Primary Sources about Napoleon
  There are many people who have known Napoleon throughout his life. Many of them have written their perception on him, sometimes during his reign, but more often after death. Some of these sources were very close to Napoleon, but many are less reliable than others. It is important to not take a source at face value simply because the person knew Napoleon. We must also factor in their motivations for writing such things about the Emperor of France, as well as the year in which it was written. The following people have all written about Napoleon, and it is my hope to explain in depth why some are more decisive than others.
   Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne - Memoires de Napoléon Bonaparte (EN | FR)
  At first glance, this may seem like a very reliable source. Bourrienne was close friends with Napoleon during his time in military school. They had a falling-out of sorts after the then-first Consulate realised Bourrienne was using his position of power to make his family wealthy. One must consider that these memoirs were published in 1829, only two years before Bourrienne’s death, and eight years after that of Napoleon. He was in great financial need at the time, and he was encouraged by a local publisher to write about his experiences with Napoleon in an attempt to make money. This could imply that much of what happened was fabricated to make it more interesting to read, or long forgotten over the nearly three decades since Bourrienne had spoken to Napoleon. It is from these memoirs that we get the anecdote of Napoleon leading a snowball fight, which cannot be confirmed by anyone other than Bourrienne himself. The memoirs have many similar anecdotes, but is to be taken with consideration of Bourrienne’s situation in mind. Certain issues are addressed in a book titled Bourrienne et ses erreurs volontaires et involontaires by A. Bulos.Â
  Laure Junot - Memoires de Madame Junot (La Duchesse D'Abrantès) (EN | FR)
  Junot was the wife of one of Napoleon’s close generals. This would, by nature, imply that she was close to the Emperor or was privy to the inner workings of the Empire. This was, in fact, the case exactly. However, unfortunately for Mme Junot, she was quite a gossiper, which aggravated Napoleon. He did not wish for a woman to pry into diplomatic affairs, so he forbade her from being within one hundred leagues of the city. This made her quite bitter, and she wrote her memoirs to cast Napoleon in a bad light. The anecdotes and accusations in the memoirs are outrageous, and which many scholars agree to be absolute fiction.Â
  Germaine de Staël - Oeuvres complètes de Madame la Baronne de Staël-Holstein (EN | FR)
  De Staël’s motivations should be taken into question immediately when we realise that she was the daughter of the infamous Jacques Necker, finance minster under King Louis XVI. Though she was an incredibly intelligent woman, both she and Napoleon had large egos that often clashed whenever one was in company of the other. In her memoirs, she belittles Napoleon with hollow, if well-constructed accusations. She claimed that Napoleon wanted nothing to do with her simply because she was a woman who did not belong in politics. The scathing memoirs have nothing redeeming about the Emperor whatsoever, and it has been confirmed that much of it was fabricated. Though incredibly more well-written than the memoirs of Madame Junot, they have about the same authenticity.
   Emmanuel, comte de Las Cases - Memorial de Sainte-Hélène (EN | FR)
  Here is where I believe my point of view differs from many people who study Napoleon casually. Those who wish for something reliable and extensive often reach for Las Cases’ Memorial, as it was dictated by Napoleon himself during his exile on Saint Helena. However, it would be foolish to take anything Napoleon wrote at utter face value, since the Emperor was known as a pioneer of modern-day propaganda. This Memorial is also an example of that, where he paints things in a light in which he would rather see them. This does not discredit the source, however, as though this propaganda we can further our knowledge about Napoleon’s history. When he talks of battles, it is always best to cross-reference with the memoirs of Napoleon’s soldiers, as many men saying the same thing are rarely wrong. In the case of this Memorial, Napoleon attributes the loss of Waterloo to the incompetence of his generals, deflecting the blame from himself. There are also things that are twisted to appear slightly better than they truly were. Any anecdotes about Napoleon’s childhood are hard to confirm unless we cross-check them with those of his brother, Joseph Bonaparte. It is not that Napoleon necessarily lies about his upbringing, as he makes a point to state that his family was not wealthy but still a part of the nobles in Corsica, but this is towards the end of his life when he is incredibly ill and suffering from depression, and his memory is not as good as it could have been had the Memorial been written earlier or under different circumstances. About this source, I would say to take it more as a study on the Emperor’s personality.
  It is clear that there are many people who have tried to tarnish the name of and slander Napoleon Bonaparte. Of course, it is to be expected around a man who was always so politically charged, whom many people saw as a Christ figure while others saw him as an anti-Christ. There is one source that is, in my opinion, much better than others, simply because it has little to no political bias and is written by the man who was closest to Napoleon for his entire life.
   Joseph Bonaparte - Mémoires et correspondance politique et militaire du roi Joseph (EN | FR)
  What makes this source different from the others is that it is a collection of letters both to and from Napoleon from his older brother, Joseph. Many recent editions annotated by Napoleonic scholars can provide accurate and in-depth information about Napoleon. It is a shame that this source is often overlooked as in the editions where only the letters are included, it has no political bias in it whatsoever, as aforementioned. However, the editions that also include the memoirs of Joseph are valuable as well, as they give an interesting perspective to Napoleon’s reign that few others had.
  There are plenty more primary sources out there that attempt to write about Napoleon, and as with these, should all be taken with a grain of salt. These are the ones that people most often come across, and are too often used for confirmation bias. It is important to read what historians know to be absolutely true, and to not base impregnable opinions on dubious sources.
