Customer Reviews

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

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

 

 

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.

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.

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.

Although this book is subtitled "The Battle of Waterloo and the Great Commanders Who Fought It," it isn't really a straightforward military history. It is instead a rather original hybrid of biography, political and military history, and for lack of a better word, gossip. Roberts focuses on the parrallels in the careers of Napoleon and Wellington; there are remarkable similarities and differences. At the center of the narrative is the fact that Napoleon and Wellington, as the foremost military personalities of their time, were placed in a position of natural rivalry. Each was in many respects the standard against which the other was measured. Roberts, in an engaging style, brings out the perceptions (and misperceptions) each had of the other, and how these perceptions changed over time, especially after the Battle of Waterloo. For the serious reader, there are some insights into the personalities of the two leaders that help explain their respective approaches to the battlefield. For example, Roberts brings out the value for Wellington of his extensive tactical experience with infantry in India and the Peninsular War, which allowed him to personally and usefully intervene in the conduct of his battles. By contrast, Napoleon's far more rapid rise in rank left him with less experience in tactics and therefore more dependent on his marshals for the conduct of his battles. Roberts highlights that Wellington was primarily a military leader who saw himself as an agent of the British Governemnt; Napoleon's perspective was that of a head of state in pursuit of his own vision of glory, for which his leadership of the French Armies was a means to an end. Serious readers looking for battle history should seek elsewhere. For the more casual reader, there are plenty of juicy personal tidbits of the kind normally found on the personality page of the weekly Parade Magazine. These details tend to humanize two personalities long layered in myth. Roberts is to be commended for finding a original angle to ground that has been heavily worked.

Roberts succeeds in writing a readable and engaging comparison of the perceptions each leader possessed toward the other. The history is not a portrait of each commander separately, but rather shows the relationship between the two men in terms of conduct and word.

While the history gives more or less equal time to both commanders, what emerges, at least in my view, is a decidedly surprising and uncommonly jaundiced portrayal of Wellington. For example, Wellington pursued and seduced no less than two of Napoleon's mistresses. He filled his mansion with copious quantities of "Napoleona" -- statues, paintings, memorabilia. Indeed, for a man of Wellington's supposedly Victorian understatement, he talked of his victory over Napoleon incessantly. It is typically understood that Napoleon was an egomaniacal, self-obsessed dictator. What is less well known is that Wellington was much less the reserved, stoic gentleman his reputation would lead one to believe.

I would not consider this history to be essential reading except for buffs of the Napoleonic wars, and it gets a one-point deduction for its somewhat sordid, "tabloid-ish" quality. Still, I won't doubt the veracity of its content nor is it dry, so pick this one up if the focus is your cup of tea.

For a nonspecialist new to Napoleon, the information Andrews collects here is great to have all in one place, but I wish Andrews had omitted the personal judgments he offers. They show signs, especially given the fame of his subjects, of not having spent the time it takes to better understand personalities, human nature, political office, British manners, etc. Did Andrews use one of Philip Guedalla's better-known mots without giving him credit, or is "History repeats itself, historians repeat each other" so popular in British journalist/historians/ circles that it needs no attribution? I read the entire book veering between appreciation for the work Andrews did bringing his material together and annoyance at his comments.

"The similarities between Napoleon and Wellington are, at first sight, extraordinary." Thus starts Andrew Roberts's great biography and comparison of two of the greatest generals of all time. Written by Roberts, a fresh, young historian, this book provides penetrating insight into the lives of Wellington and Napoleon and the events leading up to Waterloo. A great read for anyone interested about history and the Napoleonic wars.

This book is great in its layout. With a comparison timeline in the beginning, pictures in the middle of the book, and chapter titles with their relevant years, it is very easy to read. It also has quotes that show each man's character throughout the book.

The content was typically satisfying, though there were a few instances in which it was very disappointing with minimal information and too much redundancy. For example, the Wellington "is a sepoy general" and the Napoleon "is worth 40,000 men on a battlefield kept on appearing. Overall, though, it gave a stream of information and taught me a lot about the two men.

In my opinion, I personally disagreed with the book's end theme which told about the posthumous war of the reputations of the two men, which was "For, although Wellington won the battle, it is Napoleon's dream that is coming true."

A good addition to anyone's library.

Andrew Roberts is a prolific writer and lecturer on English and British history. He is particularly well known for `Eminent Churchillians' (1994), a collection of essays about prominent figures of the twentieth century; and `Salisbury: Victorian Titan' (1999), the authorised biography of the Victorian Prime Minister. Both of these are excellent; and I found `Salisbury' particularly illuminating, because figures of the Right seldom enjoy sympathetic treatment.

This book is highly original and very well written. I bought it at Apsley House, the London home of the Duke of Wellington, once known simply as `No. 1 London'; and it greatly enriched the experience.

Roberts is always interesting, even when he is not being controversial; but it has to be said that the subject matter of this book is more limited than the title might suggest. It is not so much a book about Napoleon and Wellington, as a book about what the two men thought about each other. Still interesting, but if the reader wants a straightforward account of their careers, he should start elsewhere.

Stephen Cooper

This is definitely not for the general reader. More time could have been given to the Waterloo campaign but all in all a good account of the two men and the mutual respect that had to have for one another. I enjoyed the numerous meaderings he took on all aspects of these two personalities and their lives before and after Waterloo.

He shows though how both were so concerned about their place in history. Although Welington won the battle, wanting no one to forget that, he seemed to lose the war as Napoleon was very successful in propagating the Napoleonic Legend. Most enjoyable for any enthusiast of this period.

This book was a surprise for me. I picked it up at the library, intending to just read a couple of pages. The next thing I knew, I was 82 pages into the book. It's written well and avoids some of the dryness of other books about these 2 men. Rather than recounting the battles fought by these notorious commanders, the book focuses on the relationship between the two men that led up to the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo. It does assume that you have some historical background and that you know the basics of what happened at Waterloo and the subsequent exile of Napoleon. The angle of this book is different and refreshingly alive.