Spain Won't Ban Ridley Scott's Napoleon Film

Spain Does Not Ban the Napoleon Movie: The Historical Reason

Ridley Scott releases his unique take on the Corsican emperor, and no one in Spain has called for censorship. The paradox is that if anyone had a historical right to ban it, it would be the descendants of the hundreds of thousands of Spaniards who died between 1808 and 1814 defending their homes from the French invasion. Napoleon was not a liberator: he was an invader who placed his brother José on the throne and unleashed a war that devastated the country. Yet here, it is viewed as just another Hollywood blockbuster.

What Did Napoleon Do in Spain Between 1808 and 1814?

The figure hovering over any serious discussion about the film is the death toll of the conflict: 5 million dead across Europe, according to the material. In Spain, the numbers are more modest but equally brutal: Zaragoza and Girona suffered sieges that claimed thousands of civilian lives, and Spanish casualties during the occupation run into the hundreds of thousands. This was not a skirmish: it was total war.

The trigger was not a standard invasion. It was a diplomatic trap: Charles IV and Ferdinand VII, father and son, were summoned to Bayonne and ended up abdicating in favor of Joseph Bonaparte. The French dynasty settled in Madrid backed by an occupying army. The popular response was what it was: Bailén, La Poza de Santa Isabel, Zaragoza, Girona, Madrid. Spanish victories without English involvement in the early stages, as noted in the material.

Why Doesn't Spain Censor the Film While France Has Issues?

The million-dollar question. Spain does not ban the movie because it lacks a historical memory law preventing fictionalization of a 19th-century foreign figure. There is no body reviewing scripts. And above all, because the official Spanish narrative regarding Napoleon has never been one of victimhood: it has been accepted that the Peninsular War was just another episode in national history, with its highs and lows.

In France, however, Napoleon remains a minefield. He is the man who consolidated the Civil Code and modern administration, but also the one who reinstated slavery in the colonies in 1802. Ridley Scott has opted for spectacle: Joaquin Phoenix, aged 48, playing an emperor crowned at 35. This detail, highlighted in the material, sums up the level of historical fidelity.

The Double Standard of Liberal Narrative and the Black Legend

Here the debate becomes toxic. One line of analysis argues there is double sarracena: while the Spanish conquest of America is denounced, Napoleonic expansion in Europe is presented as a civilizing mission. "While we Spaniards went to America and Asia to skin Indians and steal gold, enlightened liberals went through Europe liberating nations," summarizes one of the most cited interventions.

The counterargument is equally forceful: Napoleon was not a liberator but a conqueror who placed his family on thrones across half of Europe. In Spain, the afrancesados (Francophiles)—the elite who collaborated with the invader—used the opportunity to loot what remained of the Ancien Régime. And when Ferdinand VII returned, he did so amid cheers. The liberal poison, they say, was already inoculated.

Ferdinand VII: The King Who Made Joseph Bonaparte Look Good

If there is an uncomfortable consensus throughout the material, it is that Ferdinand VII was a disaster. The most repeated comparison: it would have been better if Joseph I had reigned. The "Traitor King" returned in 1814, repealed the Constitution of Cádiz, and restored absolutism. Ridley Scott's film doesn't mention this, but the Spanish paradox is that the external enemy was defeated while the internal enemy stayed on the throne.

The discussion shifts to the role of the afrancesados, Freemasonry, and the origins of human rights. "Human rights come from the University of Salamanca, not from that bloodbath known as the French Revolution," one intervention claims. Another points out that the French Revolution was not a milestone of freedom but a process that devoured its own children: Robespierre ended up on the guillotine.

The Parallels with Current Politics No One Wants to Acknowledge

The leap to the present is inevitable. Napoleon was an unemployed bureaucrat who created an empire, according to one of the most repeated definitions. The comparison with the Spanish political class is explicit: any biography of an average politician is practically a Napoleon. The difference is that the Corsican won battles.

The discussion about the film turns to boycotts. "I support boycotting it. I don't plan to go see it," states one contributor. Others argue that censorship is not the way: "Someone will need to define what is truth and what is lie." The problem, they note, is not the movie, but someone with interests deciding what you can watch.

---

Does banning a movie change anything? History is written by the winners, but also by those who fund it. Ridley Scott hasn't come to deliver historical justice: he has come to make money. Meanwhile, Spain still lacks its own major production about the Peninsular War. Perhaps the problem isn't censorship, but a lack of budget.