A film about Napoleon, what should we do with it? And how is it possible that in these times of political correctness, #metoo, and the horrors of transgressive behavior, we are still treated to blockbusters about mildly misogynistic and violent alpha males? Given the widespread desire for a strong leader, and also given the recent elections, this is not an unusual question. Let’s take a closer look at our inner Napoleon.

Napoleon was already ‘larger than life’ during his lifetime. That’s one of the main reasons why the French emperor is still celebrated and considered a myth more than two centuries later, and why there are still many fans around the world. As an accomplished spin doctor, he managed to turn defeat into victory and gave people the feeling that they could benefit from it.

How did he do it? By hiding or distorting the facts, always moving forward, never making excuses and putting up so many veils that no one knows what is really going on amidst 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 secretly a year later, leaving his men behind. Of the 50,000 strong army, 15,000 died in battle and another 15,000 died of plague. But in the propaganda channels created by Napoleon Courier de l’Egypte it just illustrates how blessed the Grande Armee is. Laden with treasure, Napoleon returned, starting the first European Egyptian mania and portraying himself as a healing prince who came to visit and laid hands on his troops on the plague house of Jaffa. People queue to admire a canvas by Antoine-Jean Gros in Paris. All those victims, those losses? It doesn’t matter anymore. For look how generously our leader gives of himself to his men! And look how he managed to show us the achievements of the revolution, the greatness of France (and us)!

Forgive

In short, if we identify with leaders, if they appeal to our desires (for fame, beauty, wealth, honor), and appear to serve our interests, then we are willing to forgive a lot. Called personal interest bias – the phenomenon by which we evaluate people and their actions more positively if we like them and feel that they serve our interests – we persist over long periods of time. Until it can no longer be done, but it is not the leader’s fault, or our misperception, but the circumstances. Or betrayal of an opponent. (And it’s called fundamental attribution errora phenomenon in which we attribute behavior to a person’s personal characteristics and talents, rather than to circumstances, either in a positive or negative sense).

Let’s test that. What do you think about Napoleon? Do you see him as the greatest general of all time, as ‘Napoleon, the great’, as the title of Andrew Roberts’s excellent and hagiographic biography suggests? Or rather as a despot, whose destruction was comparable to that of Hitler or Stalin, as director Ridley Scott of the recent film Napoleon put it, who terrified the French? Interestingly, in Great Britain and Germany the majority of the population did not think much of this Corsican dictator. Napoleon did not really succeed in gaining a propaganda foothold in these countries (except in Germany on the left and a little on the right bank of the Rhine). In fact, Napoleon actually became an enemy image that could be contrasted with the nationalism of the two countries after 1815.

A patriarchal unitary state

In the Netherlands this is more ambivalent. However, through Napoleon’s brother, the Netherlands became an empire, a central state, and remained so after 1815. William I left almost all of Napoleon’s reforms intact, mainly because he was able to take advantage of conscription, centralization, and legal and military control. apparatus. And those thousands of deaths? Well, “commerce is revived, all partyism has ceased, all suffering is forgotten,” the patriots swore to the people in November 1813. And with that they were quite successful in rebuilding what had once been a patriarchal and authoritarian unitary state of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Then, in 1813, the people chose not to include the morals of the French Revolution, civil rights and the real social contract (Rousseau) in the constitution. That’s too much. The Democratic Party and radicals must be prevented. They are too scary and extreme. People prefer to adhere to verses about safety, unity, restoration of purchasing power and social security. Preferably on the backs of colonial residents.

Now, in 2023, the desire to find leaders who can embody their best feelings is at least as strong. In Argentina, Türkiye, Russia, Slovakia, but also in the Netherlands. There is no crisis, no suffering, no difficult stories about climate sacrifice and asylum seekers. Again, a lot Fauss Nouvelles defied him and returned to business with Napoleon. Old politics is new politics. How did it end? We know that. He returns after being defeated – only to plunge his country into real misery. Reason enough to banish our inner Napoleon to Saint Helena forever.

Also read
The Complete History of Ridley Scott’s ‘Napoleon’ Failure

Beatrice de Graaf is professor of history of international relations at Utrecht.