Napoleon the Great? A debate with Andrew Roberts, Adam Zamoyski and Jeremy Paxman

Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligencesquared.com
__________________________
www.intelligencesquared.com/ev...
Filmed at the Emmanuel Centre on 8th October 2014.
‘There is no immortality but the memory that is left in the minds of men.’ - Napoleon Bonaparte
How should we remember Napoleon, the man of obscure Corsican birth who rose to become emperor of the French and briefly master of Europe?
As the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo approached in 2015, Intelligence Squared brought together two of Britain’s finest historians to debate how we should assess Napoleon’s life and legacy. Was he a military genius and father of the French state, or a blundering nonentity who created his own enduring myth? Was his goal of uniting the European continent under a common political system the forerunner of the modern ‘European dream’? Or was he an incompetent despot, a warning from history of the dangers of overarching grand plans?
Championing Napoleon was be Andrew Roberts who will argue that if any ruler deserves the epithet ‘the Great’ it should be Napoleon. Not only did he revolutionise warfare, but he transformed Europe by retaining the best parts of the French Revolution - equality before the law, religious toleration, and the end of feudalism. He founded the first modern code of law (the Code Napoleon), instituted the excellent Lycée-based education system, and created a new aristocracy based on talent.
By contrast, all mention of Napoleon as ‘great’, ‘hero’, ‘villain’ or ‘monster’ has Adam Zamoyski running for the hills, bemused why - in his opinion - this rather ordinary man excites such passion in otherwise level-head intelligent people. Zamoyski argued that Napoleon is credited with creating civil institutions which were in fact the work of others. He perpetrated some of the greatest military blunders in history, including the disastrous invasion of Russia. He brought about his own downfall through a mixture of incompetence and megalomania. It’s understandable why the French cling to their poetic myth of Napoleon’s ‘greatness’ but to Zamoyski no self-respecting Brit, let alone an historian, should fall for the flim-flam of this shameless self-publicist.

[@blakdust3]

He doesn't need to be called great he has a whole era named after him

[@GabrielSoares-ju9yq]

guy writes 4 books about the same man

[@nicholas8380]

“He did win a few battles” lost the whole debate on the spot right there haha

[@Lonelypressplay]

My conclusion is that Napoleon was indeed Great.

[@Brian-kv2lb]

And furthermore, to assert that Napoleon's military victories were just a result of his opponents' incompetence is patently absurd.

[@FireInTheHole96]

Andrew Roberts had to fight such an uphill battle. Well done man.

[@MineIsHuge]

We don't call him Napoleon the Great because Napoleon's name implies greatness.

[@andrewhoneycutt7427]

Andrew Roberts is continually attacked and stands his ground even though the so-called moderator is against him this is not a fair intellectual space, they all had it out for him and he stood his ground. Well done sir.

[@shajboi]

Well if he wasn't "Great", there won't be a 1.5 hr debate on this point, about 200 years after his death, and that too in a country which was France's arch nemesis.

[@IIIIIIII]

it's nice when you come across debates where everyone involved is respectful to each other. i get sick of watching debates where the debaters are at each others throats.

[@TalkernateHistory]

Zamoyski claims Napoleon wasn't a great military leader because he used bold and innovative tactics against enemies who didn't. I'm curious what Zamoyski thinks is great leadership if that doesn't apply.

[@1007ronin]

34:03

[@jdghgh]

Of course he is deserving of the distinction 'the Great'. But I wouldn't call him the great. For me the name Napoleon is as indicative of greatness as the word itself.

[@Obtaineudaimonia]

Wellington said that Napoleon's presence on the field of battle made the difference of 40,000 men. He was definitely great in my eyes, at least from a military point of view.

[@RevolutionaryToad]

“He did win a few battles” HAHAHAH yes... a few ...

[@lostcauselancer333]

Andrew Roberts is my favorite historian, but Adam Zamoysky is the only guy who could make me like Napoleon.

[@MultiBottleBoys]

I'm fine if Zamoyski doesn't want to call Napoleon 'the Great' but saying he wasn't a military genius is crossing a line.

[@puppetoniala]

I love how friendly and genial they both are to each other despite their opposition to one another. I wish all debates were like this

[@dialsforstupid]

The fact that this is the best that can be put against Napoleon really shows how good he is

[@edgardolaraify]

he fought sixty battles and lost only seven. For any general, of any age, this was an extraordinary record. Yet his greatest and most lasting victories were those of his institutions, which put an end to the chaos of the French Revolution and cemented its guiding principle of equality before the law. Today the Napoleonic Code forms the basis of law in Europe and aspects of it have been adopted by forty countries spanning every continent. Napoleon’s bridges, reservoirs, canals and sewers remain in use throughout France. The French foreign ministry sits above the stone quays he built along the Seine, and the Cour des Comptes still checks public spending.