It's been several years now and I am far more radicalized now than when I read it, so my political analysis is going to be hazy.

As I recall, he paints Napoleon as a sort of proto-Hitler who took advantage of a very popular uprising against the existing power structures and channeled the revolutionary fervor into a cult of personality with himself at the center. The book mostly centers around Napoleon's military exploits, and his ingenious manipulation of mass media to convert his actual battlefield heroism into highly aggrandized cachet and political power.

What sticks out in my memory is Dwyer's visceral hatred of Napoleon, which he backs by the number of dead involved in the Napoleonic wars - he basically points to the number and says, "this many people died to uphold Napoleon's personal stake in the French government."

Is there a Hinge Point™ here, where Napoleon's death would have drastically changed the course of the French Revolution? or was the outcome determined beyond his personal involvement? Up for debate. But Dwyer's whole thrust is, "this guy was a self-serving power maniac, and was willing to march troops from Paris to Moscow, murdering anyone in his path, to hold onto his power."

fwiw I believe Dwyer is Australian, which comes with its own set of . But tone and authorial bias aside, it really is a fascinating and detailed two-volume biography.

P.S.: speaking of musk-ovites, I remember reading that Napoleon would send letters to Josephine that were like, "I'll be home in two weeks, don't bathe between now and then, I want you to stink for me when I get back."