Customer Reviews

The Fall of Napoleon: The Final Betrayal

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

I have been studying the Napoleonic era for many years and have built up quite a library as a result. If I were obliged, however, to retain only one of them, it would be this one. The volume is so well-written and researched that one is surprised that history can be so riveting. Hamilton-Williams has indeed made the dry bones live. His other volume, Waterloo-The Great Battle Reappraised, is just as brilliant and profound. No one who reads these books will be disappointed.

Edit - DHW is an amateur historian who can be termed professional only by fact of his having written books. A large part of his personal history is invalid and apparently designed only to increase historical credentials that do not exist.

Read the book, it is enjoyable, but be aware that he is heavily biased towards the French and as he is not an academic historian his interpretations can not be guarenteed with any certainty.

Hamilton-Williams builds his book around original documents, including memos and orders. His view is as free of bias as one can hope, while building a compelling case against the Grand Alliance and for Napoleon

This is a great book, I absolutely loved it. A warning however, it is pro-Bonaparte, so if you are anti-Napoleon, you might not like it. Other than that, it is a great book!!

As with this authors other work on Napoleon there are some mistakes, but given the sloppy level of "scholarship" that abounds in Napoleonic studies this work is hardly a candidate for historiological oblivion - despite the best efforts of the more hysterical and strident readers/guardians of the "truth"

The author's take on Bonaparte is realtively one-sided, but, so what? That's not a crime. Perhaps buyers of this book could place it at one end of their shelf and Alan Schom's "biography" at the other with the truth falling in-between? Either way, more reading is always better than less. Buy this book and enjoy it, it's not bad.

A Reader

"Baronet" Hamilton-Williams (he also made up a title to go with his sources) needs to be taken with a big grain of salt. I sincerely recommend that you actually check his sources...yes his "conclusions" run counter to a lot of the opinions that currently exist..it's just too bad he has no facts to support any of his "conclusions".

He even started signing his letters to me with "of that Ilk" below his name. As as Fellow of the International Napoleonic Society and the person who hosted the Debate on CNN on the poisoning of Napoleon, I can assure that "Baronet" Hamilton-Willimas "of that Ilk" has no credibility amongst scholars in the time period.

George Nafziger has written some very detailed reviews of his work in which he goes through the source material, source by source...literally there is virtually nothing that is factual...when he cites carton number xxx at the archives national and then you go and look at the carton cited...there is nothing in the carton even on the same subject that he is using it as his source...he is absolutely incredible.

He even used a letter which purported to be authored by David Chandler to write some introductions to some computer games on the Napoleonic Wars...

He has since changed his name and is using just Williams and has authored some fictitous stuff on Nelson.

Unfortunately the way the world works today publishers just run spell checkers on books...they don't check the facts...one recent book on Napoleon had more than 400 factual errors and was chosen by History Book of the Month as a featured selection.

The Late Col.John Elting (Swords Around a Throne) wrote a review of that book which I paraphrase..."the index, helpful for once list both dates Josephine died, unfortunately, both are wrong..."

Michael La Vean
Fellow International Napoleonic Society

See some of the reviews of this author's "Waterloo - New Perspectives". He is not all that he makes out to be and neither are his books.

It was not for reasons of "sloppy research" that the publisher of this author cancelled the third volume. It was because the facts about both this author and his work became public knowledge.

This authors sources are so original he wrote them himself...If you try and verify any of the source material for anything other than "common knowledge" you will find that that those cited have no bearing on the subject at hand...This goes beyond sloppy scholorship.... It gets one star because I cant give it a zero...buy it only if you need firewood

This writer may be able to turn a phrase or two, but his research contains so many blatantly false source claims that the book is rendered as nothing more than fiction. Even with so many bad British "historians" already populating the Napoleonic history field, this author may rank as the worst.