Chapter 25

Ten Pieces of Advice for Napoleon

In This Chapter

Political and military errors Napoleon shouldn’t have made

People he shouldn’t have trusted

Words of wisdom with the advantage of 200 years of 20/20 hindsight

I ’ve often said that “If Napoleon had listened to me, he’d be emperor today.” Many people fantasize about going back in history and meeting with someone famous. In this chapter, I get to live out that fantasy (sort of) and give Napoleon a piece of my mind. Whether or not he will listen, well, that is another story.

Get Rid of Talleyrand and Fouché

Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord served Napoleon in a variety of diplomatic posts, including foreign minister, while Joseph Fouché was minister of police. When you’re trying to rule an empire, your staff should be there to support you, and not just when you’re popular. But these two guys thought only of themselves (although Talleyrand was always claiming that he thought only of France).

When times were good, Talleyrand served Napoleon well, but times were not always good. Here are few reasons he was never named Employee of the Year:

When Napoleon was in Egypt, Talleyrand was supposed to smooth things over with the Turks, but he somehow never got around to doing that. As a result, Napoleon had to fight the Turks as well as the local military forces. (For more on the Egyptian campaign, see Chapter 7.)

As soon as he felt that Napoleon’s star was no longer rising, Talleyrand had secret talks with the countries allied against Napoleon, as well as with the exiled royal family. When Napoleon abdicated in 1814, Talleyrand was behind the return of the monarchy, and he effectively prevented Napoleon’s son and wife from taking over after Napoleon left.

Tallyrand’s final outrage against Napoleon was to convince the allies that they shouldn’t trust Napoleon when he returned in 1815 but should instead go to war with him. Napoleon’s son was briefly recognized as Napoleon II, but Talleyrand again successfully worked to restore the Bourbon monarchy.

Napoleon once referred to Talleyrand as excrement in a silk stocking, but he never took serious action against him. Big mistake.

Fouché wasn’t much better. A strong supporter of Napoleon when he first rose to power, Fouché served as minister of police, becoming one of the most powerful men in the country. He helped eliminate Napoleon’s enemies and built a network of informers that was loyal to Fouché first, Napoleon second. He was caught dealing with the exiled royals, but rather than being shot for treason, he was simply reassigned. His network intact, he continued to work behind the scenes for his own interests, including the accumulation of great wealth.

Fouché remained more or less loyal to Napoleon through Waterloo, but then he was instrumental in getting the legislative body to demand Napoleon’s abdication rather than offering him its support.

Have Better Reconnaissance

As I explain in Chapter 17, Napoleon was a master of war and used modern tactics and organization that befuddled his opponents for many years. But he had some odd gaps in his approach to military issues. The strangest of these was the issue of reconnaissance. There are three classic examples of Napoleon’s failure to use proper reconnaissance. Its proper use in all three would have led to a better result, and in one case (Russia), it may have staved off disaster.

Acre

At the siege of Acre (in the Middle East) in the spring of 1799, then-General Bonaparte was forced to attempt a frontal assault on the town. His soldiers managed to break through the wall, only to find an unexpected inner wall. Shocked and unprepared, they retreated, and the siege ultimately failed. Napoleon had some observation balloons with him but refused to use them. Had he done so, he would likely have had better success, because the aerial view from the balloons would have clearly revealed the inner fortifications. Instead, Acre prevented him from eliminating a formidable enemy and driving the British back into the sea. (See Chapter 7 for more on this campaign.)

Marengo

In the days leading up to the Battle of Marengo in Italy, which took place on June 14, 1800 (see Chapter 9), Napoleon was not completely aware of the size of the opposing Austrian force. As a result, he sent two full divisions off in different directions, reducing his force considerably. Unfortunately for him, the Austrians had marshaled their forces and now outnumbered the French by about 7,000 soldiers.

First Consul Bonaparte very nearly lost the ensuing battle. He won only because of Austrian incompetence and the fact that General Louis Charles Desaix’s division heard the sound of the guns and hastened back to support Napoleon, arriving just in the nick of time. Napoleon could have avoided this near disaster by simply sending out adequate scouting parties of cavalry to determine the true strength of his opponents.

Leaving Moscow

As I discuss in Chapter 13, when Napoleon finally decided to leave Moscow in 1812, he had hoped to return by a route far to the south of the now-desolated route he took in to the city. His army was still in decent fighting shape, and the weather had not yet turned frigid.

Not far out of Moscow, he found his way blocked by the Russians. He defeated them in a skirmish, and they retreated behind a ridge. Convinced that he was facing a major Russian force, Napoleon reluctantly turned north, where he had to retrace his steps home through terrain that was colder and had been stripped bare of anything useful for survival.

Had a reconnaissance team been sent forward, it would have discovered that the Russians had melted away and that the coast was clear to the relatively resource-rich and warmer southern route. The withdrawal may still have been bad, but Napoleon’s army would probably have survived in much greater shape and been able to stop further Russian advances. If so, the Russian campaign may not have had the far-reaching negative consequences ultimately paid by Napoleon and France.

Don’t Depend on Your Siblings

Napoleon had seven siblings: four brothers and three sisters. Napoleon clearly expected that his brothers and sisters would help him in his career, and he ultimately gave them positions of power, prestige, and wealth. In the end, however, they were much more the burden than the blessing. This section offers the worst examples.

Ladies first:

Caroline (1782–1839) was probably the worst offender. She married Joachim Murat, one of Napoleon’s early companions who rose to the rank of marshal and later became King of Naples. Murat was a great cavalry leader, but while he was gone, Caroline got used to the life of luxury that came with her position. So much so that in 1814, when Austria and others were closing in on Napoleon, she coerced her probably all-too-willing husband to desert Napoleon and cut a deal to preserve their kingdom in Naples.

Pauline (1780–1825) didn’t engage in direct action against her brother, but her lifestyle left a great deal to be desired for the sister of an emperor! Living in Parisian luxury, she became known for her nude poses and sexual appetite. A drinking vessel was even molded from one of her breasts. Her scandalous behavior frustrated Napoleon, but Napoleon was joined in exile on Elba by only his mother and one sibling — Pauline.

Napoleon’s brothers weren’t much better:

His elder brother Joseph (1768–1844) was well-meaning and probably would have made a decent King of Naples, which is what Napoleon originally made him. However, when Napoleon was seeking a king for Spain, he turned to a most reluctant Joseph. Naples was peaceful and relatively easy to rule. Not so Spain. Joseph had to deal with quarrelling French marshals, revolting peasants (yes, the peasants were, in fact, revolting!), and a fellow who later took on the title of Duke of Wellington who had a way of defeating the French armies that he faced. We can’t blame all the problems in Spain on King Joseph, but Napoleon could have found someone far better to do the job.

Later on, in 1814, when Joseph was in charge of the defense of Paris, his lack of leadership opened the door for the intrigues of Talleyrand (who I discuss earlier in the chapter) that would ultimately doom Napoleon.

Napoleon’s younger brother Louis (1778–1846) served Napoleon well in his earlier years, rising to the rank of general. Napoleon made him King of Holland in 1806, and it wasn’t long before he and Napoleon were not seeing eye to eye. (For example, Louis felt that the Continental System would be quite harmful to his subjects and declined to implement it as firmly as Napoleon expected.) It seems Louis had the naïve idea that as king he could act independently of Napoleon. Wrong! Napoleon even married him off to Josephine’s daughter, Hortense, but that marriage was unhappy and did Napoleon no good.

Forget the Continental System

Let’s face it: From Napoleon’s point of view, he could never win control of the European continent without defeating, or at least achieving a peace with, Great Britain. The problem was, Napoleon had the best army, and the Brits had the best navy. Stalemate! The only way for Napoleon to win, as he saw it, was to have an economic blockade against the British: Keep them from trading with the Continent, and soon they’d be on their knees.

Unfortunately, Napoleon failed to notice that people on the Continent, including in France, needed (or certainly wanted) goods shipped by British ships. Heck, even his wife, Josephine, was known to get a few things from the black market.

The need to enforce the Continental System (as this blockade was called) led to the ultimately disastrous invasion of Spain and Portugal (see Chapter 12). And it was one of the main things that caused a split between Napoleon and Tsar Alexander I of Russia, leading to the disastrous invasion of Russia (see Chapter 13). Notice a trend here? Easy for me to say, but there had to be a better way.

Don’t Marry Josephine

Now I’m in trouble. The romance between Napoleon and Josephine is the stuff of legend, compared to Romeo and Juliet. How dare I suggest they not get together!? Well, here’s how. The marriage was based on a foundation of sand. Josephine was never what Napoleon thought she was. She had no money, she didn’t love him, she wasn’t faithful to him, she used her influence (and his name) to engage in military profiteering, she was a spendthrift who drove them to the brink of financial ruin — need any more reasons? (Okay, so my wife thinks I’m a hypocrite on that last one, given my own tendencies in that direction. What can I say?)

Napoleon was a brilliant young general with a great future in front of him when he married this impoverished older woman. He could likely have found someone with better connections and more wealth who could have helped him along in his career and been much more the loving wife that a young man needs.

Don’t Divorce Josephine

Okay, I confess: I’m trying to have it both ways. But bear with me. After Napoleon and Josephine finally settled down to a reasonable married life as emperor and empress (well, that was a reasonable married life to them!), things actually began to work out rather well. They developed a strong mutual fondness for each other; the French people really grew to like them as ruling couple; other rulers, such as the tsar of Russia, were impressed by this charming, gracious, and outgoing empress; and the French army really seemed to see her as something of a lucky charm. In short, it was hard to imagine a better deal all the way around.

So what happened? Napoleon decided he had to have a son, and when Josephine proved unable to provide him one, he divorced her and married Marie Louise, the daughter of the Emperor of Austria. Napoleon and Marie Louise had a son, whom Napoleon adored, but frankly it was all downhill in Napoleon’s career after that.

Napoleon never really stopped loving Josephine. Don’t get me wrong: Napoleon and Marie Louise had a loving relationship. But she was an intellectual lightweight compared to Josephine, and the French never cared all that much for her. (After all, they had sent their previous king’s Austrian wife, Marie Antoinette, to the guillotine.) And while Napoleon hoped his marriage into the Hapsburg family of Austria would gain him a steadfast ally, when Napoleon was down and out in 1814, guess who was among the first to desert him? If you guessed Austria, you have a good reason why Napoleon should have taken my advice.

Declare Victory in Moscow and Get Out of Town Quickly

In 1812, Napoleon invaded Russia, chasing the Russian army all the way to Borodino. After defeating them there, he occupied the holy city of Moscow. (The actual capital, containing Tsar Alexander, was St. Petersburg.) Russian partisans burned most of Moscow to the ground on the very day Napoleon entered the city, making it pretty clear that he would not be able to stay there for the winter. It also should’ve been clear, given the fact that the Russian army was still in pretty good shape and that Napoleon was deep into Mother Russia, that the tsar wasn’t about to surrender or ask for peace terms. Winter was coming; it was time to go. Napoleon had won the only major battle of the campaign and all of the earlier skirmishes. He had taken Moscow. By traditional standards, he could declare victory and leave.

Instead, Napoleon sat around for week after week, waiting for a message from Tsar Alexander that would never come. After a five-week delay, he finally left. It was too late. Winter came early, and when Napoleon was forced to take the northern route back (see the “Leaving Moscow” section earlier in the chapter), his fate was sealed. Had he traveled four of those five weeks, all the scenes we see of the bitter Russian winter taking its toll on the French army would never have happened. Napoleon could have made an orderly withdrawal to Smolensk or some point further east and awaited further developments from a position of strength.

Declare Equal Rights for Women

By the standards of the day, Napoleon was pretty progressive. He promoted religious freedom, the notion of equality, and education, including for girls. There was only one area where, at least from today’s point of view, he was lacking. He could have done more to promote the equality of women in France and, ultimately, throughout his empire. Had he done that, he would have gained the confidence of not only the women of France and Europe but of the liberals and revolutionaries who continued to hold him in some suspicion. Moreover, given his power and influence, he would have pushed the movement for the rights of women forward in a way that would have been difficult to oppose. It would have been another blow to the conservatism promoted by both the Church and royalists. It would even have gained him added support in Great Britain.

That said, I may be asking a bit much, even from a man as progressive as Napoleon. He was, after all, trying to pacify the Church and conservatives, as well as the liberals. Even the Jews, whose religious freedom he especially promoted (see Chapter 23), were not exactly at the forefront of feminism. As to the United States, the most progressive country of its day, it didn’t allow women even to vote until 1920, almost 200 years after Napoleon lost power. Still, if Napoleon had taken this step, his legacy as the first great progressive force of modern Europe would have been assured, and the lives of women throughout Europe would have been improved.

Don’t Become Emperor

Here I go again, getting in trouble with many friends in the field who will, among other things, point out that one of my books is entitled Imperial Glory and my house is full of stuff dealing with Napoleon as emperor. But the fact of the matter is that Napoleon never needed to be emperor, and it ultimately did him more harm than good.

When Napoleon was First Consul, he was given just about as much power as he had as emperor, including getting the position for life with the right to name his successor. But attempts on his life (see Chapter 20) led him to feel that he needed to solidify his position and perhaps gain favor with the ruling families of Europe by becoming “one of them.” Nice idea, but it didn’t work. He was never fully accepted by the other imperial and royal households, and his son was never allowed to rule.

Whatever Napoleon gained by his imperial trappings, his loss was far greater. He could no longer fully claim to be the son of the French Revolution, and it was really hard for a lot of people to see how a progressive reformer like First Consul Bonaparte could morph into Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, without losing a lot of his progressive ideas and images.

See Dr. James Verling on St. Helena

When Napoleon was sent in exile to the island of St. Helena (see Chapter 16), he was given a British doctor to attend to his, and his staff’s, medical needs. That doctor, Barry O’Meara, eventually ran afoul of the governor of the island, Sir Hudson Lowe, and left. After that, the best doctor available on the island — the only actual physician — was an Irishman serving in the British military, Dr. James Verling. He was assigned by Sir Hudson Lowe to be Napoleon’s doctor. Napoleon, however, was not interested in seeing anyone who was associated with Lowe (whom he saw as nothing more than a petty jailor), so he never saw Verling.

Verling did see Napoleon’s subordinates. On Napoleon’s behalf, they tried to hire Verling as more or less Napoleon’s private physician, reporting only minimal information to Lowe and keeping medical information to himself. This confidentiality is what we may expect from a doctor today, but as a military officer that would have put Verling in a tough spot, so he declined.

Napoleon’s health deteriorated, and in a few years he was dead. The cause of his death has been roundly debated. It seems likely, however, that if Napoleon had been under the expert care of Dr. Verling, whatever ailed him may very well have been detected and properly treated. If he was dying of cancer, he may at least have been made more comfortable. If he was dying of health issues related to the miserable climate, Dr. Verling may have been able to successfully lobby for a change of venue. Finally, if he were being poisoned, the chances of the symptoms being discovered and the poisoning ended were better with Dr. Verling than with anyone else on the island. In short, Dr. Verling was Napoleon’s best chance to survive into old age and maybe, just maybe, get off the island. (To read more about Dr. Verling, you may consider my new book, Napoleon and Dr. Verling on St. Helena [Pen and Sword], which includes his complete journal regarding his relations with Napoleon.)