The Historians Assessment of the Leadership Qualities of Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon Bonaparte seized power in France in 1799 and would later crown himself emperor in 1804. He is renowned for his militaristic genius and his endeavours which saw him seize control of most of Europe. Historians have long debated the leadership qualities of Napoleon. Some historians think he is a tyrant dictator, even going as far as to compare him to Hitler. Others say that he was one of the greatest military minds in history and fundamentally changed Europe. Despite this division of beliefs, historians appear to agree that Napoleon was a master of creating his own image to those he led. Everything Napoleon did was to formulate an image of himself which would see him be loved by the French population. However, the ability to make people think that someone is good does not mean that person is truly good.

Hazareesingh suggests that Napoleon carefully selected his image through methods like censorship (Hazareesingh, 2005, p.3). This demonstrates that historians are aware of the work Napoleon put in to carefully select how he wanted the French to view him. This opinion seems more positive about Napoleon as a leader as Hazareesingh he admires how qualified Napoleon is to make himself loved by the public. However, not all historians believe his image crafting skills are a positive thing. Geyl implies that Napoleons image was a negative thing as it hid his love for war with civilisation (Geyl, 1986, p.10). This demonstrates that some Historians believe that an admirable leadership quality like image making is not necessarily a good trait. This is because Napoleon in waging war in Europe and Africa, causing the deaths of millions but justifies it by calling it civilisation. Therefore, demonstrating that historians do not always associate a positive leadership quality with being a good leader. Geyl goes as far to compare Napoleon to that of Hitler, (Geyl, 1986, p.8). This clearly demonstrates that Napoleon is not as good of a leader as some may suggest if he can be compared to one of the most malevolent men in history. Consequently, this shows his image crafting qualities are limited to the French population of the Napoleonic era as historians are questioning if the persona Napoleon deployed has any credibility.

Whether it is called civilisation or war loving, historians have long credited Napoleon for his tactical mind. Napoleon demonstrated his military might where he got a decisive victory despite overwhelming odds. Dwyer suggest Napoleon could be considered as a military genius (Dwyer, 2013, p.14). This implies that historians believe that Napoleon posses good leadership qualities. Napoleon was able to conquer most of Europe despite the high number of enemies he was able to accumulate. Napoleon used these military victories to boost his image but was careful to make sure he did not appear too militant. Jordon implies that Napoleon kept the military out of politics (Jordon, 2012, p.5) This demonstrates that Napoleon was great at making his people feel safe whilst still being able to install fear into his enemies. However, Dwyer also stated that historians condemn Napoleon for his inability to cease making war (Dwyer, 2006, p.13). Therefore, suggesting that Historians can agree that he was an excellent tactician, they believe his confidence and pride in military was his downfall. This is clear by his invasion of Russia which resulted in 500,000 avoidable deaths.

This demonstrates that historians applaud his militaristic might but his ability to be a good leader is limited because Napoleon did not know when to stop. However, despite his failures Napoleon was still loved by France. His ability to form his own image was so excellent that despite his rule ending in failure people still loved him. Selin implies that Napoleon’s funeral in 1840 was a grand event cultivating masses of people. (Selin, 2018). This demonstrates that even in death, Napoleon was still beloved.

Another factor that boosted Napoleon’s image was his charisma. Some historians suggest that Napoleon is charismatic and compares his charisma to that of Jesus (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2015). Having charisma comparable to that of Jesus Christ demonstrates how Napoleon was able to make the public love him and convince politicians to do what he wanted. However, not all historians believe that he is charismatic. Hanson suggests that the idea that Napoleon was a charismatic general is merely a myth (Hanson, 2009, P.147). This again questions Napoleons image. However, it could be argued that the idea of him not being charismatic does not matter if the general public of France genuinely believed that he was.

In conclusion, historians who support or historians that criticise Napoleon are aware that Napoleon was not perfect. Yet, historians appear to agree that, whether it is good or bad, Napoleon was excellent at constructing his image.