Customer Reviews

Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

What polarising reviews readers have given on this book here at Amazon. However the first crime this book is accused of, Anglocentrism, I find a little unfair. As Muir points out on the very first page of his preface (and a point made by one of the reviewers of this book) - "The Anglocentrism of [writers on the Peninsular War's] approach was not simply the product of a national bias...but rather reflects the fact that for the period of the Napoleonic Wars there is an extraordinarily rich collection of first-hand British accounts of combat, which appears unmatched in any other language." He goes into far more detail on this, but I think you get the point.

Napoleonic Warfare has been a fascination for from the time I read John Keegan's account of Waterloo in "The Face of Battle" - and that is the point of Muir, taking up the Challenge that Keegan posed - this is a book of action and battle order rather than general army life. I found Muir's style suited very readable. He interlaces his arguments with supporting information from quotes out of contemporary diaries and biographies. I liked this because it made the information more than a dry recounting of a structure, but it also gave you a chance to test Muir's theories for yourself based on his supposed supporting information. It is also pretty easy to track down the source of his quotes if you wish to find its context in further detail. I did find the section Part III which dealt with Command and Control the most difficult to read. It overlaid the roles of a number of different armies and men which I found a little confusing. I am not sure how to do it better - but maybe it would have been easier splitting that section up by country rather than by military rank.

The book is divided into 4 sections - 1 - The introduction which has chapters on the Eve of the battle, and on Battles and Battlefields. Part 2 takes up very much where John Keegan left off and describes the conduct on the battlefield of various sections of the military so Artillery, light infantry, cavalry and so on. I did wonder where were the Engineers and the Wagon train. Part 3 is command and control which is the role of various ranks and two very interesting chapters on morale and attitudes. I thought there were some interesting cross-overs in this chapter with Myerley's book "British Military Spectacle". Part 4 is the aftermath of the battle.

There is an excellent bibliography at the end of this all. I think Muir has done a very good job in attempting to extend John Keegan's work on Napoleonic War. I don't think this is by far the end of studies that could be done on nineteenth century battles though.

My primary interest in this book was as a reference for wargaming the Napoleonic period. As such it is straight forward, enlightening, and full of common sense. It is not a general history of the period, nor is it a dramatic page turner. It is what it purports to be, and Muir does a damn good job of it.

I write this review in opposition to another review that berates the book as anglophile. That reader should have paid more attention to the opening remarks that clearly specified the limited scope of this book -- British sources. In addition, the author provides a valid reason for this limited scope -- the lack of resources from other than British sources.

To be certain, this book is not about Napoleonic tactics. If this is your interest you'll find Haythornethwaite, Noseworthy, and Nafziger far better sources.

The predominant focus of this book is on the (British) experience of battle during the Napoleonic wars. In this strict regard, it is a very worthwhile source -- certainly a great starting point for further research in this area.

Obviously, next to being there, or participating in re-enactments that emphasize authenticity, the only source for us to understand the experience of a Napoleonic battle is from those who were there. Given this type of source (i.e., individuals), and realizing the limited perspective any one individual has on an entire battle, the value of this book is in the author's attempt to extract accounts of battle experience from a variety of documents.

Please keep this information in mind as you consider purchasing this book and as you read this book.

Perhaps better named, "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Peninsula War", as the focus is on the British Peninsula experience, supposedly due to a lack of sources elsewhere. The author provides a good analysis of why Wellington was victorious, and he gives a good discussion of light infantry tactics also. Throughout the book psychological factors in battle are always highlighted. The examples given concerning infantry tactics are very useful but somewhat confusing without maps, and it is difficult to remember what action the author is discussing, so I found myself re-reading sections just to clear these things up. Differing troop densities are briefly discussed but are not elaborated upon, and there is less than I would have liked on the interaction of arms, perhaps because this was less important in the Peninsula. As a result, grand tactics are hinted at but largely ignored. Sadly only around half of the book is on tactics, with the rest on the experience of battle, making it like "The Face of Battle" but once again mainly on the Peninsula. Long passages from participants are featured which are usually useful and entertaining, but which can become a bit tiresome. Despite its flaws, this book is useful and well worth reading.

This book is a steady, well-written introduction to Napoleonic warfare. It does a commendable job of summarizing a diverse topic, while including examples of tactical theory in execution (or not in execution, as the case may be).

The book's strong point is the writing style; Muir manages the fine trick of explaining Napoleonic tactics in everyday language, without being condescending to the reader. His approach is a good example for other writers on this subject, who sometimes sacrifice plain language in their quest for detail.

His objectivity is another strong point. He plays no favorites; Wellington and Napoleon are both praised and chastised for their genius and, at times, blundering.

I do wish he used more examples outside of the British army to lessen the Anglo flavor of the book. However, the experience of Napoleonic battle is universal enough, no matter what color soldiers' tunics were, that this does not detract seriously from the book.

This makes a good companion to John Keegan's "The Face of Battle," for those interested in the experience of war.

There are books on tactical regulations (Imperial Bayonets, George F. Nafziger), there are books on Napoleonic campaigns
and battles (plenty)... This one gives you a thourough understanding on the behavior of troops on the battlefield and during campaigns: what are the tradeoffs, what are the main problems in applying certain tactics, how would troops react to certain events and how globally would weapons, tactics and several kinds of troops and organizations perform on the battlefield. It is more a qualitative kind of work than a quantitative one and that's exactly what we (I at least) need, in complement to other kinds of works, to find out how armies were dealing their business during that era.
This is not a pro-english study: this author warns us from the beginning that english accounts were more numerous at that time, which is true and he uses them (who would not). When he speaks of french troops, he often recognizes their unquestionable quality and preeminance in many aspects of their job (at least before the beginning of the well-known fall...).

Rory Muir's "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon" is in many respects an extended version of the chapter on Waterloo in John Keegan's "The Face of Battle." Muir, the author of an excellent study of the Battle of Salamanca, draws on a variety of sources to describe how the combat arms of infantry, artillery, and cavalry accomplished their missions on the battlefields of the Napoleonic age. His book also provides insights into the human aspects of battle in that age, including the experience of the individual soldier. Muir's selection of sources is rather British-centric, although he does include some selections from the other major combatants (France, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Spain, for example). Perhaps reflecting the preponderance of British sources, many of the examples derive from the Peninsular War and the Waterloo Campaign.
The discussion of tactics is at a fairly basic level, but does presume a general familiarity with the Napoleonic era and especially with the more important battles. There may be no great insights here for serious students of the military art or of the Napoleonic wars, but the book does provide very useful context for understanding the environment in which Napoleonic-era warfare took place. Although lacking the punch of Keegan's writing, Muir's prose is serviceable and easy to follow. Many of the first person accounts he includes are quite moving. The analysis sometimes seems anecdotal rather than systematic; this may have been a function of the limits of the available materials.
"Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon" may be most useful as a companion volume to the work of other authors who focus primarily on the strategic and operational levels of war. Muir has provided the astute reader with an appreciation of the capabilities and limitations of the combat arms in that time. Readers unfamiliar with the experience of combat should be forewarned that Muir's book includes some fairly graphic descriptions of the horrors of the Napoleonic battlefield.

There is a case that can be made that this book should have been entitled British Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon, but this is still a valuable work that should be read and can be used with confidence as a reference.

There IS a lot of material on the British army of the Napoleonic Wars, and it is relatively easy to find, as it is in English. It gets harder to get information the further eastward you travel in Europe as the languages get just a little more exotic and harder to learn and understand. A basic knowledge of French and German is a definite bonus, but not everyone has those requisite language skills.

This book is lively, well-researched and does give some very interesting first hand accounts from the French point of view, as well as the Prussian. I would not be too quick to condemn the author's significant effort, and if this book is used as intended it can be most enjoyable and very useful.

Much better than Nosworthy's With Musket, Cannon, and Sword, both for accuracy and familiarity with the subject, this book is strongly recommended for both the enthusiast and the historian.

I give it five stars only for its unique and thorough general focus and the likelihood that military men will like it more than I for technical reasons. However, I only think it will confirm their common sense on the subject already. Perhaps it will add the most value to undergraduates of Sandhurst and West Point.

I bought and labored on this book because I wanted a coherent way to understand the nature of battle in the Napoleonic Age. There is depth, but not vision from this book. I discovered what I was looking for was the dynamics of battle. What I got here was a competent recitation of the unmoving elements of battle.

90% of what is important in this book can be gotten with more fun and efficiency from the preparatory chapters in Chandler's book, "The Campaigns of Napoleon," and the chapters of similar purpose in "La Grand Armee" by Georges Blond and as translated by Marshall May for Arms and Armour ...available via Amazon UK.

If you want to read everything Napoleon... well then read this book -- it is technically sound and well written.

There is no point in summarizing the book. The contents are exposed fully in the title. I do not believe this is a very original contribution to literature. I think it is duplicative and repetitive. I think it contains mostly conventional wisdom.

A better book would have been one that labored less on the statics of logistical command and motivation of the soldiers. Organization can provide the former and fiction is better at the latter.

The better book that was not written by Mr. Muir, but could be, is the one that gives the reader a dynamic vision of the battles. In this age of media evolution and simulation, a book can be planned and written that is simple and which aids readers in assembling that missing dynamism that is almost fully lost and secreted to anyone who does not have both the means and the motivation to visit the essential battlefields to see the reenactments and otherwise spend four or five days reliving the battle in their informed imagination. Sadly, however, even divorce can be produced by this level of hobby interest.

I respect Mr. Muir very much. His other books I commend. This is a respectable book. He could write a better one, but in this iteration he did not.

Rory Muir does an excellent, praiseworthy job with his book "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon". Although he closely analyzes the British experience of war more so than the French, he comments in his preface that this is because there is abundantly more information from the British accounts from that time. Regardless, this is a valuable source for analyzing the age of Napoleon and follows in the path of Keegan's tour-de-force, "The Face of Battle".

Well Done!