Napoleon

I recently listened to a podcast of a historian describing the events around the battle of Waterloo. He made the point that, if Napoleon hadn’t lost that battle, it would have been another one sooner or later because he already won too much. Following the reasoning, history wouldn’t have changed that much even if Napoleon had won that crucial battle.

I disagree with that way of thinking: it lets the general trend prevail over the contingent circumstances. Given that there is never proof of the contrary in history, so nothing can be objectively demonstrated, I still think it undervalues the magnitude that path dependence can have on history. In fact, thinking that a change or a macro-outcome will be inevitably done by someone, and that an individual will not make a difference, can be the missing straw that doesn’t make the camel’s back break.

Instead, believing that each of us can have an impact, and our behaviour is essential in the achieving of higher human progress, will make us feel we are part of change. Even if it doesn’t bring to a self-fulfilling prophecy, at least it leads to more satisfaction in life, and at the end of it one can always say: “I was part of the positive change”.

And who wouldn’t desire to say those words at 80 years old?

Luca Bisi