The Napoleon Bonaparte Podcast #54 – Dr Philip Dwyer
Posted on 13. Nov, 2009 by Cameron in Podcast
Welcome back! It’s been a long time between shows, I’m so sorry! But you’ll LOVE this episode, trust me, it was worth waiting for!
Our guest today is Dr Philip Dwyer, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education and Arts, School of Humanities and Social Science, History Dept, University of Newscastle, Australia. Philip has a long list of credentials:
* Ph.D. University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, 1993
* D.E.A. Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, (Diplôme d’Etudes Approfondies) Paris, 1989
* Maîtrise University of Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV), Paris, 1988
* Licence University of Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV), Paris, 1988
* B.A. Murdoch University, Perth, Australia, 1983
Philip is also the author of “Napoleon: The Path To Power”
His book won the “National Biography Prize” in 2008.
David and I chatted with him last week about his perspectives on Napoleon. While we agreed on some things, we disagreed on other things and it lead to a passionate but always polite debate. 
Please jump in the comments section of the show and let us know you’re still out there folks! We need to know if we should continue producing the show!
Yes, it was a really fun show to do. It has been awhile, and I second Cameron’s call for many comments. We hope you are still with us (and still buying N for Dummies!)
David
A new show! Great, looking forward to listening to it. I only started listening to the show half a year or so ago, I’m very close to catching up so a new show is one extra for in the queue.
Quick question: SEGA is releasing “Napoleon Total War” game, the newest entry in their “Total War” series of strategy games, in a few months, maybe you guys should try and get ahold of some of the guys behind it to see what they have to say about it?
It’s the first high budget Napoleon-centric game in forever, and they promise you can re-play/enact all the important battles.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon:_Total_War )
Keep up the great work, I look forward to any further Napoleon 101’s (and the biography show!)
Top notch gents! Top notch!
Yes, I’m still here. Haven’t listened to the podcast yet, but still have the subscription in iTunes. Keep ‘em coming!
Well, I’m still here! Just discovered the podcast back in August, and recently finished listening to #53–so you’re timing is excellent (for me, anyway). And I’ve hooked one other listener–a friend in Seattle, who isn’t typically even much of a history buff–but he’s listened to over 30 installments, so far.
Looking forward to listening to #54–e-mail I exchanged with Cameron earlier this week leads me to understand that you discussed one of the areas I asked about in my e-mail–namely, how European history might have been changed had NB not been forced to abdicate–and the progressive reforms of the First Republic and First Empire rolled back.
Thank you for all you put into the podcast. I’ve enjoyed it immensely, and hope you’ll decide to continue producing it.
Kevin Tripp
Anchorage, Alaska
PS Have added both “Napoleon for Dummies” and “The Road to St Helena: Napoleon After Waterloo” to my rapidly expanding NB library.
Still out there, Cam and David! I’ll listen to the show as soon as my schedule clears! Looking forward to ever more shows as always! So long as you guys produce more episodes, you’ll have an eager audience and fan base, especially as far as I am concerned!
Still here, had to re-listen to all the older episodes during the pod-fast.
Still there. Keep it coming, and I probably keep listening…
Stephan
Awesome return, great debating from the boys. Have you ever considered trying to get Vincent Cronin on the show?
Kevin, great to hear that you’ve bought a couple of David’s books! One thing that we’ve always been scratching our head about is why more people who listen to this show don’t go out and buy a copy of at least one of this books! If every listener just bought one copy, David could probably spend more time making podcasts!
Ruud, great idea about the Napoleon game! I’ll try to get in touch with the developers!
Michael, great idea about getting Vincent Cronin on the show! He’s in his mid-80s now though. But I will reach out to him this week, see what happens!
Can’t wait to listen to the newest episode. It’s been a while since these comment pages were active so here’s my contribution! I also want to check out the new Napoleon Total War game when it comes out it February. From the promo clips i’ve seen it portrays Napoleon as a bloodthirsty conqueror and maniacal dictator, but the graphic and game play itself look incredible! Good point about David’s books Cameron, I think it’s time to pick up another one and add it to my library!
Keep up the good work gentlemen…
hey, its great to see you guys are back! ..
But i must say you picked a difficult Dr Philip Dwyer for your first show after the long lapse, but i must say he was definitely your best guest so far, simply because he offered the Napoleon story from a very clinical perspective and very much puts the guy under the microscope, it was funny to hear some of Davids comebacks to his statements..i definitely think David may have met a new rival.
My first ever book on Napoleon was Dr Philip Dwyer’s “The path to power” it was an excellent read i must say with massive detail and David should finish reading it, you too Cameron.
but anyhow guys keep up the good work, both of you guys held out well under the verbal artillery of Dr Philip Dwyer
Glad you enjoyed the show, Peter! I wanted someone who could give us a different perspective and Philip was perfect!
Great to hear you two again and great show, as usual! A very good debate and nice to hear an civil argument between three such scholars, though I think Cameron much be the only Australian that is a true fan of Napoleon. Nonetheless, I have already ordered my copy of Philip Dwyer’s Napoleon: The Path to Power before I even heard this episode. Sorry, David, there are only so many copies of N4D that I can buy!
I find the pre-consular days to be fascinating, i.e., Toulon, the First Italian campaign, the Egyptian campaign. To try to figure out what made Napoleon the leader, general, politician, economist that he was. To try to figure out where his ambition and ability came from. I don’t know if I will ever figure it out, but that’s what’s him infinitely fascinating.
Welcome back!
Finally finished listening to the episode. Let me begin by saying to Dr. Dwyer, if he reads this, thank you for coming on the show, and I found your imput interesting. However, I must disagree with some of his points. First, I agree with Cameron when he quickly said, contrary to Dr. Philip who later denied it, that Britain had been undermining Napoleon from the get-go, and was painting him as a usurper non-stop since the start of his role as First Consul.
Secondly, while I condemn the occassional annexation of the Empire outside of war (I agree with Dr. Philip on Holland), it does not begin to compare to the annexation of the other states. For instance, while Napoleon verbally toyed with conquests outside of Europe, Britain was actively pursuing it, in India, central and proper Asia, North America, the Pacific and Atlantic, and Africa. Russia had designs on and actively gobbled up much of the near east and central Asia, with further attempts on the whole of the Ottoman Empire. Each these two nations alone had more ambitious and “megalomaniacal” claims on the world than France did.
Furthermore, to comment on the question of the abdication of Napoleon, while Dr. Dwyer did a good job analyzing the more obvious answers available (given the show’s limited time), that was still not a rebuttal to Mr. Markham’s point that the Allies didn’t give a damn about the French people themselves, and instead actually demonstrated the opposite: the only real considerations given were for the desires of other powers, not for the French people. And while they might have feared a Republic, they could have observed the change in French politicians, especially with the new breed of moderate quasi-Republicans, such as Lafayette (who was truly a monarchist but could accept a Republic after-the-fact).
In fact, it was the Republic that strongly desired peace and alliance with England. France turned very early on to England, and in fact when Spain asked France to declare war on England in the early stage of the Revolution, Louis Capet pushed for war on England, and it was the Assembly that said “no,” and stopped the then-king. Peace and hopes concerning England didn’t even collapse when England joined the 1st coalition against France. It ended, as Mr. Markham might well remember I addressed in my lecture at the INS 2009, when it was definitively discovered that the English were not only printing false assignats to destroy France’s economy, but that they were supporting, funding, and arming the violent counter-revolution in the Vendee, especially the instance at Quiberon Bay. The fact hit them, which Dr. Dwyer unfortunately did not discuss but which Mr. Markham did, that Britain from the start was aiming not at the military defeat of France or the “restoration of a balance of power,” but the destruction of the French government, including countless assassination attempts. In return, to my knowledge, outside of Col. Tate’s expedition in 1797, the French did not return attack’s upon the British government itself, instead attempting to use military victory and economic pressure to bring peace. And desperation can not be an excuse for these efforts by the British, since they started this injustice very early into the war, not after multiple campaigns. I think this difference in war aims should be better covered and discussed in the future.
Thank you, all three of you, for an enjoyable show, and I look forward to many more!
I’m so glad you guys made another ep! I have been loyally waiting, like a good dog whose owner has left him outside of the store on a hot summer day.
Since you guys are back together, how about getting the 2nd ep of the Julius Caesar biography? Love you guys. Cameron, you are so challenging sometimes, but I think that serves to keep people accurate and on their toes. Cheers from Mew York State.
Still here. About time guys!
I have Philip’s book, and must read it soon. This discussion was as good an insight into the approach of the author as anything else – to me Philip seems to ‘detach emotion’ very well in his pursuit of the truth.
The “Napoleon didn’t get within 50 metres of the bridge at Arcole” incident was a bit of a bombshell; I enjoyed the ’symbolism/spin-doctoring’ conversation in particular. I also couldn’t split the pro vs anti views of Napoleon as ‘victim’ or ‘warmonger’. That debate had well reasoned arguments on both sides; hard to believe both couldn’t be equally correct – but how can they??
Welcome back, it’s been far too long.
Hello guys!
I just discovered your podcast about a month ago and I absolutely love it! I’ve been catching up on the episodes and I’m at number 53 now, so I’m very happy about the fact that you’re still going strong. The shows are all very interesting and I also like your interacting very much, thats what really makes it come alive. The listener can tell you guys are really having fun in doing this.You both deserve credit for that!
I’m a historian myself and always liked the Napoleonic era, but now I’m really into it…..thanks for turning me into a Geek! I got ‘into’ history by reading a fascinating biography of…Joseph Fouche (by Stefan Zweig), so I’m also a big Fouche-fan. The man you love to hate. I know that you have already discussed Fouche to some length but I would still like to suggest an episode on him, maybe together with that other loyal servant of France, Tayllerand.
Any other subject would be great to by the way, just don’t stop the show! The last shows with special guests are really great. Keep up the good work!
Ivar, from the Netherlands
Great idea about Fouche, Ivan! I wonder if we can find a scholar who specialises in him? David, any ideas?
At last, i just downloaded and will listen tomorrow. Keep them coming, more often than every five months please.
This is the best podcast i’ve listened to and i don’t care that much about history.
Thanks for the great effort.
Wow thanks for the kind words, King. We love producing the show. It’d be nice if we could earn a living out of it and do it full time!
Glad the show is back, I’d almost given up hope.
Got a question for you… I heard that Napoleon himself looted the tomb of Frederick the great after defeating Prussia in 1806… Is this true and if so what has become of the looted items?
Hi everyone
I just wanted to say thanks to Cameron and David for producing this show. I started listening so I had something to make the long bus journey to work more bearable but, far from making it merely bearable, you’ve made it downright enjoyable. The last few shows have been cracking and I hope you do continue to make them.
I’ve finished all the episodes you’ve done so far now and you’ve really got me interested in the period again and with a much changed outlook. Whilst sometimes you’ve had this Englishman clenching his fists in rage in episodes where you’ve expressed a somewhat anti-British viewpoint, overall you’ve removed the image of Napoleon as the ‘Corsican Ogre’ from my mind. I think the fact that we all can get so worked up at times when dealing with the Napoleonic period is a testament to just how engaging the events and ‘characters’ are, and your podcast and enthusiasm has been fantastic at bringing these events and characters to life.
One thing that popped into my head when listening to the most recent show was that the issue of Napoleon’s approach to warfare (annexation/regime change in conquered countries) was ’standard 19th century practice’. I think it’s important to remember that, while actions like this were more widely practiced later in the century, at the start of the century this approach to war was new and shocking. The important men of the other states in Europe were products of the previous century in which wars were fought until both states worked out a negotiated settlement which might include (usually relatively minor) territorial changes. The idea that one state would completely overrun the other, depose their rulling regime and install a puppet regime with completely different modes of goverment was unheard of. This was because that was simply not possible with the tiny armies that could be supported by the intensive logistics of the era. The change by Revolutionary France to huge armies, advancing rapidly and living off the land was sudden and during the Imperial period was still only a few years old. I’ve realised I’m waffling now, but the point I’m trying to make is that in understanding the view of Napoleon’s enemies that Napoleon was a warlord with a lust of conquest we need to look at what had happened leading up to this point not judge on the basis of what would come after (and, indeed, come after BECAUSE of Napoleon). In that sense their belief that there would only be peace and safety in Europe if Napoleon was removed becomes more understandable as the upheaval of the previous decade would have been seen as temporary and reversible (when as we know now the military and social changes were the beginning of a new era).
Anyway, thanks again for producing this magnificent podcast. If I can be cheeky enoguh to make a suggestion? The shows with Alex talking about Russian generals, each in turn, were great in that they gave full focus to some of the other fascinating figures in the period. I’d love to see you two, with your knowledge focussed on the French, to do similar shows where you take a few French Marshals and Generals in turn and do short biographies of each. They’ve popped up in the narrative so far but I’d love to hear you give men like the mad Junot, the brave Ney and the flamboyant Murat the Napoleon 101 treatment, complete with amusing anecdotes and all.
P.S. I’m making a detour on my holiday in Eastern Europe next weekend to Slavkov (Austerlitz) for the commemorations there, something I wouldn’t have done had I not been listening to your show. Thanks again and keep up the brilliant work!
Top post by Adam, and I second his suggestion.
Hey Adam, thanks for the great comment! I think you’ve made some excellent points about how Napoleon’s approach was different but in how many cases did he annex or indulge in regime change? Over the years he won battles with Austria, Prussia, Russia and England but I don’t recall him ever annexing those countries or even trying to force some kind of regime change. The countries where he did install a government, Warsaw, Naples, etc, were the result of a whole set of political circumstances. His position in Spain, of course, was the result of a direct request of the royal family. The only regime change of a major nation that I can think of during the Revolutionary Wars was that of France after the Congress of Vienna!
I’d love to purchase Napoleon for Dummies, the French version (Napoleon pour les Nulles?) but can’t find where. I can’t find it on Amazon or dummies.com. Any suggestions?
And by the way, great podcast!
A couple of observations:
I had to WTF! with amazement that the annexation of Holland can be dismissed as a minor incident – a family squabble no less. Indeed, should Napoleon’s brother have be there in the first place? I digress. Remember this the very same Holland that was an enlightened constitutional democracy over 100 years before the French Revolution.
Furthermore on this point – I find it annoying that David and Cameron keep going on about – ad nauseam – how the various ‘anciens regimes’ of old Europe are hell bent on destroying the enlightened ‘new world order’ that only Napoleonic France can deliver. Anyone that has studied the history of the 17th century can only find this argument irritating in the extreme. I’ve already mentioned the example of Holland, but, ironically, their great ogre, Great Britain, is another such example of a nation with no need of French assistance in this field. Indeed much of the decent reforms that Napoleon did achieve were based along along British and Dutch lines.
Another thing: Why is it so difficult for France to return to its own borders? What makes them so special? Why should this be considered naive? Napoleon could have achieved his dream of a dynasty if he had just taken a step back. He was offered far better on occasion. Nope, as long as there were French troops on foreign soil, there was never going to be peace in Europe. Just like the Middle East in the 21st century?
Mark, appreciate your comments. The point we made “ad nauseam” during the series was that Napoleon didn’t START the wars of the Revolution – he inherited them. And he didn’t break a single treaty during his time in power. It was the other monarchies who broke the terms of the treaties, forcing Napoleon to respond. So blaming the wars of this period on Napoleon is illegitimate.
Episode 54 WOW! Markham was certainly in attack mode. Dr. Dwyer is certainly a scholar and didn’t deserve to be challenged after every statement!
Was Markham drunk? Or just jealous of Dr. Dwyer’s background, e.g. Sorbonne education and etc.?
I will buy Dr. Dwyer’s “Napoleon: The Path to Power” today and look forward to the rest of his series.
I would NEVER buy a book which addressed it’s readership as “Dummies” and which was written by an author with a demonstrated lack of civility!
Cheers,
Danny
Keep the episodes coming. You mentioned in earlier episodes that you would cover some of the French Marshalls and other political figures after the chronology was done. What about doing a 5 episode miniseries on Wellington. He is an interesting figure especially in British politics after the war. Also could you find a retired US general as a guest to comment on Napoleon’s tactical and strategic contribution to modern warfare?
Hello! I started listening to the shows 3 months ago when my father, a great amirer of Napoleon, was about to have a “Napoleonic Encounter” with another admirer of Napoleon from a Neighbor city;The show is great, Id like to know what the theme song is, I think I saw it advertised in a previous version of this page.Id also like to know if there is any “Napoleonic Society” in Mexico.Keep up the good work!
A great series and a great show. I really enjoyed the gentlemanly disagreements betwixt Philip and David!
You mentioned possibly an interview with Charles Esdaile which would be amazing but what I’d really love to hear is one with Correlli Barnett. Quel spectacle!
Keep up the great work,
Mark
By the way I did buy a t-shirt and very stylish it is too.
Keven, You should have your friend in Seattle contact me, as I live in Olympia!
David
Daniel,
Sorry you don’t seem to understand the essence of a debate, or the point of the ‘Dummies’ series of books.
Cheers,
David
Francisco,
There is a very active group in Mexico. My friend Eduardo Garzón-Sobrado runs it. Here is the website: http://www.inmf.org/
Please tell him I sent you and pass along my very best wishes!
David