Customer Reviews

The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book: Actions and Losses in Personnel, Colours, Standards and Artillery

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

 

 

I have a love/hate relationship with this book. I really wanted to get it and use it, as well as have it on hand, but I don't fully trust it. It is exhaustive, has a veritable treasure trove of information in it, but it isn't that easy to use, and at times is a little confusing.

Arranged by year and date, the battles, sieges, actions, and combats are arranged so that it is relatively easy to look up, but the information doesn't always agree with standard works on the period.

For, example, Durenstein is listed as an allied victory in 1805, and elsewhere it is called a French one; Davout's victory over Bagration in 1812, a rather significant one, isn't even listed. Bottom line, in my opinion, there needs to be a revision, and soon.

This book is recommended, and it is very useful; however, it is not the Holy Grail, and it is definitely not a definitive work.

This book takes on the daunting and rather thankless task of compiling the losses throughut the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars and presenting them systematically. For the most part, it achieves this goal.

The chronological order of the book makes it easy to find particular engagements. However the author also provides links from battles to battle, so that you can follow the path of a campaign. When I bought this book I thought I would use it strictly as an occasional reference tool. Instead, I now find myself browsing through it, following a campaign's ebb and flow. Of course the major battles are here, but the real gems are the small skirmishes and engagements; struggles where men bled, suffered, and died 200 years ago, but long since rolled over by history.

One can always criticize the accuracy of some of the book's sources. However, given that era's lack of record keeping, as well as the inflated (or delated) casualty claims after battles, in total this book's accuracy is commendable. The author points out the unreliability of the source data in the introduction, which is a refreshing contrast to other authors who believe their sources are the be-all-and-end-all.

My only complaint about this book is I wish the data was presented more consistently. The differing amounts of available data make this impossible throughout the book, but even when consistent data is available the information is occasionally presented differently. For example, the Anglo-Allied and Prussian losses at Waterloo are given by battalion, brigade, and division. However, the Prussian losses have a grand total, the Anglo-Allied losses do not. While one can easily add the Anglo-Allied numbers to arrive at the total losses, the reader should not have to do this in a work this detailed and ambitious.

But this is a quibble. Overall, this is an impressive achievement and should be part of any Napoleonic library.

Digby Smith's compilation was a big undertaking, and I have found it useful for the listings of actions and dates. However, there are so many errors existing in the listed orders of battle, including units that were not present, units that were not even in the field or theater of war, and so forth, that one cannot be sure what unit listings are correct and what are not. It is regretable that Mr Smith, as does almost every British writer, relies on faulty secondary works written by other British writers, rather than better sources authored by folks from outside the British isles. The complete absence of footnotes is a very serious weakness that cannot be overstated. For these numerous and considerable shortcomings, the book rates only 1 star.

I REALLY wanted to like this book. I use it ONLY for its LIST of battles and nothing more. Here is why:

1. As Mr. Kiley points out in his review the information is often incorrect. You would think that the author would have compared his information with other sources. I get the idea that he was just looking for whatever he could find on the action and just posted it into the listing.

2. The names of the actions do not always match the name that most historians use. No, this is not a case of "Sharpsburg" vs. "Antietam." This is a case of the author again just using whatever name came to hand.

3. The author himself is not open to suggestion. In a comment on a Napoleonic forum I noted that I used "Mr. Smith's information" to which he responded that it wasn't his information but the sources. That is the usual cheap excuse/cop out of an author to sidestep the obvious - we paid our hard earned money for HIS work. The entries are based on what HE felt was best for the action. You can find ten sources for most any given Napoleonic engagement. And often more than that. So HE chose to put that entry in there and thus it becomes HIS perspective of it as well as that of the source. Come on Digby - wake up and quit making excuses.

4. To my comments he said "grind away." No, I will just not buy your books anymore. Your Leipzig book was just filled with one page after another of quotes that filled entire sections of the text. Instead of giving us more information on the battle you filled your pages with comments about how a priest escaped the rain! Now I like a human interest story but come on. The Battle of Leipzig is rarely written on and is the largest land battle in European history up til World War One. It deserved better treatment.

5. When I asked the author if a revision would be forthcoming his response was that Greenhill would not re-publish the work. This leads me to believe that Greenhill has little to no confidence in Mr. Smith's works. Also when I asked him if he would then consider using the web to publish an errata for the work he said no. Sheesh, that is just lame.

Lots of well known historian's names are used in the beginning of this book to prop it up but I am thinking that if ANY of them had written the work they would have put forth a superior product. I really want to give this book a five out of five stars but I cannot. It simply is not worth your money unless you just want it for the list of battles or a boat anchor.

Indispensible as a listing of dates and places of battles. Aside from correctness and completeness, the challenge is to get place names which vary with language and country and have changed over time sufficiently identified to be located on a map. This has been done with care in the entry, but overreliance on German sources leaves things like "Schewardino" for Shevardino. Also noticed "La Moskwa" as the French name for Borodino. While not footnoted, sources are listed for every entry, although a check of the Russian campaign revealed Millers (and von Millers), Foord, Stein, Holzhausen, and (the correct book of) Vaudoncourt unreferenced in the bibliography. The OBs (or whatever you want to call them - I don't understand the fuss) and losses are simply not amenable to complilation. Bowden and Andolenko have produced big books on small pieces of the puzzle, so it is no suprise to find errors, but the regimental names are presented with little consistency in spelling and a certain amount of real clinkers have slipped through. A laudable and important contribution, with room for improvement in the execution.

I found this book very useful just because it gives a lot of information on the whole Napoleonic wars, and its very handy to have basic data on all battles or clashes of the period in one volume.
The book contains so much information that its no wonder some mistakes with spellig, numbers and other facts crept in. But at last Digby Smith tried to cure the typical "illness" of British historians of the Napoleonic wars with their obscession with Wellington. Sure British participation in the conflict is fully highlighted, but I was delighted to see mentions of other conflicts, for example Russo-Sweden war of 1808-09 and Russo-Turkish war. They are mentioned very briefly and absolutely insufficiently, many battles of big masses of troops with great casualty lists are missed out(while many clashes of minor importance at the Peninsular are listed), nevertheless, author at last gives some general idea about this two wars to the Western readers, who know nothing about it. Great improvement in comparison to the Chandler's "Dictionary of the Napoleonic wars", where there is an entry to a Wellington's battle in India (and what relationship with Napoleonic wars in that?), but many really Napoleonic great battles are ignored.
One weak point of Mr Digby Smith's coverage of battles is that he too often flatly describe some action as a victory/defeat. There were many rearguared actions with the task to hold enemy for several hours, and if after hard fighting the defending units, having completed this mission, finally give ground and retreat it hardly can be described as a defeat. I think much more actions should be placed in the "draw match" category.
And one more thing. If the book is ever reprinted I'll recommend to do it in smaller letters, the present edition I beleive is rather big.

This massive work of 582 pages is an outstanding reference source for most engagements during the Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815). I have used this book time and time again in my research over the years. Sure, along the way I have noticed a few errors concerning different units but as a whole, I have found this reference to be most beneficial.

The vast majority of all engagements during the Napoleonic Wars are listed within. What is listed and how is it organized?.............

The name and date of the engagement is listed with it being classified by the type of engagement (battle, siege, clash, skirmish, raid, storm, ambush, capitulation, blockade, etc). Everything is listed in chronological order. Then, the exact location of the conflict is listed and is often described in detail compared with present conditions such as being near certain motor routes or highways, or is so many kilometers from a certain town or city or river or mountain range. The victorious side and the defeated side are then listed. The forces present are fully listed, usually by army, corps, division, brigade, regiment and at times, the number of batallions or squadrons. The divisional generals are also listed as are the overall commanders of the forces present. The losses on both sides are also included. The majority of the actions have a "Comment" listed by the author at the end - usually describing briefly what had occurred and what was significant about the action itself. Finally, the source of info for each combat is listed; for example, some of the more common include: Martinien, Wrede, Oman, Bodart, Napier, etc.

I can't stress enough just how much information is provided in this book. Almost every engagement (no matter how big or small) is listed within. I have used this wonderful reference source continuously over the years and have found it to be most rewarding. I would highly recommend this book to all Napoleonic enthusiasts but especially to those wishing to conduct research on certain Napoleonic battles or fighting.

This one is hard to rate on a star system. This book will tell the reader a little bit about every action that took place during the period covered. You will learn hard facts relating to the commander of each side, the units present,the total number of troops present, and the number of casualties. On occasion there will be a small section relating to the afteraffects of each action. The battles are in chronological order, telling the reader of the preceding and following actions in a particular theatre. Gripping reading it is not. It is after all a reference book. You will read about many lesser known actions which I feel is the best part of this tome. Overall, a good place get a start when seeking to begin research on any particular battle or campaign.

Having read the other reviews I find it astonishing that the book is criticised for relying on english language secondary sources when a quick look at the book (sources are listed for each action) will tell you otherwise. I cannot speak for the unit listings (Mr Smith points out they are not OBs), I spotted a couple of errors in one and the author was pleased to take them on board.

You will not find as much reference material on Napoleonic combats in any other single reference source I know of. It is invaluable for hobbyists.