Napoleon and Wellington : The Battle of Waterloo--and the Great Commanders Who Fought It

Rating:
Summary: The great rivalry-Napoleon and Wellington
Review: Although this book is subtitled "The Battle of Waterloo and the Great Commanders Who Fought It," it isn't really a straightforward military history. It is instead a rather original hybrid of biography, political and military history, and for lack of a better word, gossip. Roberts focuses on the parrallels in the careers of Napoleon and Wellington; there are remarkable similarities and differences. At the center of the narrative is the fact that Napoleon and Wellington, as the foremost military personalities of their time, were placed in a position of natural rivalry. Each was in many respects the standard against which the other was measured. Roberts, in an engaging style, brings out the perceptions (and misperceptions) each had of the other over, and how these perceptions changed over time, especially after the Battle of Waterloo. For the serious reader, there are some insights into the personalities of the two leaders that help explain their respective approaches to the battlefield. For example, Roberts brings out the value for Wellington of his extensive tactical experience with infantry in India and the Peninsular War, which allowed him to personally and usefully intervene in the conduct of his battles. By contrast, Napoleon's far more rapid rise in rank left him with less experience in tactics and therefore more dependent on his marshals for the conduct of his battles. Roberts highlights that Wellington was primarily a military leader who saw himself as an agent of the British Governemnt; Napoleon's perspective was that of a head of state in pursuit of his own vision of glory, for which his leadership of the French Armies was a means to an end. Serious readers looking for battle history should seek elsewhere. For the more casual reader, there are plenty of juicy personal tidbits of the kind normally found on the personality page of the weekly Parade Magazine. These details tend to humanize two personalities long layered in myth. Roberts is to be commended for finding a original angle to ground that has been heavily worked.

Rating:
Summary: A very good portrait of two great men
Review: I enjoyed this work a great deal and found that I learned a great deal about both Wellington and Napoleon. I read it because I had read several of the Sharpe's books by Bernard Cornwell, and have become interested in the first Duke of Wellington, who is a reoccurring officer in several of the Sharpe's novels. I liked the fictional creation and wanted to see how accurate was the fictional portrait to the real man. I was gratified to learn that I liked the real life Duke as much as Cornwell's portrayal of him.

The author of this non-fiction work, Andrew Roberts, is a young historian who is excellent at researching his topic, and he is also a solid writer. While I would recommend this book to anyone, I would suggest a serious interest in the subject matter. This certainly isn't beach reading or an adventure novel, full of battle and sword.

Andrew Davis' main thrust his this: the commonly accepted historical view of these two men, Napoleon and Wellington, and the battle of Waterloo, is that Napoleon seriously underestimated Wellington's ability as a general was therefore caught by surprise by Wellington's fine generalship on the day of battle. Further, that Napoleon had no respect at all for Wellington, referring to him as "that sepoy General" (a reference to Wellington's service in India, where he won several impressive victories but had not defeated European armies). Davis does not agree with this assessment, claiming that before the battle, Napoleon had praised Wellington, and it was only after the battle, and during his long, bitter exile at St. Helena, that Napoleon became increasingly critical and insulting in his comments about Wellington. The Author spends the book reviewing the writings and actions of both men, in support of his premise.

Yet, after reading the book, I was not convinced. While the author makes it clear that as years passed Napoleon exhibited an almost demented obsession with regard to the battle of Waterloo, subsequently blaming nearly everyone present for the lose other than himself, and also in tearing down and belittling Wellington, he wasn't exactly full of praise and respect for Wellington before the battle either.

Andrew Roberts gives several examples of Napoleon's written and spoken statements about Wellington before the battle, and none of them are very substantial or enthusiastic. All of them sound like comments one general would say about another in an effort not to openly insult the other, instead of actual giving praise or respect. Take for example Davis' noting that Napoleon admitting in 1814 that Wellington had made a "reputation" for himself in the Peninsula. Could this not be seen, in the light of other comments from Napoleon regarding Wellington's opposition in the Penisula, to have been a sarcastic comment, or even an insult? The author also cites Napoleon referring to Wellington as "a man of viguor in Warfare." Not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it? Davis supplies other evidence, all of such lukewarm substance. All of Napoleon's comments on Wellington merely seem polite or measured in the same way. None of it ever smacks of real respect or supplies any indication that Napoleon was seriously impressed with Wellington. Napoleon seems to have considered Wellington a good, solid General, but certainly not in His class - perhaps the best the British had to offer.

The author bends over backward in this book to give a balanced view of both men, striving to make the point that both men were more alike that dissimilar. Again, Davis' own work does not leave me with that impression. If anything, Davis' own writings leave me with the impression that the two men were about as different as two men can be. Napoleon: a brash, classless man, so resentful and hateful of Wellington for defeating him that his soul turned small, dry and bitter, until his own obsessions and resentment ate him alive. An inspired man, and inspiring. A creature for the imagination. Wellington: a winning machine. A man possessing a razor mind and cold eyes that never, ever saw failure in anything. A creature of will and intellect, perfect for Empire. A gentleman in war and victory. In the end, Wellington was simply the better general and the better man.

Rating:
Summary: Extensive Research and Some Great Insights
Review: Many people might consider the subject of the Napoleonic Wars a "dead" historical issue, as there have probably been tens of thousands of works on pretty much every facet of the series of wars that ravaged Europe in the early part of the 19th century. Included in that glut of volumes is another couple of thousand biographies on Napoleon, and a few hundred more on his mortal adversary, the Duke of Wellington. Roberts takes on the tough task of describing these two titans within one volume, while also describing their relationship. He suceeds for the most part.

One thing Roberts does very well is his research. Every fact and every assumption he makes is studiously backed up by documents and numerous quotes by the subjects involved. His frequent use of era documents and historical testimonials add a lot to the narration. The writing can be a bit slow and dull at parts, but on the whole the story told is very engaging.

In my opinion, the conclusions reached in this book are fairly simple. Napoleon is regarded as a very capable military man, who was handicapped by his arrogance and willingness to thrown thousands of lives away for little reason, time and time again. His legendary military genious is tempered a bit in this book, as you realize his opposition, on the most part, was pathetic. Wellington is described as an extremely stern military genius, a very straight forward soldier who had a way of utilizing the terrain in ways even Napoleon could not comprehend. His lack of intellectual finery and philosophical reasoning, strange among the elite of the time, is identified, with some humourous results. As he should, Wellington comes out the better in this book, but his faults were many and they are definetly not glossed over in this book.

A very good addition to Napoleonic War history and an accessible work for any history buff.

Rating:
Summary: Nice Comparison of Two Formidable Military Figures
Review: This is definitely not for the general reader. More time could have been given to the Waterloo campaign but all in all a good account of the two men and the mutual respect that had to have for one another. I enjoyed the numerous meaderings he took on all aspects of these two personalities and their lives before and after Waterloo.

He shows though how both were so concerned about their place in history. Although Welington won the battle, wanting no one to forget that, he seemed to lose the war as Napoleon was very successful in propagating the Napoleonic Legend. Most enjoyable for any enthusiast of this period.

Rating:
Summary: Not for general readers
Review: Though you can't tell it from reading the dust jacket, "Napoleon and Wellington" is a book written for a very specific audience. It became apparent from the very first chapter that author Andrew Roberts is assuming that his readers already have substantial knowledge about the lives of his two protagonists. Rather than a straightforward account of their lives like you would expect in a dual biography, the author makes comments and observations about facts he assumes the reader already knows. I already had some general knowledge of Napoleon's career, and I still had a hard time following the narrative.

A second observation about the book is that the battle of Waterloo itself gets a very small percentage of the narrative. Most of the book concerns what came both before and after Waterloo in the lives of the two generals who fought there. Also, events in the book are not presented chronologically and Roberts jumps around while comparing the two leaders.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with Roberts's approach, except that the book is being marketed to the general history audience. I would definately not recommend it to anyone not already intimately familiar with the subject matter.

Rating:
Summary: Not for general readers
Review: Though you can't tell it from reading the dust jacket, "Napoleon and Wellington" is a book written for a very specific audience. It became apparent from the very first chapter that author Andrew Roberts is assuming that his readers already have substantial knowledge about the lives of his two protagonists. Rather than a straightforward account of their lives like you would expect in a dual biography, the author makes comments and observations about facts he assumes the reader already knows. I already had some general knowledge of Napoleon's career, and I still had a hard time following the narrative.

A second observation about the book is that the battle of Waterloo itself gets a very small percentage of the narrative. Most of the book concerns what came both before and after Waterloo in the lives of the two generals who fought there. Also, events in the book are not presented chronologically and Roberts jumps around while comparing the two leaders.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with Roberts's approach, except that the book is being marketed to the general history audience. I would definately not recommend it to anyone not already intimately familiar with the subject matter.