago
I suppose we should estimate Napoleon's greatness by the size of the mess he left behind. Considering that a Napoleon III intervened to disaster in ... Mexico, that's quite a mess. Napoleon was sufficient to resuscitate the Spanish Inquisition. It is a Napoleon-sized mess in itself, but "Goya's Ghosts" at least brushes onto this - complete with a demonstration of the use of the garotte. But at least we had... Bismarck...
- spacecowboy_lon 12y ago
  Not sure germanys experiance of rule by a millatery oligarchcy was on balance a good thing :-) Its a pity that Kaiser wilhelm did not take after his father who wanted a consitutional democarcy closer to the UK's system.
  - ArkyBeagle 12y ago
    Indeed - but Bismarck casts a long shadow. Wilhelm hisownself was far too self-aggrandizing for that.
VieElm 12y ago
From a literary perspective, Tolstoy's War and Peace has volumes of text dedicated to examining Napoleon and the impact of "great men" on history. He also doesn't create a very flattering portrayal, it's a great read. Of course there's more to that book than just war. Dumas, who named a chapter "The Corsican Ogre" after Napoleon in The Count of Monte Cristo is also not very kind to his legacy. Napoleon's lasting impact beyond just the destruction and desecration of monarchies across Europe probably includes the Napoleonic Code[1] which has probably influenced laws everywhere. Another great read is Rifleman Dodd, also known as Death to the French, the story of a single British rifleman causing havoc to french forces in Spain[2]. It gives you an interesting perspective how much the french were hated outside of France. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_the_French http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_the_French
- cageface 12y ago
  If you enjoy this period of history you should also read Conan Doyle's "Brigadier Gerard": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier_Gerard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier_Gerard It's the fictional accounts of a dashing and arrogant cavalry officer in Napoleon's army. You can tell Doyle enjoys lampooning some French military stereotypes but there's also some great adventures along the way. I think it would make a great movie with the right director and cast.
- devindotcom 12y ago
  Victor Hugo seems to give him a bit more credit. His account of Waterloo in "Les Miserables" was thrilling (but suspect).
nl 12y ago
Criticising Napoleon without mentioning Austerlitz[1] is.. pretty stupid. Probably only Cannae is as famous as a textbook example of brilliant command. Even if there are some decent points made it will take a lot more than that to argue that he wasn't one of the great battlefield commanders. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz
Animats 12y ago
This is from a real general. You can tell. He talks about logistics before he talks about battles. Napoleon's military funded the development of the tin can. That wasn't enough to get his army to Moscow. Here's a view of that logistic disaster: http://www.indiana.edu/~psource/PDF/Archive%20Articles/Spring2011/LynchBennettArticle.pdf http://www.indiana.edu/~psource/PDF/Archive%20Articles/Sprin... As is usual with the conquer-the-world types, not knowing when to stop was Napoleon's downfall. Hitler made the same mistake - taking on both Britain and Russia at the same time.
- pm90 12y ago
  Its an oft repeated point that Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon, but the situations were actually very different. In particular, there was the actual threat of Stalinist Russia getting completely industrialized and then attacking Germany first. And so its often debated among historians whether the German invasion was inevitable.
gadders 12y ago
Short answer: Not as good as Wellington, clearly.
- spacecowboy_lon 12y ago
  mm if the British king was as obsesed about recoveing America as he was anti cotholic the war of 1812 would have ended very diferently. The American army in 1812 would have been no match for Wellington (plus a coalition of european states who wanted ther american colonys back) even the very high quality but small US navy would have not helped that much.
  - gadders 12y ago
    I don't want to get into an argument with Americans, but I'd agree that the outcome could have been different. It would make a good counterfactual historical novel at least :-)
- qwertyuiop1234 12y ago
  Blücher's Prussian army arrived to save Wellington's ass despite Wellington not saving theirs at Battle of Ligny. Can we please give Germans some credit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo
  - gadders 12y ago
    They were very instrumental in the winning of the battle. They followed orders very well ;-)
    - qwertyuiop1234 12y ago
      There is no 'order', only verbal agreement that they will come to each other's aid in case they run into Napoleon's army. Wellington rode to Blücher and promised to aid him at Ligny but he didn't which resulted in Prussian defeat at Battle of Ligny. Blücher himself was incapacitated. Chief of Staff Gneisenau didn't want to come to Wellington's aid because he didn't trust the British. Had Blücher not insisted marching onto Waterloo, Wellington would be crush like Alexander in Austerlitz.
natosaichek 12y ago
At the end of this article, he starts to touch on some of the things that William Lind has been writing about for years - how state actors can fight against non-state actors. He talks a lot about the different levels of war (strategic, operational, tactical) but more, talks about how war evolved over time. In particular how maneuver doctrine is superior to firepower doctrine is superior to manpower doctrine. These all are, to a certain extent, trumped by guerrilla warfare by non-state forces. Lind calls this fourth generation warfare. Here's an archive of some of his essays (chronological from the bottom up): http://www.dnipogo.org/lind/lind_archive.htm http://www.dnipogo.org/lind/lind_archive.htm

104 points by diodorus 12y ago

teach 12y ago

SO much passive voice. Somebody needs to run that article through Hemingway.[0] [0] http://www.hemingwayapp.com/ http://www.hemingwayapp.com/

themartorana 12y ago
That's like running Andrew Wyeth[1] through a Bob Ross app. [0] Writing is art, it doesn't always need to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator or bereft of its voice. [0] I loved Bob Ross. [1] I originally had "Picasso" but the styles were too disparate for the point. Still, props to @krapp for the ERB link.
- krapp 12y ago
  (sigh.) I can't resist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGN5xaQkFk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGN5xaQkFk0
- teach 12y ago
  I understand your point, but I strongly disagree. First, you're saying that the author of this piece -- a military general and historian -- used hard-to-read passive voice throughout because of his extreme demonstrated mastery of the art of writing. He truly considered and wrestled with each sentence. I don't believe that one bit. Also, I disagree with your assertion that artisans should avoid learning the fundamentals of their craft, or that doing so somehow robs the work of its "voice". It reminds me of a fourteen-year-old guitarist who doesn't see the need to learn scales or music theory. "I'm not going to be some cookie-cutter musician, man. My music is going to be original and unique!" This article would be much better if it had gone through an editing phase or two.
  - indlebe 12y ago
    >It reminds me of a fourteen-year-old guitarist who doesn't see the need to learn scales or music theory. >music theory Scales can almost be self-learned and a good chunk of rock musicians don't know anything about music theory, and can't read music. Many excellent musicians and artists are autodidacts.
  - stonogo 12y ago
    You still haven't demonstrated that you understand what "passive voice" even is. I think you'll find this article doesn't make particularly frequent use of it.
  - iopq 12y ago
    I enjoyed the article. Maybe the author doesn't care about writing as much as the content of the article? I certainly don't care to edit this post to your aesthetic standards, or even posts on my blog. In fact, most of what I write is awful. But does it make my points any less true?
  - JetSetWilly 12y ago
    Why are there so many people who pick up poorly founded superstitions about language and then insist and sneer how right they are? Folk don't go about making hilariously arrogant and and ignorant claims about say, maths, but with language all bets are off. Maybe they think that because they can speak English they are an expert? There was nothing wrong with the article as regards the "passive voice" and like most people who moan about the passive voice you likely don't understand what it is: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922 Mentioning that hilariously bad app Hemingway makes it worse. Running Hemingway through hemingway is fun - it gets mutilated.
eru 12y ago
The writing could be improved and made more forceful, but I don't see much passive voice in there. Are you sure that word means what you think it means? (And the hemingway app is pretty crappy as far as natural language processing goes.)

hooande 12y ago

Napoleon was indeed a very good general, rightfully considered as one of the greatest of all time. This very well written and insightful article takes his legend down a peg or two, which is certainly justified. The invasion of Russia was one of history's greatest follies, The Little Corporal was cavalier with the lives of his men and his strategic brilliance was inconsistent at best. But his strengths often made up for his short comings and he was better than almost all of the comparable generals of his day. His victory at Austerlitz stands as one of the great military achievements and best executed battles in history. Literally a textbook example of movement, timing and coordination. The common perception is that after Napoleon returned from Elba he lost much of his strategic and tactical flair, throwing his men into meat grinders. This is mostly true, but most of the opposing generals also had very high casualty rates. Napoleonic warfare was dominated by the Fog of War, they had no satellites or drones to help them plan and maneuver. Napoleon had a sixth sense for visualizing a battle that unfortunately came and went. On his good days he was better than many who have ever lived. On most days, he was simply average. That's as much as most of us could ask for, and it was enough to dominate a continent at the time. History is filled with intelligent and technically capable generals, but only a few who had a style that set them apart. Hannibal and Robert E. Lee come easily to mind, along with others. Napoleon's genius of movement and logistics were groundbreaking, and the lessons apply to more than warfare. He was the original "Move fast and break things". He taught military history that being faster and better organized was enough to build a seemingly unstoppable snow ball effect of victories. His downfall instructs that even the best preparation cannot defeat a dangerous and unpredictable shifting landscape.

meric 12y ago
I suggest you read about Yi Sun-Sin also, considered the greatest naval commander of all time (Not a general). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin
spacecowboy_lon 12y ago
Napoleon is normaly considered one of the "great captains" the gereral consensus is that the great captains are Ceaser, Hannibal Alexander, Churcill (John not Winston) Wellington and Napoleon.

alricb 12y ago

> Jonathon Riley served in Bosnia and Iraq, where he was the general officer commanding British forces. A British officer who doesn't think highly of Napoleon? This is my surprised face. > This is implicit in Karl von Clausewitz’s celebrated but often misquoted (and still more often misunderstood) remark that ‘war is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means.’ Can this guy read German? Because that seems like an over-translation of the simple „Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln“ (title of section 24, chapter 1, book I of Vom Kriege). I would also note that Napoleon failed in the end, but that he did quite well in the meanwhile. He continued the Revolutionary Wars, and so was doomed to face the forces of reaction, who would never ally with him with any kind of sincerity. It's possible that his military successes blinded him to the possibility of stability through diplomacy, but could he really have allied with the Habsburgs? He also had to contend with an ascendant Britain, willing to exploit her insular position to its full advantage through her renewed Navy and her economic strength. But just a few years before the French Revolution, Britain had come close to losing it all; with no allies on the continent to distract France, she might have lost not just her colonies, but her dominant naval position, which was so essential in Napoleon's defeat.

cmdkeen 12y ago
Napoleon had many of the same advantages as with the War of Independence, once France and Spain were allied he had a naval numerical advantage and at many points an isolated Britain. Even the revolutionary French and Spanish Navies had shown a marked lack of interest in the kind of daring fighting that marked British admirals (partially due to the esprit de corps created after Byng's shooting). Nelson's breaking the line was not a new tactical invention, it was just something that most shied away from. Perhaps we British officers (I'm RN) appreciate our heroes a little more because they fought outnumbered yet achieved crushing victories, and they achieved their ultimate strategic objectives. Despite being aristocrats dealing with men who were often "scum" seemed to care far more their lives than the supposedly revolutionary Napoleon. Wellington was not only a great general but fought peace as a diplomat in Paris, and later as a Prime Minister. Wellington even sought out Napoleon's former mistresses and seduced them in Paris.

ArkyBeagle 12y ago

I suppose we should estimate Napoleon's greatness by the size of the mess he left behind. Considering that a Napoleon III intervened to disaster in ... Mexico, that's quite a mess. Napoleon was sufficient to resuscitate the Spanish Inquisition. It is a Napoleon-sized mess in itself, but "Goya's Ghosts" at least brushes onto this - complete with a demonstration of the use of the garotte. But at least we had... Bismarck...

spacecowboy_lon 12y ago
Not sure germanys experiance of rule by a millatery oligarchcy was on balance a good thing :-) Its a pity that Kaiser wilhelm did not take after his father who wanted a consitutional democarcy closer to the UK's system.
- ArkyBeagle 12y ago
  Indeed - but Bismarck casts a long shadow. Wilhelm hisownself was far too self-aggrandizing for that.

VieElm 12y ago

From a literary perspective, Tolstoy's War and Peace has volumes of text dedicated to examining Napoleon and the impact of "great men" on history. He also doesn't create a very flattering portrayal, it's a great read. Of course there's more to that book than just war. Dumas, who named a chapter "The Corsican Ogre" after Napoleon in The Count of Monte Cristo is also not very kind to his legacy. Napoleon's lasting impact beyond just the destruction and desecration of monarchies across Europe probably includes the Napoleonic Code[1] which has probably influenced laws everywhere. Another great read is Rifleman Dodd, also known as Death to the French, the story of a single British rifleman causing havoc to french forces in Spain[2]. It gives you an interesting perspective how much the french were hated outside of France. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_the_French http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_the_French

cageface 12y ago
If you enjoy this period of history you should also read Conan Doyle's "Brigadier Gerard": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier_Gerard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier_Gerard It's the fictional accounts of a dashing and arrogant cavalry officer in Napoleon's army. You can tell Doyle enjoys lampooning some French military stereotypes but there's also some great adventures along the way. I think it would make a great movie with the right director and cast.
devindotcom 12y ago
Victor Hugo seems to give him a bit more credit. His account of Waterloo in "Les Miserables" was thrilling (but suspect).

nl 12y ago

Criticising Napoleon without mentioning Austerlitz[1] is.. pretty stupid. Probably only Cannae is as famous as a textbook example of brilliant command. Even if there are some decent points made it will take a lot more than that to argue that he wasn't one of the great battlefield commanders. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz

Animats 12y ago

This is from a real general. You can tell. He talks about logistics before he talks about battles. Napoleon's military funded the development of the tin can. That wasn't enough to get his army to Moscow. Here's a view of that logistic disaster: http://www.indiana.edu/~psource/PDF/Archive%20Articles/Spring2011/LynchBennettArticle.pdf http://www.indiana.edu/~psource/PDF/Archive%20Articles/Sprin... As is usual with the conquer-the-world types, not knowing when to stop was Napoleon's downfall. Hitler made the same mistake - taking on both Britain and Russia at the same time.

pm90 12y ago
Its an oft repeated point that Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon, but the situations were actually very different. In particular, there was the actual threat of Stalinist Russia getting completely industrialized and then attacking Germany first. And so its often debated among historians whether the German invasion was inevitable.

gadders 12y ago

Short answer: Not as good as Wellington, clearly.

spacecowboy_lon 12y ago
mm if the British king was as obsesed about recoveing America as he was anti cotholic the war of 1812 would have ended very diferently. The American army in 1812 would have been no match for Wellington (plus a coalition of european states who wanted ther american colonys back) even the very high quality but small US navy would have not helped that much.
- gadders 12y ago
  I don't want to get into an argument with Americans, but I'd agree that the outcome could have been different. It would make a good counterfactual historical novel at least :-)
qwertyuiop1234 12y ago
Blücher's Prussian army arrived to save Wellington's ass despite Wellington not saving theirs at Battle of Ligny. Can we please give Germans some credit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo
- gadders 12y ago
  They were very instrumental in the winning of the battle. They followed orders very well ;-)
  - qwertyuiop1234 12y ago
    There is no 'order', only verbal agreement that they will come to each other's aid in case they run into Napoleon's army. Wellington rode to Blücher and promised to aid him at Ligny but he didn't which resulted in Prussian defeat at Battle of Ligny. Blücher himself was incapacitated. Chief of Staff Gneisenau didn't want to come to Wellington's aid because he didn't trust the British. Had Blücher not insisted marching onto Waterloo, Wellington would be crush like Alexander in Austerlitz.

natosaichek 12y ago

At the end of this article, he starts to touch on some of the things that William Lind has been writing about for years - how state actors can fight against non-state actors. He talks a lot about the different levels of war (strategic, operational, tactical) but more, talks about how war evolved over time. In particular how maneuver doctrine is superior to firepower doctrine is superior to manpower doctrine. These all are, to a certain extent, trumped by guerrilla warfare by non-state forces. Lind calls this fourth generation warfare. Here's an archive of some of his essays (chronological from the bottom up): http://www.dnipogo.org/lind/lind_archive.htm http://www.dnipogo.org/lind/lind_archive.htm