IS ANOTHER long life of Napoleon really necessary? On three counts, the answergiven by Andrew Roberts's impressive book is an emphatic yes.
再多一本大部头的拿破仑传记真得有必要吗？基于以下三点，由安德鲁·罗伯茨这本令人印象深刻的书所给出答案是：绝对有必要。
The most important is that this is the first single-volume general biography to make full use of the treasure trove of Napoleon's 33,000-odd letters, which began being published in Paris only in 2004. Second, Mr Roberts, who has previously written on Napoleon and Wellington, is a masterly analyst of the French emperor's many battles. Third, his book is beautifully written and a pleasure to read.
首先，这是第一部充分利用了法国政府在2004年才开始公之于众的33000多封拿破仑书信宝藏而写成的单卷本传记；其次，之前写过有关拿破仑和威灵顿著作的罗伯茨是一位分析这位法国皇帝所参加的众多战役的大师。第三，该书文笔优美，读之令人愉悦。
Mr Roberts admits having taken longer to research and write it than the seven years that Napoleon spent both on Elba andon St Helena. He visited no fewer than 53 of the 60 battle fields, as well as Elba and even Longwood on St Helena, where Napoleon died at just 51. He captures well the frenetic energy and will of the man, shown not just in the furious pace and number of his letters but also in his many (mostly short-livedand often unsuccessful) sexual liaisons.
罗伯茨坦言，他花在实地调查和写作此书上的时间超过7年，比拿破仑在厄尔巴岛和圣赫勒拿岛上所渡过的时间加起来还要多。他不仅走访了厄尔巴岛、甚至是拿破仑在年仅51岁就死于该地的圣赫勒拿岛上的朗伍德，更实地考察了60个战场中的不下53个。他极好地捕捉到了，透过激烈的步伐、海量的书信以及众多的私通行为（其中大多数都是短命的而且经常时不成功的），展现出来的这个人的狂热动力和意愿。
What comes across most strongly are Napoleon's extraordinary military gifts. His political impact on his countryand Europe was clearly profound, but it was his revolutionising of warfare,military supplies, logistics and the use of artillery and tactics, especially in such battles as Austerlitz in 1805 and Friedland in 1807, that stands out.Yet as Mr Roberts's own analysis demonstrates, even here Napoleon had flaws. Hewas lucky at Marengo in 1800, he all but lost Wagram in 1809 and he should really have won Waterloo in 1815.
给人带来最强烈感受的是拿破仑的非凡军事才能。他对自己的国家和欧洲的政治影响，毫无疑问是深远的，但是，更最突出的是他在1805年的奥斯特利茨战役和1807年弗里德兰战役中，对战争艺术、后勤给养、运输供应和大炮的运用等方面所做出的革命性变革。不过，正如罗伯茨自己的分析所言，即便是在这方面，拿破仑也是有瑕疵的。他在1800年的马伦戈战役中是幸运的，差一点输掉1809年的瓦格拉姆战役，确实应当赢得1815年的滑铁卢战役。
Mr Roberts is clear-eyed about Napoleon's tactical mistakes, but too forgiving of his broader strategic failings. The most obvious was the catastrophic invasion of Russia in 1812, when he underestimated not just the skill of such generals as Barclay de Tolly and the fighting quality of Russian troops, but also the determination of the tsar. Yet Napoleon also erred in invading Spain in 1808 and repeatedly picked unnecessary fights with the Austrians and Prussians.
罗伯茨对拿破仑的战术错误有着很清醒的认识。但是，当他在论及这位法国皇帝在更加广大的战略方面的失误时，又表现得过于宽容。最明显战略错误是他在1812年对俄国的灾难性入侵。当时，他不仅低估了以巴克莱·德·托利为代表得俄军将领的能力和俄军的战斗力，还低估了俄国沙皇的决心。不过，拿破仑还在1808年入侵西班牙一事上犯了错误，并反复同奥地利和普鲁士打了一些不必要的战争。
He was also hopeless when it came to seapower. Mr Roberts concedes that “Napoleon's understanding of naval affairs was dismal.” But this understates the significance of his failing. In many ways the decisive battle of his wars was not Austerlitz or even Waterloo but Trafalgarin 1805, to which Mr Roberts devotes only half a page. It was Trafalgar that finally killed French hopes of invading England and cut Europe off from burgeoning world trade. As a consequence the British economy continued to grow strongly, while (thanks in part to Napoleon's atavistic protectionism) even by 1815 France had barely reached Britain's level of industrialisation in 1780.
他对海上力量的认识也让他成为了一个毫无希望之人。罗伯茨承认：“拿破仑对于海军事务的认识令人失望。”但是，这是对他的错误的重要性的削弱。从许多方面来看，在他所参加的所有战役中，决定性的一战既不是奥斯特利茨战役，甚至也不是滑铁卢战役，而是罗伯茨只拿出半页纸去论述的1805年特拉法加尔海战。是特拉法加尔海战最终击碎了法国入侵英国并切欧洲大陆与当时正在迅猛发展的世界贸易之间的联系的梦想。作为那场战役的一个结果，英国经济继续强劲增长，而法国直到1815年才达到英国在1780年的工业化水平。究其原因，部分是因为拿破仑对于保护主义的复辟。
Then there are Napoleon's flaws as a political leader. Mr Roberts, who is an ardent fan, portrays him as an Enlightenment figure whom many saw as the embodiment of progress and meritocracy. He certainly did much to reform France and Europe, not least through what became the Napoleonic legal code. Yet he was also a dictator, andhe lied about his battles, instigated the Brumaire coup in 1799, made himself emperor and was guilty of such crimes as the kidnap and murder of the Ducd’Enghien. Beethoven, a true believer in the Enlightenment, tore up his dedication of the “Eroica” symphony to Napoleon in 1804.
其次，作为一个政治领导人，拿破仑也是有瑕疵的。身为拿破仑忠实粉丝的罗伯茨，把他描绘成一个在许多人看来是进步和精英教育之化身的启蒙者。拿破仑的确对法国和欧洲进行过众多的改革，不仅仅是通过了被称为拿破仑法典的法律。然而，他还是一个独裁者，在战争问题上说过慌，策动了1799年的雾月政变，自封为皇帝，并且犯下了绑架和谋杀当甘公爵等罪行。作为启蒙运动的真心拥护者，贝多芬在1804年撕毁了他为拿破仑谱写的献礼作品——“英雄”交响曲。
Perhaps worst of all was Napoleon's habit of indulging and promoting his own family, especially his brothers. Mr Roberts is right to detect Corsican roots in this. But Napoleon's crowning of Joseph, first in Naples and then in Spain, of Louis in the Netherlands and then of Jerome in Westphalia all proved costly mistakes. And his proclamation of his infant son (conceived with Austria's Marie Louise, after his divorce from Josephine) as king of Rome was ludicrous in its pomposity.
最丑恶可能是拿破仑纵容和提拔家族之人，尤其是他的那些兄弟的习惯。在这方面，罗伯茨探寻拿破仑的科西嘉之跟的做法是正确的。但是，拿破仑先是封约瑟夫为那不勒斯王后又封其为西班牙王、封路易斯为荷兰王，随后在威斯特伐利亚给杰罗姆封王等行为，都被证明是代价高昂的错误。同时，他封其未成年的儿子（这个儿子是他同约瑟芬离婚后，与奥地利的玛丽·路易丝生下的）为罗马王的行为也是荒唐可笑的。
The ultimate failure of Napoleon can be seen in his legacy to his own country. He clearly promoted modernisation in Europe through such abruptly unceremonious acts as the abolition of the Holy Roman Empire and of the doge in Venice. Yet when he was born in 1769 France could still claim to be Europe's predominant power, as it had been for 100 years. By the time he died in 1821, it had been pushed aside. Mr Roberts cleaves to a very French view of Napoleon, seeing him as a force for good who fed the greater glory of his country. Yet contemplating European history since his death—first the dominance of Britain, then the rise of Germany and now France's relative economic and demographic decline—that seems at best debatable and at worst plain wrong.
拿破仑的最终失败见之于他留给自己国家的遗产中。他通过废除神圣罗马帝国和威尼斯总督等不拘常理的突然行为，明显地促进了欧洲的现代化。然而，就在他出生的1769年，法国仍然能够像在那之前的100年中那样，宣称自己是欧洲霸主。但是，待到他死去的1821年，法国已经被凉在了一边。罗伯茨坚持从法国人的观点看待拿破仑，把他看作是一股给他的国家带来了更大荣耀的向好的力量。不过，考虑到他身后的欧洲历史——先是英国称霸，后是德国崛起，如今是法国在经济和人口方面的相对衰落——这种观点，往好里说是有争论的；往坏里讲，则是完全错误的。
