Napoleon Bonaparte's Guide to Leadership - Essay Example

Napoleon Introduction: Debates and discussions on the lives and deeds of world leaders have varied from one historian to other; historians tend to view the lives of great leaders from diverse angles and this has resulted in multitudes of historical evidences regarding the life of great world leaders such as Napoleon Bonaparte. Historians and researchers differ in their understanding and interpretation of Napoleon Bonaparte; there are many historians who consider Napoleon as a great military leader who could command the trust and loyalty of his followers and who spread democratic values and principles among the people he conquered. On the other hand, there are a number of other historians who consider Napoleon as a real military despot who was a tyrant, aggressor and autocrat who cared for his fame and popularity alone. This paper seeks to explore the military and personal life of Napoleon and attempts to show how criticisms and interpretations of Napoleon’s life varied from one historian (researcher) to another. The many faces of Napoleon Bonaparte: Ralph Jean-Paul in his article entitled “Napoleon Bonapartes Guide to Leadership” suggests a number of reasons why Napoleon should be regarded as one of the best leaders the world has ever seen. For him, Napoleon’s leadership style included “all of the major and minor characteristics that make a brilliant leader”1. For him, Napoleon was a great motivator and charismatic speaker who could win the trust and loyalty of his generals and soldiers ‘by promising them victory and glory’, employing ‘new ways to make things work’, appreciating and awarding the achievement of his soldiers, and leading the battles from the front. However, Ralph Jean-Paul also argues that it was his deteriorating confidence after his loss to the Russians in the War of the Sixth and his lack of trust in his followers that culminated in his ultimate defeat (Jean-Paul). Similarly, Jared Stenzel tries to answer whether Napoleon was a real hero or a tyrant and he purports that Napoleon was more of a tyrant than a hero. The author argues that Napoleon was very much a tyrant as he never believed his followers and entrusted people to spy on them, either jailed or killed people who opposed him, and never offered freedom of speech and expression to his followers and the newspapers2. Justin Patterson, in this respect offers a balanced view of why Napoleon was considered to be a real French revolutionary who was a hero to his people and loved his nation so much and how he turned out to be a military despot in the latter part of his military career. Considering Napoleon as a revolutionary, the author states that “he strengthened democracy in France, kept changes during the revolution, and brought order to France, the goal of the revolution”3. He offered considerable freedom to his people and highlighted on the equality of all men during this period. Thus, Napoleon was undoubtedly a hero of his people during this period. However, as he conquered nations and expanded the geographical territory of the French empire, he became more of ‘an aggressor, a tyrant, an emperor, a military ruler’ (Patterson). His incessant thirst for power and conquest made him a dictator who no longer cared for the welfare of his people but for his own fame and military reputation. It is perhaps George Lefebvre who provides the most contrasting characteristics of the leader in a single chapter. According to the author, “what sort of a man was he? His personality evolved in so singular a manner that it defies portrayal”4. In his biography of the man, the author states that Napoleon was brave, resourceful, and had exhibited leadership qualities even as a young officer. He was an ambitious patriot full of dreams, but later in life, became vain and full of himself after his successes in battle. He was on the whole a sensitive person, but was extremely short-tempered when crossed. He was prone to depression primarily due to over exertion and stress. His had a brilliant analytical mind that was always bringing forth strategies and new political ideologies. It is said that he would suddenly wake up at night with a new idea or strategy, showing that his mind was always at work, even during sleep. Napoleon used to describe this as a ‘moral spark’ showing that he never thought his own ideas as immoral or wrong. He could also be cold and calculating and had the ability to manipulate the baser emotions of other people to his own advantage. In spite of apparently rational and logical nature, he was also prone to bouts of romanticism. Lefebvre even goes on to say that the best example of his vanity and ambition was to be remembered by future generation. Napoleon was not afraid of death, but he wanted to ensure that he lived on in the minds of the people for ever as an important historic figure. He wanted to be equated with other historical greats such as Alexander, Caesar, and Charlemagne and wanted to be known as a conqueror who strived to create a universal civilization. Here again, a paradox becomes apparent in the sense that his overall vision was more romantic/emotional than real. He had no real targets, but just wanted to go on conquering as long as it would last. To illustrate this, Lefebvre states that Napoleon freely admitted to his followers and aides that he just did not know where the whole thing would end. He despised inequality and feudalism, but supported both the monarchy and revolutionaries in a detached way. In spite of this penchant for democracy, he never supported it, seeing himself as a sole leader of a great French nation. This complex behaviour was apparent even during Napoleon’s school days. According to Englund, there were contrasting opinions regarding young Napoleon. He was described as being a very considerate person by some of his contemporaries. They were of the opinion that his attitude was very attractive and enduring. Some others felt just the opposite. “Those describing the adolescent Napoleon trot out the usual adjectives: “unadapted, unsociable, unpopular, and aggressive,” “gloomy and fierce beyond measure,” giving of “piercing and scrutinizing glances,” etc”5. Again, he was seen as a generous person and never held a grudge in his mind for long. Englund states that his ambition was in part fuelled by Plutarch’s writings about the glory of the Roman Empire. Landau writes about the tactical blunders that Napoleon committed which ultimately led to his downfall. The leader had the ability to motivate his people and troops and lead them to victory. He had conquered large parts of Europe and Russia. But he did not have the administrative ability or infrastructure to keep them under control. Czar Alexander I defied his orders against trading with Britain. Napoleon declared a war without enough resources which illustrated that emotions began to rule over rationality. “It was not an ideal time to go to war with Russia. Troops and supplies were still needed for the ongoing peninsular war, and fighting on two fronts would be hard. Yet Napoleon would not allow Russia to defy him”6. The French army was engaged in wars in several fronts and Napoleon managed to raise a large army comprising of troops from countries he had captured. But here again, he misjudged the scale of the operation and underestimated the Russian army. The vastness of the country, lack of food, and disease resulted in a lot of causalities. The guerrilla tactics employed by the Russian army also had a great toll on his army. Ultimately, Napoleon even overestimated the loyalty of his officers and troops. They refused to fight any longer, stating that they had enough of wars. Napoleon was exiled due to the problems that arose out of his greed and arrogance. He was exiled, but managed to make a temporary comeback. But his need for greatness and posterity never left him. His last days in St Helena were spent mostly on recording his achievements and exploits. Landau ends the chapter by quoting the many diverse and contradictory opinions many historians had on the great leader. Most of them have been echoed in earlier sections of the paper and hence briefly mentioned. People have praised him and believed him to be one of the greatest leaders and statesmen the world has seen. Others see him as selfish tyrant intent of personal gains without caring for the overall well-being of his countrymen. Conclusion: Literature on Napoleon Bonaparte undoubtedly prove that he was one the greatest generals in history. But it also shows that he was human after all. He had great positive and well as negative emotions and attitudes. The one difference that makes him stand out was that these emotions were extremely strong. He could be kind, ruthless, manipulative, motivating, gentle, romantic, and commanding. Napoleon was a man who had all these qualities (both positive and negative) in large measures. He was a man ruled by emotions and controlled by clear logic. He was a tactician, but was prone to emotional outbursts that overruled practical statesmanship. He is portrayed as a revolutionary, visionary, a tyrant, and as a dictator. But the volume of literature on this great man shows that at least one of his wishes, namely that he be remembered by generations to come has been fulfilled. References Englund, Steven. Napoleon: A political life. (Harvard University Press, 2004), 19. Jean-Paul, Ralph. “Napoleon Bonaparte’s guide to leadership”, Potential 2 Success, http://www.potential2success.com/Napoleonbonaparteleadership.html (accessed December 19 2009). Landau, Elaine. Napoleon Bonaparte. (Twenty-First Century Books, 2006), 90 Lefebvre, Georges. Napoleon, Volume 1. (Taylor & Francis, 1969), 63 Patterson, Justin. “Napoleon Bonaparte: French revolutionary or military dictator”, Helium, http://www.helium.com/items/297315-napoleon-bonaparte-french-revolutionary-or-military-dictator (accessed December 19 2009). Stenzel, Jared. “Napoleon: Hero or tyrant”, Socyberty, http://socyberty.com/history/napoleon-hero-or-tyrant/ (accessed December 19 2009). Read More