Civilization #48: Napoleon's Empire of Myth

My argument to you today is that Napoleon would not have been possible without Robespierre. To illustrate this point, let us do a thought experiment. I am going to present to you two individuals, and I want you to think about who is the greater genius, who is the more rare leader.

Let's look at Person A.

• Perfect Memory: He has instant recall, able to absorb all the information that comes his way and retain it.
• Ability to Prioritize: What's rare among really smart people is the capacity to prioritize what is important information and what is not—to filter things out. Once you have the important information, you are much more capable of making the correct decisions.
• Strategic Imagination: A general is able to take all the relevant information and imagine the battlefield across multiple nations. He is able to imagine how the battle will progress.
• Flexibility: Even though the general has a plan, he is still flexible during the battle. If the battle is not going according to plan, he will make adjustments because he has total battlefield awareness.

These are the four characteristics of a great leader. Now let's look at Person B. B only does one thing: "I promote the talented." That's all B does. That's all B cares about.

So who among these two individuals do you think is the more rare individual, the greater leader, the stronger genius? A or B?

Obviously, it's a trick question. It's obviously B. Today, I will explain why it's B.

Because A is Napoleon. Napoleon, like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, is a genius of war. He's able to completely imagine the battlefield and come up with strategies that are shocking, innovative, and unique. That's Napoleon.

B is Robespierre. All Robespierre cares about is promoting and rewarding those who are true and loyal to the revolution. Today I will make the argument that Robespierre is the greater man than Napoleon.

To illustrate this point, I want to ask you a question. Let's just say that I'm a very rich man, maybe I'm Jack Ma, and I have a huge company. I employ thousands of workers, and I'm extremely profitable. I have a son who is 18 years old and expecting to inherit my company when he's 40 or 50. But I sit him down and have a very long dinner conversation with him. I explain to him, "Son, it takes a particular type of person to run a great company. It takes dedication. It takes virtue. It takes selflessness. You're a great person. I love you because you're my son, but you're not qualified to run my company. I have a team of experts who will replace me after I'm dead. I'm sorry, son, but you have to go do something else. Because quite honestly, I don't think you would even enjoy running my company."

That's a thought experiment. Now, let me ask you this question. China has 1 billion people. Would there be anyone in China who would think I'm a good father? No one. That's why B is hard. Because B requires selflessness, but not only that, B requires the capacity to ignore social values and focus on what is good by itself. That's why B is harder than A. And quite frankly, in history, we'll meet a lot of individuals like A: Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler. Even today, there are quite a few individuals like A. But B is rare.

Let me explain why B is so rare and why Robespierre was fundamental to the birth of Napoleon.

Napoleon's Masterpiece: The Battle of Austerlitz

We're going to focus on a battle in 1805: Austerlitz. This is considered Napoleon's greatest battle, the battle that made Napoleon into a legend. This is part of the War of the Third Coalition. Napoleon and the French are up against three major nations: the Austrians, the Russians, and the British. The Prussians will come in at some point to join the Third Coalition. So Napoleon needs to act first and knock out both Russia and Austria before the Prussians come in, because Prussia is considered at this point the greatest military in the world.

This is the battlefield at Austerlitz. First, you have the coalition forces stationed on high ground. These are about 70,000 troops. Napoleon is scattered. He's got his main forces here and his forces on the right flank. He also has about 70,000 troops. So they look even, but actually, the coalition forces have a huge advantage. One, because they're on high ground. Second, more forces are coming in from behind to bolster their numbers. So it looks in the beginning like the coalition forces will overwhelm Napoleon.

The coalition forces see Napoleon's weak right flank. Their plan is to send a strong attack to overwhelm the right, come behind Napoleon, and then have their other forces come down to envelop him. This is what we call a flanking attack. This is the most logical, most reasonable strategy given the circumstances.

What they don't know is that Napoleon anticipates this. It's a trap. Because as they come and attack, Napoleon will attack the coalition's right flank. And as the coalition tries to muster their right flank, the cavalry will come in and split the coalition into two, forcing them to retreat. That is the master plan.

The problem with this plan is the right flank. The right flank needs to hold against the coalition attack. Otherwise, the coalition will just sweep in and outflank Napoleon. Napoleon has a plan for this: his marshal, Davout, is coming with 10,000 men to bolster the right flank. The problem, though, is that Davout is 100 kilometers away. It has to be a really quick march. If he misses, the coalition will just wipe out this army.

But he does get there in time. He saves the right flank, and the rest of the plan goes exactly according to Napoleon's vision. It is perfect timing, perfect attack. Everything is perfect. Napoleon splits the coalition into two, they're forced to retreat, and then Napoleon will sweep in and capture this entire army. Once this happens, the war is over. The Russians and the Austrians are forced to retreat. The Austrians sue for peace. The Russians go home.

This is considered one of the greatest battles in human history. There are certain characteristics about this battle that make it uniquely Napoleonic.

1. Total Battlefield Awareness: He is able to imagine the entire battlefield even before the battle starts. He knows exactly where each unit will be.
2. Speed: This all happens very, very fast. At this time in Europe, battles are fought slowly, like two forces banging against each other. But this is really fast.
3. Maneuverability: Usually, an army fights as one unit. What's amazing about Napoleon is he's able to divide his forces into different, smaller armies that operate independently but as part of a larger vision.

Austerlitz is the defining achievement of Napoleon's grand strategy of war. If you go to military college, you will have to study this battle in great detail.

The problem with this plan is that it should not have worked. It is a reckless and stupid way to fight a battle because there are about 10,000 ways it could go wrong. First of all, you need Davout to come in. He has to march about 110 kilometers in 48 hours. This was previously considered impossible. A really strong, disciplined, well-trained army will do at most 20 kilometers in one day. The Prussians, the best army in the world, will do 20 kilometers in one day. Davout is able to do 110 kilometers in two days.

That just shows you how extremely disciplined the French are. Not only are they able to do 110 kilometers in 48 hours, but they come into the battlefield fresh for battle. They jump straight into the battle and start pushing the coalition forces back. It's an incredible achievement by Davout. In fact, if you study military history, you will see a lot of people argue that Davout was the far superior general to Napoleon. It takes a lot of skill to marshal your forces and organize them in a way that they will want to march that fast in that quick amount of time.

But 10,000 things could have gone wrong. There could have been rain. He could have gotten lost. An army could have come in and blocked his advance. Napoleon was really lucky. Also, during the French attack, it was possible that the coalition could have overwhelmed them.

In other words, yes, Napoleon's strategic genius is one thing, but what really matters is the officers under him. He had a really talented bench of officers who were committed to the battle and they knew exactly what they had to do. Napoleon was the one with the vision, the courage, and the boldness to attack. But it was they who executed the plan perfectly. And that's the defining characteristic of the Grand Army of Napoleon.

The Old Way of War vs. The New French Army

How was it that the French were able to build Europe's greatest army during the French Revolution? Let's compare the Prussians and the French. The Prussians, again, are considered at this time the greatest army ever.

The Prussian army is run by the nobility, the Junkers. They are the elite of Prussian society, the force that will take Germany into World War I and World War II. They are landed nobility, so they can focus completely on warfare. Their soldiers come from three sources: conscription, volunteers (often treated better in the military than as peasants), and deserters (the Prussians had a nasty reputation for kidnapping people from neighboring nations into their army). They had very strict requirements; you had to be tall, about 5'8", when the average height was 5'6". Napoleon himself was 5'7" and would not have been able to join the Prussian army.

This extremely disciplined army came with three fundamental weaknesses:

1. They cannot afford to lose that many men. These men are extremely well-trained and disciplined.
2. They're extremely slow. The officers like to live well, so wherever they go, wagons carry their food, clothing, and servants.
3. They're inflexible. The Prussians fight one way: they move up front and overwhelm their enemy with discipline.

This wasn't a problem because every army in Europe suffered from the same problems. Then comes the French Revolution.

Robespierre takes charge of organization and personnel hiring for the new French revolutionary army and he makes radical changes. The first is the idea of a meritocracy. Before, like in every army, most of the French officers and generals were nobility appointed by the king. Robespierre saw them as a threat. He basically replaced the nobility with young men from the provinces who believed in the revolution. At the beginning of the revolution, about 85% of all French officers were nobility. Five years later, it's about 3%. That's a huge change.

One of these men recruited and promoted very fast is Napoleon. By the age of 25, he is a general, which was unheard of in Europe at this time. But it's not just Napoleon. It's dozens and dozens of really talented young men who are given opportunities they would not have been given anywhere else. Also, what's important to remember is that Napoleon himself is not French. He's Corsican. He's a foreigner. But because of the French Revolution, he's given these tremendous opportunities.

The second thing is total war. It is complete conscription. Everyone must now join the army. France now has an almost endless supply of soldiers, which gives the French three major advantages:

1. High Casualties: They can now afford to lose a lot of men in battle. The French are willing to take risks that other armies are not, like at Austerlitz.
2. Mobility & Speed: You don't have noble officers with their baggage trains. Your soldiers can just live off the land. They are able to travel at least three times as fast as their enemies. This is an incredible advantage because even before their enemies are able to set up camp, the French have surrounded and overwhelmed them.
3. Flexibility: If you have an extremely dedicated army, you can divide them into different units called corps. This is no different from the Roman legion. You take a huge army, divide them into smaller armies, and if they're able to travel really fast, they can quickly surround the enemy. If you surround the enemy, the enemy is dead. You've cut off their supply routes.

The French for many years were just destroying their enemies because of these three factors. And who created this system? Robespierre created this system. Robespierre, not Napoleon. Robespierre.

The Revolution in Military Affairs

To give you an illustration of the difference, let's go to the year 1806. The French have destroyed the Austrians, the Russians are in retreat, and the Prussians come to battle now. All of Europe is thinking, "Wow, the Prussians are going to overwhelm the French because the French are just peasant recruits. The Prussians are tall, strong, and fearless."

It is a total and utter annihilation. Never before has Europe seen this. The French, in 30 days, wipe out the entire Prussian army. It is incredible to watch. There's a very famous battle during this time where Davout, a corps leader, gets lost and ends up fighting the entire Prussian army. He's outnumbered two to one. He wins the battle against the main Prussian army led by the king himself.

This is a radical revolution in military affairs. The French, by using this system, are able to dominate Europe for most of Napoleon's reign. What this does—and this is really important—is it forces the other European powers to make fundamental changes to society. Because of the French Revolution, these other nations are forced to become more liberal, democratic, open, and progressive in order to defeat Napoleon.

After 1806, the Prussians make a lot of major changes. They recognize that their soldiers aren't enough; they need to change the fabric and structure of their society. They make two major changes:

1. They abolish serfdom. Serfdom is basically slavery where peasants are tied to the land. When you abolish serfdom, you can have more conscription. These peasants are now able to become soldiers. Your army's numbers increase.
2. They empower the middle class. Before the French Revolution, all of Europe was an extremely stratified society. But because of Napoleon's victories, the Prussians allow the middle class to join the civil service. That's fundamental. They are now activating the energy of the middle class, which allows for innovation and more economic activity.

So, 1806, even though the Prussians are destroyed, allows them to build the structures that will let them dominate Europe in about 50 or 60 years. Eventually, they'll become the dominant power in Europe and the world before the beginning of World War I. This was all possible because the Prussians lost to the French and they learned lessons from the French Revolution. That's why the French Revolution was a turning point in human civilization.

Were the Ideals of the Revolution Still Alive in Napoleon's Army?

At the beginning of the revolution, these revolutionaries were compelled by a sort of religious fever to die for the nation. Robespierre became the role model because he sacrificed himself for France. But in 1804, Napoleon becomes emperor. Once he becomes emperor, everything changes. You're no longer fighting for your nation; you're fighting for your emperor. A lot of French people felt betrayed by Napoleon.

After 1804, France is still the greatest military in the world, but it's basically a military cabal who run France. Napoleon is just the head of a group of generals who love war and benefit from war. France becomes a military nation where everyone is supporting French military adventurism. And even though the French do win a lot of wars, eventually, because you're an empire, you just exhaust everyone.

The Rise of a Myth-Maker

How did a nobody from Corsica, who grew up speaking French with a very bad accent, become emperor of the French empire?

The French Revolution was a religious crusade. The irony, of course, is that it was trying to remove religion from social life. But if you look at what actually happened, it was the ultimate religious crusade where people were willing to sacrifice their lives to build a new society based entirely on reason. Their new god was reason.

An idea I want you to remember is that mythologies are prophecies, and prophecies are plans of action. Embedded in your subconscious are the mythologies of society. In France at this time, these mythologies included the stories of Jesus, but also the stories of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. Napoleon saw himself as the reincarnation of both and wanted to create a mythology that he was, in fact, the Messiah. That was his main insight. He was not as great a general as Davout was, but he understood that the underlying framework for society is mythology. If you can control these mythologies, you can control people. You can become the emperor.

Three things to remember:

1. Mythologies are part of the collective subconscious.
2. When collective authority breaks down, these mythologies begin to drive history.
3. Certain individuals will act out the leading roles in these mythologies and capture the imagination and attention of everyone else.

That's why Napoleon became emperor. He saw that the French were looking for a messiah, and he said, "I will become your messiah." He did that by acting it out, by pretending to be Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar.

Napoleon himself said this while he was in exile on St. Helena, reflecting on his life. In this quote, we see his plan for how he became emperor:

I saw the way to achieve all my dreams. I would found a religion. I saw myself marching into Asia, mounted on an elephant, a turban on my head, and in my hand a new Koran that I would have composed to suit my needs.

He understood what the French Revolution really was: a crusade to bring reason into the world. And he would become the Muhammad, the Julius Caesar, the Alexander the Great, the Jesus that would achieve this crusade.

Even at the beginning of his career, he was focused on creating a mythology of himself. When he was first a general in the Italian campaign, he commissioned paintings of himself leading his warriors into battle. This didn't really happen this way, but it doesn't matter because he understood that what matters is how people perceive you. The underlying reality doesn't matter. When he was emperor, he focused on a cult of personality—paintings and stories of himself that would become the official history. A lot of the stuff that we know about Napoleon's victories, we have to be suspicious about, because he was so focused on creating a myth of himself.

From General to Emperor

The man who made Napoleon a general was Lazare Carnot, a friend of Robespierre's. When Robespierre became prominent, he asked Carnot, a mathematician and scientist, to reorganize the military. Carnot came up with the idea of the levée en masse, or mass conscription, to dilute the influence of the nobility. It worked spectacularly well. Carnot, however, was one of the main conspirators against Robespierre. The people Robespierre promoted would eventually conspire against him because he was too virtuous and demanded sacrifices they were unwilling to make.

After Robespierre's death, a five-man dictatorship called the Directory was set up, which included Carnot and Paul Barras, another patron of Napoleon. At this time, a Paris mob threatened the Directory. Napoleon did them a favor: he fired cannons at the mob. As a general, you're not supposed to kill your own people, but Napoleon was ambitious and merciless. The Directory owed him a favor, and he asked for the generalship of the Italian campaign. Why? Because that's where Julius Caesar was from.

After his victories in Italy, he then goes to Egypt. Why? Because Alexander the Great went to Egypt and Julius Caesar went to Egypt. Even at this stage, he understands how to create a mythology of himself.

In 1799, the leaders of the Directory, including Sieyès, got sick of the corrupt and ineffectual republic. They wanted to establish their own dictatorship and needed a general to help them. They first went to General Moreau, the most respected general in France, but he was a staunch republican and refused. They eventually went to Napoleon, who had been dreaming of this. He wanted to be the new Caesar crossing the Rubicon.

Napoleon launched a coup d'état in Paris. The great fear was that the mob would rise up against him, but they didn't. Napoleon had done such a great job of creating a mythology of himself as a messiah that people, looking for a savior after Robespierre's death, let him get away with it.

Now a dictator, he needed to fulfill this mythology. So, he decides to go to Italy again. The first thing he does is cross the Alps. Why? Because Hannibal crossed the Alps. During this campaign, he makes a lot of stupid decisions and takes incredible risks, but he gets lucky and is saved by another French army. He recognizes that he doesn't have to actually win the battle in a conventional sense because he controls the government. When he goes back to France, he'll just tell everyone he won, and they will believe him. What's important is the action needed to create the mythology.

In 1804, he makes himself emperor of France. This destroys the revolution. The messiah is not supposed to make himself emperor; he is supposed to be selfless like Robespierre. He then makes his brothers emperors as well—Joseph, emperor of Italy and Spain, and Louis, king of Holland. He's dividing Europe among his family members.

The Fall of a Megalomaniac

Napoleon was an extremely selfish, narcissistic individual. Power was his mistress. He recognized that in order to maintain his mythology and his image as a messiah, France needed to be constantly at war. So even though he could have just enjoyed being emperor, he was constantly at war with everyone.

As a result, France becomes the largest empire in Europe since Rome. But Europe's geography makes it hard to control. Britain, with the greatest navy, is impossible to conquer. Russia is just too big. The French army becomes overextended, and the people lose their revolutionary fever. They don't want to die for Napoleon anymore. The army is now filled with common people who don't really care about fighting, and it goes into decline.

The turning point is the 1812 invasion of Russia. Even though he escapes, he loses his cavalry, a huge disadvantage. His soldiers are also fighting a guerrilla war in Spain. Because of Napoleon's conquests, nationalism is on the rise. People are now fighting against Napoleon to secure their national independence. The Spanish rise up, and so do the Germans. Napoleon is way overextended and no longer has the military he once had.

Eventually, Napoleon is defeated. The Congress of Vienna in 1815, masterminded by Metternich, establishes a "Concert of Europe." Metternich argues for a balance of power to prevent more wars. The Napoleonic Wars killed millions, and people were sick of it. This peace agreement works extremely well. After the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, there are no more major wars in Europe until the Crimean War in the 1850s.

The problem is, if you don't let people fight wars, what are they going to do? They're going to revolt against you. Because of massive inequality and tension in society, your options are either to take people to war or have them rise up against you. That's what happened in the Revolutions of 1848, when all of Europe was engulfed in revolution. This is what the elite of Europe discovered: you can either have your soldiers go to war, or they will revolt against you. That's your choice.

Conclusion: The Prophet vs. The Politician

Without Robespierre, Napoleon would not have been possible. Let's compare them.

What's interesting is that figures like Napoleon always appear at the end of a republic. Julius Caesar had the same personality, used political patrons, created a myth of himself as an unbeatable general, and destroyed the Roman Republic. Later, Hitler followed the same pattern. He was incubated by the German army to destroy the communist movement, outmaneuvered his patrons, created a myth of himself as the savior of the German people, and destroyed the Weimar Republic.

Why is this important? Because it's entirely possible we are living at another inflection point in history. Consider Donald Trump. How did he get where he is? Political maneuvering. Why is he so powerful? Because he has a myth-making genius. People say Trump is a terrible businessman or doesn't understand policy. He doesn't care. He understands mythology. He understands how to capture people's attention and instill an image of himself as a messiah in people's minds. His job is not to think about economics; his job is to talk to the press and create that image.

If we see this pattern—Napoleon, Caesar, Hitler—and the results are the same, and Trump is similar, what's going to happen? I don't know. But if this pattern is consistent, we may be able to foresee and predict history.

Why Did Napoleon Succeed Where Robespierre Failed?

The difference is this: if I'm Robespierre, I believe everyone is capable of reason. Therefore, you have a responsibility to reason for yourself. I will give you ideas, but you must come to your own conclusions and act independently of me.

Napoleon is the opposite. He believes people don't want to think; they want to believe and obey. If I present myself as a messiah and tell people, "Follow me and I will lead you to paradise," they will follow. People love this confidence and charisma. People aren't attracted to logic or reason; they're attracted to confidence. Trump tells everyone, "Follow me and we will make America great again." It doesn't have to make sense. He has created a mythology that has captured people's imagination, and people are willing to die for it.

How is Trump's 'Myth-Making' Defined?

There's reality, and then there are myths—the ideas we have about how the world works. Objectively speaking, Trump was a failed businessman who nearly bankrupted the real estate empire his father built. His father, Fred Trump, was focused on the specifics of running a business. Donald Trump realized people don't want that; they want to see a successful billionaire. And what does a successful billionaire do? He sleeps with beautiful women. So he does that, the press reports it, and people think, "This guy is a god, I should give him my money."

What people want is the mythology of success. What made Trump famous was The Apprentice, a TV show that presented him as an extremely wise and forward-looking businessman. He's the opposite in reality. But what Trump understands is that people don't care about reality. They want to watch a TV show that's exciting and fun. So if I turn politics into a TV show that everyone is watching all the time, they will always want me to be president.

Perception is more important than reality. Reality is hard and difficult. People prefer simple ideas, simple myths that allow them to better navigate reality. That's why religion is important. Trump is creating a religion about himself. Think of "Make America Great Again" not as a political movement, but as a new religion. That explains why he is so powerful. Once you remove him, the TV show ends, and you have to go back to reality. People don't want that. People want to live in a dream because that's what makes life bearable.