[.ca] Napoleon and Wellington (ISBN 0297646079)

From Amazon.co.uk:
After his provocative Eminent Churchillians and his magisterial, award-winning Salisbury, Andrew Roberts' Napoleon and Wellington moves further back into the past to examine those titans of early 19th-century Europe. One was revolutionary, one deeply conservative. One aimed to change everything, the other aimed to achieve nothing except to stop the other changing anything. Roberts pre-empts the obvious moan regarding this well-tilled field, by pointing out that this is the first book to examine exactly what the two men thought of each other, and revealing the fascinating contradiction between what they said in public and in private. Roberts' cautious, subtle reading of character, and the narrow focus on just two men--not a mention of Rifleman Harris here--gives the book a novelistic brio. Wellington could be every bit as vainglorious as Napoleon, but Napoleon was unforgiving. Wellington saved Napoleon from execution after Waterloo, but Napoleon left money in his will to the man who had tried to assassinate the Duke. And once Napoleon had gone, Wellington amassed endless trophies of his great enemy--including not one but two of the Emperor's mistresses. Roberts' wry comment: "To sleep with one of Napoleon's mistresses might be considered an accident, but to sleep with two might suggest a pattern of triumphalism..." English readers, who have long lived with the notoriously bitchy comment from another of Wellington's mistresses, that one of their greatest national heroes was, in bed at least, "a cold fish," will be delighted to hear a second opinion from one of these ex-Imperial bed-warmers, that compared to Napoleon, Wellington was "beaucoup le plus fort". So there. Roberts is witty as well as wise, with chapter titles such as "The War for Clio's Ear". And he ends on a provocative, characteristically Euro-sceptic note: Wellington may have won at Waterloo, but today's "politically united Europe led by a centralised (French-led) bureaucracy", represents a final triumph for the Napoleonic vision... touché. --Christopher Hart

Extensive Research and Some Great Insights:
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.

Not for general readers:
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.

Nice Comparison of Two Formidable Military Figures:
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.

A very good portrait of two great men:
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.