M.M. Bennetts's Reviews > Napoleon in Egypt

Napoleon in Egypt by Paul Strathern
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Nov 12, 2010

it was ok

This review was originally published in The Christian Science Monitor.

On 19 May 1798, General Napoleon Bonaparte sailed from Italy with an army of nearly 40,000 men–along with another, smaller army of scientists, engineers, artists, and linguists, the so-called Savants–to conquer Egypt.

First stop, however, was Malta. There, Napoleon ousted the traditional rulers, the Knights of St. John, established Malta as a French satellite, and plundered the treasury’s five million francs of gold, one million of silver and one million in gems. (Someone had to pay for his fantasy of becoming the new Alexander the Great.)

Arriving in Egypt on 1st July, by August the French had taken Alexandria and marched across the desert to defeat the Mameluke army at the Battle of the Pyramids and at Cairo. Then, in a bout of indomitable energy and attention to detail, Napoleon established a new Egyptian government with himself as titular head.

Yet twelve months and several major battles later–-bankrupt, having lost most of his troops and many of the Savants, his navy destroyed by the British under Admiral Nelson–-on August 24, 1799, Napoleon abandoned his Egyptian dream of empire along with the remnants of his army, to hightail it back to France, where he proclaimed the whole to have been a glorious victory. Napoleon in Egypt is novelist and philosopher Paul Strathern’s account of this disastrous Middle Eastern sojourn.

In some ways, the Egyptian enterprise was little more than a costly diversion or side-show to Napoleon’s European wars which would topple countless legitimate governments, cost between five and seven million lives, and immerse the Continent in over a decade of total war.

Still, it was in Egypt that Napoleon truly developed his taste for absolute power. It was here, for the first time, that his psychopathic contempt for his troops, his devious lying, as well as some measure of his megalomania were given full rein–-with awful consequences.

Yet Strathern routinely plays down these unpalatable aspects of Napoleon’s character, clinging instead to the Napoleonic myth of heroism and glory.

He omits, minimises or attempts to explain away the French atrocities–-such as the sacking of the Al-Azhar in Cairo, and the slaughter of Ottoman prisoners following the siege of Jaffa. He credits Napoleon’s proclamations of religious toleration. He relies on the highly inflated enemy casualty numbers given by Napoleon himself. Moreover, he seems unaware that French casualty lists of the period recorded neither desertions nor suicides, both of which occurred with terrible frequency during the long desert marches.

Confining his research to this single campaign has left Strathern dangerously unfamiliar with a wider contextual understanding of the events and personalities involved here or the pervading ideologies of Romanticism and French nationalism. This leads him to make sweeping generalisations which do not bear up under scrutiny, and perilous forays into talk-show style psychological analyses which misinterpret Napoleon’s background, mores and prejudices as well as the melodramatic blusterings of his vast personal correspondence. Nor has Strathern availed himself of the latest published research on Napoleon’s wars or the recent archaeological findings at battle sites which are at odds with official accounts of the age.

Written in the style of a child’s geography textbook, Napoleon in Egypt is simplistic, bland, and cliched. Strathern’s tepid prose saps the battle narratives of their courage, dynamism and drama. In his version, the derring-do just derring-doesn’t. More comprehensive and poignant accounts of the major battles–-particularly the Battle of the Nile and the Siege at Acre–-can be found in the Adkins’ The War for All the Oceans.

But, remarkably, this is undoubtedly the finest account of the Savants and their contribution to the fields of archaeology, ancient history, and botany to date. For amongst the detritus of Napoleon’s overweening hubris, Strathern has woven an illuminating account of the long-neglected scientists and artists who accompanied him. Their work and adventures–-their drawings of the ruins at Thebes unseen by Western eyes for over a millennium, their meticulous studies of Egyptian flora and fauna, their discovery of the hieroglyphs and their excavation of the tombs–-transformed our understanding of the ancient world, created the field of Egyptology, and ushered in huge advances in the biological sciences.

The field of Napoleonic studies is dominated by titans–-historians such as David A. Bell, Charles Esdaile, Paul Kennedy, and Colin White, historians whose encyclopaedic knowledge and grasp of detail is nothing short of colossal. Yet while Strathern’s efforts do not elevate him to such heights, the breadth of his findings on the secondary characters in this empirical venture do make Napoleon in Egypt a necessary and useful addition to any Napoleonic shelf.

2 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Napoleon in Egypt.
Sign In »

Comments (showing 1-4 of 4) (4 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

The Just-About-Average Ms M The problem with this polemic--I won't call it a review, exactly--is that instead of discussing the author's work, the reviewer has used this as an opportunity to publicize her absolute loathing for Bonaparte, and a platform for ridiculous statements such as "psychopathic contempt for his troops," and "devious lying," and "the detritus of Napoleon's overweening hubris," and of course, the ubiquitous "Megalomania." She castigates Strathern because he does not share her loathing Of Bonaparte, accuses him of various instances of whitewashing historical details, and so forth and so on. She does, however, approve of the author's attention to the savant s of the Institute of Egypt and their contributions to ancient Egyptian history, archeology, and botany, perhaps because she believes these savants were not closely associated with Bonaparte.

We would be better served, I think, if this reviewer would confine herself to books extolling the exploits of John Bull, the inevitability of the British Empire and the divinely ordained preeminence of the British in general, and those portraying Boney as nothing less than the Antichrist.

On another note, Strathern's book does have a number of historical errors throughout, but he is a novelist and writes rather well, historical accuracy aside.

Ctny I appreciated Starthern's contribution to the historiography of the Egyptian Expedition. I also appreciated your critique and recommendations for further reading. Have you read Philip Dwyer's two volumes on Bonaparte? Thank you much!

The Just-About-Average Ms M No, I haven't read Dwyer's volumes for the same reason I haven;t read Vincent Cronin--the former is ridiculously vituperative and the latter too hagiographic. Dwyer is a discredit to the historical profession, which has advanced significantly since Cronin's day, because he deliberately cherry-picks his sources, all of which serve no purpose other than to show Napoleon as the devil incarnate, while Cronin to a lesser degree skates over the more troublesome episodes in the Napoleonic era.

Since I wrote the comment you replied to, the original reviewer of the Strachern book passed away, presumably to some celestial place where only Anglo-Saxons are allowed, and leaving behind her a small body of blog posts remarkable only for their strident bias.

Ctny The Just-About-Average Ms M wrote: "No, I haven't read Dwyer's volumes for the same reason I haven;t read Vincent Cronin--the former is ridiculously vituperative and the latter too hagiographic. Dwyer is a discredit to the historica..."

Ah, I see. Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback.

back to top