Napoleon and Wellington [Paperback]

Andrew Roberts (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: May 1, 2003

On the morning of the battle of Waterloo, the Emperor Napoleon declared that the Duke of Wellington was a bad general, the British were bad soldiers and that France could not fail to win an easy victory. Forever afterwards historians have accused him of gross overconfidence, and massively underestimating the calibre of the British commander opposed to him. Andrew Roberts presents an original, highly revisionist view of the relationship between the two greatest captains of their age. Napoleon, who was born in the same year as Wellington - 1769 - fought Wellington by proxy years earlier in the Peninsula War, praising his ruthlessness in private while publicly deriding him as a mere 'sepoy general'. In contrast, Wellington publicly lauded Napoleon, saying that his presence on a battlefield was worth forty thousand men, but privately wrote long memoranda lambasting Napoleon's campaigning techniques. Although Wellington saved Napoleon from execution after Waterloo, Napoleon left money in his will to the man who had tried to assassinate Wellington. Wellington in turn amassed a series of Napoleonic trophies of his great victory, even sleeping with two of the Emperor's mistresses.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, spent a lot of time worrying about whether Napoleon Bonaparte, the emperor of France, was a gentleman. Napoleon accused his English foe of being a coward. Yet, Andrew Roberts shows in this dual biography, each accorded the other an odd respect, and, like wrestlers in a ring, studied his foe's moves intently all the way to their fateful encounter at Waterloo.

Publicly, Bonaparte and Wellington professed to despise each other. "Even in the boldest things he did there was always a measure of ... meanness," said Wellington of the French emperor, adding later, "Bonaparte's whole life, civil, political, and military, was a fraud." Napoleon said that Wellington "has no courage. He acted out of fear. He had one stroke of fortune, and he knows that such fortune never comes twice." Yet the two, writes Roberts, were very much alike: social outsiders who found their greatness in the army, scholars of a sort, who brought scientific rigor to the study of topography and logistics, and men capable of inspiring great heroism in their soldiers.

In the end, Roberts suggests, Wellington won his battle, but Napoleon won the war. This intriguing study shows how, and it affords much insight into the workings of these great rivals' minds. --Gregory McNamee --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Publishers Weekly

Gossipy and anecdotal, at times amusing and at other times enlightening, this book meanders across an era looking for connections between its two greatest generals. British Sunday Telegraph contributor Roberts (Eminent Churchillians) concentrates not on the respective merits of Napoleon and Wellington, but on what they thought, wrote, and said about each other. He spices his text with vignettes such as an extensive description of Napoleon's hemorrhoid problem on the eve of Waterloo, and its successful treatment by the famous surgeon Baron Larrey. Then he demonstrates the relevance of his stories in this case by showing that Napoleon was by no means as debilitated on the day of battle as popular myth accepts. Wellington and Napoleon did not face each other until Waterloo in 1815. Napoleon, who first heard of Wellington in 1808, never showed his great rival quite the respect he deserved, let alone the respect Wellington considered his due, Roberts shows. Though partisans and critics of both men stress their differences, Roberts's text makes a convincing case that Napoleon and Wellington were more alike than either of them would have conceded. Both considered Hannibal their military hero; both carried Julius Caesar's Commentaries in the field. They even shared a couple of mistresses Wellington was at pains to show his post-Waterloo triumph in every way possible. Both were self-confident to the point of arrogance, consciously unemotional and obsessively focused on success. And they spent increasing amounts of time, particularly after 1815, blackguarding each other in the fashion of contemporary professional wrestlers. This history presumes a high level of background knowledge, but readers interested in the rivalries of the period will find it thoroughly absorbing.
Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 384 pages
• Publisher: Phoenix Press (May 1, 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1842127403
• ISBN-13: 978-1842127407
• Product Dimensions: 5.1 x 7.8 x 1.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.9 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (11 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #934,858 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

35 of 38 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars Not for general readers November 13, 2002

By Brian D. Rubendall HALL OF FAME

Format:Hardcover

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.

12 of 13 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars A very good portrait of two great men September 23, 2003

By M. Dog VINE™ VOICE

Format:Hardcover

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.

9 of 10 people found the following review helpful

2.0 out of 5 stars Disappointed January 13, 2006

By Calvin Durham

Format:Hardcover

From the title of the book I was excited by the prospect of really coming to understand the two great minds on that historic battlefield that has rang down through history with such force. But to be blunt...I was disappointed.

Let me preface my comments by saying that I have a Napoleonic interest, but am by no means an aficionado on the subject. Therefore, I found the reading a bit too cumbersome. Perhaps it was due to my lack of depth of knowledge on the subject, but I truly feel it was due to the writing style, which never really flowed to me. If I have a more academic grasp of the subject matter or was more used to scholarly writing, I may have enjoyed it more...but I doubt it.

I never really got the sense that Roberts was telling me (the novice) a story but was rather dealing with quips and quotes and piecing them together in an attempt to form the narrative. The best thing of having read this book was that it spurred me to purchase a few other books on Napoleon himself which allowed me to develop an deep interst in the man.