Tchaikovsky composed an Overture about it. Thousands lost their lives over it. But was it just one last gamble that didn’t pay off for Napoleon?

The answer could lay in the legacy Napoleon may well have left to horse racing.

He’d gathered the largest army Europe had ever seen. Some 500,000 troops were amassed on the Russian border, awaiting a response to his final offer of peace to Tsar Alexander I.

So, to say Napoleon was a gambler was an understatement.

And his likely bequest? The NAP, as the tip of the day and the NB as the Next Best bet.

Although I can’t quite see the very self assured Napoleon running down to the bookies, handing over a wad of notes from beneath his tunic to place a bet on himself as the favourite in the 3:30 at Moscow, he did have a reputation for getting his own way.

Indeed, he forecast that the war would be over in 20 days.

And it would seem, at first, he might have backed a winner. They didn’t fall at the first fence, nor the second, but at heavy cost continued their march to Moscow.

So what communications advice would I have proffered? How transparently should he have briefed his men and how best could he deliver the persuasive argument that an invasion of Russia was a good idea?

At the time of the invasion, Napoleon was at the height of his power and no European power dared move against him. As a commander of his troops, no one challenged his authority or questioned his motives.

I once had an MD whose strong belief was that in order to rally the troops it was necessary to inject fear in to their lives and said as much. No doubt something he learned at Henley, rather than in the race for Russia.

I suspect it was similar in Napoleon’s communication with his troops. But fear can mean failure, while confidence in a campaign is a far better bet. Yet, a winning strategy founded in a confidence too far, or arrogance, will belie all efforts.

Napoleon was a shrewd operator. He never showed his hand. But as a steward of this cause, he was lacking. If the going was good, he would call it soft. If the going was soft, he would call it firm.

Hoodwinking your audience is never going to get them backing you again. And he never got the chance. If the troops were looking for a Steward’s Enquiry they would have been disappointed. The opportunity cost of his pomposity defied his confidence, overshadowed his victories and ultimately led to defeat and retreat.

He had advisers, but the pundits’ advice was ignored. That’s like employing Planners and letting the Creative Team lose with a blank sheet of paper. The only tipster Napoleon listened to was himself – NB!

He was no doubt already crafting his view of how the battle went. So, it would have been relatively easy for him to work in reverse, to outline and rationalise the objectives for the campaign, highlight the likely obstacles, align the motivations and values of him as commander with those of his troops, get them on side and run the race together, from those on the front line to those who were bringing up the rear.

Listening is the most important skill of a communicator. So while gut-feel and opportunism have a place in planning a communications campaign, I’d prefer to place my bet on educated insights, rather than be handicapped, choose my races carefully and produce the kind of incisive communications that will achieve the necessary impact and objectives.

That’s my NAP for today!

Paul Weinstein, Director