Beyond Destiny and Will (Napoleon Bonaparte and the Debate on Historical Agency)
Do great men shape history and the visible world to their own liking, or are they simply products of their time, inevitably steered hither and thither by the political climate and pandering to the desires of the rabble? These are two very polarizing views of history that seem to constantly contradict one another, leading to endless debate. While neither stance is entirely sound on its own, it is certainly the case that one can be dominant over the other. For instance, how did Alexander the Great, a Macedonian, lead the Greeks to conquer as far as India? To claim that his conquest was subject only to aleatory circumstances is an asinine idea and a very cynical view of man's relationship with history and his ability to shape it. Therefore, only two modes of viewing such men are acceptable: Either their own genius and indomitable will led them to seize power, or deep-rooted forces embedded in the cultures or countries' past enabled such rulers to seize power where it lay. The luck aspect of these men only extends as far as they’re not getting killed before they could command power. In this article, we will explore how Napoleon became such a monumental individual and whether it was because of his genius or opportunities that rose sperate from his will, or perhaps a balance between the two. Additionally, we will examine how moments of his genius and the deep reverence he had for himself proved to be a larger force than the trajectory of history itself and the external forces around him. This argument and way of viewing Napoleon takes a Nietzschean perspective on the man and history in general.
I
One of the philosophies put forth by Nietzsche was the idea of the Übermensch. The term "Übermensch" is used to describe the superior man. To Nietzsche, the superior man was one who imposed their will on the world without adhering to the ascetic notions of good and evil.[1] According to Nietzsche, the superior man does not ask for power; rather, he commands it vehemently and without shame. Thus, it is no surprise that in his work “Ecce Homo,” Nietzsche praises Napoleon and endows him with the title of Übermensch. Nietzsche desired a return to the ancient Greek aristocracy and saw the rise of Napoleon as a beautiful representation of how a great man can impose his will on others and kindle a sense of 'might is right,' which is, of course, a direct antithesis to the entire Enlightenment movement.[2]
Nietzsche was not the only brilliant mind who saw Napoleon as a genius. Other geniuses such as Dostoevsky and Hegel held deep reverence towards the emperor and everything he had accomplished.[3] On the day before the Battle of Jena in 1806, Napoleon entered the German city for reconnaissance purposes, mounted on a horse. Upon catching a glimpse of the emperor, Hegel remarked, “I saw the emperor—this world-soul—riding out of the city on reconnaissance. It is indeed a wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrated here at a single point, astride a horse, reaches out over the world and master’s it.”[4]
Both Hegel and Nietzsche were aware of the many lives taken under Napoleon’s path to power; however, they did not care.[5] What mattered to them was Napoleon’s will and how one man can shape history and bend it to his liking, just as a mighty figure tramples down many innocent flowers that stand in its path. However, another brilliant German mind, Schopenhauer, had a very different view of Napoleon’s rise to power and what his domination of Europe meant. To Schopenhauer, Napoleon was indeed unique but not special in any way; in other words, he was simply born in the right place, at the right time, and with the necessary skills to command power. In Schopenhauer's eyes, Napoleon was as egotistical and ambitious as the rest of mankind, and thus the only thing that separated him was his endowment with the capabilities to enact his will.
It is remarkable how many geniuses have written about Napoleon and how many of them praised his genius, both militarily and politically. Although Schopenhauer disagreed with Nietzsche and Hegel, his line of thinking still admits the fact that Napoleon was undoubtedly talented. Where his thinking differs is in recognizing that the time an individual is born into plays just as crucial a role. For instance, if it were not for the revolution and internal strife in France, would Napoleon ever have become the man we know him to be today? The question looms, which philosopher was right?
II
“Every achievement, every step forward in knowledge, is the consequence of courage, of toughness towards oneself, of sincerity to oneself.”
-Friedrich Nietzsche
It is indisputable that Napoleon possessed both military courage and, from a young age, the courage found in learning and studying. During his time at Brienne, young Napoleon's reading habits flourished. He was fascinated with ancient history, Homer's poetry, and the works of many modern-day Enlightenment thinkers, developing a growing respect for Rousseau's work.[6] Napoleon's voracious reading habits eventually led him to try his hand at writing, hoping to emulate Rousseau's literary success by competing in the Lyon essay competition. However, his submission on the topic of happiness did not receive the praise he had hoped for. In fact, one of the examination panel members, Campigneules, declared that Napoleon's writing lacked any order or comprehension and was worse than mediocre.[7] After receiving these reviews, Napoleon declared his ambition for writing to be over. However, while his dream of becoming a literary figure was dashed, his love for reading remained, and he continued to digest literature up to his death and during his time on St. Helena Island. It is worth noting that Napoleon was never a passive reader; on many occasions while reading, he would assert, "I believe none of this."[8] Geniuses tend to have minds of their own and can often offer new insights or innovations. Genius is not merely an affiliation with raw intellect, which is simply the ability to absorb information. This trait might explain Napoleon's ambivalent personality and his seemingly loose connections to any single ideology or philosophy of life. The knowledge he absorbed undoubtedly aided him throughout his reign and ascent to the position of Emperor. While there were certainly countless factors that also aided his ascent, one cannot ignore young Napoleon's ambitions and his awareness of the power of knowledge. For example, his exposure to Plutarch and the anecdotes about Alexander's conquest of the Orient and fair treatment of Egyptian culture and people might have influenced his decision to push the French to pursue Egypt instead of assaulting Britain, as well as his diplomatic stance in the region.[9] Already from young age the young Napoleon was equipping himself with invaluable knowledge and developing the skills that would place the crown upon his head.
III
The aspect of Napoleon's political genius that stands out most is his reluctance to fully commit to any single political ideology. This capricious approach enabled him to ally with specific groups at opportune times and to sever ties when they no longer served his interests. Consider, for example, his initial involvement with the Jacobin circle and his defense of the convention in the Tuileries Palace. It is difficult to determine whether Napoleon genuinely sympathized with the Jacobins or their political ideology. However, his later attitudes towards left-leaning ideologies suggest a diminishing sympathy. Thus, we may infer that Napoleon favored the revolution but rejected the Jacobin's positive view of the masses and their political role. This stance is perplexing, given his transition towards empire and the implementation of elitism reminiscent of monarchical rule. Nonetheless, revolutionary ideas seemed to have influenced Napoleon in his youth, particularly his admiration for Rousseau, the social contract, and its teachings about the evil’s governments perpetrate when usurping power from the people. However, considering Rousseau's popularity during Napoleon’s formative years, it raises the question of whether his agreement was a product of youthful naivety and a desire to align with popular sentiment. Later in life, Napoleon contrasted Rousseau, whom he deemed suitable for the young, with Voltaire, whom he considered more appropriate for mature audiences.[10] Voltaire, a pro-monarchical thinker who disdained the masses, especially after witnessing the chaos they could unleash, as seen during the revolution, influenced Napoleon’s perspectives. Napoleon's acute observation of shifting public desires was remarkable, as if he understood the precarious nature of public perception. He adeptly navigated these changes, positioning himself within movements while also leading them. A prime example of this is his careful yet ambitious approach to establishing the empire, which contradicted the fundamental principles of the revolution. His initial hesitancy appears to have been a well-played charade, suggesting compliance with the people's wishes rather than personal ambition. Napoleon’s admiration for past emperors influenced his choice to be named 'emperor' rather than 'king,' emulating figures like Caesar, Alexander, and Charlemagne, while cleverly presenting the empire as distinct from traditional monarchy.[11] Napoleon’s political acumen was unparalleled, skillfully balancing a respect for the masses, unlike Voltaire, and avoiding Rousseau’s naivety regarding their fickle loyalties.
IV
"Morale is to the physical as thee is to one."
-Napoleon
When analyzing Napoleon's genius and considering whether his ascent to glory was more indicative of his own abilities or the opportunities presented in his time, we must acknowledge his leadership skills and ability to boost morale within his ranks. Napoleon possessed a breadth of knowledge uncommon in an ordinary individual. He was not only skilled in mathematics and geometry, military tactics, and literary studies but also adept at forming strategic alliances when beneficial. Moreover, his charisma enabled him to gain the respect of his troops, a trait most evident when he confronted the 5th Regiment upon returning to France from his exile on Elba. Using his charisma, he persuaded his former soldiers, then pointed at by muskets, to rally behind him once more. However, it's noteworthy that during Napoleon's absence, many French citizens, especially soldiers, were dissatisfied with King Louis XVIII's rule.[12] These former soldiers, now integrated into French society, longed for a meaningful cause, feeling the monotony of civilian life. Additionally, rampant inflation hindered the middle class, which had thrived under Napoleon, from prospering.[13] Thus, it's arguable that opportunity coincided with Napoleon's intelligence and will in this situation. Napoleon's consideration for his troops and his genius in understanding the precarious nature of morale contributed significantly to his early military successes, particularly in Italy. He encouraged his troops to seek personal glory, appealing to their egoism with the promise of glory, recognition, and spoils. During the Italian campaign, he awarded engraved sabers to one hundred soldiers for bravery.[14]Throughout Napoleon's early career, his genius is unmistakable. However, there's always a sense that timing and opportune moments, such as in Toulon or the Italian campaign, played a significant role. Nonetheless, we cannot overlook Napoleon's mastery in facing these challenges. For example, his use of speed and fervent energy in the Italian campaign inspired similar vigor in his soldiers. Opportunities may have presented themselves at opportune moments for Napoleon, but it was always his skills, intellect, and charm that allowed his to seize glory where others couldn’t.
V
The propagandist aspect of Napoleon’s career cannot be overlooked when analyzing his adept command of public perception and dominance over unfolding events. Within the span of one year, from 1797 to 1798, Napoleon created six newspapers that reflected his political views, many of which contained articles written by him.[15] However, his publications were not the sole means of cultivating a positive image of the emperor. Napoleon managed to command not only the respect of the army but also that of another societal layer, the intellectuals. During his campaign in Egypt, he brought along a group of 200 mathematicians, astrologers, engineers, architects, and historians.[16] This expedition also introduced two new newspapers, "Courier de l’Egypte" and "Decade Egyptienne," which were presented to the French populace.[17] There is no doubt that propaganda played a significant role in masking the logistical failures in Egypt, under the guise of sharing and spreading enlightenment in the Orient. However, no amount of propaganda can compensate for a lack of leadership, and Napoleon certainly possessed both. Ignoring the masterful tactical side of Napoleon and the respect he earned from the army on merit would be misleading. One of Napoleon’s first decisions as Consul was to reduce the number of Parisian newspapers from 73 to 13 by January 1800, and by 1807, only four remained.[18] The propaganda eventually extended beyond newspapers, infiltrating the educational system. Napoleon, in his genius, realized that shaping the public perception of the youth was fundamental to building a sustained legacy, a strategy later adopted by many political leaders after his death. In a letter to the Minister of Home Affairs in 1801, Napoleon demanded the inclusion of elements of ancient history and a collection of virtuous and heroic deeds in the educational system to foster a sense of patriotism and honor among students.[19] Additionally, his particular attention to ensuring that art glorified his regime was a useful tool in reminding the people of both Napoleon's heroism and the divine legitimacy of his rule. For instance, Gros’s painting "Bonaparte Visiting the Victims of the Plague at Jaffa" symbolizes the paradoxical image Napoleon sought to convey that of a heroic and populist leader. As previously mentioned, Napoleon was aware of the masses' power and, to an extent, feared it. Thus, he was astute enough to constantly shape public perception to his advantage.
VI
To paint an accurate picture of whether Napoleon's ascent was of his own volition and genius or whether external factors played a more significant role in his ascent, it is worth examining his legacy after his death. Were former foes more concerned about French republicanism or the man himself and the image he would leave behind? In 1840, when Napoleon's body was returned to France, there was a general concern that the British would seek to retain control of the emperor's body rather than returning it to the French, out of fear of rekindled French nationalism. The ashes of Napoleon were speculated to possibly evoke a wave of nostalgia among the French populace for the former imperial glory under their once-great Emperor. Prior to this event, in 1821, Pellerin, the owner of one of the most famous printing firms, came under investigation for producing representations of the Imperial regime. Under a petition to the Minister of Culture, the Epinal firm requested permission to print posters describing Napoleon the Great. Pellerin fervently supported his petition by asserting that Napoleon now belonged to history. The petition was inevitably rejected due to censorship laws of 1815 and 1822 that prohibited the publication of any form of written text or art that posed a threat to the existing government. This cleverly implied that no literary or artistic works could portray Napoleon in a positive light. The image and memory of Napoleon and all he had done still loomed large, and no matter how much suppression was enacted, he remained inevitable.
The political ideology of Bonapartism would emerge from a growing discontent with the Bourbon Restoration. The ideology was also nostalgic for the emperor and had ties to jingoistic beliefs about France and its imperial rule. Later, Bonapartism would take on a new form and would support a strong authoritarian ruler overseeing a centralized state. It is humorous that Bonapartism as an ideology resembled the capricious politics of Napoleon. Initially, they opposed any semblance of monarchy and privilege but eventually favored a sovereign ruler. Thus, the intriguing aspect of Bonapartism is its demonstration of how one man can shape entire political movements and ideologies, even when those exact ideologies are difficult to define. It is fascinating that Bonapartism survived until the 20th century under Gaullism, which was also based on the principles of a strong individual who could wield absolute power. Perhaps, individual genius and acts of bravery, courage, and heroism are what the masses desire when the individual is truly exceptional. This is evident in how other nations attack those they have defeated, whether by portraying the country in a negative light or mocking the individual they followed. For instance, the relentless attacks on Napoleon after his death, when countries such as Germany and England portrayed him as the devil's child or mocked him for his size and insignificance in many popular illustrations. All of this, of course, is in retaliation for the truth of which they are aware, namely that Napoleon was indeed an Übermensch among ordinary men. However, diminishing his significance is a clever tactic to convey to the defeated nation that their once-great hero was nothing more than a small, devilish man, a portrayal far from the truth.
Conclusion
The examination of Napoleon Bonaparte's life and legacy through the lens of Nietzschean philosophy and contrasting historical perspectives reveals a complex interplay between individual genius and the forces of history. Napoleon, often hailed as an Übermensch by Nietzsche, epitomizes the embodiment of personal will and exceptional ability in shaping the course of history. His military and political strategies, his manipulation of public perception, and his ability to inspire and lead, all point to an individual whose influence extended far beyond the mere exploitation of opportune circumstances.
However, it is also evident that Napoleon's rise and reign were inextricably linked to the specific historical context of post-revolutionary France and the broader European political landscape. The tumultuous times provided a fertile ground for a figure of his caliber to emerge and assert dominance. This duality suggests that while great men can indeed shape history, they do so not in isolation but in constant interaction with the prevailing currents of their time.
The legacy of Napoleon, as reflected in the ideologies of Bonapartism and its later manifestations, further underscores the lasting impact of such a monumental figure. His influence persisted long after his death, shaping political movements and national sentiments. This enduring legacy is a testament to the blend of individual agency and historical forces at play.
In essence, the story of Napoleon Bonaparte is a powerful illustration of the dynamic between great individuals and the historical context in which they operate. It challenges us to consider the balance between the power of individual agency and the overarching forces of history. As we reflect on the lives of such influential figures, we are reminded of the complexity of historical narratives and the multifaceted nature of human impact on the world's stage. Napoleon's life, therefore, serves not only as a subject of historical study but also as a catalyst for deeper philosophical inquiry into the nature of greatness and the fabric of history itself.
[1] Paul F. Glenn, "Nietzsche's Napoleon: The Higher Man as Political Actor," The Review of Politics 63, no. 1 (Winter 2001): 129-158
[2] Nietzsche’s Ecce homo, Notebooks and Letters: 1888-1889 / Translation by Daniel Fidel Ferrer.
[3] Robert L. Jackson, "Napoleon in Russian Literature," Yale French Studies, no. 26 (1960): 106-118
[4] WASZEK, NORBERT. “A STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEGEL’S THEORY OF THE MODERN STATE.” Hegel-Studien 20 (1985): 163–72.
[5] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, trans. Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale (New York: Vintage, (2017).
[6] Ira Grossman, "Napoleon the Reader: The Early Years," The Napoleon Series by the Waterloo Association, accessed December 4, 2023.
[7] Andy Martin, Napoleon the Novelist (Wiley, 2001), [pg.102].
[8] Forrest, Alan. Napoleon: Life, Legacy, and Image: A Biography." Library Journal, July 1, 2012, 57.
[9] Kolla, Edward. (2007). Not So Criminal: New Understandings of Napoleon's Foreign Policy in the East. French Historical Studies. 30. 10.1215/00161071-2006-024.
[10] ANNIE JOURDAN, NAPOLEON AND HISTORY, French History, Volume 10, Issue 3, September 1996, Pages 334–354.
[11] DWYER, PHILIP G. “NAPOLEON AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE EMPIRE.” The Historical Journal 53, no. 2 (2010): 339–58. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40865691.
[12] Gregory Fremont-Barnes, "Chapter 1: The Road to Waterloo," in The Napoleon Series, accessed December 4, 2023
[13] Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Hundred Days, French history," Encyclopaedia Britannica, last updated October 27, 2023
[14] Dean, Peter J. "Napoleon as a Military Commander: The Limitations of Genius." The Napoleon Series
[15] A. Périvier, Napoléon Journaliste (Paris: Plon-Nourrit et Compagnie, 1918)
[16] Kolla, Edward. (2007). Not So Criminal: New Understandings of Napoleon's Foreign Policy in the East. French Historical Studies. PP.181.
[17] Boustany, "French Expedition in Egypt," 16; and Périvier, Napoléon Journaliste, 79-80
[18] Moran, Daniel J. “Cotta and Napoleon: The French Pursuit of the Allgemeine Zeitung.” Central European History 14, no. 2 (1981): 91–109. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4545921.
[19] Markham, J. David. "The Revolution, Napoleon, and Education." The Napoleon Series.