What do you think?
Rate this book
Bonaparte
Born in Corsica, Bonaparte was never truly a Frenchman. This study of Napoleon Bonaparte dispels several of the myths about the politician and commander in his field.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1978
About the author
Correlli Barnett
43 books21 followersA freelance historian and writer, Correlli Barnett was educated at Trinity school and Exeter College, Oxford, where he took a degree in modern history. After national service in the Intelligence Corps from 1945 to 1948, Barnett worked for the North Thames Gas Board until 1957, then in public relations until 1963. He was historical consultant and part author of the BBC series 'The Great War' and won the 1964 Screen Writers' Guild Award for best British television documentary script.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
December 3, 2012
Having previously read Schom's much lengthier biography of Napoleon, I picked this up expecting little--just a refresher. It is, by all appearances, a rather humble coffee-table book: profusely illustrated, the kind of thing often written by committees. Reading it, however, I was quite surprised.
First, Barnett, the author, has a thesis, a thesis about his subject's character which he traces to his Corsican background and finds paradigmed in his early Italian campaigns. To him, there are at least two inconsistent, equally egoistic, characters: Napoleon the mathematician and Napoleon the romantic.
Second, Barnett relies, so far as his notes go, almost entirely on early sources, on Napoleon's own writings and the recollections of those connected to him. Doubtless, he's also read the secondary sources, but his work as a whole serves substantially as a critique of them, of what he considers 'the Napoleon industry'.
Third, while admitting that Napoleon had some competence as a military tactician, and was capable of being exceptionally energetic on the field, Barnett's maintains that he failed as a military strategist, his campaigns being run without sufficient logistical preparation. Success might feed success, but failure in battle too often led to collapse.
Fourth, and most interestingly, there is the claim, amply illustrated, that Napoleon changed the character of warfare for all time, substituting amoral, total war for the more mannered practices of the past, practices which, in the early campaigns, gave him an advantage over traditionalists, but which, when adopted by his opponents in later campaigns, ultimately led to his downfall.
In sum, this is an intelligently opinionated essay which runs up against much of mainstream scholarship about 'the Age of Napoleon' and might be profitably read as a corrective to standard histories of the era.
First, Barnett, the author, has a thesis, a thesis about his subject's character which he traces to his Corsican background and finds paradigmed in his early Italian campaigns. To him, there are at least two inconsistent, equally egoistic, characters: Napoleon the mathematician and Napoleon the romantic.
Second, Barnett relies, so far as his notes go, almost entirely on early sources, on Napoleon's own writings and the recollections of those connected to him. Doubtless, he's also read the secondary sources, but his work as a whole serves substantially as a critique of them, of what he considers 'the Napoleon industry'.
Third, while admitting that Napoleon had some competence as a military tactician, and was capable of being exceptionally energetic on the field, Barnett's maintains that he failed as a military strategist, his campaigns being run without sufficient logistical preparation. Success might feed success, but failure in battle too often led to collapse.
Fourth, and most interestingly, there is the claim, amply illustrated, that Napoleon changed the character of warfare for all time, substituting amoral, total war for the more mannered practices of the past, practices which, in the early campaigns, gave him an advantage over traditionalists, but which, when adopted by his opponents in later campaigns, ultimately led to his downfall.
In sum, this is an intelligently opinionated essay which runs up against much of mainstream scholarship about 'the Age of Napoleon' and might be profitably read as a corrective to standard histories of the era.
August 6, 2017
Well written, very interesting read. I'm only giving it 3 1/2 stars because while I agree with the author that while in some ways Napoleon was a gambler who was often lucky in that his victories persuaded enemies who were in a position to destroy him instead to surrender the author was to my mind far too eager to make this point continually underrating Napoleons considerable achievments. Definitely worth reading if you are interested in the napoleonic wars but if this is the first book you're reading on Napoleon read a more complimentary review of the emperors career as well or you'll come away shocked that this corsican bandit chief (in the authors opinion) lasted as long as he did. And if you are convinced by the revisionist view that Napoleon was nowhere near the legendary commander his propaganda proclaimed then this is a 5 star book.
February 25, 2015
Interresting negative point of view.
October 13, 2014
It's a hatchet job. While his points are well taken and well sourced, the word choice and characterizations of Napoleon are from someone who holds a visceral hatred and contempt for his subject. On the other hand Wellington and one or two others come across as paragons of virtue and competence. Barnett begrudges Bonaparte's good points and hammers his bad ones. None of us would come out any better were our lives treated similarly.
May 24, 2018
With such blatant bias on the part of the author I think I should read a few more books about Napoleon before forming an opinion on the guy. For some reason his downfall was far more interesting than his ascent.
July 2, 2011
First book I read on Napoleon and is highly recommended.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews