[.ca] The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book: Actions and ... (ISBN 1853672769)

Useful reference despite some faults:
I found this book very useful just because it gives a lot of information on the whole Napoleonic wars, and its very handy to have basic data on all battles or clashes of the period in one volume. The book contains so much information that its no wonder some mistakes with spellig, numbers and other facts crept in. But at last Digby Smith tried to cure the typical "illness" of British historians of the Napoleonic wars with their obscession with Wellington. Sure British participation in the conflict is fully highlighted, but I was delighted to see mentions of other conflicts, for example Russo-Sweden war of 1808-09 and Russo-Turkish war. They are mentioned very briefly and absolutely insufficiently, many battles of big masses of troops with great casualty lists are missed out(while many clashes of minor importance at the Peninsular are listed), nevertheless, author at last gives some general idea about this two wars to the Western readers, who know nothing about it. Great improvement in comparison to the Chandler's "Dictionary of the Napoleonic wars", where there is an entry to a Wellington's battle in India (and what relationship with Napoleonic wars in that?), but many really Napoleonic great battles are ignored. One weak point of Mr Digby Smith's coverage of battles is that he too often flatly describe some action as a victory/defeat. There were many rearguared actions with the task to hold enemy for several hours, and if after hard fighting the defending units, having completed this mission, finally give ground and retreat it hardly can be described as a defeat. I think much more actions should be placed in the "draw match" category. And one more thing. If the book is ever reprinted I'll recommend to do it in smaller letters, the present edition I beleive is rather big.

Indispensible, but not definitive:
Indispensible as a listing of dates and places of battles. Aside from correctness and completeness, the challenge is to get place names which vary with language and country and have changed over time sufficiently identified to be located on a map. This has been done with care in the entry, but overreliance on German sources leaves things like "Schewardino" for Shevardino. Also noticed "La Moskwa" as the French name for Borodino. While not footnoted, sources are listed for every entry, although a check of the Russian campaign revealed Millers (and von Millers), Foord, Stein, Holzhausen, and (the correct book of) Vaudoncourt unreferenced in the bibliography. The OBs (or whatever you want to call them - I don't understand the fuss) and losses are simply not amenable to complilation. Bowden and Andolenko have produced big books on small pieces of the puzzle, so it is no suprise to find errors, but the regimental names are presented with little consistency in spelling and a certain amount of real clinkers have slipped through. A laudable and important contribution, with room for improvement in the execution.

Good, not Great:
I have a love/hate relationship with this book. I really wanted to get it and use it, as well as have it on hand, but I don't fully trust it. It is exhaustive, has a veritable treasure trove of information in it, but it isn't that easy to use, and at times is a little confusing. Arranged by year and date, the battles, sieges, actions, and combats are arranged so that it is relatively easy to look up, but the information doesn't always agree with standard works on the period. For, example, Durenstein is listed as an allied victory in 1805, and elsewhere it is called a French one; Davout's victory over Bagration in 1812, a rather significant one, isn't even listed. Bottom line, in my opinion, there needs to be a revision, and soon. This book is recommended, and it is very useful; however, it is not the Holy Grail, and it is definitely not a definitive work.

Fills a niche long needed:
Having read the other reviews I find it astonishing that the book is criticised for relying on english language secondary sources when a quick look at the book (sources are listed for each action) will tell you otherwise. I cannot speak for the unit listings (Mr Smith points out they are not OBs), I spotted a couple of errors in one and the author was pleased to take them on board. You will not find as much reference material on Napoleonic combats in any other single reference source I know of. It is invaluable for hobbyists.

An Impressive Achievement:
This book takes on the daunting and rather thankless task of compiling the losses throughut the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars and presenting them systematically. For the most part, it achieves this goal. The chronological order of the book makes it easy to find particular engagements. However the author also provides links from battles to battle, so that you can follow the path of a campaign. When I bought this book I thought I would use it strictly as an occasional reference tool. Instead, I now find myself browsing through it, following a campaign's ebb and flow. Of course the major battles are here, but the real gems are the small skirmishes and engagements; struggles where men bled, suffered, and died 200 years ago, but long since rolled over by history. One can always criticize the accuracy of some of the book's sources. However, given that era's lack of record keeping, as well as the inflated (or delated) casualty claims after battles, in total this book's accuracy is commendable. The author points out the unreliability of the source data in the introduction, which is a refreshing contrast to other authors who believe their sources are the be-all-and-end-all. My only complaint about this book is I wish the data was presented more consistently. The differing amounts of available data make this impossible throughout the book, but even when consistent data is available the information is occasionally presented differently. For example, the Anglo-Allied and Prussian losses at Waterloo are given by battalion, brigade, and division. However, the Prussian losses have a grand total, the Anglo-Allied losses do not. While one can easily add the Anglo-Allied numbers to arrive at the total losses, the reader should not have to do this in a work this detailed and ambitious. But this is a quibble. Overall, this is an impressive achievement and should be part of any Napoleonic library.