A film about Napoleon, what should we do with that? And how is it possible that in these times of political correctness, #metoo and horror of transgressive behavior, we are still presented with a blockbuster about a rather misogynous, violent alpha male? In light of the widespread desire for strong leaders, also in view of the recent elections, this is not an odd question. Let’s take a closer look at our inner Napoleon.
Napoleon was already ‘larger than life’ during his lifetime. That is one of the main reasons why the French emperor is still praised and filmed as a myth more than two centuries later, and why there are still so many fans around the world. As an accomplished spin doctor, he managed to transform defeats into victories and give the population the feeling that they can benefit from them.
How did he do that? By withholding or distorting facts, always running forward, never making excuses and putting up so many smokescreens that no one knew what was the truth amid all the tinsel.
The failed invasion of Egypt is a perfect example of this myth-making. Napoleon landed in Egypt in July 1798, only to flee headlong and secretly a year later, leaving his men behind. Of the 50,000 strong army, 15,000 fell in battle and another 15,000 succumbed to the plague. But in the propaganda channel set up by Napoleon Courier de l’Egypte it only described how blessed the Grande Armee had been. Loaded with treasures, Napoleon returned, started the first European Egypt mania and had himself depicted as a healing prince who came to visit and lay hands on his troops in the plague house of Jaffa. People were waiting in rows to admire the canvas, made by Antoine-Jean Gros, in Paris. All those victims, those losses? It didn’t matter anymore. Because look how magnanimously our leader gives himself for his men! And see how he manages to show us the achievements of the revolution, the greatness of France (and of us)!
Condone
In short, if we identify with leaders, if they arouse our desire (for fame, beauty, wealth, honor), and seem to serve our interests, then we are willing to condone a lot. The so-called self-interest bias – the phenomenon that we judge people and their actions more positively if we like them and feel that they serve our interests – we persist for a long time. Until it is no longer possible, but then it is never the leader’s fault, or our misperception, but the circumstances. Or the betrayal of the opponent. (And that is called the fundamental attribution errorthe phenomenon that we attribute behavior to someone’s personal characteristics and talent rather than to circumstances, both in a positive and negative sense).
Let’s put that test to the test. What do you think of Napoleon? Do you see him as the greatest general of all time, as ‘Napoleon, the great’, as the title of Andrew Roberts’ excellent and hagiographical biography goes? Or rather as a despot, comparable in his destruction to Hitler or Stalin, as the director Ridley Scott of the recent Napoleon film recently said, to the horror of the French? Interestingly, in Great Britain and Germany the majority of the population does not think much of this Corsican dictator. Napoleon did not really succeed in gaining a propaganda foothold in those countries (except in Germany on the left and a little on the right bank of the Rhine). In fact, Napoleon became precisely the enemy image against which both countries could contrast their nationalism after 1815.
Patriarchal unitary state
In the Netherlands this is more ambivalent. After all, through Napoleon’s brother, the Netherlands became a kingdom, a central nation state, and remained so after 1815. William I left almost all of Napoleon’s reforms intact, especially because he could make good use of conscription, centralization and the legal and military apparatus. And all those thousands of deaths? Well, “commerce is revived, all partyism has ceased, all that has been suffered has been forgotten,” the patriots in November 1813 swore to the population. And with that they had quite some success in rebuilding what was for a while the patriarchal and authoritarian unitary state of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Then, in 1813, they preferred not to include the morals of the French Revolution, civil rights and the real social contract (Rousseau’s) in the constitution. That went way too far. Democrats and radicals had to be kept at bay. They were way too scary and too extreme. People preferred to stick to passages about safety, unity, restoration of purchasing power and social security. Preferably on the backs of the colonial residents.
Now, in 2023, that desire for the leader who best embodies that own good feeling is at least as strong. In Argentina, Turkey, Russia, Slovakia, but also in the Netherlands. No crisis, no suffering, no difficult stories about sacrificing the climate and asylum seekers. Just, again, a lot fauss nouvelles against it and back into business with Napoleon. Old politics is new politics. How does that end? We know that. He came back after being defeated – only to plunge his country into real misery. Enough reason to banish our inner Napoleon to Saint Helena for good.
Also read
The Complete Historical Derailment of Ridley Scott’s ‘Napoleon’
Beatrice de Graaf is professor of history of international relations in Utrecht.