Ridley Scott’s Napoleon promises to be the highlight of the cinematic season. Scott has already proven he is a master of the historical epic with Gladiator. Both the lavish trailers and reviews suggest the new film would have all the ingredients of a blockbuster: cavalry charges, military parades, cannon fire, hand-to-hand conflict and blood-thirsty revolutionary crowds. Who could ask for more at Thanksgiving?
The two-and-half-hour extravaganza also provides people with an excuse to revisit one of the thorniest of all historical questions: What is the role of great men and women in history? Is history made by unique individuals pursuing their dreams? Or is it the product of vast impersonal forces? This is more than just an idle question. The answer people give shapes the sort of history taught in schools and universities. It also influences people’s approach to civic life: The more people emphasize the role of human agency, the more they would be inclined to be active citizens.
The question of Napoleon’s role in history divided two of the greatest writers of the 19th century. Thomas Carlyle used Napoleon to illustrate his contention that “the history of the world” is essentially “the biography of great men.” Leo Tolstoy, by contrast, presented him as a silly little man who was swept along by the majestic forces of history. Carlyle the historian thought the proper attitude to the past was to marvel at the way great spirits shape events. Tolstoy the novelist thought the proper attitude was to look beneath individuals and events to see more profound currents at work.
Illustration: Mountain People
Since then, the public has tended to side with Carlyle and the historical profession with Tolstoy. Napoleon is reputedly the subject of more biographies than anybody other than Jesus (the first full-scale biography was written before his 30th birthday). He is also the subject of numerous previous films, starting with one of the first films ever made, Louis Lumiere’s 1897 short, and including one of the masterpieces of silent cinema, Abel Gance’s Napoleon.
However, most historians have generally turned away from Napoleon the man, not to mention Napoleon the lover, and focused instead on the deeper currents of history: the mood of the masses, the price of grain or the logic of imperialism.
Edward Hallett Carr’s classic What is History? — a set-text for generation upon generation of Oxbridge history candidates — provides a sense of the contempt that serious historians have for the “great man” theory. Carr described this view of history as “the Bad King John and Good Queen Bess view” and argued that it belonged to the view of historiography adopted by primitive peoples and children. It might just about be fit for the nursery, but it was certainly unfit for the seminar room where serious historians discussed social forces and economic trends.
Carr devoted most of his professional life to producing a 14-volume favorable history of Soviet Russia, an opus that combined credulity and dullness in equal measures.
Carr’s disdain for the “great man” theory was reinforced by interlocking historiographical fashions. Marxist historians such as Eric Hobsbawm and Edward Palmer Thompson promoted “history from below” — that is, the history of ordinary people rather than namby-pamby elites. French historians such as Fernand Braudel focused on “anonymous, profound and silent history” rather than that of mere events. Braudel’s two-volume The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II had a great deal to say about the sea and almost nothing about Philip.
It was also reinforced by seemingly discordant intellectual tendencies. Political scientists downplayed the role of individuals because they wanted to prove that their subjects were predictive sciences. What is the point of all that tedious quantification if fate can be changed by the whim of any one person? And post-structuralist theorists such as Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault tried to write individuals out of history in their pursuit of the deeper structures of power.
The historians made a substantial point — that individuals do not make history just as they please but do so in the context of established power relations. Alexander the Great could not have conquered the known world if his father had not been the most powerful king in Greece. Napoleon would not have been able to seize control of France if a popular revolution had not swept aside the old regime and plunged the country into anarchy, but structural determinism can go too far by emptying history entirely of agency and personality.
Consider a few questions. Would Britain have stood firm against Nazi Germany if Lord Halifax had become prime minister rather than Winston Churchill, as many leading Conservatives wanted? Would the 1980s have gone as they did in Britain if Ted Heath had continued to lead the Conservative Party? Or would Singapore be the economic powerhouse that it is today if Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀) had not taken it in hand?
There are certain moments in history — when wars break out, when regimes break down — that make room for great individuals. Paradoxically, many great men and women feel that they are nothing more than agents of something bigger than themselves: Churchill talked about walking hand-in-hand with destiny, and Bismark about grasping the hem of history’s cloak and walking with him a few steps, but in fact, they can also change the direction of events.
Great leaders are change-makers precisely because they mobilize human qualities that cannot be reduced to a social “force” or an “economic” factor: determination, charisma, vision, imagination, even deceit. Churchill inspired faith because he refused to acknowledge the possibility of defeat despite Britain’s parlous position. Charles de Gaulle restored France’s postwar position because he revived the country’s belief in itself by spinning a tale of glory. Lee Kuan Yew turned Singapore into a hub of the global economy through sheer force of will and vision. “What seems inevitable becomes so by human agency,” as Henry Kissinger remarks in Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy.
Napoleon remains the perfect example of the ability of a single individual to change the course of history, so much so that, to this day, ambitious young MBA students dream of becoming the Napoleon of finance or retailing. He certainly came along at the right time — when the revolution was running out of control and people craved order and national reunification, but his idiosyncratic decisions also shaped events in ways that could not have been predicted. If Napoleon’s remarkable military talent turned an obscure Corsican into the master of Europe, his disastrous vanity also drove him to embark on a doomed campaign to conquer Russia.
He is also the perfect example of the mixture of good and bad that resides in the souls of the most famous leaders. There are plenty who have been wholly bad: Adolf Hitler most obviously, but also Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and many others.
However, nobody qualifies as wholly good. Napoleon the Great justifies both Goethe’s description of him as being “in a permanent state of enlightenment” and Madame de Stael’s as being “an oriental despot, a new Attila, a warrior who knows only how to corrupt and annihilate.”
The new historians who now control what history is taught in universities and schools have done much good. They have rescued the history of regular people from obscurity. They have revealed many of the hidden structures of power and influence that drive day-to-day events, but they have gone too far in downplaying the role of individuals or denouncing the exercise of moral judgement. It is time to push back.
Putting the great individual back at the heart of history teaching is not only good for our collective education in citizenship, it also teaches us that history is a matter of choices rather than a fait accompli, and that those are moral, not just technical, choices. It is also good for exciting young people’s interest in the past: Just try contemplating Napoleon’s rise from the periphery of French civilization to the summit of European power, and fail to be enthralled.
Adrian Wooldridge is the global business columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. A former writer at The Economist, he is author of The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS