The West Forgotten How to Lead…From Napoleon to Trump - Andrew Roberts

Summary

Historian Andrew Roberts argues that Europe is showing troubling parallels with the 1930s—not only in the face of aggression by authoritarian states, but also in what he sees as a failure to recognize and respond to threats. He describes antisemitism in Britain as serious and increasingly shaped by Islamist movements, while also acknowledging older British forms and the roles of the far right and far left. He controversially compares the French anti-Dreyfus movement of the late 19th century with the modern Green Party, citing its leader’s reluctance to affirm Israel’s right to exist. These are Roberts’s views, discussed in a conversation that distinguishes contemporary antisemitism from its earlier forms.

Roberts sees a crisis of leadership across much of the West. He praises Margaret Thatcher’s moral clarity and Volodymyr Zelensky’s conduct during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He criticizes several European leaders’ statements on Israel and Gaza, and contrasts what he describes as the seriousness of countries near Russia—such as Poland and the Baltic states—with the complacency of more distant countries. In his view, the long absence of war has encouraged an “illusion of luxury” and weakened attention to defense. He also suggests that wars can bring capable leaders to the fore, citing Churchill and Clemenceau.

The discussion then turns to Napoleon’s marshals. Roberts explains that they came from varied social and political backgrounds, and that Napoleon used military achievement to build a new elite after the Revolution displaced the old aristocracy. Napoleon rewarded and publicized the marshals, granting them titles, wealth, and status, while also deliberately encouraging competition. Roberts says this system helped motivate them but became destructive when favoritism and rivalries undermined trust. By contrast, Napoleon showed ordinary soldiers personal attention—remembering names, rewarding bravery, and attending to their needs—which helped inspire their loyalty.

Roberts traces the breakdown of Napoleon’s military leadership to conflicts among the marshals, especially when they operated at a distance from him in Spain and Portugal. He argues that rivalries and refusals to cooperate contributed to the empire’s failures. At Waterloo, Napoleon had few of his senior marshals available; Ney and Soult, who were present, were poorly matched and antagonistic. Roberts also cautions against reducing the 1812 invasion of Russia to simple arrogance, while noting that the campaign ultimately went disastrously wrong.

In comparing leadership styles, Roberts presents Ronald Reagan as a contrast to Napoleon: Reagan generally chose capable officials and let them work, while Thatcher combined stable appointments with a tendency to undercut potential rivals. Roberts says Churchill’s wartime popularity meant he had less reason to fear competition from colleagues.

The final topic is Donald Trump. Roberts likens Trump’s demand for loyalty to that of ancient Roman emperors, particularly Nero, and says such behavior is unusual in a democracy. The interviewer questions how Trump’s norm-breaking style emerged in the United States and suggests his bombast may have limited his effectiveness. Roberts criticizes Trump’s handling of Iran, arguing that the decision to strike nuclear sites may have been justified, but that encouraging an uprising before the United States was ready may have contributed to the deaths of potential opponents of the regime. The subtitles end before Roberts answers the interviewer’s final question.

Presenters and Contributors

• Jake Wallis Simons — host and interviewer
• Andrew Roberts (Lord Roberts of Belgravia) — historian and guest