Napoleon movie and the need for a Robust History Making (RHM)

What Napoleon existed the french or the british portrayed one? Dall-e image.

In the wake of the French Revolution and the political turbulence that followed, France experienced a period of political instability and chaos. Napoleon’s rise to power brought a degree of stability and order. Napoleon initially rose to power through his own merit and military successes. He played a key role in the French Revolution, distinguishing himself as a capable military commander during the revolutionary wars. His political ascent culminated in the coup of 18 Brumaire (November 9, 1799), where he overthrew the Directory and established the Consulate. This move was not orchestrated by the aristocracy but rather by Napoleon himself, who sought to bring stability to France.

Napoleon implemented legal reforms, including the Napoleonic Code, which standardized and modernized French law. This legal code was influential not only in France but also in many other countries, as it provided a foundation for modern legal systems. The code emphasized equality before the law and protected individual property rights, contributing to a sense of fairness and justice among the French people.

Under his rule economic reforms were developed aimed to stabilize the French economy. He established the Banque de France, introduced a more standardized system of taxation, and supported infrastructure projects. These measures helped improve economic conditions for many French citizens.

And maybe the most known is usually that Napoleon was a charismatic and dynamic leader. His ability to inspire and lead his troops, coupled with his eloquence, contributed to his popularity. He presented himself as a strong and capable leader, which resonated with a population that sought stability and strength after years of political upheaval.

And not less important the somehow legendary way he responded to his exile in St. Helena, by dictating his memoirs and completely winning over a new generation. When he was at his absolute lowest, he found a way to fight back.

All this popular image of Napoleon is missing in Ridley Scott’s movie, which i just watch today.

Instead we are presented with at times pathetic character that instead of being a true leader seems to be more a poppet of french aristocracy that after the years of terror after the revolution found themselves unable to restore monarchy and then used, promoted, manipulated a military on the rise, Napoleon to become emperor and by that restore aristochary in praxis. Even his military achievements during the Napoleonic wars are presented without too much glory (maybe the Austerlitz battle is the exception). In the movie his victories are in my opinion a result of fighting against weak opponents since the true rulers of Europe (the British and Prusia) found useful his rising. Once he buy his own fairy telling and became a problem for the establishment, he was crushed.

So which version of Napoleon is the true one?

Dall-e conceptual image in digital art about how history has different narratives, uncertainty and contradictory interpretations

Even current historic events such as Hamas terrorist attack and subsequent (also terrorist?) bombing against Gaza are very difficult to judge by the non expert (are there truly experts?) since there are a lot of propaganda on both sides. How can we be sure about anything related to controversial historic characters or events?

Take for example the fall of Tenochtitlan. Since most of historic Mexica´s documents were burned, the ones that survived are not the most reliable or important; and most importantly most of elders, warriors, priests, and leaders died during war or the horrific epidemies. So basically there were a civilization and population collapse all at once. This makes extremely difficult to reconstruct Mexica story, considering also the spaniard propaganda.

List of historic epidemies. Wikipedia.

Population collapse in mesoamerica during and after the fall of Tenochtitlan

The result is we have to versions of Mexicas. On the one hand there is this idyllic civilization of great warriors, artists, engineers, scientists that lived in a greater city than any other in Europe; and on the other side they were human flesh eaters than sacrifice children by the thousands to whom spaniards brought civilization.

Clearly is not any of those but something between. So we have a problem of epistemological opaqueness in which there is incomplete information, misinformation, propaganda, physical evidence that may be interpreted in several ways, and so on.

Well, after seeing the Napoleon movie it became clear to me that this historic problem resables decision making under deep uncertainty, and that we have developed some tools to deal with it, that might map into history making too.

Robust Decision Making (RDM) is an approach to decision-making that is specifically designed to address situations characterized by deep uncertainty. Deep uncertainty refers to situations where decision-makers face a lack of information, unpredictability, and a high degree of ambiguity about the future. RDM aims to make decisions that perform well across a wide range of possible future scenarios, rather than optimizing for a specific scenario that may be uncertain or difficult to predict.

Here are key principles and characteristics of Robust Decision Making:

1. RDM involves the identification and analysis of a range of plausible future scenarios. Decision-makers consider a diverse set of potential outcomes, acknowledging the uncertainty inherent in complex systems. This process helps in understanding the possible consequences of different decisions under various conditions.
2. Decision-makers use stress testing to evaluate the performance of different decision strategies under extreme or unexpected conditions. This involves assessing how well a decision will hold up or perform in the face of the worst-case scenarios or the most uncertain conditions.
3. RDM often advocates for the development of adaptive strategies that can be adjusted over time based on new information and changing circumstances. This flexibility is crucial when dealing with deep uncertainty, as it allows decision-makers to refine their approach as more information becomes available.
4. RDM recognizes that decision-making is an iterative process. It encourages learning from experience and adapting strategies based on feedback from the outcomes of previous decisions. This adaptive learning helps decision-makers refine their understanding of the system they are dealing with and improve the robustness of future decisions.
5. RDM involves explicit consideration of trade-offs. Decision-makers assess the benefits and risks associated with different courses of action and seek to find a balance that minimizes vulnerability to uncertainties. This may involve compromising in some areas to enhance robustness in others.

RDM is particularly useful in complex and dynamic systems where traditional decision-making approaches may be inadequate due to the inherent uncertainties. It provides a framework for making decisions that are resilient across a wide range of potential future states, allowing organizations and decision-makers to navigate deep uncertainty with a more strategic and adaptive mindset.

So can we map these basic features of RDM to what we could call Robust History Making (RHM)? Well, here I propose some initial ideas:

Scenario Analysis in Historical Context:

Concept: Analyzing various plausible scenarios or narratives for historical events, considering different perspectives and interpretations.

Application: Historians could explore alternative narratives or scenarios for historical events, acknowledging the diversity of perspectives and uncertainties in historical accounts.

Stress Testing Historical Narratives

Concept: Evaluating how well historical narratives withstand scrutiny under different conditions or interpretations.
Application: Historians could stress test historical interpretations by considering alternative evidence, questioning biases, and assessing how well a narrative holds up under different analytical frameworks.

Adaptive Historical Understanding

Concept: Developing a historical understanding that is flexible and adaptive to new evidence or changing perspectives.
Application: Historians could acknowledge the evolving nature of historical understanding, adapting interpretations as new evidence emerges or as societal perspectives change.

Learning and Iteration in Historical Analysis

Concept: Recognizing that historical understanding is an ongoing process of learning and refining interpretations.
Application: Historians could learn from past interpretations, revise analyses based on new discoveries or insights, and continually refine our understanding of historical events.

Trade-Off Analysis in Historical Interpretation

Concept: Assessing the benefits and drawbacks of different historical interpretations and perspectives.
Application: Historians could explicitly consider the trade-offs associated with different interpretations, recognizing that no single narrative may capture the complexity of historical events.

Participatory Historical Analysis

Concept: Involving diverse perspectives and stakeholders in the interpretation of historical events.
Application: Historians could engage with multiple voices and perspectives, recognizing the importance of including a variety of viewpoints to construct a more comprehensive and robust understanding of the past.

Quantitative and Qualitative Historical Methods

Concept: Using both quantitative and qualitative approaches to analyze historical events.
Application: Historians could employ statistical methods where applicable, while also recognizing the importance of qualitative insights, cultural context, and individual experiences in constructing a robust historical narrative.

So for example we could see how historic narrative about the fall of Tenochtitlan change considering that:

1. Human sacrifice did not happen at all and for example physical remains found were not product of sacrifice but ritual conservation of dead important personalities
2. It did happened but at different levels of numbers and frequency
3. It was really an apocalypto scenario with tens of thousands of sacrificed persons with human flesh eating and all.

How our understanding of the conquest change? What are the consequences? what are the new perspectives open by considering alternatives?

This kind of treatment of course should be consistent with some hard core facts such as the physical existence of Tenochtitlan city, calendar systems, food production systems (milpa and chinampas) and so on. How this RHM should be presented? What could be the equivalent of error bars in physical data to plausibility degrees in historic facts? As I have suggested in here https://lopezoliverx.medium.com/the-destiny-of-free-will-8abb30f8044c is it possible to construct a historic events matrix and then calculate the RHM eivenvectors of it? These eigenvectors could represents facts, evidence and narrative components that remains invariant under RHM process and could be identified as true.

Finally I want to thank my dear friend Giovanni Hernandez for being such a pain in the a** in terms of discussing historical perspectives because this ideas could not have emerged without his inquisitive and brilliant comments.