"Our age has produced nothing great. I want to set an example"
-Napoleon to Marmont during Italian Campaign
-Napoleon to Marmont during Italian Campaign
My
imagination about Napoleon was fired after reading about him in Nehru's letters
to Indira Gandhi(Published as Glimpses of World
History)
a few years ago. Nehru dedicated two letters completely to Napoleon among his 196 letters that
presented an account of the most important phenomena in the history of the
world.
A
product of the Revolution, Napoleon
was a mixture of a statesman, soldier, scientist, mathematician, and a great
lover. Above all he
was soldier, the finest of the children of revolution. As a soldier he saved the
republic from counter revolutionary forces both from internal and external
enemies.
He
tried to build a bridge between the old and the new, the old aristocratic
tradition (that still had support among vast masses) and the new ideas that were brought
about by the Revolution. Revolution presented a sudden break from the old and this friction caused by the sudden
break had caused great distress
to the people of France. Napoleon tried to smoothen the transition from old to new. In the end, he succumbed to the lure of traditions while trying to be
realistic. He betrayed the very revolution that produced and nurtured him. He reintroduced nobility, installed his incompetent brothers as
kings, tried to secure matrimonial alliances with old aristocratic families in
a vain attempt to legitimize his rule. Instead of deriving the legitimacy of
his rule from the people, he tried to create a dynasty of his own.
Hailed
as the first modern European he realised the potential of science to change the
world and gave complete support as an
army general and an emperor, to
it. He instituted merit as the sole criteria for positions of authority in
public. He started Legion of Honour to encourage men of
excellence.
About
religion, he understood it as a social system that helps preserve social order.
He said "What I see in religion is, not the mystery of the incarnation,
but social order. It associates with heaven an idea of equality, which prevents
the poor from massacring the rich. Religion has the same sort of value as
vaccination. It gratifies our taste for the miraculous, but protects us from
quacks; for the priests are worth more than the Cagliostros, the Kants, and all
the German dreamers...Society cannot exist without inequality of property; but
this latter cannot exist without religion. One who is dying of hunger when the
man next to him is feasting on dainties, can only be sustained by a belief in a
higher power, and by the conviction that in another world there will be
different distribution of goods."
If
we remove the veil of Gods, myths, and messiahs, isn't this what religion
actually is, a political system
consisting of a set of principles, that make and protect a
social system by demanding faithful adherence from its believers?
History
and imagination were the two things that fired his confidence. They made him
look upon himself as a man of destiny, a man who is
destined to conquer the whole world like Alexander. He tried to draw a parallel to his empire with the mighty Roman Empire.
Yet
with all the genius he had, he did not believe in ideal motives. As Nehru says,
"...he was elemental almost, like a force of nature. Full of ideas and
imagination he was, yet blind to the values of ideals and unselfish motives...",
he considered self interest in the form of money and glory to be the only
motive for everyone's actions. To quote Goethe, a contemporary of Napoleon and
also a great admirer of him said, "Napoleon,
who lived wholly for ideas, was nevertheless unable to grasp the nature of
ideal motives; he repudiated the ideal, denied that there was any such thing,
at the very time when he himself was eagerly trying to realise the ideal".
He tried to secure the allegiance of his subordinates by the use of money and
titles instead of using the ideas of the revolution to create a set of
committed people around him. Ultimately he ended up having around him, people
whose sole aim was self interest and self glory, who deserted him whenever it
appeared like he was on the verge of
losing power. They weren't bound by an idea that could endure the ups and downs of his personal glory. Finally it
was the treachery of his own people around him that brought him down.
Until
his last battle at Waterloo, no single commander
could claim to have defeated Napoleon on the battleground. Europe trembled
under his feet. But the grand army was completely
destroyed in the harsh climatic
conditions during the Russian campaign. It was the Russian
climate that destroyed his military machine, and not the enemy empires.
Coincidentally, though not surprisingly, it was the Russian campaign that spelt doom for Hitler too.
Being
a great statesman and diplomat, his ideas on diplomacy where deception and
cunning are still part of the game, are interesting. Thus he says, "Tact,
and putting all the cards on the table, will do better service in diplomacy
than cunning. The tricks of the diplomats of the old school are out of date;
all their rogueries have been exposed long since....Nothing betrays weakness
more than the attempt to deceive"
Europe
saw the revolution and him, with contempt. Kings of other kingdoms did not like
the existence of this ‘son of people’ on
the throne, for it discredited their
own claim to power, as a divine right. They waited for opportunities to dethrone him. They forced him
to engage in constant battles to
survive. The Kings of Europe forced France
to expand beyond the natural boundaries.
The
French empire created by him collapsed as soon as he abdicated the throne. But
the ideas he had sown on European
soil found resonance across the 19th century Europe. He shattered the myth of the divine right of kings. Though not
as successful as in the hey-days of
the revolution, he did establish a kingdom of Reason. Demands for popular sovereignty,
German and Italian nationalism in later
years of Europe, all find their origin in the ideas sown by Napoleon in the
lands conquered by him. Thus his thoughts
after the exile run as.... "There are in Europe more than thirty
million Frenchmen, fifteen million Italians, thirty million Germans . . .Out of
each of these peoples, I wanted to make a united national whole . . .That would
have supplied the best chance of establishing a general unity of laws; a unity
of principles and thoughts and feelings, of outlooks and interests. . .Then it
would have been possible to think of founding the United States of Europe after
the model of the United States of America. . .What perspectives of strength,
greatness, and prosperity this opens up! ...... At the same time, I wanted to
pave the way for the unification of the great interests of Europe, just as I
had unified the parties in France . . . The transient mutterings of the people
troubled me little; they would have been reconciled to me by the results . .
.Europe would soon have become one nation, and any who traveled in it would
always have been in a common fatherland. . .Sooner or later, this union will be
brought about by the force of events. The first impetus has been given; and,
after the fall and disappearance of my system, it seems to me that the only way
in which equilibrium can be achieved in Europe is through a league of
nations."
His
plans of conquering India and the East are interesting. In his own words "Europe
is a mole hill. It is only in the East that, great empires and revolutions are
possible, where there are six hundred millions of men". He started Egyptian campaign with a view to
contact and form an alliance with Tipu Sultan to overthrow the British rule in
India. Had the fort of Acre fallen, had the battle of Nile not occurred, India's history would indeed
have been much different.