Dear All,

I've really enjoyed reading through this exchange as this subject is a fascinating one. Here are my comments for what they're worth.

As many members have commented, Napoleon was in some ways his own worst enemy and I often recall Mole's line that 'It is strange that although Napoleon's common sense amounted to genius, he never could see where the possible left off.' Was Mole biased? Certainly but many other accounts agree with him and the oft repeated adage that his ambition was boundless was almost certainly true. There are many examples of the Emperor overreaching himself such as imposing the impractical and unenforceable Continental System. That was also a major cause of the disastrous wars in Spain and Russia that spelled the doom of the First French Empire. However, his tireless energy in trying to reform the government of France largely paid off with the Code Napoleon proving his most enduring achievement so I must say that his overwhelming ambition and self-belief were strengths as well as weaknesses and discount imperial ego as his greatest enemy.

I think the implacable opposition of England to Napoleon deserves a mention despite the Peace of Amiens. I believe Napoleon would have gone far further if the Tory government of Great Britain had fallen. In that regard another great enemy must be the sea with French naval weakness and the strength of the Royal Navy denying him a realistic possibility of invading England or the rest of the British Isles. A former lecturer of mine argued that France could never have been wholly victorious while the Royal Navy controlled the oceans, which is a difficult point to refute, so it is a good contender.

However, I would have to select internal betrayal as the Emperor's greatest foe. Having recently read about the Battle of Paris, I was shocked by the shameless level of self opportunism and betrayal that brought the city down. Indeed, it is an episode largely ignored by historians, probably because no one comes out of it looking very good. The Allies squandered thousands of troops in poorly co-ordinated assaults and Paris fell because of betrayal and cowardice more than the military might of the vast allied army. Furthermore, Napoleon left the city poorly defended placing too much reliance on his own ability to defeat the Allies in the field. Although the Allies briefly celebrated the fall of Paris as a great victory, all concerned became interested in sweeping the episode under the carpet and it is rarely studied in depth today.

While Talleyrand, Fouche, Remusat, Marmont and others are usually cited as the villains of the piece in 1814, Napoleon's own family also let him down then as they did before and afterwards. Joseph Bonaparte was particularly inept and allowed himself to be browbeaten into an early capitulation while the marshals present wished to fight on and wait for Napoleon to relieve the city. Delderfield called Napoleon's relatives 'the Golden Millstones' around his neck and it has to be said that he was well justified in doing so.

So then - England, the oceans, imperial ego and internal betrayal - it's a difficult choice really. In Napoleon's defence, it's a wonder he did as well as he did while faced with a combination of the above but betrayal is probably the one that hurt him most and ultimately brought him down.

Regards,

David