Most Helpful Customer Reviews
28 of 30 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Competent and Well Organised, May 26, 2009
Having read various biographies of Napoleon, including this one, I think some of the negative reviewers perhaps need to go back and look at this book again.
Firstly, this is a book primarily concerned with Napoleon's diplomatic and political relations, rather than his military or administrative achievements (which were many and significant)and even French authors (eg Roger Caratini) have been critical of his approach in this field. Esdaile simply makes the point that there were a number of occasions when Napoleon could have had peace on favourable terms but failed to do so, which doesn't seem that controversial to me.
Secondly, I think Esdaile gives a fairly balanced portrayal of why Britain was perceived as an unreliable ally and doesn't seek to gloss over their tendency to pick off lucrative colonies as opposed to anything else.
Thirdly, he certainly doesn't over emphasise Britain's role compared with that of other players, such as Russia, in Napoleon's ultimate defeat - to me, one of the very strengths of this book is putting the British contribution in its proper context and not over-focusing on it. But Napoleon wouldn't have put so much effort into the Continental System if he hadn't himself recognised the importance of Britain's consistent opposition, so I don't think this is simply a case of 'pipe smoking British historians' smugly congratulating themselves as one reviewer seems to think.
My big takeaway from this book (which is one of at least half a dozen that I've read on this subject) is that even after the Russian debacle, Napoleon could have had peace on terms that anyone else would have considered generous but rejected; in the end, it wasn't really the actions of Britain, Russia or anyone else but ultimately his own that caused his downfall.
Maybe that's the lesson that his admirers find hard to accept - a man of genius in many areas undone by his own ego.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Excessively biased, but good Political and diplomatic narrative., February 25, 2011
This review is from: Napoleon's Wars: An International History, 1803-1815 (Paperback)
Before reading Napoleon's Wars, most of my reading of the era was about military affairs. So this was a great find for me, and has given me insight into what was going on in the courts of Europe, the motives of different nations, diplomatic exchanges etc. Esdaile fleshes out in detail, the different interests of each nation, and the reason for their involvement. I have to give him praise for this. That's where the praise ends.
I simply don't understand how any respected historian could admit that certain primary sources are unreliable(Talleyrand, Fouche), yet repeatedly use them to support his random and unrealistic claims! I feel bad for all the beginners who will read this, they will forever be brainwashed by this otherwise fine historian.
"Napoleon was habitually destructive", or "Napoleon was bent on total domination" shows up once every 10 pages. Some of his unreasonable opinions have even seeped into my head. I think the worst part was when he essentially blamed the break down of the Treaty of Amiens on the French, when from the very beginning, Britain violated it's terms to start.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
19 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliant, although Anglophilic, February 23, 2009
This is the best single-volume history of the Napoleonic wars that I have ever read. It is full of casually brilliant essays in which Esdaile uses just a few pages to explains complicated phenomena that have detained other authors for multiple volumes (the Peninsular War, the War of 1812). It is truly an international, and a global history, that gives sufficient weight to the Americas, North and South, and addresses the actions of every major and minor European power.
I do think it is a shade overly Anglophilic. Esdaile reports Continental skepticism about English motives dutifully, but without, perhaps, complete belief. And his treatment of the appalling English "press gangs" against American sailors is tame considering the complete illegality and injustice of the practice-reminiscent of a later era's "superpower" defense of extraordinary detention.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
