Rev Left Radio - Napoleon: The Film, The Man, The History

Episode Date: December 18, 2023

Everett from The Age of Napoleon and Arjun from Deep into History join Breht to discuss Napoleon Bonaparte. Together they explore and reflect on the new film by Ridley Scott, the actual history involved and what the film got wrong, Napoleon's real personality, the importance of the French Revolution in Napoleon's rise, the reaction to the French Revolution and Napoleon from the rest of Europe, Napoleon's treatment of Haiti, Napoleon's exile and death, and then they grapple with the question of how the socialist left today should view and understand Napoleon.  Outro Song: Napoleon's Hat by Bright Eyes https://leftwingbooks.net/discount/REVLEFT ------------------------------------------------------- Support Rev Left Radio: https://www.patreon.com/RevLeftRadio

Hello everybody and welcome back to Rev Left Radio. We have a really fun episode for you today. We have on Everett Rummage from the podcast, Age of Napoleon, and we have back on the show Arjun Handal from Deep Into History to talk about the recent Ridley Scott film, Napoleon. We talk about the film, we offer our criticisms of the history depicted in the film, what we liked about the film, and then we zoom out and have a much broader conversation about French,

European history, about the French Revolution, about Napoleon as both a figure and a betrayer of the revolution, or as he saw himself, the pinnacle of it. We see, we talk about the Haitian revolution and how Napoleon reintroduced slavery in the French colonies, but also on the other side, how he pushed against the rotting core of feudalism and monarchism throughout Europe and sort of dragged the rest of feudal and monarchical Europe by the hair into political modernity. So Napoleon is a fascinating character and the history that that swirls around him and that that lifted him into the position that he got into is all fascinating as well and we dive deep into it with two lovers of history that I couldn't ask for better collaborators on an episode like this.

Also want to remind people that we have a relationship with our friends over at Kerspledeb and left wing books that anybody who listens to Rev Left, you type in Rev Left at checkout and you can get any of their books, 15% off. It's a really wonderful opportunity to bring down the price of some of these books and make it more affordable for Rev Left listeners. And the link that I'll provide in the show notes actually allows you to even bypass having to type anything in. You just click that link, pick your book, 15% off for Rev Left Listeners.

So shout out to Left Wing Books. Really appreciate the collaboration that we're doing with them and how they're allowing Rev Left listeners to get really interesting books of political left-wing history. history, theory, at a cheaper price. So go check them out. But without further ado, here is my fascinating conversation with Everett and Arjun on the film, the man, the history, Napoleon. My name is Everett Rummage. I'm the host of the Age Napoleon podcast. And as far as I know, that's kind of the only thing of note I've ever done. So, yeah, thanks for having me. Absolutely. I'm a big fan of Age of Napoleon. Love your work, so it's really cool to have you on the show.

And then we have back on the show, Arjun from Deep Into History. Arjun, how are you doing? And can you introduce yourself for people who might not know who you are? Yeah, sure. Thanks for having me, guys. I'm really excited to do this with two giants in the history space. So this is going to be fun. I'm Arjun. I host a narrative flowing podcast Deep in the History. I weave threads of history together into sagas so you can access that knowledge with the ease of remembering a favorite scene in a movie. I'm a tailspinner, I'm a lore master, and when you're armed with historical knowledge, it can no longer be used against you.

Instead, you can wield it like a weapon, like a katana, or perhaps it's just say like a cavalry saber today. Wonderful. Cool, and if people have not already checked out Age of Napoleon or Deep Into History, highly, highly recommended. Of course, there'll be links in the show notes for anybody to easily find both of those shows and everything that they do. All right, well, today we're going to be talking about

the film Napoleon, as well as inevitably the history of the Napoleonic era, the Napoleonic wars, the figure of Napoleon as a historical figure, et cetera. So we're going to kind of be weaving back and forth between our analysis of the film and our analysis of Napoleon as a historical figure. But I think first and foremost, I would like to start with this question for both of you. Why are you personally fascinated by the figure of Napoleon and how did you come to get interested in him in the first place? Maybe Everett can start this one. off? For me, it's really been a lifelong thing. I mean, like, since I was a little kid, you know, at first, obviously, I mean, I think I first became aware of Napoleon when I was about like four. So obviously, at first, I was not really, you know, delving into his broader historical significance. It was just, you know, his personal story I thought interested. But he's one of those people that, you know, kind of once you become aware of him and become interested in him, you know, if you are the type of person who's interested in history and politics, he just keeps popping up. And so kind of whatever, wherever over the years my interests have taken me, I've always, you know, found Napoleon there.

And so that's what's kind of kept me interested in him all these years. That's interesting. That's fascinating. You're right. He does pop up every time. Like, wherever you look these days, be it like a titan of industry or just a normal person, like everyone brings up Napoleon. Yeah, absolutely. Well, he's kind of the, you know, the Napoleonic wars, to me, are kind of the, you know, the crucible upon which the modern world was built. And so he is sort of in our DNA as modern people, I think. Yeah, definitely. I've talked about Napoleon as dragging the rest of Europe by the hair into political modernity.

And I think, yeah, we really have to understand the profound impact, whatever you're in. analysis of him as an individual, it turns out to be the historical impact is truly, you know, disproportionate to almost any other figure. I mean, you know, you look back at figures like Caesar or Alexander the Great, both figures of history that Napoleon self-consciously saw himself as in the, in the sort of tradition of, they had these larger than lives, larger than life lives because of their impact on history. But, but Arjun, how did you originally get into Napoleon well like I always kind of saw him as like a titanic figure that was demonized particularly like in England where I spent a lot of time as a child because of so much

family there so that kind of got me curious it was a good way to like annoy my British cousins by like you know talking about how great Napoleon was but you know what really got me into him and this is kind of embarrassing like I had no self-esteem as like a you know as a young teen. And someone, I was trying to remember who, but it's probably a drunk aunt, told me to read his love letters to Josephine if I wanted to learn how to talk to girls. So, I had mixed results. I was too young to know the difference between, like, love and lust. However, like, if you want, like, pure heat, I highly recommend his letters to his Polish mistress, Marie Woleska. Like, check this out. Okay.

I saw no one but you I admired no one but you I want no one but you and that's like his first letter to her like that's gay absolutely yeah how about you Brett yeah for me it was kind of interesting

because first and foremost coming from a political direction I get into the history of the French Revolution I get into the history of the Paris Commune we've done episodes on Rev. Left of both of those topics we even did a recent episode on Le Miserables which is sort of this period of French history in between the French Revolution and the Paris Commune. So I've been

interested in that era of French political history in particular. But it was really when I got a chance to go to Paris a few years ago, like all expenses paid sort of situation, which was really cool, that I was very into the French Revolution, obviously in the lead up to that trip. But once you're in Paris, you see the marks of Napoleon everywhere. I took a little boat trip on the, on the Sen River that runs through Paris. And you see these big ornaked. ends on the bridges that you go under and he just left his his mark on the on the entirety of of Paris you can't experience Paris without in part experiencing the legacy of Napoleon so although I was aware of Napoleon as this figure that

emerged from the French Revolution and I sort of have this marginal understanding of his importance historically it was really you know being in Paris that set like my my fascination with Napoleon off and then ever since that trip. I had, you know, dived fairly deep into him, you know, hours and hours of biographies listening to the Age of Napoleon podcast, among other things, to get a better understanding of him as a figure and was absolutely fascinated by this figure, you know, as both this simultaneously, this, the bayonet of the French Revolution and in some serious ways, the betrayer of it, you know, and I just always, I found that incredibly fascinating and have ever

So when I heard that this movie was coming out, I was very excited. I've always liked Joaquin Phoenix as an actor. And so I was really interested in it. And I think that might be a good segue into getting into the film itself. But before we get into the criticisms of the film, which I'm sure there are plenty, I would like to get both of your takes on what you sort of expected from the film, what were your hopes for it. And what are some of the things that you actually liked or appreciated about the film? And Everett, maybe you can go first. I was hoping for You guys might or might not be familiar with Ridley Scott's first movie, The Duelists.

Of course. Which is, yeah, one of my absolute favorite movies at his set during the Napoleonic Wars. So I was kind of hoping for something in that vein. You know, now that Scott's near the end of his career, you know, the idea maybe he'd be almost trying to bookend things by going back to the sort of the same style and tone. his first movie and the same era, obviously. It's really not what we got. It's a very strange movie in a lot of ways. I did enjoy the humor in it.

That's something that I think is really missing from a lot of historical fiction. A lot of historical fiction, I think, is very sort of self-serious and really sort of obsessed with its own gravitas. And when you look at history up close, it's never like that. There's always an element of farce, especially around sort of great, unprecedented events. And so I did enjoy the humor of it. I was not expecting that, but I did enjoy it. And I think that that worked best in the sequences that dealt with the politics.

You know, I think my favorite part of the movie was the depiction of the coup of 18 Brumere, when Napoleon rose to power which was a very almost farcical event at times and I thought that that the tone of the movie that was almost kind of

a madcap in a way sort of fit with the actual atmosphere of the coup so that I would say it would be the thing the movie did the best the depiction of Napoleon and Josephine's relationship

was interesting and maybe sort of hinted at the reality but you know obviously incomplete but yeah I would say that the strongest part of the movie is that is that

cue sequence because that is the part of Napoleon's biography that really matches up with the sort of odd manic over the top humorous tone of the movie

yeah I think I like I generally agree with that yeah like um yeah i thought the when you said interesting one to describe the depiction of napoleon and uh josephine i i'm like i was right on board with that because it was interesting indeed um brett well what did you what's what was your impression i'll go after you sure yeah well first of all i just have to say that um with the josephine stuff i i listened to everett's episode with uh chopo trap house on the subject and the the hilarity of your discussion around the sex stuff was great. So we're probably not going to be able to get

into that stuff on this episode, but if people want to hear some more details about like the real life, you know, sexual realities of Josephine and Napoleon. Definitely go check it out because that was featured in the film, you know, Napoleon as a sort of spastic and quick lover, you know,

adding to the humor that Phoenix infused the character with. It was an interesting element. So people can definitely go check that out for more on that. Do I need warn you of my indiscretion? No, madame. Does where I have been concern you? No, madame.

No, madame. but if you look down you'll see a surprise once you see it you will always want it but what I loved about the movie and from the jump I loved this part of it was the peer spectacle, the costumes, right, the dress of the characters was on point. And just being immersed visually in revolutionary era of France is really cool because, you know, you can look at documentaries and they'll have paintings and, you know, you can get some visual idea of what things were like, but to have a huge budget bring that era of French political

history to life and to visually be immersed in that spectacle was fascinating. And just as a film, you know, history aside, I thought it was an entranced entrancing film. Like, it didn't feel two and a half hours. I was loving every second of it, being immersed in it. Of course, I noticed, and we'll get into this in a bit, the historical errors. And it was very clear from the beginning that Ridley Scott wasn't overly concerned with that aspect of it. I liked Phoenix as Napoleon. I had a lot of hopes for him.

I like Phoenix playing weird characters. Obviously, the famous one is him playing the Joker. but also many years ago with Philip Seymour Hoffman where he played the character and the master. You know, very interesting, dynamic actor. So I was interested in how he would portray Napoleon. And before Arjun, before you go on with your take on this, I'm just interested really quick in Everett's take of Joaquin Phoenix

as an actor playing Napoleon, since Everett, you have a really good grasp of Napoleon as a historical figure. What do you think about Phoenix's portrayal of Napoleon? Napoleon. You know, no one is going to, in a two-and-a-half-hour movie, sort of cover every facet of his character. So with that caveat, I did think it was a pretty good performance. He did capture, you know, Napoleon was this sort of introverted, eccentric guy in a lot of ways.

You know, you look at how people viewed him before he was, you know, a powerful, famous, influential person. And he was seen as kind of an odd ball and an outsider. There's a great description of him from someone who knew him in his early life that talks about him just kind of looking ramshackle and looking sort of he didn't take much care at his appearance and he wasn't really into small talk and he just was not an attractive figure, I guess you would say. And I thought that Phoenix did capture that. and did do a good job with the

you know bringing that sort of you know he almost seems when you read about him he almost seems distracted quite often because he's just you know he I think he's a person who lived a lot of his life in his own head and I think that that did come across in the performance that sort of introversion intensity you don't get very much of Napoleon's charisma from this movie um i think that that's more a failing of the uh the writing than it is of uh phoenix's

performance though yeah urgent yeah like i was you know i was i was hoping for something like very different but like i did not expect it because you know it's hollywood but i'm excited any time history is brought to the screen especially like this way which i thought was very grand and um like you know all of us i'm sure like long ago gave you up on like historical accuracy in film and I don't think it's fair to expect it you know when you're covering something as huge as Napoleon like to condense it down into two and a half hours is almost an impossible that um um task and you know I thought the acting and I'm going to take exception with this you with you guys like apart from Napoleon was quite good um and like

I thought particularly like the depictions of like the horrors of like candid and musket warfare was like portrayed really well and overall like it was quite a grand spectacle I have to say that like I have to give credit for that for sure yeah grand spectacle is a good way to put it I did you know you guys both mentioned that and I should say I agree with that that that it was engrossing and it was very fun to be immersed in that world absolutely yeah and I'll just, like, okay, can we talk about the sex for a second? Because, like, you know, we have Everett here, and Everett's an expert in Napoleon's sex life and sex, yeah, Everett, Everett's, like, the.

But, yeah, okay. All right. Napoleon was, like, a very skilled lover from everything I've ever read about it, right? And, yeah, that's the reputation, right? right right um like i i referring to um uh uh i think i either heard it on your show or maybe the chopo episode you said you once heard a debate between two BBC scientists uh sorry historians that um whether or not he slept with a thousand women right yes they were the people i saw i once overheard two historians debating whether or not his uh his body count was over a thousand uh which is a lot and by yeah by all accounts both napoleon and josephine were uh quite gifted in that department so it was a little weird and disappointing to see that their their sex life as depicted as so dismal i think i can explain it though okay so wakene went deep in the batman lore to play the joker right we can all agree on that like he went he he goes deep and really gets into his characters i think somehow in his research and you know researching all the films i saw like danny de vito's

penguin fucking josephine but yeah that that's that's my only like the only thing um like that i didn't really like about it but also i agree with what whatever said like i found none of the charisma um that you know i think it developed with as he gained confidence in in rank particularly, I mean, we'll talk about the history, but like, during it, like, early in his rise, he, um, uh, had a way with people. And, you know, it, that didn't really come across because it seemed like, you know, um, uh, he was kind of forced to be accepted just, uh, by merit of his military victories when in fact, I think he was a rather charismatic person. Um, after his getting over his initial awkwardness.

Yeah, Everett, can you speak a little bit more to that? Yeah, I think that's right. Yeah. Yeah, you know, that's something that I think even professional historians sometimes underrate about him is that he was, you know, as I mentioned, he was kind of an oddball, kind of an introvert. But he was really good at, you know, what we would call like retail politics. there's one little snippet in the movie where they sort of hint at this that part during the invasion of Russia

where he's kind of handing out bread to the soldiers and sort of kidding around with them Right, right. He was doing stuff like that all the time. A huge proportion of his soldiers had met him and had a chance to talk to him. And he was constantly just sort of getting involved with what the soldiers were doing.

I've always enjoyed. There's a letter I found of his once where he went and visited the camps of the army when they were waiting to invade Britain, which never actually happened, obviously. And he visited the camp and then wrote a letter back to the war ministry in Paris. And he's just listing all of the things that had been issued to the army and what kind of giving his rating on them. So, like, you know, the tents are satisfactory. The heart biscuit is not good. It needs to be replaced. The meat is good. You know, and so that's the level of involvement he has with kind of the soldiers' everyday lives.

Yeah. The movie, you don't get that. You know, I remember thinking at the end, you know, I watched the movie this big crowded auditorium with people who know nothing about Napoleon. And at the end, when you see his soldiers rallying to him after his exile, it's like, you know, know, they must have been confused as to why that happened because they never really show his relationship with, with, uh, the country or the army. Right. Yeah, totally. I, I mean, we'll get to it.

But I think it comes down to the fact that, like, um, they didn't showcase the Italian campaign, like, um, his first major command because like, I think we learn a lot about Napoleon just there about like everything. And I think that's really where he grows. he matures into this kind of charismatic person because there's like you know positively like marian what the way like or or like Caesar or Sulla like the way that he interacted with his troops you know and like little it's exactly right little corporal was like a term of endearment and respect not an insult and I actually think if you were going to make a movie about Napoleon

that was you know sort of aimed at getting to his essence that campaign would be a really good vehicle for that, to just, you know, limit the scope of the movie to only be about that one campaign. I think that would do a really good job of showcasing his character and, you know, not just sort of the comical and ridiculous side, but the, you know, the sides that was able to conquer half the continent and leave quite a mark on the modern world. I completely agree that, like, you know, if I could, obviously, and we'll get to this in a bit, but if I could make it a different film, I would have done exactly what you said ever, which is like sort of limited to maybe a key military victory and then explore his

psychology and the depths of his, you know, personality and more, you know, and more in depth and less military history. Now, the military parts are obviously the spectacular parts of the film and so they're fun and they're beautiful to watch. But, you know, it could have been done a little differently. But again, that's nitpicking. People are going to make movies, how they make movies and you know the critics are going to say what they have to say but i i did want to say that one of the things that's important about this and my experience really cashed this out and i think um everett even alluded to this little bit you got to have background knowledge of napoleon walking into this film if you're walking into this film trying to you know to learn about napoleon

you're going to be utterly confused if you don't have some basic background knowledge of french of the french revolution you know you're going to be very confused who is this guy talking in the first scene well it's robespier you know what do you know what do you know about him. And then, yeah, just like when he came back from exile and he quickly rallied his troops to his side and they immediately, you know, embraced him and fell in line behind him, yeah, you don't know that because the Phoenix character is like this, this goofball with no charisma. You can't imagine why he could just say a few words and immediately win over the hearts and minds of, you know, dozens or hundreds of troops. But if you know more about the background,

you know that he was as you both said well loved by his men and he had a lot of charisma particularly with them in a lot of ways like like caesar had with with his with his soldier so i think that background knowledge going into the film was really crucial my wife came with me she's not particularly interested in this history didn't know a lot about it and afterwards she sort of confirmed that you know there it was fun to watch but she was you know spent a lot of the movie sort of lost not quite sure what was happening it's funny you should say that because like um i noticed around me in the movie theater apart from the couple behind me where like they were fighting the whole time because um the lady was very mad

that she had to pay for the tickets and the guy was like well uh i paid for your drink um so that was going on behind me but everywhere else around me i saw people constantly like looking at their phones not but like you know um because there's a dark theater you kind of see what they're looking at were looking at Wikipedia entries, explaining to whoever they went with what was happening. I think it was kind of fascinating because half the audience knew the history and then half the audience did it. And a lot of the movie was people explaining stuff back and forth. Yeah, definitely. I actually got a wonderfully lucky in that it was just me and my wife in the entire theater.

It was actually really cool. So I didn't get to see any reaction from fellow moviegoers, but we got the entire theater to our to watch it in the middle of the day a week or so after it came out. So I thought that was an interesting experience. But I found myself, you know, reaching, like, leaning over and explaining, you know, things or my wife, like, tapping me and asking me, like, what's going on here? And I was trying to fill in the blanks. But let's go ahead and get into the criticism. We've certainly launched a few criticisms already, but, you know, maybe we can go a little bit more in depth. What did the film get wrong? And what are your, what are your

major critiques of the film, both as a film, perhaps, as well as an ostensible history? Well, as far as just, you know, accuracy, you know, Arjun, I think you said very well at the beginning, you know, accuracy in historical fiction is kind of, you know, not the primary goal. And I think we should not judge creators of historical fiction for inaccuracies, you know, overly harshly. Because it is, you know, they are not doing nonfiction. They are doing fiction. That said, there are, I mean, a huge number. I mean, almost every scene is not how it happened. I saw a clip from the BBC where they had some historian on being interviewed about this movie. And he said that there were only, out of the two and a half hours, there were only 38 minutes that were accurate. And that struck me as maybe a bit charitable, actually. But to me, you know, again, that's not the most important thing.

To me, the real criticism of this movie is sort of the void at the center of it, which is Napoleon himself. I think that they don't really, I mean, this is probably the most impactful, you know, single individual of modern history, a guy who led an absolutely crazy life, who millions and millions of people followed, hundreds of thousands laid down their lives for. you don't get any sense of why you know why was he able to do all these things why was he popular why did people follow him why was he important the movie does not seem to be interested in any of these questions

it's mostly about sort of the ridiculous side of his personality more than anything else and as sort of the dysfunction of his relationship So, you know, I felt like there was a big, a big part of the story missing. Maybe the director's cut will, will cure me of that.

But that to me was the biggest criticism, more than the inaccuracies, some of which were slightly annoying. But I think, you know, again, this is a big budget Hollywood movie. I don't think we should be expecting accuracy in any sense that a, you know, historian would recognize yeah yeah totally i i agree with you i think like they you know there was no joie de v if you will you know like uh it was it was it was um especially like when it came to napoleon it was a very kind of um i always say like a dark brooding character like almost like an introvert throughout you know rather than showing like an evolution of

of his character, which I think is more true to history and I think would have been pretty easy to do. But I also thought like, okay, so in the major battle, so like, and there were quite a few in this movie, like, I, like, I would have appreciated more like a, of an aerial view that would have, like, allowed the viewer to kind of know what was actually happening. Like, I'm not a fan of like Oliver Stone's Alexander, but like he shot the titanic battle of Gagamela and gave a sense of like what was happening at each, on each side of the battle by like dividing it into wings through the aerial view. And I thought like that would have been a brilliant technique to employ here. The battles, there's some really cool visuals in all the battle scenes, but they don't really

give you much of a sense of how Napoleon was. these battles. You know, they sort of kind of crudely implied this trap at Austerlitz, but they don't really show you how that was achieved. And the other thing, the other criticism I had of the battles,

they sort of seem short and small scale. Right. And maybe that's just a challenge of the, of trying to show so many of them in this short time frame. But, you know, Austerlitz, you know, from the version of We get in the movie, you would assume that, you know, it was like a few thousand people fighting for like, you know, maybe an hour and a half when in fact, it was like, you know, well over a hundred thousand people who fought for the better part of a day.

Some of these battles lasted several days. And you don't really get much of a sense of that from this movie. Yeah. Yeah. Brett, well, how about you? What do you think? Yeah, no, I like the battles. I definitely agree with all that. And yeah, the battles, because the movie was focused on showing, you know, um, you know, um,

in spectacular form some of these battles and all of that that you sometimes are you sometimes aren't informed on what like sort of as ever was saying what makes napoleon a military genius you know it's just like he's winning but you're not exactly sure why he's winning so many you don't get the full sense of just how desperate i mean you get us a little bit but just how desperate the rest of europe was to to stop this madman um and then also his his his four way into into egypt is one of in my personal opinion, one of the most interesting aspects of Napoleon's sort of military career. And of course, you know, it's like it shows that scene where they shoot off the top of the pyramid, which, you know, kind of just bothers me because we all see the pyramid.

We know that the top is still on. And like the fact that like, you know, the real battle happened some, some 20 miles away or whatever. Of course, these are just, you know, little things that are woven into the, to the movie to sort of speed things up and make a point. And I think really Scott even mentioned, like, I don't really care about. the historical accuracy of the Egyptian campaign and him blowing off the top of the pyramid was just sort of shorthand for like he came he saw he conquered blah blah blah blah but you know I I would have liked a little bit more of that there was that scene where Napoleon and his you know humor like Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of him as this sort of humorous buffoonish sort of character sort of looking at the mummy and you know like getting face to face with the mummy looking all weird and the guys are standing behind him sort of giving each other like weird glances like what is this guy doing but you know of course that is a that's a big part of the story where he basically or his campaign basically found the the field of egyptology um and i would like to of course seen a little bit

more on that if you just had a whole two and a half hour movie about napoleon in egypt that would have been pretty fascinating another thing that i would have really loved and this is probably nitpicking of course at all is but um to get deeper into the psychology of of napoleon you know the the sort of egoic grandeur of him seeing himself as a Caesarian figure and then like playing out that reality where it just seems like, you know, fate really is on his side. The God of War really seems to walk beside him. Getting into that element of his psychology would have certainly been interesting. You know, that famous quote when he was in the Egyptian campaign where he says, I saw myself founding a new religion, marching into Asia, writing an elephant, a turban on my head,

and in my hand the new Quran. This is like, you know, insane megalomania that he's going to do this? Well, yeah, go ahead. I should point out that that quotation, he's being self-deprecated. Mm, okay. Damn, I didn't know that. It's a very, it's a very commonly misunderstood quotation. You read the whole context, and he's, he's reflecting back on the Egyptian campaign years later, and he is, you know, that's something people don't, I think, realize about Napoleon is in private, all that egomania just kind of evaporated. And he was actually, actually, really self-deprecating to his close, you know, confidants of which there were not many. But in that quotation, he's basically being sarcastic and saying, yeah, I had all these

crazy dreams about what would happen when I got there and none of it panned out because it was also grandiose and the reality was a lot tougher than I'd imagined. And so that's what he's saying in that quote is he's making fun of his own ambition. Interesting. Fascinating. which is not a side of Napoleon you really see in kind of the popular image of him. Did you guys see the argument on Twitter that came out? Like, okay, so obviously it was about like shooting the top of the pyramid off. And then there was this whole other argument, you know, particularly among like the BBC historian that did, to your knowledge, did Napoleon's,

cannon blow off the Sphinx's nose. Is that true? Or is it false? Or is that British propaganda? I, you know, I tried to wade too deeply into these sort of specific apocrypha, because there's just, there's so many sort of unsourced stories about him. I've never read a good source that mentioned that. So I don't think that's true. but I mean you never know with this guy I don't think that's true in short no

right right so yeah like you know just like to be a troll I was just trolling that like you know Napoleon discovered the Rosetta Stone

which is like the most prominent thing you'll probably see in the entire British Museum which is vast and I think that for like the sake of like Britain's own self image. Not that they're going to give back anything, but if they were to give back everything,

they would always hold on to the Rosetta Stone because like winning over Napoleon is so essential to Britain's self image. Oh yeah. Well, you know, that was, there was a big

legal battle over that because like technically speaking the Rosetta Stone was actually stolen from a French officer. It came into the possession of a French officer during the expedition. And when the expedition at the very bitter end had to surrender to the British, but it was a conditional surrender.

And one of the conditions was the British would allow the officers to keep all their possessions and would ship all their possessions back to France with them. And so the day comes, and this French officer is, you know, overseeing them loading this gigantic stone onto the ship. And some British officer comes out and is like, wait, wait, wait, wait, come on. That's not your personal possession. That thing's huge. We're not bringing back to France for you. Come on.

And the guy says, hey, it's in the treaty. You people side. If you didn't want to take my stuff back, you should decide the treaty. and it became this big controversy and you know there was a you get to the point

where the diplomats of the two countries were fighting over it so that was that was quite a a hot potato in the early 19th century the Rosetta Stone

between Britain and France of course you know Egypt's not a part of this conversation unfortunately no of course not Egypt can never be involved

it had nothing to do with the revusat yeah so I kind of to talk about the legacy of Napoleon, particularly in the relationship between the British and the French. Sometimes people outside of Europe, you know, Americans who study this history don't know that this is still such a hot topic, such a controversial topic. You know, people in Britain sometimes see Napoleon as a sort of Hitlerian figure even. Can you speak a little bit to that legacy

between Britain and France and why Napoleon is such a figure of largely disdain, but in general, fascination for the British still? That was something that I was not fully prepared for when I started the show. To me, you know, I'm very interested in this stuff, but to me it doesn't really have the, I don't see it as having much sort of direct one-to-one resonance in the modern world. You know, to me, these questions of, you know, kind of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? I mean, it's so far in the past and they're, you know, I don't really find a lot of good guys on any side of this story, you know, to me it's like, you know, reading about the Trojan War or something. It's just, you know, it's all, it's too, it's so far in the past. Who's, who's, who's thinking about it in those terms? Well, it turns out a lot of, quite a lot of British people are thinking about it in those terms. I think there's sort of a narrative of British history that's out there that's, you know, sort of, you know, that depicts the British as sort of these perennial defenders of freedom

in Europe, you know, against Napoleon, against the Kaiser, against Hitler, against the Soviets, that, you know, the British have always answered the call to sort of defend the rights of the the small countries of the continent from these, these would-be dictators. And I just, you know, it's not an entire. And you can sort of see how people came to believe that, especially given all of the propaganda about Napoleon that was distributed in Britain during his lifetime. But that's just not really, you know, I don't think that's a very fruitful lens to look at this stuff through. And certainly not a very interesting lens. You know, that's always something that surprises me. You know, there's these people who are sort of obsessed with the topic who choose to look at it through this sort of reductive, lens that kind of destroys nuance and just kind of flattens the story. And I kind of don't understand why you would obsess over something and then pick kind of the least interesting view of it, if that makes sense. Yeah. And as far as I'm aware, France was never able to like invade Britain

and commit atrocities or anything. So the fact that like average Brits would be still so worked up about it and so invested in making Napoleon this evil figure. I mean, I get that There's this long rivalry between the two countries and all these battles that took place before, during it after the Napoleonic era. But am I correct? Like, they never crossed the channel and invaded Britain, right? No, I mean, they, they, they, um, there was a period of sort of invasion fever where it looked like they were about to. And so for actually several years, there was this, uh, sort of public panic in Britain, um, which I think is actually the origin of some of these attitudes. but they never were able to actually set foot on British soil.

There was a sort of abortive diversionary invasion where they very briefly were able to put some troops in Wales when they was a attempt to invade Ireland. But there was never any serious French invasion of the UK. Right. So the preparations for that crossing, they're kind of akin to Operation C. sea line that like the Nazis were trying to do, right? They were building up and up and up on the north coast of France, but the British Navy and the weather on the channel would make like

a crossing like impossible, right? Right. And you know, it's just, you know, amphibious warfare in that era is just so difficult. I mean, you really needed, I mean, the British could barely pull it off and they were the best in the world at it. So that was, I think more than anything, Napoleon was hoping that sort of the threat of an invasion would affect the internal politics in the UK, which he was sort of half successful at. He was able to affect the internal politics of Britain, but in the opposite direction than what he was hoping. He was hoping that would encourage sort of pro-peace voices to come forward. But, but instead, what happened is people sort of got very afraid and rallied around the government, hoping

the government would protect them from Napoleon. Fascinating. That is, yeah. So I have another part of the history and the film that, you know, the film depicted this event as well. There's a famous painting about it. And I've obviously, when I was in Paris, I stood outside Notre Dame. It was still being repaired from the, from the fire several years ago. So people weren't allowed in.

But this is the, this is the, the cathedral with. which, or within which Napoleon crowned himself emperor. And of course, it doesn't go into the background of the history here, but my understanding is that a thousand some years earlier, Charlemagne, you know, was sort of being crowned king or whatever, and the Pope at that time put the crown on the head of Charlemagne. And what that symbolized was, although you have the rise of this powerful political sovereign, he ultimately derives his power. He ultimately derives his power, or is in some way underneath the rule of the church. And so Napoleon, understanding that history,

because Napoleon was a bit of a history nerd himself, understanding that history refused to allow any other person to put the crown on his head. And so he insisted on, and sort of to the shock of the people attending, insisted on putting the crown on his own head, basically learning from the mistake of Charlemagne. And I was, and, you know, of course, also calling himself emperor, not king.

There are many kings throughout Europe at this time. And, of course, the revolution that allowed Napoleon to rise in the first place came about by beheading their king. So Napoleon was not going to call himself a king of France or one king among many. He insisted on calling himself emperor, standing above even kings. I found the crown of France in the gutter. I picked it up with the tip of my sword. and cleaned it and placed it atop my own head. I thought that was interesting portrayal, interesting history,

and I'm wondering what your thoughts are or if you could even deepen our understanding of that event. So, as you mentioned, yes, there's the influence of Charlemagne. Charlemagne's a huge influence on the coronation ceremony. And so Napoleon was surely thinking of that precedent. but he no one was shocked by him crowning himself

that was actually pre-planned and had always been a part of the ceremony and part of that was actually meant to represent his own the fact that he had

seized the crown through his own efforts and that he was you know he did not view himself as subordinate to the Pope in any way but part of it also was that the

the pope was actually sort of on the fence about even being involved at all because the conflict between France and the Vatican was only had only been over for a few years and was still sort of it was still a lot of hurt feelings and so they actually had to sort of beg the Pope to even be involved and actually he uh quite the kind of the compromise they settled on was that he would be there to sort of bless the event, but then he would leave before Napoleon crowned himself so that he wouldn't actually be associated with that specific moment of the ceremony. And part of his conditions for being involved in that, he demanded some territory from France, which France promised him and then renegaton. And he also demanded

that Napoleon and Josephine get a proper Catholic wedding, which they had not done. As the movie depicts, they were married in a civil ceremony. And so, actually, the night before the coronation, they had to find a priest and bring him into the palace and they have him do a quick wedding ceremony for Napoleon and Josephine, because otherwise, the Pope would not be involved, because in the eyes of the church, Napoleon and Josephine were not even technically married. So they had to go through this weird sham ceremony the night before the coronation. interesting like so do you guys do you guys think that like the act of him crowning himself like you like ever you said that it was pre-planned do you think that was an effort to um

like you know obviously he kind of subverted he did to subvert the revolution but um do you think it was um meant to display revolutionary ideals in the sense that you know his image his propaganda. I'm a common man and I'm crowning myself. I made myself emperor, therefore, I'm the end result of the revolution. So I think that's exactly right. The coronation, to us, it looks like this kind of weird, stilted, you know, almost medieval ceremony. But it actually, he did not follow the precedence of an old medieval style coronation. That whole ceremony was sort of new and at the time actually people kind of found it weird because it was it was not hard it was not a traditional coronation it was not harkening back to the middle ages um it was sort of

all invented tradition um you know a lot of stuff like uh some of the regalia was called you know like the the scepter of charlemagne but you know charlemagne never touched it it was new it was It was sort of crafted to look old and sort of imply that it was related to Charlemagne, but it was all new, invented tradition. So it is very much, you know, I read something interesting recently that talked about, you know, that famous Napoleon said, I am the, said the revolution is over when he took power. And this argued actually that that's maybe not the right translation. and that maybe we should be saying that Napoleon said the revolution is completed,

meaning, you know, not that I'm rejecting it so much that, you know, it was a process and now the process is completed and, you know, here is the product of that process, which is a fully reformed French monarchy that has incorporated all of the positive developments of the revolution. and is and so there there is no more need for um you know ongoing political dissension and turmoil because the process is over and you know now we can turn the page yeah yeah that's amazing that's amazing yo i'm loving this guys because like i'm getting more from you two than i have like in in preparing for this i went back and read all my old books and then i started listening to like

you know lectures and podcasts and stuff and like yeah man like i just literally heard today some on one of the big you know interview podcasts where they said that he he was the professor said that he was held the scepter of charlemagne and i was like i was pretty sure that's big but no we have proof thank you for that yeah i appreciate ever at correcting the record on several things i would watch full documentaries and some of the things that i said like even that quote when he was in egypt was presented in several documentaries as not at all self-deprecating as a genuine reflection of his growing, you know, megalomania or whatever. So it's really helpful to have those sorts of things criticize.

There's so much apocryphal stuff when it comes to a figure like Napoleon. So so much stuff seeps into the discourse. Mythologies are created around them. So, you know, this is one of those topics that can lend itself to various distortions. But I think this discussion leads well into this next question, which I think is really crucial to understanding. We're just talking about him seeing himself as the pit. minical of the of the revolution in a lot of ways um people throughout france welcomed him becoming emperor

as this symbol of now stability after many years of tumult you know you have the french revolution you have the reign of tear you have the thermidorian reaction it's a big period of instability for the french um and so you know in this in what in some sense napoleon sort of ends the revolution wraps it up betrays it in some ways i mean where's the republic it's gone he's now the emperor. But in other ways, he carries forward the modern, modernizing aspects of the French Revolution. So the question to both of you is, what is Napoleon's ultimate relationship to the French Revolution and its legacy? I would love to hear your thoughts on that connection. Everett, you're the man. You go first, man. Well, you know, like anything with Napoleon,

you know, the answer is it's complicated. But to actually delve into the question, you know, in some ways, yes, he is the ultimate betrayer of the revolution. You know, he brought back he, he, you know, cozied up to the Vatican. He brought back the aristocracy, you know, both

literally in the sense of restoring the concept of nobility to France and then also welcoming back the emigres who had left the country during the revolution. And, you know, he, his, his coups,

was launched with a pretense of cracking down on the left before they could launch their own coup, which was not true. You know, his secret police were waging war on the left, and they waged war right back at him by trying to kill him and kidnap him repeatedly. So, you know, yeah, Napoleon in some ways is a reactionary figure. Well, maybe not fair to call him a reactionary figure, but at least they can conservative figure. In some ways, he is a, you know, counter-revolutionary. But kind of if you look at this broader legacy, sort of what were the, you know, on the biggest possible level, you know, what was the macro impact of his career on humanity? As you say, it's basically, he was an agent of the revolution, the ultimate agent of the revolution. We probably did more to spread the ideals of the revolution. We probably did more to spread the ideals of the revolution. than Robes-Pierre or Dantan or any of the other, you know, great firebrand radicals of the really radical period of the revolution.

You know, look at, and again, it's not, you know, there's the side to him. It's kind of a strange paradox where the side of him that is most important is his most boring side. You know, he was an absolute workaholic and his administrative reforms and sort of philosophy of government and philosophy of society that he tried to inculcate wherever his influence spread was very modern and for the time progressive and a big reason that those ideals became so important in the 19th century. So, you know, again, on a, you know, close read, you know, personal level, he's, you know, in some ways the destroyer of the revolution. But then you zoom out and you see, well, in other ways, he's the man who brought the revolution global. So it's kind of a complicated relationship. Brett, I have to give credit to my dear friend, Brett. He said it best, and I've quoted him many times in the last six months after I heard.

it, he said that Napoleon launched a Republican jihad across Europe. And I kind of think that's sometimes called him, semi-jokingly, I've called him the Stalin of liberalism, which again, kind of a joke, but kind of not. Yeah. Yeah, that's awesome. I mean, yeah, so, like, you know, there was definitely that cracking down on the extreme left wing. he also if I'm not mistaken crack down on royalists uprisings was that was that depicted in the film him him cracking down on I believe that was a royalist sort of reactionary uprising correct that he put down early in his career yeah the movie they show it is just kind of him mowing people down mercilessly which is how it was depicted in the right wing right wing press but in reality that was a that was a fight I mean he lost a hundred men on that day so you know That was a... But yeah, he's the iron fist that crushed the royalists on that day. Sorry, it was, this was the 1795-ish, right? The, when he opened fire on the crowd using grape shot, yes?

36. Yeah. But the crowd, he's opening fire on, is mostly made up of National Guard companies who had mutinied and these sort of armed street gang. that were sort of affiliated with the right way. So it's, you know, in the in the movie, it's like, oh, these, you know, it's like old women and crippled guys and it's so sad. And in reality, it would have looked like a battle with guys in uniforms and carrying guns shooting at, you know, it was a, you know, they weren't, they weren't organized military force. But it was, you know, imagine if on January 6th, the D.C. National Guard had flipped over and joined the, the, the, you know, protesters and they'd had to call out the 101st airborne you know to stop them that's basically

what happened oh perfect yeah that yeah because i yeah when i thought when i thought in the movie i'm like this is wrong um because yeah my impression was that it was it was it was quite a battle and like the the the use of the canon and the grape shot didn't happen right away which to me implied that it was a progression of like rising violence that finally they're like okay the only way we can win is opening fire with freaking grape shot on in Paris streets

yeah and which you can still if you go to that intersection today you can still see the the grape shot the grape shot rounds bounced off the face

of a church and you can still see the little holes and the facade of the church wow that's awesome and yeah early in his

early in his career like I believe he wasn't an early jacobin right so like as a younger man um obviously the revolution made possible people to rise on account of merit i mean he was from a noble family but he was corsican he was certainly not in the ruling elite of the ancient regime um it was the revolution that allowed him to rise up and i believe he was an early sort of supporter of the jacobins in particular am i correct on that yeah he um actually you know the uh in revolutionary france you have these sort of patron client relationships between officers and members

of the legislature. And Napoleon's big, one of his first big patrons was Augustin Robespierre, the younger brother of Robespierre, who we all know. So, yeah, he was very much, not only on the left,

but actually on the not the most radical left, but definitely on the left of the Jacobins. who were the furthest left faction to actually gain power during the revolution. So there was quite an ideological transformation, which I think, again, it would have been interesting to see some of that on the screen. It's too bad. They didn't do that.

Yeah, truly, because I think the class dynamics at play weren't really mentioned at all. Like my impression of the fresh revolution on screen was that it was very drab and the people were basically revolting against the king and not a litany of injustices that the system imposed on that. Well, and they don't really should. This is something that I actually, a gripe I have with a lot of depictions of the revolution, which is they sort of show it as the people or the, you know, the people or these, you know, this cabal of crafty revolution. depending on your perspective, you know, sort of rising up to challenge the monarchy and destroying it, when what really happened was basically the monarchy collapsed. And the revolutionaries sort of stepped into the void left by this, you know, this government that was just, you know, too weak and incompetent to actually address the country's problems. So it's really less, you know,

people attacking the state that it is the state sort of just receding and being replaced by something else slowly over the course of years. And that's probably, it's kind of not the sort of orthodox traditional view of how revolutions work, but when you look at them up close, that is generally the model. Definitely. Yeah, it's so fascinating, like, especially like like what uh i mean we're going to get to it later but like you know the the ideals of the revolution and you know one of the good things that you could say like internationally anyway about napoleon's code that he imposed and i believe simon boulevard was um there at his coronation who became the liberator of like self america and um like he imposed his version uh he gave his version

of the Napoleonic Code to the people, but it was all driven. That entire independence movement was driven and inspired by all the feelings and drives of the Fresh Revolution itself. Bolivar has a fascinating relationship with Napoleon. He, you know, both admired him. You know, he saw him both as a model and also was a cautionary tale. And you can see in his career, him sort of trying to, you know, consciously avoid the pitfalls that eventually ensnared Napoleon. But, yeah, you know, that's, again, that's the, I think, important part of his legacy is things like that.

But how cinematic is that? How do you depict that on the screen? I don't know. very sure yeah no no i wasn't i mean i wasn't really expecting that from the movie but like it's just like i thought that like this is this is not this is not a this is not a less necessarily a critique of this film but just you know media in general whenever they predict they portray a leftist movement they tend to be drab and dark and dry and hollow do you know what i mean like there's no there's no passion behind the people's movement it. I mean, often it's, you know, this movie, I think very much did it where it's, you know, all this, you know, all the political foments that happens around revolutions sort of gets simplified and flattened and becomes just sort of anger. You know, people got so angry that they got angry enough to kill the king. And, you know, that's just, again, you know, you look at it up close and it's just, there's so much more going on and there's, you know, lots of kind of structural political things that, you know, no one has control over

and are not subject to anyone's, you know, emotions. And that's really where the action is, you know, from like a historian's, a scholar's perspective, is in these factors that are, that are so far outside of, you know, individual people's feelings and emotions that really are the driving forces behind these things rather than, you know, just sort of, you know, There's a lot of, that kind of fear of the rabble, which I think you get in this movie and in a lot of media about the French Revolution and revolutions in general. That just kind of there's this mass, the rabble, and when they get mad enough, bad things happen. Yeah. That's really interesting, too, because something that happened in my personal life that aligned with my watching of this film and all the research around it, of course, and my ongoing interest in that history is, like, I'm taking a high-level college course from my master's degree, current.

on it was just an entire course. It's wrapping up next week on just the American Revolutionary era. Of course, France was a huge ally of the U.S. without French assistance. The U.S. very well could have lost that war to the Brits. Now, of course, the American Revolution is in many ways much more conservative than the French Revolution. The American Revolution was progressive in the sense that it formalized the break from constitutional monarchism to full on republicanism. But the founding fathers, quote unquote, they were very conservative people. They were very concerned with the rabble, with the mob. The construction of the constitution and the constitutional convention was really, in some ways, driven by this sort of fear of like, you know,

this balancing act of, you know, we want to create this republic and that's going to involve democracy, but we want to limit the scope of that democracy. Before the constitutional convention in the U.S., There was the period of time under which the loosely structured states were under the Articles of Confederation, right? Much less federalist, much less nationalizing government, much more control to the states. And it was actually Shea's rebellion, this sort of farmer uprising from the lower classes that really spooked the founding fathers and the elite in the new American country and really shifted away from the Articles of Confederation and necessitated. the construction of a more powerful national federalist state that was sort of codified in the Constitution and the constitutional convention. So these class politics are always at play. Now, the French Revolution in comparison was also, of course, a bourgeois revolution, also broke away from the constraints of monarchism and feudalism as this historical event. But in the early days, especially under Jacobin leadership, it was much more radical, much more left wing than the American Revolution. and of course that resulted in the thermidorian reaction and then eventually the you know the crowning of napoleon as emperor which sort of ended that republican experiment for a time the u.s never had a napoleonic like figure never had a regression like that and at the end of napoleon's life he you know he said famously and every this might be another apocryphal quote you can correct me but he said they wanted me to be another washington meaning you know Washington has this reputation of like in this dignified way he refused to go beyond his term limits. He, you know, confined himself to leaving and going back to Mount Vernon

and allowing the next election to take place when the stature of Washington was so big and he had so much popular support that if he wanted to pull a move like Napoleon pulled, he could have. Credibly, there was an option for him to do that and he didn't want to do that. So that Napoleon saying they wanted me to be a Washington, I always found very interesting. So there's this left-wing, egalitarian, progressive element to the French Revolution that the U.S. revolution didn't really have. But in other ways, there was this counter-revolutionary side that we've talked about. But there's also this big question of Haiti, right? You have the American Revolution, pretty conservative in relation to the French Revolution.

Then you have the Haitian Revolution, which is in some ways more revolutionary, more extreme than either of those two revolutions. and some of the worst elements of Napoleon came out in relation to Haiti, right? The reintroduction of slavery after the Code Napoleon had abolished slavery. Can you talk about Napoleon and his relationship with Haiti and why we can, as people on the left today, we can call his relationship with Haiti and his actions toward Haiti on the counter-revolutionary and very conservative side of his rule? Yeah, so that's, I mean, I would point to Haiti as the, you know, he's got many, many black marks on his record, but that, that I would say is the ugliest one. It should be said that he had no direct control over his troops in Haiti. So, you know, they were by far the most notorious, you know, of the, the black. deeds of the French army in this period.

That is, but Haiti is by far the worst. They really conducted themselves in a, I mean, not quite genocidal, but certainly bordering on genocidal level. And, you know,

it's, you see when, in the early phase of Napoleon's rule, where he's trying to sort of figure out where the line is on his compromises with, the old order, the counter-revolutionaries, because he's trying to, you know, his first big task is ending the civil conflict that had torn France apart since the radical phase of the revolution

and trying to sort of offer concessions to the old order, to the conservatives, whatever you want to call them, to get them back on board and sort of, you know, I talked about that, the idea of turning the page on the revolution. And so he's trying to find the line how to accomplish that, how to turn that page. And that involves concessions. And, you know, all through the history of colonialism, the colonies have played that role for European powers. As a space outside the politics in the mainland, where you, you can sort of square the circle of your political problems at home.

So it's a, from his perspective, it's a sort of consequence-free concession to the conservatives. You know, it's not going to reinstateing slavery in the colonies, not only in Haiti, by the way, all over the French colonies, they brought back slavery. And, you know, the idea is, you know, hey, this is something we can offer the conservatives that will make them very happy. the planter lobby was extremely powerful and extremely influential within the conservative movement. And it's not going to have an effect on domestic French politics. You know, it's not going to, you know, it's not going to have any impact whatsoever on my domestic program. I can just offer this bone to the old order. And so, you know, he, Napoleon as he used,

had been an abolitionist. So that's to me the really kind of disturbing thing about this, is that he's not some ignorant racist. He is a person who's been around black people in his life and worked with them in a positive way, who held anti-slavery beliefs, but he made the calculation that this was something politically he had to do. And so he did it.

And that is fascinating and kind of chilling to imagine the psychology behind a decision like that, that you're going to put people in chains who you know deep down don't deserve it. And the results are pretty terrifying as well. I think it kind of goes back to what we're talking about earlier with the Italian campaign and, you know, like how it gives us such insight into him.

Because like, you know, um, not only did he have that kind of, um, you know, hands on troop with the troops atmosphere and keeping them happy. His, um, campaign in Italy was and I know everyone always compares him to Caesar or Hannibal or Alexander the Great but to me Napoleon revealed himself as like Lucius Cornelius Sulla like

in his conduct in in the in the Italian campaign you know the looting to him he's still like in Greece I should say um he he's a looting mass looting mass rape mass plunder to pay his troops these revolutionary troops who haven't been paid in. God knows how long. And at the same time, repopulating the treasury and is very willing to embrace every element, but particularly the most conservative, when it's convenient to him. Do that make sense? Yeah.

Yeah, absolutely. And to me, that's the really interesting, you know, people talk about, you know, what a megalomaniac he was and what a, what a villain he was. And to me, I think people are sort of missing, you know, in a sense, they're missing what's really chilling about it, which is that he's not just slaking his bloodlust. He doesn't really have bloodlust. He actually is horrified by battlefield casualties. He's a person who, because he sees himself as, one of the great man of history. He, you know, was a reader of, as you called him a history nerd earlier in the episode. It's absolutely true. He was. And he very much understood and believed

that part of being a great man of history was being able to meet out violence when it was called for, being able to be cruel when it was called for, being able to be heartless when it was called for. And he, you know, to him, that was as much a part of the job as the nice stuff. And he saw it as his duty to approach that part of the job unflinchingly and to not think twice and just do it. And so you do have a person who, again, and it's not, he doesn't love killing people. It's in a way weirder than that. He just is kind of willing to do it because that's his role. and so in Greece man I'm telling you it's chilling when you when you look at it up close but you know on a certain level I mean everyone in that era who's a political actor is making

decisions like that so he's not really wrong it's just sort of no one else is doing it on that scale and no one else is doing it kind of with their eyes open like that and it's a little bit unnerving for sure take a close look at it that's a great point yeah now just to one more final point on this the Haitian chapter is I believe it's an 1802 in which Napoleon reintroduces slavery in the French colonies 1804 is the pinnacle of the Haitian revolution that ultimately succeeds do you know anything about Napoleon's reaction to the success of the Haitian revolution and the sort of kicking out of the French at that point well there's a famous supposedly when he was informed of you know that the expedition had surrendered and that it was really you know well and truly over supposedly he said damned coffee damned sugar damned colonies so I think you know this was just you know again he's not a he's not a sentimental person he's you know this is just a you know well

that particular policy initiative has failed that's a shame you know he's not uh he occasionally gets angry but he's not really a emotional person um so he you know he took it in stride as ugly and horrific as it was yeah fascinating stuff um very interesting yeah yeah so i want to sort of zoom in towards the the end of the conversation here and i want to talk a bit about um his eventual exile. There were two attempts, right? The first exile was in Elba, a small island in the Mediterranean. The second exile was in St. Helena, this far-flung island in between South America and Africa where a Napoleon ultimately died. You know, one of the things that fascinated me about Napoleon when I first got into his story was the fact that this guy was causing,

was such a menace in Europe that all of Europe had to basically team up and kick his ass out and jail him on this small island thousand miles away from the mainland so he could never return and you had British ships patrolling the island making sure Napoleon never gets off it's like just a fascinating story

of how one man was such a menace that he had to be completely exiled to this island so I'm just wondering leaving this question as wide open as I can if both of you can kind of give your thoughts and analysis on his exile and eventual death at the relatively young age I believe of like 51 years old

sure you know i i want to say like um his exile to elba is is kind of fascinating in that like you know the british took the british tabloids uh newspapers like you know i famous quotation headline um i hope he has enough elba room um but on elba she wasn't like a prisoner she ruled it and brought that brought that like island of, you know, being an original island boy himself. Because I'm an island boy and I've been trying to me. Oh, I'm an island boy. Like, um, evolved its economy and took like a severe interest in it. Whereas like, you know, his subsequent exile to St. Helena was quite literally a prison

sentence, you know, like they were, it, they were both like kind of vastly different. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. idea among the European nobility that sort of once you've been accepted as, you know, recognized as a legitimate monarchical ruler, that that is inalienable. And, you know, maybe we can, you know, shuffle around exactly how many territories you rule over. But, you know, really, you know, monarchs should not be in the business of deposing

other monarchs. You know, understandably, that is not a precedent. No one wanted set. Right. Divine right. Right. Yeah. You know, they all have a, you know, whatever their conflicts, every person in Europe with a crown has a shared interest in this idea that, you know, toppling someone from power is just not done. You don't, you know, we, there's need to be rules to these conflicts we have. And so they were, I think, a bit naive in thinking, that they could, you know, maintain this precedent with Napoleon, that he, you know, that he would just sort of retire and, you know, busy himself with, you know, setting the tariffs on this little tiny island and, you know, building a university for them and stuff like that. And, you know,

you can, you look at the diplomacy of the era and you can understand why they thought that was a good idea. But in retrospect, you know, something like the hundred days. when he came back was bound to happen. Yeah, totally. I completely agree with that. It had to happen, given the way it's like, you know, everything was set up for that before the first exile, yeah. And the way, I mean, the way Napoleon had lived his life.

I mean, it was not only set up for that, like, politically and geopolitically. I mean, his character, he did not stop for anything. It's the guy, you know, from his teenage years, did everything full bore 110 percent, you know, pushing until someone stops you, was kind of his attitude to basically everything. Someone like that does not just, you know, take a rest. Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. He was going to be pushing and pushing and pushing until they physically stopped it, which eventually they were forced to do.

yeah totally i i i um i wanted you guys like opinion on this like i think that um you know bringing it back to the movie i think that like um villeneuve dune gave us like the kind of perfect modern formula for an epic film and i would have loved to see like scott use this approach you know like you do like an all out roll of the dice on dune like rise of the twink like and it's well received and now we get dune too like revenge of the twig you know what i mean like you split it up into two kind of grand epics um because especially when you're doing with something like as a topic as vast as this i i feel like that kind of approach you know taking a risk by just doing i don't know like the

italian campaign in egypt and you know everything that was going on in between would have been in my opinion more compelling like what do you guys think about like that kind of approach to historical filmmaking, you know, given that, like, you know, we've all kind of, you know, given Hollywood a lot of credit and leeway in the sense that it's very hard to make historical movies. Yeah, I think, you know, a very good model is the movie Lincoln, which, you know, does not start with like Lincoln being born in a log cabin. It starts with him already president, and it's about a pretty discreet period of time. You know, really, it's not really so much a Lincoln biopic as it is a, you know, a film about

the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments and the end of the Civil War, sort of centered on Lincoln, but not really a biopic. I think that would have been an interesting approach to take with this, just because the story is so big. I also saw someone joked on Twitter that they should have done a, like, letters from Iwo Jima slash Flags of Our Fathers type deal where they could have done one movie that was like, you know, depicting Napoleon's real dark side, you know, it's showing him as this kind of heartless evil conqueror and then done another movie that showed him as sort of, you know, the avatar of the Enlightenment, destroying the old order, freeing Europe from feudalism, you know, the positive side of him. That would have been an interesting approach too. I would have loved to see something like that. Yeah. Yeah, for my two cents on that. What I would have loved, and I told this to my wife right after the film, is I don't know if people are familiar, but in 2008, there was this HBO drama called John Adams, where they, you know, do sort of immersed in the time, and you do, like, eight episodes or ten episodes, sort of going through all of that history instead of trying to fit it into two hours. And I think, like, an HBO-level drama series with a big budget, I mean, they did the old series in, like, 2004, Rome, which was another example of this historical epic where they, you know, sort of cover.

Shout out to Rome. Yeah, cover huge periods of time. And with a figure like Napoleon and a history like the Napoleonic age, I feel like movies are cool. They're awesome. They're fun. But I would have loved to see in like an actual drama television series really going through, where you could spend much more time delving into his character.

You could spend much more time on the history involved. And that would have, I think it would have lent itself to more, to a lot of the stuff that you and I would have liked to have seen from this film, but the limitations of film as such, you know, sort of require these sort of annotated versions, you know, these quick jumps through history, this hyper-fast pace that never slows down, and to be able to have a series, a drama series, that you could really take your time with it. Even with a figure like Joaquin Phoenix playing Napoleon, but allowing Joaquin to explore different aspects of Napoleon, I think that would have been like the best way to do this.

But that's just sort of my takeaway. Yeah, I mean, I'm biased. I've got a hundred hours under my belts. I'm only halfway through the story. So obviously, yeah, I agree that a longer format is better. That's true, yeah. Yeah, totally. All right.

Well, I think that about takes the cake for this episode. I really appreciate you guys coming on. I want to give you both one last chance to give maybe a final take on the film, a final take on the man. and then we can get into to recommendations and let people know where they can find you.

Do you guys have any final thoughts on this film and this history? Ever, go ahead, brother. I already said this on Chappo, but I'll say it again. The body count

that they show at the end should have been all the women Napoleon slept with knob because of the faculty from his battles. Here, here. Yeah, to me,

to me, it's like, beware, false populace. The thing about the left is whether people realize it or not, like, it represents 90% of the population. And it's so easy for us to turn on each other once the one or 10% is vanquished. So, like, to me, it's like any revolutionary project needs a few raw goals, like housing food education in the context of a representation, representative government. And anyone who veers off that is bound to be a demagogue.

Yeah. Interesting. All right. Hagle called them history on horseback, and that's why Napoleon's continues to fascinate us to this day, and the world that we live in today, you know, is in many ways a product of, not just Napoleon, of course, but of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era. So fascinating person, fascinating history. Thank you so much, Everett, and Arjun, for coming on the show, for doing this collaboration. Again, you have Age of Napoleon, Everett's show. I can't recommend it enough. Deep into history, Arjun's show, can't recommend that enough. As a final question to wrap up this conversation, do you have any other recommendations for those who would want to learn more about any of this history? And then can you please let listeners know where they can find you in your work online.

So if you know how to find this podcast, you can find my podcast as well. It's called The Age of Napoleon. It's, you know, look it up wherever you found this and you'll find it there. wonderful Arjun Awesome Yeah I just want to reiterate what Brett said

I recommend everyone listen to Asian Napoleon and if you're and Rev Laft Radio of course especially

you did some amazing episodes about the history of the French Revolution which I love as far as books go

I'll go back to where I started with Napoleon so there's a book called The Letters of Napoleon to Josephine Josephine by Diana Reed Hague.

I believe that book is out of print, so I'll be posting links to it on social media. You can follow me at Deepen History on every social media platform. I'm not on Facebook because like fuck that, but everything else. And

yeah, my show is available on every podcast platform and you know, it's such an honor to talk with you guys that had the best time. You guys rock. Absolutely. I share that sentiment. Thank you both so much. It was a lot of talking to you. Absolutely. All right. Have a good one, guys. The barons of industry put inspiration on Hitler's tongue.

It's crashed hard with a loud sound like a starting gun. It's a race for acquisition And to make more things that glow I got a knack for dodging bullets And flying zeros So I act like I am rich Try and make it my whole look Because poor people don't exist

When times are good Vaux's foster parents put cigarettes out in his ears. When he got old enough to stutter, he said, I don't listen, but I can hear. The eloquence of traffic, Yeah, the milk-on-side lament. It's a requiem of moments. I keep living. keep living through them but where's the monster in the closet I can't find the

hate man inside his hood I guess people don't exist when times are good Dr. Off and Hunter winced we thought the broken piece of his pacemaker. Unbuttoned his shirt on a subway platform clutching his chest while his vision blurred. He saw the bane of his creation, the destroyer of the world. Your truth can lead to solace or a lifelong bender. It's like wading through a wasteland where a town you loved once stood. You just cry each time you think of when times were good. I am I'm going to be

I'm going to I'm I'm going to I'm Napoleon's tailor dressed in a giant hat in a funny platform shoes. Saying anyone can be a hero, you just gotta force people to look up to you. So when you're talking on a hotline to a suicidal soul, don't let your voice sound like hot coffee, more like a scented pillow,

And strive for understanding over being understood. Just don't let yourself forget When the times get good When times get good When the times get good When the times get good When the times get good Chal.

Chas! POMAYOR. No.