Napoleon and Wellington: The Battle of Waterloo--and the Great Commanders Who Fought It (Hardcover)

by Andrew Roberts (Author) "The similarities between Napoleon and Wellington are, at first sight, extraordinary..." (more)
Key Phrases: sepoy general, other marshals, first consul, Lord Wellington, Quatre Bras, Duke of Wellington (more...)

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

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.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 384 pages
• Publisher: Simon & Schuster; First Edition edition (September 3, 2002)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0743228324
• ISBN-13: 978-0743228329
• Product Dimensions: 9.6 x 6.7 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars See all reviews (9 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #915,544 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #25 in

  Books > History > Military > Napoleonic Wars > Waterloo

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

25 of 25 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Extensive Research and Some Great Insights, October 9, 2002

By	Patrick Devenny (New Jersey) - See all my reviews

Many people might consider the subject of the Napoleonic Wars a "dead" historical issue, as there have probably been tens of thousands of works on pretty much every facet of the series of wars that ravaged Europe in the early part of the 19th century. Included in that glut of volumes is another couple of thousand biographies on Napoleon, and a few hundred more on his mortal adversary, the Duke of Wellington. Roberts takes on the tough task of describing these two titans within one volume, while also describing their relationship. He suceeds for the most part.

One thing Roberts does very well is his research. Every fact and every assumption he makes is studiously backed up by documents and numerous quotes by the subjects involved. His frequent use of era documents and historical testimonials add a lot to the narration. The writing can be a bit slow and dull at parts, but on the whole the story told is very engaging.

In my opinion, the conclusions reached in this book are fairly simple. Napoleon is regarded as a very capable military man, who was handicapped by his arrogance and willingness to thrown thousands of lives away for little reason, time and time again. His legendary military genious is tempered a bit in this book, as you realize his opposition, on the most part, was pathetic. Wellington is described as an extremely stern military genius, a very straight forward soldier who had a way of utilizing the terrain in ways even Napoleon could not comprehend. His lack of intellectual finery and philosophical reasoning, strange among the elite of the time, is identified, with some humourous results. As he should, Wellington comes out the better in this book, but his faults were many and they are definetly not glossed over in this book.

A very good addition to Napoleonic War history and an accessible work for any history buff.

23 of 26 people found the following review helpful:

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

By	Brian D. Rubendall (Oakton, VA) - See all my reviews (TOP 100 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

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.

7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

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

By	Mykal Banta (Boynton Beach, FL USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.