The controversial great man theory of history, popular during the 19th century, believes that history can largely be explained by the actions of great men, who are influential and unique with some exceptional natural attribute, such as intelligence, courage, leadership, or something similar, that has a decisive historical effect.

One individual that potentially fulfills the great man role is Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon, a poor noble from the island of Corsica, thrived during the French Revolution, first in military theaters and later in politics, which lead to crowning himself as emperor of France. This success is due in part to his charisma, intellect, leadership, and military skill; however, no small part of his success was due to him being in the right place at the right time.

While Napoleon was leading armies for the French Republic, he lead an expedition to Egypt, seeking to conquer and make a name for himself like the great men of history he admired. Egypt at the time was ruled by the Islamic Ottoman empire and under control of the Mamluks. To prepare himself to rule over this land, Napoleon studied the Quran.

After defeating the Mamluks and seizing power over Egypt, Napoleon sought to seek peace with the people of Egypt by presenting himself as a better ruler than the Mamluks he overthrew. To do so, Napoleon presented himself before the religious rulers as a better choice than the Mamluks, who were technically Muslim but engaged in behaviors, such as drinking, that were not permitted by the religion. Napoleon went so far as to even pick out an Islamic name “Napoleon Ali Bonaparte.”

Unfortunately, the religious leaders wanted a demonstration of Napoleon’s commitment to Islamic conversion. Pursuit to their demands, Napoleon’s men were to abstain from consuming wine and to undergo circumcision. Later negotiations removed the circumcision part and permitted the consumption of wine if his men would dedicate one-fifth, rather than one-tenth, of their income to tithing.

Ultimately, Napoleon did not convert to Islam for many reasons. First, Napoleon saw religion, both Christianity and Islam, as a useful political tool to be manipulated to achieve his goals. Since converting to Islam would not further his ambitions more than remaining a nominal Catholic, he no longer sought to do so. Second, Napoleon’s ambitions were in Europe and France; therefore, converting to Islam would undermine the people’s support that he actively cultivated through his propaganda campaigns. Third, Napoleon never understood religious belief. He identified himself as a man of logic and reason, not faith. He had difficulty accepting how people could devote their lives to something based on their feelings.

In the end, Napoleon de Bonaparte never became Napoleon Ali Bonaparte. It is interesting to speculate how the future would have been different if he converted. Would he still have become emperor? Would he have been able to negotiate with the Pope as he did while in power? Would the people of France have supported his conversion or would the Catholic rebellions gain further momentum?

References

“Bonaparte and Islam.” LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY: EXPLORING THE FRENCH REVOUTION, accessed August 16, 2023, https://revolution.chnm.org/d/612

Napoléon Ier. Campagnes d’Italie, d’Égypte et de Syrie. Tome 2. Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie, 1872. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6366973f/f236.double.