‘Due to the fact, Boney pretty much ignored or changed any order he did not like himself, pretty much from the get go.’

First, instead of a sweeping statement that cannot be either disproven or in fact proven, you might attempt to become specific using citations from reference works that would support your argument. The following is so general or ambiguous in nature as to do nothing to support an argument but merely to demonstrate bias, though I am sure that was not your intention.

‘As an officer in the French Army he was currently taking "leave". He didn't go to the Vendee when ordered and pretty much ignored the Directory during the Italian Campaign.
He was ordered to command the Army to invade England but instead went to Egypt (although he got the Directory to acquiesce in this) , which Army he then abandoned.
He then did a Coup against his Government, pretty much the ultimate in disobeying orders wouldn't you say?’

In attempting to address this, the points should have been delivered in the posting with some reference points. As they are, they are so general in nature or in error, that
in answering the ‘accusations’ the answers may be too short to be complete.

When was taking leave either illegal, wrong, or an attempt to disobey orders?

The orders to go to the Vendee were given to General of Brigade Bonaparte after he was taken off the list of artillery officers, which he was, and moved to the infantry. Napoleon was ordered to take command of an infantry brigade, which very well could have been refused by any artillery officer. Napoleon was given another assignment. I don’t see disobedience here, but presenting a logical argument against an assignment did not meet with the officer’s qualifications. I can remember protesting an assignment and finally having it changed, more through luck, though, than the benefits of the protesting. Officers, especially general officers, can protest assignments.

How did Napoleon ‘ignore’ the Directory during the Italian campaign? If he did, he was the commander on the spot and communications with the national command authority was not as fast as it is today. The commander on the spot is allowed certain leeway and it is much easier to get forgiveness than permission, which is as true today as it was then. And Napoleon was not only successful in Italy he deftly changed the main theater of war from Germany to Italy and ended up dictating peace at, quite literally, the gates of Vienna after defeating the Archduke Charles.

The army in Egypt was not ‘abandoned.’ When Napoleon left for Egypt, he told the Directory that if the situation in Europe deteriorated to any degree, he would come back to aid in France’s defense. And, in fact, the Directory sent to recall orders to Napoleon, one being captured by the Royal Navy and the second being delivered to him as he landed in France. The accusation that Napoleon deserted his army in Egypt is wrong, Kleber’s comments notwithstanding.

When Napoleon returned to France in 1799 the country was in a mess, and the Directory was both inefficient and corrupt. Barras, one of the Directors, was involved in a scheme/conspiracy to bring back the Bourbons, in which he attempted to enlist Napoleon’s support. Napoleon refused. In short, the government and country were falling apart.

Sieyes, another of the Directors, was plotting a coup and needed a general officer as part of the coup. He recruited Napoleon, whom he planned to get rid of once the coup was completed successfully and a new government established. Napoleon, however, took over instead of being shunted aside.

So, the Directory was going one way or the other, and if Sieyes had not chosen Napoleon, he would have picked another general. Joubert had been on the short list, but he had been killed in action at Novi.

Sieyes picked a master and not merely a sword. Leaving the Directory in charge and/or bringing back the Bourbons were not options. The Directory was in the process of ruining the nation and I would submit that Napoleon understood that and believed he could do a better job-and he did.

As a starter, I would suggest referencing Vincent Cronin’s biography on Napoleon for the points you brought up instead of inferior volumes such as McLynn and Barnett. Baron Fain’s memoirs, along with Lavalette’s might be helpful on Napoleon’s government.

Sincerely,
K