Philip DwyerCritiques

Deserves to be more widely read. Subjects Pinker to detailed, withering critique. Very little of his “edifice” remains once they’re through. Slightly marred, for me, by an unfathomable ascription of telos to Marxism ( that’s been exhaustively debunked )

Lots of essays critiquing Steven Pinker’s argument that things are generally getting better in terms of human violence, some more successful than others. (If you count violence against the environment, for example, matters look different, or emotional violence—but I might actually not want to count the latter.) Still, interesting points about how violence varies across cultures; how Pinker way overstates the physical violence of prehistorical and medieval periods; and other relevant considerations. For example, comparing homicide rates to those in the medieval era in which there were no antibiotics and no understanding of things like sudden infant death syndrome, for which mothers were often blamed, does not make a lot of sense as a measure of relative rates of violence.

The epilogue of Napoleon’s most momentous life: his final exile and death in St. Helena, and then his surprising afterlife as time and Napoleon’s own efforts made the man once seen as a tyrant and conquered appear more of a liberal man of the people.

Dwyer tells of Napoleon’s exile, death and popular resurrection in a book that seemed shorter than I expected. There’s not actually that much plot here, and the personages are mostly third-tier nonentities compared to the Wellingtons and Talleyrands, tears and kings, Josephines and Hortenses with whom Napoleon interacted during his heyday. But Dwyer is an engaging writer who keeps readers engaged with — or perhaps despite — a very tight focus. I might have appreciated a deeper discussion of Napoleon’s memoirs and how they rewrote the public story of Napoleon’s life, but we largely don’t get details.

Still, this is an essential final chapter to understand the life of the most consequential man of his age.

The author states in his front matter that his intent is to write a biography emphasizing self-promotion as a major factor in Napoleon Bonaparte's rise to power. That sounds very much like the words of a man who is not in thrall to the Napoleonic Legend, and indeed the author takes a dim view of Bonaparte's abilities and personality. Yet bias is not the essential problem with this Brontosaurus. The problem, at bottom, is that his vehicle to examine said self-promotion is to obsess over some rather uninteresting paintings, newspapers, and plays in tedious detail; moreover, the reproductions of the paintings are so small and dark that the reader cannot follow along with the points he is making--admittedly the publisher's fault, not his own. Add on his fascination with abstruse tangents such as Corsica's politics in the revolutionary age, and the book soon becomes tiresome. The book contains very little military detail, which makes it a sketchy biography indeed, and one might suggest that if the author did simply want to explicate Bonapartist self-promotion, he should have written a shorter, more focused book on that specific subject, and ridden his hobbyhorse down that path.½

A rather long and rambling account of the rise to power of a humble corporal. A person who invented himself and hand crafted his way to ascendency through very tumultuous times for his country Starting with the Revolution, The terror under Robespierre, The Directory which was succeeded by his installation as Dictator. As they say, history repeats itself and another personality, in the same neighborhood, followed similar tactics almost a century and a half later to the utter horror and detriment of the whole world.

A rather long and rambling account of the rise to power of a humble corporal. A person who invented himself and hand crafted his way to ascendency through very tumultuous times for his country Starting with the Revolution, The terror under Robespierre, The Directory which was succeeded by his installation as Dictator. As they say, history repeats itself and another personality, in the same neighborhood, followed similar tactics almost a century and a half later to the utter horror and detriment of the whole world.

Excellent combination of scholarship and readability. Military history is not overemphasized, and the battle scenes that are presented are generally well supported by maps. (The one exception is the Battle of the Nile; but considering that this was a naval battle of Nelson versus Brueys, the absence of a battle map is consistent with the somewhat cursory treatment that Dwyer legitimately gives to a battle in which Napoleon himself played virtually no part.)

One complaint might be that Dwyer gives too summary a treatment to the French Revolution itself, but it's probably fair to expect a reader to have at least a general knowledge of this historical event and Dwyer does give a very good background of Paoli and Corsica, so important to Bonaparte's early life but not that well known among contemporary readers.

I also like the numerous illustrations of artwork that pertain to the Napoleonic myth and Dwyer's excellent tie-in between these illustrations and his text.

5092. Napoleon The Path to Power, by Philip Dwyer (read 29 Nov 2013) This book, first published in 2007, covers in interesting and vivid detail Napoleon's life up to the time of his seizure of power in November 1799. It is the fourth Napoleon biography I have read--having read John Holland Rose's 2-volume biography in August 1957, Alan Schom's on 15 May 1998, and Frank McLynn's on 24 Nov 2002. The book shows well how Napoleon over-glorified his victories and de-emphasized or lied about his defeats. The book does not say much good about Napoleon and there is not a great deal of good to say about him during the years covered by this book. A further volume will cover the balance of Napoleon's life and maybe some good things will be shown in such volume. But I found this a hugely readable and exciting account, even though it does not show Napoleon in a good light. His seizure of power was a near run thing and blatantly illegal--he was much helped by the inepitude of his enemies.

Napoleon is one of the most of famous general. he is genius and he defended his country by invaders. So he acceded to an empepor. But he loose war so he was banished from France. But his patriotism is greart.

For me, perfect. How did Bonaparte come to be who he was during the terror and post Thermidor. And that's what Dwyer focuses on: The italian campaign, Egypt and Napoleon's return to France. The book ends with Brumaire. Good intro to learn more.

This is a great catalog of a long and varied life who was a real "Talented Mr. Ripley". Even at the time of the Robespierre, Marie Antoinette, Terreur and Guillotine, Richelieu, Napoleon and Massive continous war with the Tsar of all the Russias, it was possible for certain individuals to continuously reinvent and defy constraints on the individual in what must have been an oppressive society for most. Lessons for all of us. He knew Ben Franklin and lots of other famous ones if I am not mistaken.

Napoleon Bonaparte is one of those leaders, like Churchill and Lincoln, about whom so much ink has already been spilled that it's hard to believe any writer has much usefully to add about him. Philip Dwyer is the rare historian who does, as he demonstrates in this very good biography.

As he swept across Europe like a tide, washing away remnants of the medieval order, Bonaparte became a prototype for many of the worst types of the twentieth century: master of political propaganda, military dictator, and centralizing-unifying-standardizing Leader of "the people" and fulfillment of the Revolution. As such, he's been a hero to megalomaniacs everywhere. But Dwyer cuts through all that to show us the vain, brutal, and intensely driven young man at the heart of it all. I found it interesting and useful that for much of the book, Dwyer refers to his subject as "Buonaparte," the Corsican-Italian name he was born with, only adopting the French spelling as he began to rise in prominence and visibility. It's a strong reminder of the importance of Bonaparte's position, during so much of his early life, on the geographic and social margins of French society.

French Revolutionary and Napoleonic history has never really been my thing, preferring as I do other parts of Europe and other eras in time. But not only did I very much enjoy this book on its own merits and learn a great deal from it, but I'm also most pleased to see this is intended to be the first volume in a biographical series. I'm sure the subsequent volume(s) will continue the strong pace set by this first book.