Rating: 
Summary: I'm surprised at the level of criticism
Review: levelled at this book and feel much of it is very unjust, allow me to defend it:The most frequent critisism seems to be that it is too 'Pro-British'. I personally found in Chandler someone who deeply admires Napoleon Bonaparte. Chandler's style in writing is he covers all the bases and leaves the reader a certain amount of freedom for interpretation.
For example his opening chapter on the issue of ''was Napoleon fundamentally a good or bad man?''. As well as quoting the bad stuff: Jaffa massacre, his rages, The killing of the Duke Of Enghien etc. He also quotes the code Napoleon and puts forth a convincing argument that most of the wars Napoleon fought (Peninsular and Russian campaign excluded) he was forced into by aggressive policy's.
That is hardly Pro-British, he argues just as much in the Corsican Ogre route as the Heir to the Revolution route and does it with a in depth prose which leaves us with the full picture.
Chandler is deeply critical of Wellingtons early strategy preceding Waterloo, he is critical of the state of the British army (recruitment techniques) and much else.
There seems to be a major defence for Napoleon's mental awareness, many aids-de-camp have described there Master well on his Russian campaign. It is a fair statement to say at Waterloo Napoleon was not the same guy as he used to be. I don't see where the debate is in that, How is that pro-British?.
Besides he doesn't concentrate much on the Peninsular war so by default the British are not even discussed much beyond Napoleons Continental System against them, Pits coalitions, Moore's retreat and Waterloo (for which he does describe the amount of British involved)
Everything else is the Prussians, Russians and Austrians. Someone says ''chandler try's to formalise Napoleons tactics too much'', I find this the most ridiculous charge of all. May I quote from the book: ''Napoleonic war was nothing if not complex-a ever-shifting kaleidoscope of moves and intentions'' ''the most outstanding feature of Napolionic warfare is its limitless variation and flexibility'' The author never said Napoleon had one fundamental system, but there are certain key moves and repeated tactics which occurred time and time again, for example his principle that failed at Waterloo in fighting two enemy's by pinning one and destroying the other, we see that on his Italian 1796-97 campaign.
Besides it is well know that Napoleon learnt from the pages of books what Frederick the Great, Hannibal and Caesar done before him. Therefore to imply Napoleon never had certain key features in the art of war is to imply he never learnt anything. As for the author undermining Napoleons Marshals, he gives a account (with map) of Aurestadt, he gives a full account of Lannes and Grouchys deaths.
The only thing I can think where this criticism comes from is in one small part he describes how Murat would fall behind the men before the full gallop (certainly a necessary precaution). I don't think this denotes Murat's bravery.
This book is about Napoleon, if you want to read about 'Napoleons Marshals' you should read Chandlers books with that said title amongst many more.. The other charge seems to be it's errors. A work of this magnitude is going to have many errors, either due to the muddy haze of History (for which we will never uncover the truth) or oversight. As to that he'stole' a lot is deeply flawed logic. Previously published books, memoirs etc.. Are the main sources for historians. There is not that many great English language one volume books on Napoleons art of war, just 2 I do believe. That gives good ample reason for this books very existence.
Therefore Chandler is at free to borrow from other books knowing he is not taking away someone else's market. Many non-English which had to be newly translated, he quotes all concerned in a comprehensive Bibliography.
If Historians didn't do this we would still be reading dated biased Victorian books by Thackery and Macauly.
Ultimately even if you disagree with some of what I said above that is fine, but to give this book 1 STAR! Is absurd. A work of this magnitude does not deserve 1, at least give it 3 or 4 and note it's flaws (as many have done).
Rating:
Summary: I'm surprised at the level of criticism
Review: levelled at this book and feel much of it is very unjust, allow me to defend it: The most frequent critisism seems to be that it is too 'Pro-British'. I personally found in Chandler someone who deeply admires Napoleon Bonaparte. Chandler's style in writing is he covers all the bases and leaves the reader a certain amount of freedom for interpretation.
For example his opening chapter on the issue of ''was Napoleon fundamentally a good or bad man?''. As well as quoting the bad stuff: Jaffa massacre, his rages, The killing of the Duke Of Enghien etc. He also quotes the code Napoleon and puts forth a convincing argument that most of the wars Napoleon fought (Peninsular and Russian campaign excluded) he was forced into by aggressive policy's.
That is hardly Pro-British, he argues just as much in the Corsican Ogre route as the Heir to the Revolution route and does it with a in depth prose which leaves us with the full picture.
Chandler is deeply critical of Wellingtons early strategy preceding Waterloo, he is critical of the state of the British army (recruitment techniques) and much else.
There seems to be a major defence for Napoleon's mental awareness, many aids-de-camp have described there Master well on his Russian campaign. It is a fair statement to say at Waterloo Napoleon was not the same guy as he used to be. I don't see where the debate is in that, How is that pro-British?.
Besides he doesn't concentrate much on the Peninsular war so by default the British are not even discussed much beyond Napoleons Continental System against them, Pits coalitions, Moore's retreat and Waterloo (for which he does describe the amount of British involved)
Everything else is the Prussians, Russians and Austrians. Someone says ''chandler try's to formalise Napoleons tactics too much'', I find this the most ridiculous charge of all. May I quote from the book: ''Napoleonic war was nothing if not complex-a ever-shifting kaleidoscope of moves and intentions'' ''the most outstanding feature of Napolionic warfare is its limitless variation and flexibility'' The author never said Napoleon had one fundamental system, but there are certain key moves and repeated tactics which occurred time and time again, for example his principle that failed at Waterloo in fighting two enemy's by pinning one and destroying the other, we see that on his Italian 1796-97 campaign.
Besides it is well know that Napoleon learnt from the pages of books what Frederick the Great, Hannibal and Caesar done before him. Therefore to imply Napoleon never had certain key features in the art of war is to imply he never learnt anything. As for the author undermining Napoleons Marshals, he gives a account (with map) of Aurestadt, he gives a full account of Lannes and Grouchys deaths.
The only thing I can think where this criticism comes from is in one small part he describes how Murat would fall behind the men before the full gallop (certainly a necessary precaution). I don't think this denotes Murat's bravery.
This book is about Napoleon, if you want to read about 'Napoleons Marshals' you should read Chandlers books with that said title amongst many more.. The other charge seems to be it's errors. A work of this magnitude is going to have many errors, either due to the muddy haze of History (for which we will never uncover the truth) or oversight. As to that he'stole' a lot is deeply flawed logic. Previously published books, memoirs etc.. Are the main sources for historians. There is not that many great English language one volume books on Napoleons art of war, just 2 I do believe. That gives good ample reason for this books very existence.
Therefore Chandler is at free to borrow from other books knowing he is not taking away someone else's market. Many non-English which had to be newly translated, he quotes all concerned in a comprehensive Bibliography.
If Historians didn't do this we would still be reading dated biased Victorian books by Thackery and Macauly.
Ultimately even if you disagree with some of what I said above that is fine, but to give this book 1 STAR! Is absurd. A work of this magnitude does not deserve 1, at least give it 3 or 4 and note it's flaws (as many have done).
Rating: 
Summary: Grand Overview
Review: Mr. Chandler is English and does not delight as Americans do in a young republic kicking around the old European nobility. That said, this work is an attempt to cover 20 years of war in one volume. It would take 20 books by various authors to replace it, and therefore is the best starting point for those who do not want to take the time and money to build a personal library on the subject. Note, this is a military history, so it is strong on the movements of corps and divisions and light on Josephine etc.
Rating: 
Summary: No original research and no original conclusions
Review: The title of the review says it all: this book contains absoltuely no original research,and of the conclusions and descriptions which are correct, Chandler simply repeats what has written before, especially with regards to the so-called "art of war" section. Otherwise, numerous and significant mistakes are seen throughout the text.
Rating:
Summary: A Keeper
Review: There are very few books I keep permantly. Catch 22, Lord of the Rings and this one I refer to continually. However, I wish he would have given a more info. on the terms of the French Revolution as he refers to Jacobists and the Acien Regime as if the reader already knows what this implies. He also uses French phrases with no intrepretation. That criticism aside there is ample use of maps and detailed description of battles and campaigns. As well as the events that caused them. Chandler is sometimes blamed for being pro anglo, but after reading his book you appreciate the awesome ability of Napleon.
Rating:
Summary: Simply the best
Review: This book is a masterpiece. It is a salute to the man Napoleon, and also his times. Every now and then a human being of supreme intelligence, ambition, and ability sets foot upon the stage of the world. It is our duty to record the events such people set into motion. In doing so, David Chandler has written a life's work. The words flow like poetry, the analysis of Napoleon's life and campaigns are rich and supported by facts, few that are even discussed in other works. A monumental addition to any Napoleonic or historical library. Should I teach a class on this subject, this book will be a required text.
Rating:
Summary: A Classic.
Review: This book not only discusses each of the military actions of Napoleon, from his ill-fated attempt to recover Corsica for the Revolution to the 100 Days, but also discusses some of the favorite tactics and organization of his armies. Very readable, although its length will deter any but the serious student of military history. One of the books I had in my duffel bags during the Gulf War.
Rating:
Summary: A BRITISH book about the Napoleonic wars
Review: This is actually an anti-Napoleon book. It depicts how the British see this era, but now how it really was. This author never wrote anything good or positive about the greatest commander of all times.
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic! One of the best!!!
Review: This is one of the best books ever on Napoleons life! Chandler is surely the best expert on Napoleon in our time! Read it!
Rating:
Summary: Not as big as it looks
Review: Upon looking at this book, the sheer size of it is daunting, but after reading it I found Chandler's work to be fairly detailed, very interesting, and very very large. Large, not because of intensely detailed, heavy analysis but rather because he spent an average ammount of time on every aspect of Napoleon's long military career. The book covers such a long period of time that it has to be large, but upon reading it I found myself tearing through chapter after chapter with ease. Each campaign is given a good look at, with more attention to the Itallian campaign since it was where Napoleon's star truly began to rise. Too large to be an introductionary book about the subject I find it to be a perfect book for an overview of each and every campaign. The "advanced" work that is heads above the rest when it comes to covering all of Napoleon's campaigns. Chandler keeps to the subject and does not delve into the long term ramifications of Napoleon's career as he does in his work about Waterloo. Nor is very much of his own opinion stressed. This made the book a little dry at times, but here and there Chandler asserted his own opinions giving the book more life. Balancing opinion with credible work must be quite a chore though. It is also very understandable as to why he sticks to facts and sometimes dry accounts of the campaings. Look how big the books is! Any straying on his part and Phonebooks would look smaller when compared. Anyone interested in the Napoleonic era should have this book. It seems to make a rather good centerpiece from which more detailed studies can spring.
| 
