re: I just got home from watching Napoleon...

quote:

---

It's going to be VERY tough to ever see an honest film about Napoleon. WAY too much of what we now consider "settled history" about him is the product of British historians, who, generally are biased.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Fact: Napoleon decided to crown himself Emperor. The British historical interpretation of this is that it is a demonstration of his extreme megalomania and desire to be a total Dictator. End of story. But, is it?

The British historical interpretation fails to note that, prior to the many years before he crowned himself in Dec, 1804, Britian sponsored several secret operations whose Objective was to assassinate him. Napoleon knew that if he were a fellow Royal, like the Allied national leaders, it would probably end those efforts to assassinate him, because the European Royalty wanted to avoid that precedent - assassination of Royals. Napoleon was right about that.

Another historical fact that is portrayed somewhat in the movie is the fact that he did indeed want peace back in 1802, and again in 1807 when he struck a deal with the Russian Czar. The British and Austria were the ones who wanted no peace with him. This interpretation is almost never explained in an English language history book - Napoleon is almost always interpreted to be a lunatic war-monger and blood-guzzler.

In sum, IMHO, we will probably never see an English language HONEST interpretation of Napoleonic history.

IMHO, beware of British military historians because they tend to be biased towards their side.

---

Why is this comment so heavily downvoted?

If it's historically inaccurate, can someone who downvoted comment on where this user is getting it wrong so we can all learn?