Customer Reviews

Napoleon's Wars: An International History, 1803-1815

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

Contrary to a previous reviewer, I found this book terribly skewed. Mr. Esdaile is not merely critic but openly hostile to Napoleon, he unambiguously presents his case from page 2 of the preface. No doubt Napoleon deserves to be condemned for many things but also praised for others, and the other powers of his time should deserve similar treatment. As critic as Mr. Esdaile is to Napoleon, he spares from his fury other countries and figures, starting from this native England, none of whose actions receives any negative judgement. For instance, when the British navy puts fire on Copenhagen it is presented as a mere misstep which some used as proof of British imperialism. The same goes to British-backed conquering adventures in South America or British domination of Sicily, they were just slippery steps or lack of good judgement. Unfortunately, things in real life are more complicated than that. The less I expect from a historian is that his account of facts is not questioned by his judgements. I am afraid this is not the case in this book. I am disappointed because I bought this book after a positive review in 'The Economist' and good feedback here, in Amazon.com.

That aside, the book is full of information and it is well written. Mr. Esdaile's scholarship brights best in describing the war in Spain and Portugal, a topic he knows very well. All in all, I found that the most balanced chapter is the last one devoted to the Congress of Vienna, which happens to be the only chapter not dominated by the figure of Napoleon.

If you look for material to fire your fury against Napoleon, this is your book. If you look for a balanced account of history, look elsewhere.

I'm primarily an American Civil War buff, at least when it comes to 19th Century warfare. I've read some books about Napoleon (I have a copy of Chandler in my living room) and I've often lamented the lack of a counterpart for Shelby Foote (or Bruce Catton for that matter) when dealing with Napoleon and his wars. The closest thing is Chandler; he doesn't really fill the gap, however, because if Napoleon's not on the battlefield he devotes maybe a sentence to the subject. So Spain gets almost no play, and campaigns like southern Italy are almost completely ignored. So when I saw this book I figured I had to give it a try. While it does much of what I'd hoped, it also does some things I wish it hadn't.

Esdaile is apparently a British academic, and no one ever taught him how to write. He presents a great number of facts and information, and it's all rather clear. The author is apparently something of an iconoclast (he dislikes Napoleon pretty strongly) and it shows throughout the book. However, at times the narrative winds up being less than the sum of its parts because of the author's writing style. Sentences run to 5-6 lines in length, paragraphs take up more than a page, and chapters are 70-90 pages in length. The result is a book that at times is exhausting to read, and is never easy, really. Also, I'm not an expert on Napoleon, but when the author does venture somewhere that I know something about, he makes a few errors. At one point he refers to John Adams' political opponents as "the Federalists". Adams was the first Federalist President himself; his opponents were the Democratic-Republicans.

Regardless, I got some of the information that I wanted, but it was like a visit to the dentist's office. Information is good, but the author should get better at presenting it, or have someone help him with the presentation of his information. A copy-editor would be a good thing.

This book is a well written and thoughtful overview of the Napoleonic wars. While covering all the major campaigns, this is not primarily a military history but rather a form of diplomatic history. The 2 major themes are Napoleon's messianic behavior and the complex functioning of the European state system. Esdaile stresses that these conflicts were not primarily driven by ideology or inevitable conflict between the French Revolution and the Ancien Regime. The narrative stresses repeatedly that most of the traditional European powers, while certainly opposed to the Revolution, would have accepted diplomatic settlements that guaranteed some degree of stability, including recognition of a considerably expanded France. This is where Napoleon's personality really made a difference. His messianic egotism and inability to recognize the limits of his power resulted in several lost opportunities to consolidate his empire. Esdaile does a nice job of covering the ways in which expanding Napoleonic-French power interacted with the complexities of the European state system. Adjustments in territory or governance in one part of Europe generally had repercussions across Europe, leading considerable difficulties in establishing stability.

This system also worked considerably to Napoleon's advantage. The conflicting interests of European states also made Napoleon's aggressions somewhat easier as it was harder to assemble coalitions against him. Esdaile is very good on the inherent difficulties of coalition politics and the particular difficulties faced by Britain in maintaining continental alliances. It was only at the end of the Napoleonic wars, when the other European powers had exhausted all possibilities of settlement, and in particular with the Russian commitment to eliminating Napoleon, that a coalition capable of toppling Napoleon emerged. Esdaile is very clear that Napoleon's aggressive behavior and inability to keep prior promises brought about his downfall.

Another important aspect of the book is the way Esdaile describes the somewhat transitional nature of the state system. International politics and war were conducted as something of an intermediate between dynastic and what we would think of as more modern national interests. Napoleon, for example, worked at constructing a powerful national state and a dynasty. The Ancien Regime dynasties viewed their states as something more than personal patrimonies and in Britain, arguably the most modern state in Europe, dynastic interests of the Hanoverian monarchy had an influence on events.

Good bibliography and decent footnotes.

From Napoleon's rise from Corsica, to his daring invasion of Egypt, to his eventual almost subjugation of Europe, this is History at its best. Esdaile has set out to produce a work which puts the Napoleonic Wars in the context of other geopolitcal conflicts taking place at the time, including the American Independence, the Spanish Latin American Empire, Britain's Maritime Empire, the declining Ottoman Empire, and especially Russia's sphere of influence, in Central Asia, as well as its wars with Turkey.
The story is told in riveting detail, and it is very important to make clear that this is not a biography of Napoleon, but rather a thorough exploration of the alliances, double crossings, diplomatic triumphs and blunders, which led to Napoleon's conquer of the continent and his eventual downfall. You can firmly set Mr. Esdaile's in the Napoleon's hater camp, which makes for some jarring moments, especially in the first half of the book, in which his conviction that Napoleon was solely driven by personal glory is endlessly repeated; fortunately, the story told is so compelling that you can ignore this and by the last half, Esdaile seems to have made his case and lets the facts speak for themselves.
The book is fascinating in many ways, for instance, showcasing how the different personalities and beliefs of the monarchs and politicians in charge shaped the conflict: chief among them Czar Alexander, an initial but cautious admirer of Napoleon, later turned into his main rival, and driven by religious faith to end the regime; the belegueared but resilient British politicians who were the main opponents of Napoleon throughout the War; the Spanish Kings in thrall of a most unpopular and feared advicer, and their impatient and eventually treacherous heir; the weak prince of Prussia, the unlikely heroic Pope, Napoleon's lost at sea brothers, and the brilliant diplomats who would eventually help save Europe, like Tallyrand and Metternich.
In addition to the compelling narrative of the main battleground in Europe, there is fascinating exploration of related conflicts, like a British invasion of Argetina, the Peninsular War in Spain with the guerrilla war against Napoleon, the Ruso-Persian conflict over Persia, Britain's destruction of Denmark's maritime fleet. Everything was related, and definitely makes the case for seeing this as a World War, rather than just a European conflict.
The book is sharply written and tightly paced. If you love history, do not miss this book.

This book looks not only at Napoleon and his battles, but also at Europe during the late 18th and early 19th century. The author takes a viewpoint from all the major (and some minor) nations of Europe to see that not everything they did was in direct relation to Napoleon and his actions. Each of the nations had reasons to work with him at some times and against him at others in respect to what the nation's (and/or soverign's) goals were for the short and long term. Only after the 1812 invasion of Russia did Europe unite against him. Before that, some nations were friends and some were enemies of France at any given time.

The book does not try to be Pro or Anti Napoleon. It tries to present history without dwelling too much on a battle, but presents more of what was happening at the same time to give it context. This is important because only by looking at a battle in that context can its significance be seen.

One chief point that the author points out over and over again is that Napoleon could have had peace had he just found a way to curb his ambition and recognize a limit to France's power. The final confrontations did not occur until all of Europe could see that Napoleon would abide by no treaty and respect no border as legitimate. He could have created a lasting French empire, but instead dragged his country down with him and subjected it to much destruction and Allied occupation.

I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the time period of history and who wants a history that does not just go from Napoleon's viewpoint, but from all of the nations involved. In that, I feel that book succeeds very well.

This is not an entry level Napoleon book, but one no grognard should miss - the author assumes a familiarity with the later years of the French Revolution, and the Napoleonic Wars. His treatment of major battles and campaigns is brief, but that is his stated purpose. This is a detailed and highly readable study of the diplomacy and foreign relations of Europe for the 20 years following 1789 concentrating n Europe but including global events when important.

The author is highly critical of Napoleon, but his biases are clearly stated. If the reader is familiar with the era, it's easier to assess the author's arguments. A major emphasis is that the Napoleonic Wars were not inevitable, and in particular, that they are not the result of the ancien regimes of old Europe determined to crush the upstart new republicanism of France.

"On the contrary, traditional foreign policy interests had survived unchanged ... as Napoleon initially appeared as just one more player of the diplomatic game, and secondly, very much in retreat from the Revolution"

I was reminded of the classic boardgame Empires in Arms. This grand strategy game, involving up to 7 players taking the parts of France, England, Russia, Austria, Prussia, etc provide a hands-on confirmation of much of Esdaile's analysis.

After reading this fascinating book I am not exactly sure how to characterize it. Unlike most books about Napoleon this one barely touches on his battles so it really isn't about Napoleon the general. It isn't about Napoleon the Dipolmat because if nothing else this book demonstrates in vivid detail that whatever Napoleon was -- he was no diplomat. It certainly isn't about Napoleon the man since it barely touches on the personal life of Napoleon. It is mostly about the forces arrayed against Napoleon and how he manipulated them. There is no doubt that Napoleon was an excellent general, but then this book indirectly paints a very different picture of Napoleon as a military genius. Yes it is true he was victorious in virtually all of his engagements but in the context of this book you realize that his opposing generals were frequently incompetent aristocrats hampered by petty quarrels. I thought that one of the best things about this book was how it demonstrated the evils of the aristocratic system. Europe as a whole was governed by a gaggle of kings and nobles with inherited titles and estates whose sole occupation seemed to be the expansion of their territories without much regard for the people. These wars not only destroyed a generation of youth they left the people destitute because the armies simply pillaged the countryside. In fact these perpetual wars of expansion were frequently engineered by Napoleon with and eye toward the expansion of French territory and influence. Here you see the shifting alliances where today's enemy becomes tomorrows friend depending on what Napoleon was seeking and how he blatantly manipulated these kings and countries. Napoleon was quick to make treaties of peace which he broke as soon as it was to his benefit. Esdaile makes it very clear that even after the Russian debacle Napoleon could have remained in power with most of his gains intact but his ego wouldn't permit him to agree to any treaty where he did not dictate the terms. Esdaile shows -- throughout this book -- that Napoleon was first and foremost and egotist who paid little regard to advice that he didn't like. It becomes obvious as this history progresses that Napoleon wanted to bring all of Europe under his control and he might have succeeded if he had not been so fixated on Britain. His ego would not let his control of Europe be dependent on English imports. Consequently his determination to embargo Engish goods wrecked the economies of Europe. Time after time Napoleon misses golden opportunities to establish peace and to consolidate his gains, but his ego got in the way. However, Esdaile makes it equally clear that these silly grasping aristocrats were equally at fault since they were quick to turn on each other at even a hint of gaining some territory.

Although some of the reviewers felt Esdaile was biased in favor of England, I disagree. In fact it seems obvious that while England controlled the seas, they also were distracted by their own interests around the globe. They were limited in their resources both monetarily as well as militarily, so the wars in Europe were largely fought without the British, although they did provide some limited monetary and diplomatic support. It was only at the end when Napoleon was already exhausted that the English stepped in for the Coup d'Grace. In fact I thought Esdaile showed that the common view that England defeated Napoleon is largely unwarranted.

I liked this book very much and thought it gave the most objective of Napoleon, his motives, and his reputation as a military genius that I have ever seen. I also thought he showed how the European aristocrats were at fault for much of the devastation. As you see these petty quarrels escalate into grabs for power and land you see how their attitudes never changed and led directly to various wars throughout the 19th Century into the 20th Century, and directly to the Treaty of Versailes and WW II. A book well worth the reading.