Quote From Napoleon Bonaparte
Camie Fons
The quote is often labelled as "attributed" to Napoleon or given with a warning that he may not have said it,[1] but Napoleon specialist and Fondation Napolon historian Peter Hicks declares that Napoleon never said "Laissons la Chine dormir, car quand elle se rveillera, le monde tremblera" (Let China sleep, for when she awakes, the world will tremble)[2] and Australian National University historian John Fitzgerald states that
Some speculate, without giving documentation, that Napoleon made such a statement to Lord William Amherst (or that Amherst said that he did). Amherst made a diplomatic visit to China and had an audience with the emperor and saw Napoleon in exile on St. Helena in 1817.[4]
Elizabeth Knowles, editor of What They Didn't Say: A Book of Misquotations (Oxford University Press) cites a similar remark the exiled emperor made to Barry O'Meara, his surgeon. O'Meara in conversation criticised Amherst for failing to convince the Chinese emperor to open China to trade. He suggested to Napoleon that "we could easily compel the Chinese to grant good terms by means of a few ships of war; that, for example, we could deprive them altogether of salt, by a few cruisers properly stationed," Napoleon disagreed:
In the 1963 Allied Artists film, 55 Days at Peking, set in the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, the wife of the British Ambassador makes this warning. The screen-play is based on the novel by Noel Gerson, where the quote does not appear. Hicks concludes that one of the screenwriters, Benard Gordon, must have supplied it. [2]
The metaphor of "China asleep" and "China awakened" became widespread during the 19th century and remains so today. [8] "Awakening," says Fitzgerald, meant a different thing in the European Age of Enlightenment, where it meant "awakening to reason and to universal human values," from what it meant in later times where could mean the awakening of peoples in colonial states to their predicament of oppression and awakening to the key to their emancipation. The thought gained power by associating it with Napoleon, one of modern history's most heroic figures.[9]
There are numerous parallels in the careers of Churchill and the great Emperor he admired. Separated by a century, both began their careers in the army. Napoleon Bonaparte was the young artillery officer who captured Toulon for the French Revolutionary Government in 1793. Winston Churchill was the Victorian cavalry officer who famously charged the Dervishes with the 21st Lancers at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898, and who was brought to national, if not international, prominence by his escape from Boer captivity in 1899.
Napoleon undoubtedly got out of the blocks first, establishing himself as the arbiter of Europe and the breaker of the ancien rgime. In a series of spectacular campaigns he humbled the mighty Austrian and Russian Empires, destroyed the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire, invaded Spain, and even contemplated an invasion of Britain. His brothers were established as puppet kings, and France was remodelled in his image with the introduction of Napoleonic institutions of law and government. It is fair to say that his style of lightning warfare and his great victories at Marengo, Hohenlinden, Ulm, Austerlitz, Jena and Wagram shook and shaped the 19th century world.
It is also right to point out that Churchill willingly accepted the constraints of a Parliamentary system, while Napoleon deliberately swept aside all limitations on his own power and actions. Ultimately, however, on 10 May 1940, Churchill like Napoleon walked with destiny, and assumed the heavy burden of the premiership at a moment of supreme national crisis.
Thus both men led their countries in time of war, becoming in the process iconic figures, inextricably linked to questions of national identity and honour. The British bulldog and the glory of France both remain the subject of intense popular and academic scrutiny and interest. Of course, Napoleon ultimately led his Empire and armies to defeat at the hands of a European coalition, while Churchill helped build and lead a global coalition to victory against a European despot. It is true that Churchill was defeated in the 1945 general election, but he returned to play a role on the world stage and ended his career with a second term as prime minister, lauded with the Order of the Garter, a Nobel Prize, and honorary American citizenship. Napoleon also attempted a comeback, but his 100-day return ended with defeat on the battlefield of Waterloo and his exile on the island of St. Helena.
The impetus of the French Revolution had been spread by the genius of Napoleon to the far quarters of Europe. Ideals of liberty and nationalism, born in Paris, had been imparted to all the European peoples. In the nineteenth century ahead they were to clash resoundingly with the ordered world for which the Congress of Vienna had striven. If France was defeated and her Emperor fallen, the principles which had inspired her lived on. They were to play a notable part in changing the shape of government in every European country, Britain not excepted.4
For forty years I have been a consistent friend of France and her brave army; all my life I have been grateful for the contribution France has made to the culture and glory of Europe, and above all for the sense of personal liberty and the rights of man which has radiated from the soul of France. But these are not matters of sentiment or personal feeling. It is one of the main interests of Great Britain that a friendly France should regain and hold her place among the major powers of Europe and the world. Show me a moment when I swerved from this conception, and you shall show me a moment when I have been wrong.
Stirring words! I am grateful to Sir Martin Gilbert for pointing out to me that what Churchill tactfully omits to tell his French audience is that Napoleon said these words to his Marshals immediately before his defeat at Waterloo. But, as I hinted above, Churchill did not just quote Napoleon; he also learned from him.
I've read a couple of older chess books, My System,Aron Nimzowitsch, and Pawn Power in Chess, Hans Kmoch. Both of these books are elaborate in their description of concepts - which does read a lot like what you have posted here.
I read in The Immortal Game that Napoleon was a keen chess player but he never really was that great at it. Supposedly when he was later locked in prison he was sent a chess set and hidden inside one of the pieces was plans for his escape but he never found out about it even though he used the board all the time.
Wow, a very interesting read. Thanks for sharing Rael. Napoleon also said something else I think is eerily reminiscent of chess: "From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step". (sounds like blunders to me)
Don't know if you have the time and inclination, but if you like Napoleon, you may want to give Tolstoy's "War & Peace" a try...Tolstoy actually spent years delving in Russian libraries and reading all the historical accounts available on Napoleon's conquests throughout Europe and Russia. Superb historical fiction with a lot of the same things you quote in Napoleon, but not a light read.
I think it would be really interesting to see if anything in Lao Tzu or Machiavelli, Nietzsche or Bruce Lee, Marcus Aurelious or Miyamoto Musashi, or even Donald Rumsfeld - if any of their aphorisms inadvertently applied to chess.
Napoleon is like the guy who understands the very physics of war and of victory and he doesn't allow mistaken conventional wisdom to decrease his effectiveness, discarding it when it doesn't make sense--when it doesn't conform to the physics he knows to be real. It's like he's got his ear to the traintracks and knows for certain a train is coming when other "experts" are sure there's no train because they looked at the train schedule. I'd like to see how he'd combat terrorist organizations--he'd probably measure the world situation and create a new brand of warfare that'd be more efficient than what we're doing now, because some of our missteps arise from not knowing how to attack this threat--not being in touch with the physics that govern this new kind of war.
Napoleon, or Nap, is one of the tougher animated opponents on my Playstation chess game (The title of the game: Chess.) He's wearing a big red and yellow French coat that doesn't look comfortable and his facial expression is dismissive, like he's poo-pooing you for even sitting across from him. I can't remember if he's the strongest the computer gets or if Socrates is higher rated. He comments when you start, at first check, when he's the equivalent of "lost" or "cocky" in the middlegame, and at the end. I think, based on his portrayal in the game, the historical guy must have been a little bit of a jerk. But hey that's how you get things done, as proven by Donald Trump, the Governor of Illinois, Kanye West, Terrell Owens, Napoleon, Walmart, Simon Cowell, just about everyone's mom at times, and car salesmen (whom I just now started feeling sympathy for--for the first time ever--because ain't nobody gonna be buying a car for like a year or more.)
ff7609af8f