Napoleon and His Marshals (Lost Treasures S.)

Rating:
Summary: Napoleonic history without Napoleon -- a refreshing change
Review: I've long been fascinated by the Napoleonic era, but I've always been put off by Napoleon himself. If you have similar sentiments, you'll enjoy this book. The author turns the spotlight on the remarkably colorful and diverse band of military leaders who accompanied Napoleon throughout his career, in the twenty-two years from Toulon to Waterloo, and won his battles for him. Originally published in 1934, the book is written in a rather mannered style which might not be to everyone's taste. Scholars will be startled by the author's cavalier approach to notes and bibliography. But it's a lively and entertaining read, which introduces some fascinating characters, whom I now want to learn more about. It's also a handy overview of the whole Napoleonic era. What's most poignant is how the surviving marshals conducted themselves during the first Bourbon restoration in 1814, the Hundred Days in 1815, and the second restoration after Waterloo, which I found to be a haunting precursor to what happened after France's defeat in 1940.

Rating:
Summary: Napoleonic history without Napoleon -- a refreshing change
Review: I've long been fascinated by the Napoleonic era, but I've always been put off by Napoleon himself. If you have similar sentiments, you'll enjoy this book. The author turns the spotlight on the remarkably colorful and diverse band of military leaders who accompanied Napoleon throughout his career, in the twenty-two years from Toulon to Waterloo, and won his battles for him. Originally published in 1934, the book is written in a rather mannered style which might not be to everyone's taste. Scholars will be startled by the author's cavalier approach to notes and bibliography. But it's a lively and entertaining read, which introduces some fascinating characters, whom I now want to learn more about. It's also a handy overview of the whole Napoleonic era. What's most poignant is how the surviving marshals conducted themselves during the first Bourbon restoration in 1814, the Hundred Days in 1815, and the second restoration after Waterloo, which I found to be a haunting precursor to what happened after France's defeat in 1940.

Rating:
Summary: Superb Account of the Marshalate and the Napoleonic Wars
Review: Macdonnel's work based upon telling the Napoleonic Wars with a viewpoint on the Marshals of Napoleon rather than the "Little Corporal" himself is a superb effort! The manner in which the Napoleonic Wars are told in this book was enthralling, and it allowed one to gain an intimate understanding of the contrasting characters of the proud men who composed the Marshalate, everyone from the flambuoyant Murat to the solemn Kellermann, to Victor (who never won a battle) to Davout (who never lost a battle.) I would undoubtably give this piece my highest recommnedation, especially for anyone who isn't already well versed in Napoleonic Wars history.

Rating:
Summary: Superb Account of the Marshalate and the Napoleonic Wars
Review: Macdonnel's work based upon telling the Napoleonic Wars with a viewpoint on the Marshals of Napoleon rather than the "Little Corporal" himself is a superb effort! The manner in which the Napoleonic Wars are told in this book was enthralling, and it allowed one to gain an intimate understanding of the contrasting characters of the proud men who composed the Marshalate, everyone from the flambuoyant Murat to the solemn Kellermann, to Victor (who never won a battle) to Davout (who never lost a battle.) I would undoubtably give this piece my highest recommnedation, especially for anyone who isn't already well versed in Napoleonic Wars history.

Rating:
Summary: Very biased, poorly written, no analysis
Review: The best thing about "Napoleon and His Marshals" is MacDonnell's description of how the Marshals interacted with eachother and with Napoleon. Unfortunately, A.G. MacDonnell writes poorly and provides no context for his arguments or support for many of his claims.

Books about Napoleon can be classified on two characteristics:
1)degree of military analysis vs general commentary and 2)author's overall assessment for or against Napoleon.

Napoleon Bonaparte was a brilliant general who built a vast empire and left a legacy in France's modern legal and political system, but he was also an egomaniac who covered France and Europe with death and destruction for 20 years. He was charming but could be very cruel and made massive military blunders.

Most biographers struggle to achieve balance with such a complex subject, and this book fails miserably on that score, as it is light on analysis and wildly pro-Bonaparte. The author tells us that Bonaparte was a brilliant military mind (which he was) and says Davout was the only Marshal to grasp that brilliance, but fails to show why Bonaparte succeeded when he did.

Worse, like most French historians, MacDonnell blames Bonaparte's military failures (notably Waterloo) on anyone and anything but Bonaparte. This flies in the face of strong evidence that Napoleon's own mistakes, overconfidence and tendency to improvise played a major role in his defeats. MacDonnell gives no credit to Wellington, Blucher, Kutuzov, or any of the other generals who opposed Napoleon.

I found the writing wordy. This example from page 56 is typical: "On October 30th Bonaparte threw off the aimlessness which had concealed a penetrating and exhaustive summing up of the political situation and joined Sieyes, and the intensive work began."

MacDonnell observes that the Marshals were younger than their defeated opponents, but fails to develop a thesis. He includes controversial observations from biased, contemporary accounts (for example, a French noblewoman claiming, "If Napoleon had had two [Marshal] Suchets, he would have captured and kept Spain,")but makes no effort to prove them as long as they support his view.

Important battles like Austerlitz and Waterloo are swept aside with glib generalizations or even totally unjustified comparisons, such as, "At Waterloo the Emperor resorted to the methods of Austerlitz and Borodino." If Napoleon had planned and executed Waterloo with the same subtlety he showed at Austerlitz, the outcome might have been different!

I'd recommend anything by John Keegan, David Chandler or Gunther Rothenburg over this book for a better-written understanding of Napoleon the general. Those interested in an account of Napoleon the man should read Alan Schom's scathing but well-documented "Napoleon Bonaparte". "The Black Room at Longwood" is a very pro-Bonaparte but well-written non-military account of the man by French journalist Kaufmann.