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.
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the
RSS