Sour Grapes on St Helena

[steepholm]

I just happened serendipitously upon this 1816 quotation from Napoleon's St Helena memoir:

Mr. Pitt was the master of European politics; in his hands, he held the moral destiny of nations; he ill used his power; he set the world ablaze and he will be remembered in history like Herostratus amid the flames, the laments, the tears...

First, the initial sparks of our Revolution, then all the opposition to our national will and, finally, all the horrid crimes that resulted, are his doing. This universal conflagration for 25 years and the numerous coalitions that maintained it; the upheaval and devastation of the nations of Europe and the rivers of blood that resulted; the appalling debt of England which paid for it all; the foul system of loans that cripples our economies; the universal discontent of today; all of that was brought about by him. History will recognize him for the curse he truly was. This man, who was so exalted in his day, will one day be viewed as the incarnation of evil… But history will most reproach Mr. Pitt for the vile legacy he left after him: his unscrupulous Machiavellianism, his utter immorality, his cold, selfish nature, his contempt for justice and men’s fortunes.

Jeez! What a sore loser! I'm no expert in that period of history, but I could have sworn that quite a few of those things had to do with Mr B himself.

Of course, Napoleon's not alone in this, but there's nothing that puts me off a tyrant more than this whiny "He started it!" attitude. Why can't they just say "Bwa ha ha!" like they're meant to and, if defeated, mutter something like "You may have won this battle, but next time, victory will be mine!"? (Napoleon may well have said just this on Elba, but history appears not to have recorded it.)

Comments

[nwhyte]

There's a story of the Prince of Monaco on his way home and, much to his surprise, encountering Napoleon just after he had landed from Elba for the Hundred Days.

"Que faites-vous donc ici, prince?" asked Napoleon.

"Vous le voyez, Sire, je rentre dans mes états," replied Prince Honore.

"Et moi aussi," Napoleon responded, "je rentre dans les miens."

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

That's cute! (Sort of.)

[calimac.livejournal.com]

That was beyond the ability of the Bing Translator (formerly BabelFish) to render intelligibly, but Google Translate succeeded in getting the gist across.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Bing has replaced Babelfish? That's a sad day for geekery.

[nwhyte]

Bing's tranlation of "Que faites-vous donc ici?" to "That made you so here?" is particularly sad.

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

'his utter immorality, his cold, selfish nature, his contempt for justice and men’s fortunes.'

Boggle!

That's rich coming from Signor Buonaparte!

[tekalynn.livejournal.com]

A little projection, perhaps?

[wolodymyr.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much for this! Pitt's one of my favorites, and yet I didn't even know there was this kind of fun to be had.

[gillo]

It makes Pitt sound like Blair.

Pitt was far from perfect, but as he died long before Napoleon's rule ended, it's a bit rich to blame it all on him. It's a bit like saying de Vere wrote Shakespeare...

[malkhos.livejournal.com]

If Napoleon had succeeded, the result would have been something not very different from the European Union, except with France in charge instead of Germany. No world wars. But no doubt Pitt was right to want to keep Europe balanced between hostile powers; that worked out so well.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

If only everyone had done exactly what I told them, it would all have been great! It's the cry of defeated despots through the ages, I'm afraid. I hold no great brief for the European Union, but even I have never called it a military dictatorship - or was Napoleon planning to abdicate in favour of a federation of representative democracies at some point?

It's very easy to say of something that never happened that it would have been marvellous, and to talk about the wars that wouldn't have happened (of course we can't know about the different wars that would). But if we look at the mess Napoleon made of Europe when he actually did have power then I don't see we have much cause for hypothetical optimism about what would have happened if had he been allowed to keep it.

[malkhos.livejournal.com]

His dictatorship was far less oppressive than the ones that existed in Vienna and Berlin in those days, and the development of Western democracy was probably inevitable (short o the triumph of a Hitler or a Stalin).

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

the development of Western democracy was probably inevitable

That's a refreshingly Whiggish point of view, and though I'd like it to be true I can't honestly see why it should be.

But also: if Western democracy was inevitable, weren't Napoleon and his wars (at best) superfluous?

[malkhos.livejournal.com]

Revolutionary activity was necessary,and Napoleon helped as much as the revolution itself to transfer power away from the nobility. The World Wars were not necessary.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

It's diplomatic of you not to mention that when he transferred power from the nobility it was to give it to himself!

I don't agree that violent revolution is necessary in order to achieve Western-style democracy - we have numerous examples to the contrary. (And, of course, it didn't actually achieve that in France.) But even if it were, that's quite different from saying that democracy is inevitable. I think by the way that it's a stretch to blame the World Wars on Pitt the Younger, as you seem obliquely to be doing. History's just not that mechanistic or predictable.

[malkhos.livejournal.com]

I said noting about Pitt. I merely say that if Napoleon had unified Europe, the world wars would have been impossible.

Napoleon ruled with the support of a popular coalition like any other national leader in a Western European nation--if you read his memoirs more extensively you sill see the degree to which he was aware of that. After Napoleon the bourgeoisie were in charge in France, not the nobles, as they finally asserted in 1848.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

It's trivially true that if Napoleon had made himself dictator of Europe then history would have taken a different course, and so yes, the World Wars would not have happened in the way that they did. It's far less clear to me that other wars would not have happened instead. Empires built around individuals of charisma and military genius don't always survive their makers by very long, especially when their immediate relations don't happen to share their brilliance. Look at what happened after the death of Alexander, to use an obvious analogue: it wasn't exactly a war-free few centuries. The chances that Europe would have been stable, and passed down from Bonaparte to Bonaparte to this day, are slim - nor would I personally consider that a desirable outcome, still less a democratic one.

On the other hand, if the bourgeoisie were able to step into the space left by Napoleon's fall, it's clear that his fall was a necessary precondition (the 'after' in your 'after Napoleon' perhaps needs stressing!). Ironically, then, it may be that the man to whom we owe Western democracy and the rise of the middle classes was... the Duke of Wellington!

How he'd have loved that.

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

Although Wellington as Prime Minister was a dreadful old reactionary.

Napoleon was a power hungry tyrant who made himself an emperor- Jean Bedel Bokassa anyone?

Napoleon's gift to the present? The Code Napoleon (and what a mess that is in the countries where it is still the basis for the legal code) and gendarmeries..........

It may be that the shift towards western democracy and the rise of the middle classes had already happened long before, but as a 17th century specialist, I suppose I would say that.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

The idea that if Napoleon had unified Europe, the World Wars would not have happened, is doubtful at best. What was the staying power of his conquests of such diverse and mutually hostile territories? Ever heard of Alexander the Great? Or Charlemagne? Or the Romans?

Even scarier is the argument that we should look favorably on Napoleon's project on the grounds that he would just have given us the EU earlier. I have seen the same argument made about the project of Mr A.H. Anyone who cannot tell the enormous, gulf-yawning difference between those forms of unification and the EU needs to subside, quickly.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I agree - I think that's more or less what I said!

[malkhos.livejournal.com]

It is clear that you are not worshiper of St. Napoleon, and until he speaks to your heart, mere reason will not persuade you.

But all of us to whom he has spoken know that after Napoleon's triumph there would have been a course to arrangements like the current EU in a very short time with more and more democracy and more and more socialism, and the colonial empires administered for the benefit of their subjects, so that now places like Saudi Arabia and China would have economies and civil rights comparable to those that prevail today in Canada or Australia, and we'd be thinking about using the world's well-managed resources to launch the first inter-stellar probe now.

You surely see how it impossible to argue against a vision like that.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Well, when you put it that way, I'm a convert!

Well, that's Boney for you.

[wemyss.livejournal.com]

He could make himself an emperor. He never could make himself a gentleman.

(One of my suggestions for a modern phrase-book When Abroad: 'That's a biggish tomb for a Corsican dwarf, what?')

Ghastly little man.