The Battle

Rating:
Summary: Butchers at work
Review: This is a prize-winning novelization of Napoleon's battle at Essling in 1809, presenting the whole crushing spectacle from the abattoir of a field hospital to the ridiculous glory of the Imperial Guard. This is a one-sided (French) view of the events, but (a) hardly flattering in any case, and b) of great value for not being another of the British novels on the Napoleonic war we already have in plethora (e.g., Hornblower, Sharpe, etc.). Essling was the only time Napoleon was personally defeated without British intervention (and their high rates of fire). For once I think I understood something of the utter genius he was. However, we get little sense of what the Austrian opponents were thinking or up to (nor a citation in the bibliography); in fact the slaughter among them was far worse than that depicted so vividly for the French under the arrogantly indifferent Napoleon. But their absence enhances the clouds of gunsmoke and 'fog of war' which drifts through the French ranks and disrupts everything in this battle. Although seen from multiple perspectives drawn from the memoirs of true participants, there's no one protagonist and you don't get a coherent view--unless it be Col. Lejeune who, as liason for the Emperor, thankfully serves to link some actions across 3 miles of desperate and maddening battle. The battle maps are essential to making out the larger sense of the individual actions, since you are plunged into the story without preamble, much as battle is like for ordinary soldiers. Future-famous author Stendahl is the pretext for additional civilian perspectives from nearby Vienna.

This story is not for the squeamish; the author relishes the gore of war as part of the close-up and personal atmosphere of this novel. And the whole affair was pointless; it had to be refought less than two months later. Don't let the page count fool you, the typography is generous and the story enthralling. This seems to be the only one of Rambaud's three novels of the Napoleonic era that has been translated into English.

Rating:
Summary: Unengaging
Review: Whatever else you might say about this book, you sure can't criticize it for false advertising. As you would guess, it is about a battle, and you get that, all right. If you were expecting anything more, though, forget it.

The battle in question takes place during the Napoleanic Wars and is in fact the battle of Essling, in which the Austrian and German forces under Archduke Charles defeated the armies of Napoleon. The front-piece or maybe it is the foreward--I forget--tells us that this battle was important because it was Napoleon's first major defeat. You don't get this from the novel though; no one ever really mentions it. In fact, I didn't really get that the battle WAS a defeat for Napoleon--to me it looked more like a draw.

But then, the novel doesn't really give me an idea as to why the two were fighting in the first place. Oh sure, I know that Napoleon was a French general in the early part of the 19th century, and that he conquered much of Europe, but beyond that, I'm sorry, I'm a novice. Was this Essling adventure Napoleon's first incursion into the area, or did Charles lead an uprising of those who had already been vanquished? If the former, then maybe a draw would be a tactical victory for Charles. But I was left guessing, as the novel makes no effort to put this in a historical context.

But it's a novel, right? Who cares about historical context if there's a good story to tell! Except there's no story here either. The battle is the story, that's it. It is shown through the eyes of about a dozen Frenchmen--no Austrian perspective--most of whom are Napoleon's officers, and none of whom do we get to know at all. They appear here and there and do things, but we don't know where they're from, what they did before the war, how long they've been in the army, or any other of dozens of little things that allow a reader to get to know them. More importantly, perhaps, we don't know what motivates them. Are they zealous nationalists? Napoleon worshipers? Jaded career men? Are they sick of war or thrilled by it? Who knows?

So when the battle starts and the horrific descriptions of it begin and we see soldiers getting their legs or heads blown off and dying in field hospitals, we find it hard to care. Towards the end of the novel, Napoleon spends a dying soldier's last hour with him. Again, as we never really saw what his relationship was with Napoleon to begin with, how can we possibly be interested now when we see Napoleon is seemingly touched by his death?

Ideally, historical fiction does a service to the reader in that it entertains you while you learn things. This historical fiction does neither. You're better off picking up a history book.

Rating:
Summary: Unengaging
Review: Whatever else you might say about this book, you sure can't criticize it for false advertising. As you would guess, it is about a battle, and you get that, all right. If you were expecting anything more, though, forget it.

The battle in question takes place during the Napoleanic Wars and is in fact the battle of Essling, in which the Austrian and German forces under Archduke Charles defeated the armies of Napoleon. The front-piece or maybe it is the foreward--I forget--tells us that this battle was important because it was Napoleon's first major defeat. You don't get this from the novel though; no one ever really mentions it. In fact, I didn't really get that the battle WAS a defeat for Napoleon--to me it looked more like a draw.

But then, the novel doesn't really give me an idea as to why the two were fighting in the first place. Oh sure, I know that Napoleon was a French general in the early part of the 19th century, and that he conquered much of Europe, but beyond that, I'm sorry, I'm a novice. Was this Essling adventure Napoleon's first incursion into the area, or did Charles lead an uprising of those who had already been vanquished? If the former, then maybe a draw would be a tactical victory for Charles. But I was left guessing, as the novel makes no effort to put this in a historical context.

But it's a novel, right? Who cares about historical context if there's a good story to tell! Except there's no story here either. The battle is the story, that's it. It is shown through the eyes of about a dozen Frenchmen--no Austrian perspective--most of whom are Napoleon's officers, and none of whom do we get to know at all. They appear here and there and do things, but we don't know where they're from, what they did before the war, how long they've been in the army, or any other of dozens of little things that allow a reader to get to know them. More importantly, perhaps, we don't know what motivates them. Are they zealous nationalists? Napoleon worshipers? Jaded career men? Are they sick of war or thrilled by it? Who knows?

So when the battle starts and the horrific descriptions of it begin and we see soldiers getting their legs or heads blown off and dying in field hospitals, we find it hard to care. Towards the end of the novel, Napoleon spends a dying soldier's last hour with him. Again, as we never really saw what his relationship was with Napoleon to begin with, how can we possibly be interested now when we see Napoleon is seemingly touched by his death?

Ideally, historical fiction does a service to the reader in that it entertains you while you learn things. This historical fiction does neither. You're better off picking up a history book.