Edited by Robert BurnhamThe purpose of this section is to provide ready made answers to questions that students have asked the Napoleon Series.
These answers have been written by several different people and reflect their opinions and points-of-view. Several of these individuals are well known in the field and have written books and articles on the period. The papers in the FAQ Section are short and cover the most important aspects of the topic. These papers are not designed to be complete and thorough essays. They were written to help the students focus their research topic and to give them starting points for continued research.
If you do not find the exact topic of your paper in the table of contents, look for a topic that is similar. For example if your topic is "What Contributions did Napoleon Give France" you might look at the papers on "Napoleon and Education" and "Was Napoleon an Heir to the Revolution?" Please do not send a message to the Series that asks a question that can be answered in part by one of the FAQs, but is worded differently. These questions will not be answered.
Please tell your friends about this site and when you write your bibliography give the site credit as a source. Good Luck!
Table of contents
- How to Cite FAQs in a Bibliography
- Recommended Sources
- Who was Napoleon Bonaparte?
- How Tall was Napoleon?
- Napoleon and Education
- Was Napoleon an Heir to the French Revolution?
- What was the Congress of Vienna?
- The Code Napoleon
- Did Marshal Ney Die in 1815 or Did He Escape to America?
- Why did Napoleon Fail in Russia in 1812?
- Did Napoleon's troops shoot the nose off the Sphinx?
- Why Napoleon is depicted with his hand in his coat?
- What was the name of Napoleon's horse?
- What Kind Of Leader Was Napoleon Bonaparte?
Contact Robert Burnham for all info about these FAQ's.
Frequently Asked Question #1: How to Cite FAQs in a Bibliography
By Robert Burnham
Citing a source taken from the Internet is similar to citing a printed source in a bibliography. According to the Modern Language Association (MLA) the following is the correct format for citing an Internet source:
Author's Last Name, Author's First Name. "Title of the Article" Name of the Internet Site. Internet Address. Date Visited the Internet Site.
For Example:
Davout, Louis. "FAQ # 1: Why the French Beat the Prussians in 1806" Napoleon Series. www.ping.be/Napoleon.Series. 14 October 1997.
Frequently Asked Questions #2: Recommended Sources
By Robert Burnham
The following books are sources that will answer many questions about Napoleon and his Empire.
Bruce, Evangeline. Napoleon & Josephine: An Improbable Marriage, Scribner : New York; 1995.
Bruun, Geoffrey. The Rise of Modern Europe: Europe and the French Imperium 1799-1814. Harper Torchbooks : New York; 1963.
Chandler, David. The Campaigns of Napoleon: The Mind and Method of History's Greatest Soldier MacMillan : New York; 1966.
Dallas, Gregor. The Final Act: The Roads To Waterloo Henry Holt : New York; 1996.
Durant, Will and Ariel. The Age of Napoleon. Simon and Schuster : New York; 1975.
Geyl, Pieter. Napoleon: For and Against, Yale University Press : New Haven; 1967.
Hayes, Carlton. Modern Europe to 1870. MacMillan : New York; 1953.
Holtman, Robert B. The Napoleonic Revolution. J.B. Lippincott : New York; 1967.
Lefevre, Georges. The French Revolution (2 volumes)Columbia University Press : New York; 1962. Translated from the French by Elizabeth Moss Evanson.
Lefevre, Georges; Napoleon (2 volumes)Columbia University Press : New York; 1969. Translated from the French by J.E. Anderson.
Nardo, Don (Editor). The French Revolution Greenhaven Press : San Diego; 1999.
Frequently Asked Question #3: Who was Napoleon Bonaparte?
By Max Sewell
Napoleon was born in Ajaccio, Corsica, the second of Carlo and Letizia Bonaparte's eight children. In 1778, Napoleon began his education at Autun and later attended school in Brienne, excelling in mathematics and science. Following a year's study at the Ecole Militaire in Paris, he was commissioned in the artillery in 1785. The year 1789 saw the outbreak of the French revolution which created an atmosphere of opportunity that would not have existed under the Bourbons, and Napoleon was to make the most of it.
The first opportunity came in 1793, when Bonaparte was promoted to brigadier general for the decisive part he played in the siege of Toulon, which ousted the British from mainland France. After the Coup de Thermidor in 1794, Napoleon fell out of favor and was imprisoned. After his release he ended up preserving the new government from the Parisian Mob with artillery fire, an event that has become known as the 'Whiff of Grapeshot.' A grateful government later appointed Napoleon to command of the Army of Italy. Before his departure, Napoleon married Josephine de Beauharnais on 9 March 1796.
Campaigning in Italy in 1796 and 1797, he inspired the impoverished army with the promise of "honor, glory, and riches," and enjoyed a succession of victories, which resulted in Austria signing the Peace of Campo Formio. His display of bravery, intelligence, and leadership proved an inspiration to the common soldier and formed an enduring bond. Returning to France, he was given charge of an expedition to Egypt, control of which would threaten English possessions in India. The victory at the Battle of the Pyramids gave French control of Cairo, but the naval defeat at Aboukir Bay isolated the expedition from France. After some unsuccessful campaigning in Syria, he departed by ship with a small group of friends and sailed to France, abandoning his Army.
In 1799, public sentiment had swung against the government and following the Coup d'etat de Brumaire, Napoleon became the defacto ruler of France. The country was still at war however, and after a dramatic crossing of the Alps, Napoleon defeated the Austrians at the battle of Marengo on 14 June 1800. Napoleon used this victory to solidify his reputation of invincibility and combined with other successes this battle led to a general peace.
After a decade of war, a grateful France made Napoleon Consul for Life and effective sovereign of the nation. Napoleon proved to be an equally skilled statesman and remodelled the country's economy and administration. He signed a Concordat with the Pope in 1801 which restored religion to France, but his greatest achievement was the Civil Code which in part is still used today.
His growing popularity resulted in his being proclaimed Emperor in 1804. At the coronation, Napoleon crowned himself, taking the crown from the Pope in a symbolic manner to show that power stemmed from the state and not the church as with previous monarchs. Within a year France was again at war with much of Europe.
Nelson's victory at Trafalgar ended plans for an invasion of England, and Napoleon turned his 'Grand Army' toward Germany to meet the converging forces of Austria and Russia. Capturing a large part of the Austrian army at Ulm, Napoleon crossed the Danube to face the remaining Austrians and the Russians at Austerlitz. The result was a decisive victory known as the 'Battle Of Three Emperors' on 2 December 1805. Austria sued for peace, but a new coalition was formed of Britain, Russia and Prussia. Napoleon defeated the Prussians at Jena in 1806, and the Russians at Friedland in 1807.
Having defeated the coalition, Napoleon was at the pinnacle of his career. With a great display of pomp he met the Tsar of Russia at Tilsit and a new Franco/Russian alliance was born. Portions of Prussia were divided into new states, and Napoleon later announced a new policy of economic warfare that was to become known as the 'Continental System.' Its goal was to destroy Britain's economic dominance by closing all continental ports to British trade. In pursuit of this policy, Napoleon sent troops to conquer Britain's ally Portugal and close the port of Lisbon. Following that success, he used those same troops to bully the Spanish King into abdicating in favor of his brother Joseph. The Spanish revolted and Britain landed an army in Portugal to support them. Napoleon marched the Grand Army to the Peninsula, defeated the Spaniards and drove the British to the coast.
In 1809, another coalition was formed between Britain and Austria, forcing Napoleon to return from Spain to wage a campaign in Germany. Successful battles resulted in the French occupation of Vienna, but Napoleon suffered his first defeat in an attempt to cross the Danube and to come to grips with the Austrian army led by Archduke Charles. A later crossing led to victory at Wagram on 5-6 July 1809 and the signing of the Treaty of Schonbrunn.
Napoleon, still legally childless and desiring an heir for his growing empire reluctantly divorced Josephine and arranged a marriage with the daughter of the Austrian Emperor. She soon bore him a son, Napoleon II, christened the King of Rome on 20 March 1811.
Most of Europe was now an ally or under the direct control of France, but Spain and Portugal remained openly contested and large portions of the French army became embroiled in a long war that was to become known as the 'Spanish Ulcer.' Relations with Russia soon deteriorated and in 1812 Napoleon invaded with an army of 600,000 men. The battle of Borodino resulted in Napoleon's occupation of Moscow, but he was unable to bring the Tsar to terms, and was soon forced to retreat. The 'scorched earth' policy employed by the Russians combined with cold weather caused the Grand Army disintegrate and the campaign ended in disaster.
The defeat in Russia prompted Prussia, Sweden, and Austria to declare war. Napoleon raised another army but was decisively defeated at the great 'Battle of Nations.' Napoleon fought a last campaign in France in defense of Paris, but in April 1814 abdicated and went into exile on the island of Elba. The Bourbon king was restored to the French throne.
While the Allies debated a realignment of the map of Europe in Vienna, Napoleon planned his return, and in March 1815, he landed in France and regained his throne in a bloodless coup. Rather than await another invasion, Napoleon surprised Allied forces in Belgium. After initial success, Napoleon fought the Duke of Wellington leading an Anglo/Allied army at Waterloo, and was decisively defeated on 18 June 1815. Napoleon was exiled to the island of St. Helena, far from Europe, until his death on 5 May 1821. His remains were removed from St. Helena in 1840 and his body now rests at Les Invalides in Paris.
For more information about this topic, read:
Death of Napoleon by Dr. John F. Davis
Medical Status by Dr. John F. Davis
Death of Napoleon by Dr. Mikael Kehler
Was Napoleon a Junkie? by Bob Elmer
Napoleon's Youth by Philip Bloom
Napoleon and Josephine by John SchneiderChandler, David G. The Campaigns Of Napoleon, The Mind And Method Of History's Greatest Soldier. Macmillan: New York; 1966.
Chandler, David G. Dictionary Of The Napoleonic Wars. Macmillan: New York; 1979.
Bruce, Evangeline. Napoleon And Josephine: The Improbable Marriage. Scribners: New York; 1995
Frequently Asked Question #4: How Tall was Napoleon?
Contributors: George F. Nafziger, Koen de Smedt, and Robert Burnham
A French foot was equivalent to 1.067877 English feet or roughly 13 inches. In the French system of measurement, Napoleon was 5 ' 2" or roughly 5' 6" in the British system. This is about 168 centimeters.
Frequently Asked Question #5: Napoleon and Education
By Robert Burnham
Napoleon has been given much credit for modernizing France's education system. Among the institutions he set up or expanded were:
- Primary schools in every commune under the general supervision of the prefects or sub-prefects.
- Secondary or grammar schools that were under the control of the central government.
- Lycees (high schools) in every important town, with teachers appointed by the central government.
- Technical Schools, civil service schools, and military schools were regulated by the State.
- Establishment of the University of France to maintain uniformity in the education system.
- Centralized recruitment and training of teachers. (Hayes; 539-540)
Napoleon's goals for improving education in France were not altruistic. After coming to power he discovered he did not have enough trained personnel to administer his empire. This included architects, engineers, and scientists. Additionally he viewed education as a means of indoctrinating the masses with the right principles. This meant removing education from the control of the church and placing it under state control. (This was something the Revolution had only partially achieved.) That being said, "he expected two things from the schools. First was the training of middle-class boys to be civil and military leaders. . . Secondly, he wanted the educational system to be absolutely uniform. He wanted, he said, to be able to pull his watch out of his pocket at any time and tell what was going on at any school." (Holtman; 143).
How successful was he at achieving these goals is questionable. By 1812, it was estimated that only one child in eight was enrolled in a primary school. The institutes of higher learning had a large percentage of its students in professional studies, with almost 30% studying medicine or science. However, "the difficulty of finding subordinates with the technical training to execute his industrial and engineering projects, and the bent of his own genius, led Napoleon to emphasize the training of the scientist as equally important with the training of the scholar, and his efforts helped to make France the home of scientific thought in the early years of the nineteenth century." (Bruun 146-147) As an indoctrinating tool, it was more successful. In the latter years of the Empire, when manpower became scarce, French teenagers on the whole, enthusiastically responded to the call to arms even after almost twenty years of continual warfare
For more information about this topic, read
The Revolution, Napoleon, and Education by J. David Markham.
Bruun, Goffrey. The Rise of Modern Europe: Europe and the French Imperium 1799-1814. Harper Torchbooks : New York; 1963.
Hayes, Carlton. Modern Europe to 1870. MacMillan : New York; 1953.
Holtman, Robert B. The Napoleonic Revolution. J.B. Lippincott : New York; 1967.
Frequently Asked Question #6: Was Napoleon an Heir to the French Revolution?
By Robert Burnham
Napoleon was indirectly responsible for spreading many of the ideals of the French Revolution throughout Europe. Although he never openly espoused revolutionary tenets his Empire and government was in many ways the living embodiment of those ideals. The three main areas that he had a significant impact were individualism, secularism, and nationalism.
Individualism: Prior to the French Revolution, class or social status was more important in French society and government than the individual. Merit and ability was subordinated to your family status and whether you were of the noble class. The Revolution did away with this and stated that all individuals were equal in the eyes of the government. How one advanced was based on merit rather than who one's ancestors were. Napoleon enshrined this with a new aristocracy based on merit. Those who performed and contributed were rewarded. The new Princes, Dukes, and Barons were men who earned their titles, most often on the battlefield. A review of his Marshals would show that they came from all walks of life, including a barrel maker, a cabin boy, a former sergeant, and a minor noble. In addition to this, he created he Legion of Honor to recognize those who deeds merited it.
Secularism: The French Revolution placed the state above the Church, an extremely revolutionary concept. The Revolution even went as far to ban organized religion. Napoleon was willing to heal the rift between the Catholic Church and the government, but only if the Church did not meddle in state affairs. The Church lost its right to run schools, and to have special taxes and privileges, however Napoleon did re-open the churches and was tolerant of all religions. He even invited the Pope Pius VII to his coronation to crown him the new Emperor of France. Napoleon's true feelings on his relationship with the Church were demonstrated by his actions at the coronation. When the Pope went to place the crown on Napoleon's head, Napoleon took the crown out of the Pope's hands and crowned himself. Thus showing that he believed that since he embodied the State, the Pope had no legitimate right to crown him for in the new France the state was not subordinate to the Church.
Jacobin Nationalism: Prior to the Revolution, the state was symbolized by the monarch and the loyalty of the people was to ruler not to the state. The Revolution made the government the sovereign of the people. It was to this government the people owed their loyalties. "National interests transcend dynastic and all other interests. Citizens are put in national armies and national schools. National flag and anthem supplant royal ensign and hymn." (Hayes; 573). Napoleon built his Empire based on these concepts. It was his soldiers who ousted the old dynasties throughout Europe and gave rise to both German and Italian nationalism that eventually unified the numerous minor kingdoms, states, and principalities into the respective nations of Germany and Italy.
For more information about this topic, read:
Hayes, Carlton. Modern Europe to 1870. MacMillan : New York; 1953; Pp. 572-574.
Frequently Asked Questions #7: What was the Congress of Vienna?
By Stephanie Verbeure
Introduction
At the end of 1813, the battle of Leipzig (16-19 October 1813) rang in the fall of Napoleon's Empire: Germany, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Switzerland are lost; France is invaded. Napoleon retreats to Fontainbleau, where he abdicates on April 6, 1814. The Treaty of Paris,which is signed May 30, 1814 restores peace, reduces France to its frontiers of 1792, and places Louis XVIII, brother of the decapitated Louis XVI on the French throne. This treaty was an expression of the legitimacy-principle and of the necessity felt by the Allies to return to the Ancient Regime. Six secret articles stipulated that a congress would be held in Vienna to decide the fate of the recovered territories. However, all the important decisions would be made by the four great powers: England, Austria, Prussia and Russia. The other nations were not allowed to partake in these secret dispositions.
A dancing congress
The Congress opens October 1, 1814. All European states are summoned. To entertain all these princes and diplomats, there are numerous military reviews, theater presentations, concerts, balls, and other festivities. This prompted the Prince de Ligne to utter his famous words: "Le congres ne marche pas, il danse." The four great powers delegate their top-diplomats to impose a new European balance: Castlereagh and Wellington for England, Metternich for Austria, Hardenberg and Humboldt for Prussia, Razumovski and Nesselrode for Russia, and last but not least, Talleyrand for France. With the return of France on the diplomatic scene, the Allies tried to boost Louis XVIII's prestige, and prove that they were not making war against France, but against Napoleon. Talleyrand had received instructions from Louis XVIII not to accept an Austrian prince as a ruler over the states of the king of Sardinia, to obtain the restoration of Ferdinand IV, to keep Russia from controling Poland, and to prevent Prussia from annexing Saxony. Talleyrand sets himself up as the champion of these second-rate princes and the defender of the legitimacy-principle: soverienity can not be obtained by conquest, without consent of the sovereign. As soon as the Congress opens, some discords disturb it: Russia wants Poland, with Prussia supporting the Tsar as long as it can have Saxony. Austria refuses to accept the dominance Prussia would have in Northern Germany if it gets Saxony, while England considers the western expansion of Russia as dangerous. Attempts to break the Prussia - Russia understanding fails, and soon there are threats of war. France sees itself places as the arbitrator, with Talleyrand as master of the game. In the beginning of 1815, Castlereagh proposes a secret alliance between Austria, England and France. Talleyrand accepts, and the coalition is shattered, but he risks dragging France into a war that isn't hers. Furthermore, by refusing to back Prussia's claims to Saxony, he gives King Frederick-William a perfect pretext to claim the Rhineland, which would threaten the Alsace Region of France. The shocking news of Napoleon's escape of Elba (which reached Vienna in the night of March 6th-7th) causes all sides to forget their disagreements. On March 13, 1815, Napoleon is declared an outlaw. During the period Napoleon is in power in France (also known as the Hundred Days), the Congress of Vienna continues its diplomatic activities. Its Final Act is signed June 9, 1815, just nine days before Waterloo!
A new European balance?
The Hundred Days hastens the end of the Congress of Vienna. On March 23, 1815, the Prince of Orange is proclamed king of the United Netherlands, which includes Belgium. Prussia receives the left bank of the Rhine, while Sweden gets Norway. Denmark is compensated for its lost with Schleswig and Holstein. Interestingly, all these decisions are made without the consent of the concerned populations, with no respect for their nationalities or liberties. Austria recovers the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom, Russia gets control over a great part of Poland. Italy remains broken up into 7 states, all of except Piedmont and Naples, under Austrian control. Germany forms a confederation of 38 states, under presidency of the Emperor of Austria. France is surrounded by solid states, and is reduced to its frontiers of 1790 by the 2nd Treaty of Paris (November 20, 1815). By this treaty it holds Avignon, but looses Savoy and Nice, it has to pay 700 million francs in war indemnities, substain an army of occupation of 150,000 men, and return all works of art that were taken during the previous 20 years. The Final Act consists of 121 articles and is signed on June 9, in the only session that is held with all representatives.
On the surface, the old Europe has triumphed over Revolutionary France, but the balance is not the same as before 1789. Certain French modifications have been maintained. Bavaria, Saxony, and Wurtemberg retain their royal title. Many states still have a strong French influence introduced by Napoleon: such as centralization of the government, the Code Napoleon, and where the French abolished it, feudalism is not restablished. In countries occupied by France, the sale of national goods had caused a increase in the middle class which starts the eventual decline of the power of the nobility and clergy. However, Metternich was wrong when he thought to have redrawn the European map "for eternity", as he put it, because he ignored -just as Napoleon did - the strong national aspirations of many people (Polish, Italians, Belgians, Germans, and Spaniards among others) that lead to the fall of Napoleon's Empire. Within 20 years, revolutions in Belgium and Poland had jeopardize the arrangements of the Congress.
For more information about this topic, read:
Kluber, J. L.: Acten der Wiener Congresses, Erlangen, 1817-1819, 2 vol.
Webster, C. K.: The Congress of Vienna, London, 1937.
Weil, M. H.: Les dessous du Congress de Vienne, 1917, 2 vol.
Zieseniss, C.O.: Le Congres de Vienne et l'Europe des Princes, 1985.
Frequently Asked Questions #8: The Code Napoleon
By Robert Burnham
Napoleon's most lasting effect on France and much of the world was the set of civil laws that he instituted that still bears his name to this day. This code was so impressive that by 1960 over 70 different states either modeled their own laws after them or adopted them verbatim. The Code Napoleon took the over 14,000 decrees that had been passed under the Revolutionary Government and simplified them into one unified set of laws. The Code had several key concepts at its core:
- Equality of all in the eyes of the law
- No recognition of privileges of birth (i.e. noble rights inherited from ancestors.)
- Freedom of religion
- Separation of the church and the state
- Freedom to work in an occupation of one's choice
- Strengthening the family by:
- Placing emphasis on the husband and father as the head of the family
- Restricting grounds for divorce to three reasons: adultery, conviction of a serious crime, and grave insults, excesses or cruelty; however divorce could be granted by mutual agreement, as long as the grounds were kept private.
- Defining who could inherit the family property
The Code in effect did several things:
- It preserved the social aims of the Revolution.
- It protected the interests of the rising middle class.
- It guaranteed civil liberties.
Despite these strengths, in the eyes of the modern world the Code had several weaknesses, particularly when it pertained to women and minors:
- A woman could not vote.
- A wife owed obedience to her husband, who had total control over their property.
- A unmarried woman had few rights and could not be a legal guardian or witness wills.
- It was easier for a man to sue for divorce on grounds of adultery, while a man had to cohabit with his mistress for two years for his wife to justify a divorce.
- If a man surprised his wife in bed with another man, he could kill her legally. If a woman did so, she could be tried for murder.
- Minors had few rights. (A father even could place his child in jail for up to six months.)
- Illegitimate children had no rights of inheritance.
In balance, the Code Napoleon survived for many many reasons, inspite of its flaws. "The Code contributed greatly to Napoleon's achievement of helping France turn away from the past. It cemented the ideas of freedom of person and of contract (including the right ot enter any occupation), equality of all Frenchmen, and freedom of civil society from ecclesiastical control. As the first truly modern code of laws, the Code Napoleon for the first time in modern history gave a nation a unified system of law applicable to all citizens without distinction. By providing uniformity of laws it further promoted the national unity fostered by the Revolution. Its entire outlook gave a further impulse to the rise of the bourgeoisie. A threatened disintegration of the family under the Convention and the Directory was sharply halted, and the family once agin became the most important social institution." (Holtman; p.98)
For more information about this topic, read:
Women and the Code Napoleon by Louis Hicks
Bruun, Geoffrey. The Rise of Modern Europe: Europe and the French Imperium 1799-1814. Harper Torchbooks : New York; 1963.
Chandler, David G. Dictionary of the Napoleonic Wars. MacMillan : New York; 1979.
Holtman, Robert B. The Napoleonic Revolution. J.B. Lippincott : New York; 1967.
Frequently Asked Question #9: Did Marshal Ney Die in 1815 or Did He Escape to America?
By: Tom Holmburg
The book, Historic Doubts as to the Execution of Marshal Ney by James A. Weston (N.Y.: Whittaker, 1895) presents the theory that Marshal Ney escaped from France after a staged execution to live in the United States as a schoolmaster. The evidence presented is tenuous at best, on a par with the theory that Elvis is still alive. In late 1819, a somewhat mysterious stranger going by the name Peter Stuart Ney appeared in South Carolina, where he was hired as a schoolmaster. Three years later P.S. Ney moved to North Carolina where he taught school in various communities until his death on 15 Nov. 1846.
P.S. Ney had certain general physical similarities to the famous French Marshal, he was "vaguely" foreign, and bore scars similiar to those the Marshal may have had. P.S. Ney allowed people to believe him to be the famous Marshal; on occasion, especially when he'd been drinking, he would declare himself to be the Marshal. Supposedly certain,unnamed, Frenchmen and foreigners recognized P.S. Ney as the Marshal at various times during his 'stay in America.'
As for the rest of the evidence it consists of statements such as that P.S. Ney was an excellent horseman and fencer, that he had a military bearing, and other characteristics he might have shared with the Marshal. Similarities were noticed between P.S. Ney's handwriting and the Marshal's. Supposedly Ney escaped execution through the intervention of Wellington and was unable to return to France (while the monarchy reigned) under threat of death.
P.S. Ney's last words were reportedly: "Bessieres is dead, and the Old Guard is defeated; now let me die." He was also reported to have confessed on his deathbed to being the Marshal. The inscription on his tombstone reads, in part: "...Peter Stuart Ney, a native of France and a soldier of the French Revolution under Napoleon Bonaparte..."
Editor's Note: Several graduates of Davidson College in North Carolina have told me that one of their school's legends is that Marshal Ney taught there after faking his execution in France. Could they have been referring to Peter Ney?
Frequenly Asked Question #10: Why did Napoleon Fail in Russia in 1812?
By: Robert Burnham
Napoleon failed to conquer Russia in 1812 for several reasons: faulty logistics, poor discipline, disease, and not the least, the weather. Napoleon's method of warfare was based on rapid concentration of his forces at a key place to destroy his enemy. This boiled down to moving his men as fast as possible to the place they were needed the most. To do this Napoleon would advance his army along several avenues and converging them only when necessary. The slowest part of any army at the time was the supply trains. While a soldier could march 15 - 20 miles a day, a supply wagon was generally limited to about 10 -12 miles a day. To avoid being slowed down by the trains, Napoleon insisted that his troops live as much as possible off the land. The success of Napoleon time after time in Central Europe against the Prussians and the Austrians proved that his method of warfare worked. However for it to work, the terrain must co-operate. There must be a good road network for his army to advance along several axes and an agricultural base capable of supporting the foraging soldiers.
In 1812, Napoleon invaded Russia with about 600,000 men and over 50,000 horses. His plan was to bring the war to a conclusion within twenty days by forcing the Russians to fight a major battle. Just in case his plans were off, he had his supply wagons carry 30 days of food. Reality was a bit different. Napoleon found, as the Germans found in 1941, that Russia had a very poor road network. Thus he was forced to advance along a very narrow front. Even though he allowed for a larger supply train than usual, food was to be supplemented by whatever the soldiers could forage along the way. But this was a faulty plan. In addition to poor roads, the agricultural base was extremely poor and could not support the numbers of soldiers that would be living off the land. Since these 600,000 men were basically using the same roads, the first troops to pass by got the best food that could easily be foraged. The second troops to go by got less, etc. If you were at the rear, of course there would be little available. The Russians made the problem worse by adopting a scorched earth policy of destroying everything possible as they retreated before the French. As time went by, soldiers began to straggle, due to having to forage further away from the roads for food and weakness from lack of food.
The situation was just as bad for the horses. Grazing along the road or in a meadow was not adequate to maintain a healthy horse. Their food had to be supplemented with fodder.
The further the army went into Russia, the less fodder was available. Even the grass began to be thinned out, for like food the first horses had the best grazing, and those bringing up the rear had it the worse. By the end of the first month, over 10,000 horses had died!
Soldiers weakened by poor diets and fatigue are susceptible to disease. Typhus was rampant among the troops due to infestations of lice. Additionally, the poor food, combined with bad water, and camping on sites where tens of thousands bivouacked before (and thus contaminated the water and area with feces) made intestinal ailments such as diarrhea and dysentary common. By the time Napoleon had reached Moscow, three months later, over 200,000 of his soldiers were dead or hospitalized due to disease and exhaustion.
Poor discipline was another major problem. Troops had to forage to survive. The deeper they went into Russia the further they had to go each day to find food. Commanders lost control of their troops as many soldiers' only concern became finding food and just disappeared. These soldiers did not necessarily die, but form a uncontrollable mass bringing up the rear. As months went by, units cease to exist, except in name only. This became especially true during the retreat in the late Fall. Much of the army was soon a mob, with little cohesion and no effectiveness. This in itself would not be too great of a detriment, except for the impact on those units that were still intact. There were several cases during the retreat where mobs of soldiers broke into the few warehouses that contained supplies and destroyed more than they ate -- and leaving little or nothing for those fighting in the rear guard. The worse case of this was in Smolensk. At a major warehouse bureaucrats insisted that the soldiers must be with their units before they would be issued food. The troops couldn't handle this stupidity and rioted, demolishing the warehouse and much of the food that was stored there. In another case, at the crossing of the Berezina, thousands of soldiers in these mobs panicked when they were attacked by the Russians. In their desperate attempt to cross the bridge it broke, and at least 10,000 -20,000 soldiers died or were captured.
The final factor was the weather. First it was too hot - making it a dry, dusty march to Moscow. Then when the Retreat began, it was too cold at first. This was a bone-chilling well below zero cold that few had experienced before. First to die were the weak who, too exhausted to walk, laid down and died. As the little food supplies they had ran out, the strong got weaker and they too began to die. But then the weather changed. There was a warm spell which thawed the frozen roads -- slowing down the march even more. Roads that were heavily rutted, but solid soon were quagmires of mud. Streams that were once frozen were quick moving and obstacles that had to be overcome. Rivers that could have been crossed without bridges now needed bridges. All of which took precious time and energy, something the army did not have. Then once again the weather took a turn for the worse -- this time far colder than before. Thousands died in their sleep overcome by exhaustion and exposure. By the time the army crossed into Poland in early December, less than 100,000 exhausted, tattered soldiers remained of the 600,000 proud soldiers who crossed the Nieman five months before.
For more information about this topic, read:
Clausewitz, Carl von: The Campaign of 1812 in Russia. Greenhill, London; 1992.
Haythornthwaite, Philip: Uniforms of the Retreat from Moscow: 1812. Hippocrene Books, New York; 1976.
Nafziger, George: Napoleon's Invasion of Russia. Presidio Prees, Novato; 1988.
Tarle, Eugene: Napoleon's Invasion of Russia: 1812 Oxford University Press, New York; 1942.
Frequently Asked Question #11: "Did Napoleon's troops shoot the nose off the Sphinx?"
By Tom Holmberg
Although popular legend blames Napoleon and his troops during the French campaign in Egypt (1798-1801) for having shot the nose off the Great Sphinx, in fact this story just isn't true. I haven't located an original source for this myth, but it has been perpetuated over the years by countless teachers who have passed this bit of "history" on to children the world over. A poll conducted on the Internet found that fully 21% of respondents believed Napoleon was responsible for the Sphinx's missing nose. One of the most recent examples of the persistence of this falsehood was Louis Farrakhan's "Million Man March" speech where he said: "White supremacy caused Napoleon to blow the nose off the Sphinx because it reminded you [sic] too much of the Black man's majesty."
This error has persisted in spite of the fact that the truth can be readily found in such common reference sources as the Encyclopedia Americana (Danbury, CT: Grolier, 1995). vol.25, p.492-3 under "Sphinx", which states: "Over the centuries the Great Sphinx has suffered severely from weathering...Man has been responsible for additional mutilation. In 1380 A.D. the Sphinx fell victim to the iconoclastic ardor of a fanatical Muslim ruler, who caused deplorable injuries to the head. Then the figure was used as a target for the guns of the Mamluks." In the book The Egyptian Pyramids: A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1990), p.301, the author, J.P. Lepre, adds the fact that, in addition to the 14th century damage, "The face was further disfigured by the eighteenth century A.D. ruler of Egypt, the Marmalukes [Mamluks]."
European visitors to Egypt prior to Napoleon's expedition had already discovered the vandalism to the Sphinx. In 1546, for example, when Dr.Pierre Belon explored Egypt, he visited "the great colossus." "The Sphinx," writes Leslie Greener in The Discovery Of Egypt (London : Cassell, 1966), p.38, by this time "no longer [had] the stamp of grace and beauty so admired by Abdel Latif in 1200." Greener goes on to say: "this exonerates the artillerymen of Napoleon Bonaparte, who have the popular reputation of having used the nose of the Sphinx as a target." The charge against Napoleon is particularly unjust because the French general brought with him a large group of "savants" to conduct the first scientific study of Egypt and its antiquities.
Finally, an article by Ulrich Haarmann, "Regional Sentiment in Medieval Islamic Egypt", published in the University of London's Bulletin Of The School Of Oriental And African Studies (BSOAS), vol.43 (1980) p.55-66, states that according to Makrizi, Rashidi and other medieval Arab scholars, the face of the Sphinx was vandalized in 1378 A.D. by Mohammed Sa'im al-Dahr, a "fanatical sufi of the oldest and most highly respected sufi convent of Cairo." The nose and ears are mentioned specifically as having been damaged at this time. According to one account, Haarmann states, the residents in the neighborhood of the Sphinx were so upset by the destruction that they lynched him and buried him near the great monument he ruined. (Thanks to Ann Macy Roth's article in the online Ancient Near East Digest (Univ. of Chicago, Oriental Institute) for the information on Haarmann's article.)
Frequently Asked Question #12: "Why Napoleon is depicted with his hand in his coat?"
By Tom Holmberg
Many theories have been presented as to why Napoleon is traditionaly depicted with his hand in his waistcoat. Some of these theories include: that he had a stomach ulcer, he was winding his watch, he had an itchy skin disease, that in his era it was impolite to put your hands in your pockets, he had breast cancer, he had a deformed hand, he kept a perfumed sachet in his vest that he'd sniff surreptitiously, and that painters don't like to paint hands. A simpler and more elegant theory is contained in an article entitled, "Re-Dressing Classical Statuary: The Eighteenth-Century 'Hand-in-Waistcoat' Portrait." by Arline Miller. Art Bulletin (College Art Association of America), Vol. 77, No.2, March 1995, p.45-64. Miller points out that the 'hand-in' portrait type appeared with "relentless frequency" during the eighteenth century and became almost a cliched pose in portrait painting. The pose was used so often by portraitists that one was even accused of not knowing how to paint hands. "In real life," Miller observes, "the 'hand-held-in' was a common stance for men of breeding." Miller goes on to give many examples of this posture in painted portraits dating from the early and middle 1700s, well before Napoleon's birth. In 1738 Francois Nivelon published A BOOK OF GENTEEL BEHAVIOUR describing the "hand-in-waistcoat" posture as signifying "manly boldness tempered with modesty." Miller says that the hidden hand was a feature of some statues of the ancient Greeks and Romans and that later painters based their poses on classical models. The pose was recommended by certain classical writers as a useful posture for orators. Aeschines of Macedon (390-331 B.C.), an actor, orator and founder of a school of rhetoric, who wrote an important book on oratory, postulated that speaking with one's arm outside the toga was considered ill-mannered. A number of textbooks on oratory published in the eighteenth century, following Aeschines, recommended this gesture. Although Miller doesn't mention it, it is possible that the great French actor Talma, who reportedly trained Napoleon in Imperial comportment, may have been familiar with these works.
Miller concludes with an addendum on Napoleon: "Today the 'hand-in' gesture is, of course, best known from its personalized revival in the nineteenth century. Surely most people would recognize the pose as Napoleon's inimitable trademark--which David rendered indelible in his commanding portrait of 1812 ["Napoleon in his Study"]....It is not surprising that when Napoleon's reputation plummeted, a subtly arched postural inflection made the gesture decidely imperious....The enduring French association is in fact somewhat ironic, in that the gesture had a voguish run as an English portrait convention long before it became Napoleon's quasi-military emblem."
The painting by Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825), "Napoleon in his Study", the most famous expression of Napoleon in his classic pose, was not painted for the Emperor, but was commissioned by a Scottish nobleman, Alexander Douglas, an admirer of Napoleon. Napoleon did not sit for the portrait, so David painted it from memory. Etienne Delecluze, a student and early biographer of David's, opined that the painting was a "poor likeness" and "too ideal". Napoleon, however, told the artist, "You have understood me, my dear David."
Frequently Asked Question #13: What was the name of Napoleon's horse?
By J.F. Lozier
Since so many of the paintings of Napoleon show him riding a horse, ithas become a common trivia question to ask "What was the name of Napoleon's horse?". However, it is not an easy one to answer, for Napoleon owned and used over 150 horses during the course of his life. The most famous ones were:
-Wagram, a gray Arab Napoleon rode from 1809 onwards, it was brought along during the Elba exile.
-Roitelet, an English-Limousin chestnut given to Napoleon by Prince Eugene de Beauharnais, it carried Napoleon back from Russia and was ridden at Lutzen and Arcis-sur-Aube.
-Intendant, a pure white Norman nicknamed "Coco" by the Imperial Guard. He was mainly used for parades and reviews because of his calm, steady, and graceful nature during such ceremonies.
-Vizir, one of the emperor's favorites, this gray Arab was a gift from the Sultan of Turkey in 1805 and 10 years later Napoleon brought it with him to Saint-Helena. It now resides--stuffed--in the Musée de l'Armée in Paris.
-Marengo, a gray Arab captured after Waterloo. His skeleton is kept at the National Army Museum in London.
-Tauris, this gray was a gift from Alexander (Tsar of Russia) was riddenby Napoleon at Vitepsk, Smolensk, Borodino, during his entrance in Moscow, and during the retreat from Russia. After being brought toElba, it was ridden from Golf-Juan to Paris during the Hundred Days.
-Cyrus, one of the horses Napoleon rode at Austerlitz.
-Styrie, ridden by Bonaparte across the Great Saint-Bernard, and at Marengo.
-Désirée, ridden at Waterloo.
The names of some of his other horses include: Aboukir, Familier, Cheikh, Triomphant, Austerlitz, Calvados, Cid, Cordoue, Sagonte, Sélim, Bouffon, Conquérant, Extrême, Folâtre, Gracieux, Timide, Sahara, Major, Belle, Distingué, Gisors, Lowska, Favori, Harbet, Néron, Tamerlan, Hippogriffe, Kurde, Labrador, Sara, Épicurien, Embelli, Gessner, Bréant, Wuzbourg, Montevideo, Artaxercés, Aly, Coceyre, Sultan, Russe, Estime, Arabella, Babylonien, Euphrate, Hahim, Harbet, Helavert, Héricle, Lydienne, Lyre, Naïade, Nankin, Naturaliste, Naufragé, Nausicaa, Navigateur, Navire, Ninon, Emin, Gonsalvo.
Frequently Asked Question #14:"What Kind Of Leader Was Napoleon Bonaparte?"
By Max Sewell
These days it seems that a recurrent debate concerns the supposed guilt or innocence of Bonaparte for the sins of his era. It appears that many people have formed strong ideas on this subject, and having seen a number of them voiced recently, I've taken some time to re-examine my own beliefs by using some of the arguments made against him.
As a start, I've noticed that most seem to regard Bonaparte in singular fashion. He is thought of as being notably different from his contemporaries, both within and without France. He is held to higher standards, judged more harshly and made responsible in ways other leaders are not. Ultimately he seems to be held accountable for having failed to markedly improve the lot of mankind, something no other man of his generation was to expected to have done. While that seems to be an accepted predicate, I don't believe it is one that should remain unchallenged.
A. Traitor to the Revolution?
One of the accusations often made against him is that he "betrayed" the higher ideals of the revolution, retarding democratic progress in both France and Europe. People making this argument seemingly forget that the revolution had its truly "dark" side and fell a good deal short of being an ideal society. France was not friendlier to Europe under the Committee of Public Safety or the Directory than it proved to be under Bonaparte. Perhaps Napoleon was expected to correct the mistakes of the revolution while supporting its ideals, and to some degree one could argue that he did, most notably by facilitating the codification of law and achieving the Concordat; but given his singular opportunity, it is often argued that he might have gone further and established a truly democratic state, a goal I would argue that went against political trends both within France and on the continent. Democracies were more conceptual than actual in that era, with the American experiment yet to be proven successful, and it could be argued that the upheavals of the revolution might have made the French population reluctant to accept such a government after the terrors of the previous decade.
This line of criticism begs the question: Is Bonaparte a failure for having changed things too little rather than too much? Should he held accountable for missing perceived opportunities, rather than anything he might have accomplished with them? And finally, would a truly democratic France have found peace with its neighbors where the existing state did not?
It could argued that whether France was a totalitarian state or a democracy made little difference to her enemies. If there was a perceived difference, perhaps a democracy would have been a greater cause for fear among the reactionary states than the pseudo-monarchy that actually came into being. If this was the case, perhaps Bonaparte might have acted more out of pragmatism than idealism, and tried to solve potential foreign and domestic problems by securing a stable government that was theoretically more acceptable to everyone, and he might have imagined that any man who could achieve such a transition deserved the reins of power.
B. Warmonger?
Bonaparte is also frequently held both responsible for the "Napoleonic" wars and seen as a primal cause for them. This is argued using these basic points:
1. He should have prevented war with better statesmanship and convinced a skeptical continent that France's new and ideologically threatening government was not an enemy.
2. Whenever that policy failed, he should have won what wars he could not avoid and drawn up generous treaties that healed the wounds of former enemies; making them permanent friends and showing the world that diplomacy and not warfare was the proper tool of statecraft.
These points beg the question: Could any one man, however gifted, acting unilaterally, defy centuries of rivalry and aggression and end the state of recurrent war in Europe? Hardly a decade seemed to pass without one conflict or another in the previous two centuries. Would any leader of the day have even considered a durable peace to be a real possibility, or is this more of a modern-day concept?
Bonaparte's use of war to preserve and improve the state of France was anything but unique, excepting that it was consistently successful, something Louis XIV might have envied him. If waging war is accepted as strictly a policy of last resort and inherently sinful, there doesn't seem to be a major player of the day who was above employing it to achieve their aims. One wonders why history would be so generous to his opponents that it would absolve them of a real share of responsibility.
C. Corrupt?
Bonaparte is frequently defined as a corrupt figure, bereft of morality, one who could not see that his actions were dangerous, damaging, and the cause of great anguish. His successes in war made him rely on war as an instrument of policy, and he was insensitive to its human cost. His execution of d'Enghien was criminal, his imprisonment of the Pope was immoral, and his quest for total dominance a reflection of his warped psyche. Lord Acton's adage "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" has come to be permanently identified with Bonaparte as its foremost example of veracity.
This line of thinking begs the question: Was Bonaparte's theoretical depravity a thing apart from his contemporaries? The assumption seems to be that it must have been, or else we would not make so much of it; yet how does this assertion hold up when Bonaparte is compared to other monarchs? This isn't a question of relativism, but of fairness. Bonaparte shouldn't be judged on a moral scale comparing him to a theoretical ideal, but against his contemporaries, people born in his day and living in his world. Were there comparable acts of corruption? I think so. Britain financed and facilitated an assassination attempt on the First Consul. Tsar Alexander was implicated in the murder of his father. If Bonaparte was corrupt, he certainly had some notable company.
D. Megalomaniacal?
Napoleon is often described as being ruled by a gigantic ego. His striving for power, his dismissal of democracy, the coup d'etat, and the establishment of Empire, are all seen as benchmarks of his rampant ambition. Comparisons with contemporary leaders are regarded as irrelevant or even futile, presumably because Bonaparte is assumed to have been greater than they, and presented with unique opportunities, opportunities squandered on a quest for personal aggrandizement.
This line of criticism begs the question: If Bonaparte was indeed unique, and expected to accomplish deeds no other man might dream of, would he not need an ego as large as his ambitions? Achieving democracy for France and peace for Europe is not a task for a modest man, so was his ambition only a sin because it didn't pursue goals we might have approved of, or that it accomplished other goals using methods we don't approve of?
As the leader of a totalitarian state, Napoleon made his own ambitions synonymous with those of the France. With few abridgements to power, he was able to act as he saw fit, and is judged accordingly. Like Napoleon, nearly all the European states reflected the egos of their monarchs, and few of them seemed intent on forwarding democracy, limiting their borders, or improving civil rights. Rather, each used their hold on power to satisfy their ambitions, expand their borders, and increase their control over the nobility and populace. Bonaparte, in this company, seems to be regarded as megalomaniacal because he did not inherit his position, but achieved it by aggressively pursuing the same agenda as those born to power and doing so more effectively. It seems that absolutists may be forgiven their sins for being born to them, but parvenus are guilty for having freely chosen them.
***
Of course, Bonaparte was anything but pure, anything but modest, anything but democratic, and anything but a peacemaker, but in the end, who else that sat on a throne in Europe could claim to be? Should he be assailed for sins that were so sadly common? What is it about Bonaparte that makes him subject to such unique criticism? Is it because he holds a special place in our imaginations, a place that we hope would be an example of our better selves? Was his genius, good fortune, and opportunity enough to condemn him, not so much for what he did, but what he failed to do? In the end is our greatest disappointment in Bonaparte simply that he was merely human?