Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Was Napoleon Stupid?


I am extremely curious about Tolstoy's explanation of Napoleon's decisions once he reached Moscow.  In book 13, Tolstoy discusses Napoleon’s horrible decision making after the French arrive in Moscow. He does not prepare winter clothing, he sets the troops free in the city, and does not attempt to engage Kutuzov in any more battle.
Tolstoy states, “The most skillful strategist could hardly have devised an series of actions that would so completely have accomplished that purpose, independently of anything the Russian army might do” (Tolstoy 886). This quote is powerful, for Tolstoy is implying that Napoleon’s influence on his troops caused their retreat back to France. He is saying that, despite all of his genius, he failed his troops in Moscow. Tolstoy goes on to defend Napoleon though, talking about how he wasn’t stupid nor was he trying to fail his troops. I feel that Tolstoy contradicts himself somewhat there, for he says that Napoleon did the stupidest thing he possibly could do but he is not stupid.
So, why do you think that Napoleon made these decisions? Do you think he was not the genius Tolstoy and most people make him out to be? Or do you think he made some bad decisions at the wrong times? Or could he not have influenced their success because the winter would have defeated them anyways? I have so many questions about the portrayal of Napoleon during this time period as well as what Tolstoy believes influenced the retreat of the French.

7 comments:

  1. Tolstoy focuses a lot on the role of historians and the glorification of individuals, those in power in particular. Tolstoy also greatly illustrates the role of multiple factors in causing an outcome. Napoleon as emperor, it was definitely he who had to order a retreat but he did not cause it completely on his own. Tolstoy discusses multiple factors that caused the French to be weakened and so Napoleon cannot be blamed for everything even though some of his decisions in hindsight are questionable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You bring up a good point! Tolstoy continually emphasizes how there is not one cause of an event. It is not all Napoleon's fault that the French had to retreat.

      Delete
  2. I agree. Tolstoy focuses more on how historians twist/"interpret" the facts. However,I think Tolstoy is commenting on how Napoleon was suppose to be this great leader yet they lost which proves his point one person does not decide history. Although there is a respect for Napoleon that comes through it also seems like he views his as having little effect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a really interesting point! This really does support the fact that not one man or even a couple of men can control or dictate history.

      Delete
  3. You guys have good points! I submitted a question a couple of weeks ago asking if Napoleon was really actually a great leader because it seems here at least like he's the worst. So I feel you, Sydney. It's interesting how negatively he's portrayed throughout the book. But I think he did have some good features. And I mean he's still considered to have been a great general today. I guess Tolstoy's just trying to give us the "truth."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I was wondering that too! And he is portrayed positively by people in the beginning by the aristocrats. He had to be a good leader to successfully invade the countries in Europe. I think he may have been portrayed negatively because Tolstoy was Russian, and Napoleon did invade his country.

      Delete
  4. I think another way to look at this is that "history is the tale of the victors", and since the french were effectively thrown out, the Russians as the victors would be crafting the tale. Do you think that this affected Tolstoy's portrayal of Napoleon?

    ReplyDelete