Napoleons Success With The Egyptian Campaign example essay topic
For instance, when he was driving forward the Italian campaign, whilst he did demonstrate clear, strong leadership through out by the way he commanded his troops and after 1798, it was only through his opportunism that he was able to prevail, as a great political and skilled military leader. It is therefore argued, that Napoleon was an opportunist to a certain degree. An opportunist is someone who takes advantage of certain situations to benefit themselves. A skilled political and military leader is one that is able to lead and command an army and bring the country success. So how did napoleon gain success? Some argue it was opportunism, due to his chance to show loyalty during the 'whiff of grapeshot'.
The accepted orthodoxy had been that Napoleon was a military genius. Such interpretations emphasised his skills as a general, the glittering record of victories and drew on Napoleons own interpretation of his campaigns. More recently, there has been more scepticism as historians have stressed the quality of the forces he commanded, the skill of his marshals, the mistakes and bungling that were a feature of many campaigns and so on. However the debate remains as to whether Napoleon was a skilled general, or just lucky with his opportunities. Some historians argue that Napoleons rise to power was partly due to the failings of the Directory. M Rapport in his book: 'Napoleon's rise to power's ugg ests that although Napoleon had great ambition, skill and popularity, the failings of the Directory enabled him to rise to power.
The directory had great opposition from the radical Jacobins on the Left and Right. The Directory had inherited considerable financial problems and along with this financial burden and the strong oppositions, it gave the strong opponents the ability to exploit the regime. According to Rapport, Napoleon was the saviour of France and saved them from the Directory and the national debt. He also claims that the coup Brumaire occurred due to Napoleons skill and popularity, the failures of the Directory and the unrest caused by conscription. However, some historians question the Directory because they still had a degree of support, mainly from the army, those who held the national debt and property owners. Rapport claims that napoleon was lucky to be a part of the coup of Brumaire because he was Sieyes' last choice because Joubert was his main choice but he was killed.
Sieyes believed that Napoleon would be easy to work with and not someone who would take over, but he underestimated Napoleon. Therefore, according to Rapport the rising to power was due to the failings of the Directory, along with Napoleons ambition, skill and popularity. This idea of napoleons popularity and being a saviour of France that enabled him to rise to power is supported by the quote from Laure Duchess e d'Abrentes memoirs quoted in D G Wright's book, which gives an account of Napoleon's reception in Paris after the Italian Campaign. She explains that Napoleon was welcomed with open arms, and Napoleon was generally hailed as the saviour of France: 'Long live the Conqueror of Italy'. She explains that the people of France saw Napoleon as a saviour from the Directory and the maximum. The people believed that they needed Napoleon.
However, she does suggest that Napoleons faults and serious ones at that were overlooked with the glory of his return. Although he did have some success with his Italian campaign, he did have his failures, and his faults came more apparent. Especially when France had to surrender to Cairo in 1801. Which G. Ellis calls: 'the ultimate military failure of the Egyptian Campaign'. D G Wright believed that Napoleon lacked great skill as a military leader and uses the example of the Egyptian campaign as an example in his book.
He claims that Napoleon was undemocratic and did not believe in popular sovereignty, he was therefore very power driven. Wright also raises Napoleon to a certain extent and believes that the control that Napoleon had over the Italian army demonstrated his military ability. He claims that Napoleon ill planned his assault and was 'never at his best in siege warfare' and this was shown by his 50% loss of troops. According to D G Wright Napoleon was determined to exploit the tensions and divisions, which existed in Egyptian society. This depicts Napoleon as a manipulator as well as an opportunist. Napoleonic propaganda depicted the expedition as a dramatic adventure and successful oriental epic, but the British blockade turned this sour and he could not therefore return to France immediately.
Whereas M. Lyons argues that the Egyptian campaign offered Napoleon a further scope for his talents and inevitably revived the coalition against France. Also, he claims that Napoleon saw the Egyptian campaign as a 'vast intellectual enterprise as well as a military adventure'. According to G. Ellis, Napoleon's naive economic reasoning became apparent, and was a great issue. However, the Egyptian campaign was positive in that the cultural and scientific benefited many members of the expedition gained from the exposure to what they knew nothing about. Napoleon became a great leader because the camaraderie sense between the troops, but this was mainly due to how remote Egypt actually was. G. Ellis believed that the spectacular victories over the Austrians and piedmontese, which followed during the early years of the Italian campaign, show Napoleon's true character. According to G. Ellis there were times of new challenges and experiences, when personal ambition, real military genius and the infatuation of first love all combined to produce a warrior increasingly conscious of his heroic mission.
However, he does also state that Napoleon was very fortunate in that the advancement of his early career was advanced because of the role of Barras. He had met Napoleon on his success in the seize of Toulon. Ellis claims that napoleon was an opportunist, in the right that he was there at the right time when it came to the seize of Toulon but also contradicts himself by stating that his military skill earn him an immediate promotion to the rank. However, P Johnson claims that although he might have united people, this was greatly over exaggerated at Toulon, and it was Toulon that launched his career.
Although, Ellis does claim that Barras chose Napoleon as commander of the army of Italy because of his patronage. Rapport claims that Napoleon was in a good position because of his reputation, he was able to present himself in a good light due to the propaganda and famously talked about dreams and freedom. Therefore, one could argue that Napoleon had great skill as a military leader due to his success with Austria, however his success was heightened due to his reputation and patronage. P Johnson however argues that Napoleon was a 'tremendous opportunist' and seeks the opportunity at any available chance.
He calls napoleon a pragmatist and believed that although napoleon claimed that he knew what the plan was, he was actually benefiting from luck. He also states that Napoleon was not an ideologist and had no big, driving principles or beliefs. According to P Johnson, Napoleons success with the Egyptian campaign was due to it being an 'easy victory'. He states that Napoleon drove the campaign to gain land and economic power. Women and children had suffered greatly as a result of Napoleon's war crime, because he had drowned many prisoners, whom to which were fathers and husbands.
Napoleon was extremely good with his propaganda, and to 'wipe out the memory of the massacres' he visited plague stricken people... Some argue that Napoleon was a great fair leader. G Lefebvre quoted in P. Gel in his book Napoleon For and Against focuses on Napoleon being an intelligent man throughout his political career. He claims that Napoleon made great successes, but was able to separate himself from the classes. Therefore the source claims that napoleon was a good and fair leader.
An example of this could be his success in Austria. Although, certain historians may argue that he was not a genius commander as it has been before proclaimed and that he was only capable of leading the smaller armies. This is argued in extract from F Mcglynn, (Napoleon, 1998). The historian's view of napoleon is that as a leader he could have been a lot worse, in comparison to brutal leaders such as Stalin or Franco. The Historian argues that he was not a perfect leader, and at times he wasn't very nice, but he was not a dictator because of the technology. Although one could praise Napoleon for his successes, he failed as a good commander: 'severely overrated as a military commander'.
Therefore, one could argue that although Napoleon was to a certain degree a fair and forgiving leader, he was only capable of leading small armies. In the extract by John Dunne- For and Against... and beyond, it is claimed that napoleon was a successful leader and military commander. He argues that that the story of history on the progression of Napoleon is slow and uneven but makes considerable progress. He agrees with the fact that historians believed Napoleon brought democracy and military history back into the main stream. He compares Napoleonic histography to the 'Grand Emperor himself'- an emphasis that it is becoming an increasingly interesting exploring type of history. Therefore, it is argued that Napoleon did show great success with his democratic views.
To conclude, although it is argued that Napoleon took advantage of every opportunity, it could be argued, that without his great character, he would never have been able to make such a grand success in both military and political aspects. However, Napoleons military skill can be criticised greatly, for instance, when he abandoned his troops on the 24th August 1799 and sailed for home. However, his great popularity and Frances need for the great charismatic leader overshadowed his failures. Therefore with a combination of opportunism, personality, leadership and the failures of the Directory, napoleon has become known as one of the greatest leaders of all time..