There is no final agreement on Napoleon, nor even a rough consensus on his ultimate place in history; he continues to divide opinion after his death as he did in life. Our modern, simplistic categories of Right and Left are totally inadequate to define him, since he straddles both wings politically and also has a firm footing in the Centre.
The supporter of the French Revolution became an authoritarian ruler (which, of course, is the usual course of things), the hater of kings and of the Ancien Regime set up his own court and invited back exiled aristocrats to France, the disciple of liberty was a sometimes ruthless military conqueror, etc. A man of international outlook and a disciple of the rationalistic 18th century, he helped unwittingly to trigger off the new age of nationalism.
Though his Corsican family was nominally a noble one, Napoleone Buonaparte (to give him his original name) shared much of the mentality of the new, emerging middle class whose values were largely to dominate the 19th century. His large family included some brothers of outstanding ability, and sisters who were to occupy thrones and rule their husbands as well as their subjects, and in doing so play lead roles in European history. Above all, he was the favourite son of a strong-minded, matriarchal mother who was to survive his fall and remain loyal to his memory, even if she detested his wife and disagreed with certain of his policies and decisions.
Corsica, when he was born there in 1769, belonged to Genoa but was soon sold to France, where Napoleon learned his trade as an officer cadet. From the start he had political as well as military ambitions, but Corsica was a narrow stage for them, and meanwhile the Revolution had overturned a whole social order and opened the doors to a new meritocracy. Napoleon quickly gauged the military trends of his age and realised that artillery was now the arm with which to command the battlefield. The famous "whiff of grapeshot" which tamed the Paris mob put him in the foreground politically at a crucial time when the original revolutionary fervour had been tamed, and France teetered uneasily between radicalism and reaction. He managed adroitly to steer a course between both extremes, while never quite showing his hand to the politicians.
His love affair with, and eventual marriage to, the aristocratic young widow Josephine de Beauharnais was one of the relatively few actions of these years which was not born of calculating ambition. Napoleon fell deeply in love and remained so for years, even if Josephine openly cuckolded him during his (ultimately unsuccessful) expedition to Egypt and he threatened her with divorce. Her charm, social tact and buoyant (some said frivolous) temperament were all considerable assets to him in his rise to power; and even during his triumphant campaign in Italy - when, as a young general still in his twenties, he humiliated the Austrian Empire and its best commanders - he found time to write ecstatic love letters to her.
Napoleon's sudden departure from Egypt to Paris in 1799, leaving his army behind, has often been described by hostile historians as military desertion. Robert Asprey proves conclusively that it was not, that he acted with offical approval, and he also shows that the coup d'etat of Brumaire (November) which followed was not an act of unprincipled careerism. The Directory which ruled France was inept and increasingly unpopular, the military situation was threatening, the economy was shaky, and various rivals were scheming for power, each with his supporting clique of intriguers.
Strong army backing, plus the political skills of his brother Lucien, helped to place him in the saddle as "First Consul" - republican France was fond of the rhetoric of classical Rome. He consolidated this position by his remarkable crossing of the Alps and his victory over the Austrians at Marengo (marred tragically by the death of Desaix, his old comrade in Egypt, who in his professional opinion would have become "the first soldier in Europe").
One of his strongest supporters in the Brumaire coup, the former priest s, Sieyes, remarked: "We have a ruler who knows how to do everything, who is able to do everything, and who wants to do everything." It was true, and from the first the First Consul - in effect, dictator - showed an extraordinary energy and talent for organisation. The French economy, local administration, trade, industry, the law (the Code Napoleon still remains a legal and social force), the arts, foreign policy and even religion, all felt the impact of his dynamic personality. One thing alone he could not guarantee, and that was peace to a country by now growing weary of war with its neighbours. He could beat the Prussians, Austrians and Russians in the field and dominate most of the Continent, but England's trading and maritime supremacy was a wholly different challenge. And a Europe united under a French emperor was incompatible with England's economic interests and the creed of her ruling oligarchy.
IN 1804 the former Corsican upstart had himself crowned Emperor of the French, or more accurately he crowned himself since he did not wish the Pope (who stood beside him during the ceremony) to call the tune. Plans to invade England came to nothing - they nearly always have, over the centuries - but instead he marched the Grand Armee to the east and at Austerlitz won the "battle of the three Emperors" which broke up the English-financed coalition against him. It was a crushing victory, but if he had won the war on land he lost it at sea, since almost simultaneously Nelson annihilated the French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar. And at this stage, Robert Asprey leaves him - arguably, at the apex of a career which was to end at Waterloo 10 years later.
With such a huge canvas to fill in, the book is necessarily telescoped at times and the account of Napoleon's youth, for instance, is rather cursory. Nevertheless, it is well balanced overall in its judgments and does not suffer from the usual Anglo-American myopia which likes to depict Napoleon as the predecessor of Hitler. He was certainly an autocrat, power-loving and often unscrupulous, but he was also pragmatic and even liberal when it suited him, and quite free of racial or ideological manias. (He was usually content to exile his enemies, rather than send them to the scaffold or to rot half-forgotten in prison.) Napoleon was no moral monster, any more than he was a virtuous and idealistic ruler-hero; he was a phenomenon of history. The jury may be still out - but then, who appoints such a jury in the first place and to whom, or to what tribunal, does it render a verdict?
Brian Fallon is a writer and critic