Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon

Rating:
Summary: Highly informative and very readable.
Review: I am a fan of the XIXth century, and specially of his wars & conflicts, post-romantic if you want but essentially because warfare did evolve from "heroic" to "mass murder" too quickly at the turn of the XXth... Mind, warfare in ancient times was highly murderous at close quarters and very wild, archery was a giant step and then the use of powder to increasingly "tecnify" the thing...
But to get to the point, as a wargamer Napoleonics are and will be my favorite period (with the early ACW wich means up to Gettysburg...), and from this point of view (but not exclusively)Mr Muir work is a gem!, it caused me to reapprise some old/firm believes on how battle developed and the different parts (arms: infantry, cavalry, artillery + services) involved interacted.
A MUST HAVE FOR ALL NAPOLEONIC BUFFS.

Rating:
Summary: Questionable Sources, Good Contrast to Keegan's
Review: In Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon Rory Muir explores what it's like to be a soldier during the Napoleonic wars. The book is divided into four parts. Part I describes the solder's feelings and reactions as they are about to face battle and on the battlefield. Part II describes the interaction between different sections of an army - artillery, infantry, light infantry, infantry combat (musketry, hand-to-hand combat, bayonets) and cavalry (cavalry vs. cavalry, cavalry vs. artillery, cavalry vs. infantry). Part III discusses the role of the General, the subordinate officers, morale and cohesion, and attitudes and feelings. Part IV discusses the aftermath of battle - the soldiers' feelings and reactions after winning or losing the battle.

The first thing the reader discovers is that, despite the title, the book is not about Napoleon's tactics or the experiences of soldiers in Napoleon's armies. Rather, it is about the tactics and experiences of British soldiers during the age of Napoleon.
Muir relies almost exclusively on British soldiers' experience, arguing that it is universally applicable. Relying on memoirs, diaries and letters of mostly British soldiers, he defends his premise, stating:

"I doubt that this emphasis [on British] sources greatly affects the result, for at this level of combat national differences mattered comparatively little: Russian, Scot or Portuguese, a line of horsemen galloping straight at you looks much the same, and the steadiness of your unit will depend on its confidence and training, its recent experiences and losses, not on its mother tongue."

While Muir assumed that the British experience was universally applicable, a premise I disagree with, it is doubtful that he would have found the reverse acceptable. Certainly, he would not have found the experience of the French, Russians, Prussians or Austrians as "universally applicable" and therefore indicative of the British experience. We will not know this, however, as Muir did not extend his research beyond British sources, except for a few minor French sources. Thus, the overall flavor of the book is Anglocentric.

Muir defends the Anglo point of view, stating:

"The Anglocentrism of [writers on the Peninsular Wars] approach was not simply the product of national bias ... but rather reflects the fact that for the period of the Napoleonic Wars there is an extraordinarily rich collection of first-hand British accounts of combat, which appears unmatched in any other language."

He cites the frustration other authors have encountered in their attempts to find sources of Napoleonic history comparable to British ones. He acknowledges one author was able to uncover significant new material in the French archives, but even then, he notes:

"[I]t is fair to say that it is seldom as rich and detailed as the British literature."

Muir attempts to extend John Keegan's chapter Waterloo and also attempts to emulate Keegan's style in discussing the glory and horror of the battlefield from the perspective of the combatant. However, Muir's book does not have the historical authenticity of In the Face of Battle. While Keegan's book relied on well-researched, factual evidence, which then were presented to the reader along with the author's analysis and conclusions, Muir heavily relies on soldiers' subjective recollection, recorded long after the events, as the basis of his book. There is no attempt to offer any corroborating evidence supporting this limited, inherently unreliable form of research. Muir's book thus dangerously approaches the realm of "historical fiction."

The book is fairly easy to read, except for Part III, dealing with Command and Control. This section discusses a number of different battles, and constantly shifts between them, making it very confusing. Otherwise, the book is written in fairly plain English.

I would not recommend this book as a study of Napoleonic Wars. As to its value as a book on British tactics and experience, I would still have reservations due to the inherent unreliability of Muir's sources. However it is a book that is a good contrast to Keegan's and serves as a reminder to the student of history to consider the reliability of the author's sources.

Rating:
Summary: Questionable Sources, Good Contrast to Keegan's
Review: In Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon Rory Muir explores what it's like to be a soldier during the Napoleonic wars. The book is divided into four parts. Part I describes the solder's feelings and reactions as they are about to face battle and on the battlefield. Part II describes the interaction between different sections of an army - artillery, infantry, light infantry, infantry combat (musketry, hand-to-hand combat, bayonets) and cavalry (cavalry vs. cavalry, cavalry vs. artillery, cavalry vs. infantry). Part III discusses the role of the General, the subordinate officers, morale and cohesion, and attitudes and feelings. Part IV discusses the aftermath of battle - the soldiers' feelings and reactions after winning or losing the battle.

The first thing the reader discovers is that, despite the title, the book is not about Napoleon's tactics or the experiences of soldiers in Napoleon's armies. Rather, it is about the tactics and experiences of British soldiers during the age of Napoleon.
Muir relies almost exclusively on British soldiers' experience, arguing that it is universally applicable. Relying on memoirs, diaries and letters of mostly British soldiers, he defends his premise, stating:

"I doubt that this emphasis [on British] sources greatly affects the result, for at this level of combat national differences mattered comparatively little: Russian, Scot or Portuguese, a line of horsemen galloping straight at you looks much the same, and the steadiness of your unit will depend on its confidence and training, its recent experiences and losses, not on its mother tongue."

While Muir assumed that the British experience was universally applicable, a premise I disagree with, it is doubtful that he would have found the reverse acceptable. Certainly, he would not have found the experience of the French, Russians, Prussians or Austrians as "universally applicable" and therefore indicative of the British experience. We will not know this, however, as Muir did not extend his research beyond British sources, except for a few minor French sources. Thus, the overall flavor of the book is Anglocentric.

Muir defends the Anglo point of view, stating:

"The Anglocentrism of [writers on the Peninsular Wars] approach was not simply the product of national bias ... but rather reflects the fact that for the period of the Napoleonic Wars there is an extraordinarily rich collection of first-hand British accounts of combat, which appears unmatched in any other language."

He cites the frustration other authors have encountered in their attempts to find sources of Napoleonic history comparable to British ones. He acknowledges one author was able to uncover significant new material in the French archives, but even then, he notes:

"[I]t is fair to say that it is seldom as rich and detailed as the British literature."

Muir attempts to extend John Keegan's chapter Waterloo and also attempts to emulate Keegan's style in discussing the glory and horror of the battlefield from the perspective of the combatant. However, Muir's book does not have the historical authenticity of In the Face of Battle. While Keegan's book relied on well-researched, factual evidence, which then were presented to the reader along with the author's analysis and conclusions, Muir heavily relies on soldiers' subjective recollection, recorded long after the events, as the basis of his book. There is no attempt to offer any corroborating evidence supporting this limited, inherently unreliable form of research. Muir's book thus dangerously approaches the realm of "historical fiction."

The book is fairly easy to read, except for Part III, dealing with Command and Control. This section discusses a number of different battles, and constantly shifts between them, making it very confusing. Otherwise, the book is written in fairly plain English.

I would not recommend this book as a study of Napoleonic Wars. As to its value as a book on British tactics and experience, I would still have reservations due to the inherent unreliability of Muir's sources. However it is a book that is a good contrast to Keegan's and serves as a reminder to the student of history to consider the reliability of the author's sources.

Rating:
Summary: Wargaming - an easy reference
Review: My primary interest in this book was as a reference for wargaming the Napoleonic period. As such it is straight forward, enlightening, and full of common sense. It is not a general history of the period, nor is it a dramatic page turner. It is what it purports to be, and Muir does a damn good job of it.

Rating:
Summary: Love
Review: Oh, my goodness, one more book about the nonsense of British superiority. Superiority? Yeah, right, in boasting!

Another title such as "The British Tactics and Experience" would be more appropriate. The page to page one-sidedness is boring. After reading this book I should be greatly surprised that also the Russians and Austrians were able to defeat Napoleon. This book tries to persuade that winning was possible only by the superior "British and Company."

Rating:
Summary: Very Informative, Densely descriptive...
Review: Rory Muir does an excellent, praiseworthy job with his book "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon". Although he closely analyzes the British experience of war more so than the French, he comments in his preface that this is because there is abundantly more information from the British accounts from that time. Regardless, this is a valuable source for analyzing the age of Napoleon and follows in the path of Keegan's tour-de-force, "The Face of Battle".

Well Done!

Rating:
Summary: Very Informative, Densely descriptive...
Review: Rory Muir does an excellent, praiseworthy job with his book "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon". Although he closely analyzes the British experience of war more so than the French, he comments in his preface that this is because there is abundantly more information from the British accounts from that time. Regardless, this is a valuable source for analyzing the age of Napoleon and follows in the path of Keegan's tour-de-force, "The Face of Battle".

Well Done!

Rating:
Summary: Very interesting, original and useful
Review: There are books on tactical regulations (Imperial Bayonets, George F. Nafziger), there are books on Napoleonic campaigns
and battles (plenty)... This one gives you a thourough understanding on the behavior of troops on the battlefield and during campaigns: what are the tradeoffs, what are the main problems in applying certain tactics, how would troops react to certain events and how globally would weapons, tactics and several kinds of troops and organizations perform on the battlefield. It is more a qualitative kind of work than a quantitative one and that's exactly what we (I at least) need, in complement to other kinds of works, to find out how armies were dealing their business during that era.
This is not a pro-english study: this author warns us from the beginning that english accounts were more numerous at that time, which is true and he uses them (who would not). When he speaks of french troops, he often recognizes their unquestionable quality and preeminance in many aspects of their job (at least before the beginning of the well-known fall...).

Rating:
Summary: A Valuable Resource and a Good Read
Review: There is a case that can be made that this book should have been entitled British Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon, but this is still a valuable work that should be read and can be used with confidence as a reference.

There IS a lot of material on the British army of the Napoleonic Wars, and it is relatively easy to find, as it is in English. It gets harder to get information the further eastward you travel in Europe as the languages get just a little more exotic and harder to learn and understand. A basic knowledge of French and German is a definite bonus, but not everyone has those requisite language skills.

This book is lively, well-researched and does give some very interesting first hand accounts from the French point of view, as well as the Prussian. I would not be too quick to condemn the author's significant effort, and if this book is used as intended it can be most enjoyable and very useful.

Much better than Nosworthy's With Musket, Cannon, and Sword, both for accuracy and familiarity with the subject, this book is strongly recommended for both the enthusiast and the historian.

Rating:
Summary: Good Introduction to Napoleonic Warfare
Review: This book is a steady, well-written introduction to Napoleonic warfare. It does a commendable job of summarizing a diverse topic, while including examples of tactical theory in execution (or not in execution, as the case may be).

The book's strong point is the writing style; Muir manages the fine trick of explaining Napoleonic tactics in everyday language, without being condescending to the reader. His approach is a good example for other writers on this subject, who sometimes sacrifice plain language in their quest for detail.

His objectivity is another strong point. He plays no favorites; Wellington and Napoleon are both praised and chastised for their genius and, at times, blundering.

I do wish he used more examples outside of the British army to lessen the Anglo flavor of the book. However, the experience of Napoleonic battle is universal enough, no matter what color soldiers' tunics were, that this does not detract seriously from the book.

This makes a good companion to John Keegan's "The Face of Battle," for those interested in the experience of war.