Just completed Napoleon's wars by Charles Esdaille, a historian with specialized knowledge of the Iberian campaigns but whom has wrote this book http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6...apoleon-s-wars which focuses on the International relations and strategy of all of the wars that make up Napoleons military career, the Napoleonic wars 1803-1815. To do this, he discusses in fine detail all the factors which create the playfield throughout the 12 years. This provides the reader with an understanding of the environment that decisions were made by the various key powers and the influence of personality of the various leaders and politicians. The book is not a detailed analysis of tactics and battles and at times crucial battles get only a paragraph while what kept a particular power from allying with another and fielding an extra 50 thousand men at a key moment receives detailed discussion.
Skipping standard fare like France had a large population, scope for economic reform which Napoleon accessed well through reform, effective organisation of army and artillery, his tactical skills, the book has some interesting insights to challenge some popular narratives of the wars. Napoleons early successes were aided by the fact that the early coalitions were not especially united in their opposition to Napoleon. Esdaille goes to great lengths to explain to the reader the various goals the opposing powers had that ultimately distracted them from properly uniting against France, this was a key factor that allowed Napoleon to absorb Italy, deal a hammer blow to Prussia and greatly weaken Austria through two wars, remove the Spanish monarchy and basically dominate western and central Europe without ever facing a truly unified and committed coalition.
Esdaille focuses greatly on Napoleon's personality as a key factor in analysing events. While Napoleon is painted as a figure who has a great command both of military tactics and the strategic affairs of Europe, he is simultaneously painted as a man who could not act appropriately with the knowledge he possessed. Esdaille is not a fan of Napeoleon, whose desire for fame and military glory is attributed as a major driving force in the continuation of conflict.
Likewise these same driving forces are attributed for Napoleons squandering his rise to power and break down of his alliance with Russia, as well as his resistance to sue for peace at various times which could have rescued most of his gains.
It seemed to me that what if stories could be largely disregarded with Napoleon. At times he could have won crucial victories that may have shifted the narrative but in the end, in victory or defeat, Napoleon would always choose another campaign, another war, and defeat was inevitable because France could never dominate Russia, Britain and all of Europe. The strategic gains of the invasion of Russia are particularly dubious according to Esdaille and boil down to Napoleons personality.
The material of this book is very dry and dense. I think Esdaille has done a commendable job by managing a task which eschews the individual battlefield for the complex political and personal narratives that interlock to provide an account of an environment in which decisions were made by europe's leaders, in the context of their historical goals, their capabilities, personalities, without the trap of hindsight, Esdaille takes you to that moment.
Despite all this complexity layered by the author, he constantly returns to the narrative of the dominate singular influence that Napoleons own personal desires and ambitions had on events, to establish this however Esdaille battles with the details of Europe's power games before dismissing it's importance to the whims of Napoleon. I think Esdailles succeeds in harmonizing two ideas that appear at first in contradiction and drops primary responsibility for the wars at Napoleons doorstep.
Skipping standard fare like France had a large population, scope for economic reform which Napoleon accessed well through reform, effective organisation of army and artillery, his tactical skills, the book has some interesting insights to challenge some popular narratives of the wars. Napoleons early successes were aided by the fact that the early coalitions were not especially united in their opposition to Napoleon. Esdaille goes to great lengths to explain to the reader the various goals the opposing powers had that ultimately distracted them from properly uniting against France, this was a key factor that allowed Napoleon to absorb Italy, deal a hammer blow to Prussia and greatly weaken Austria through two wars, remove the Spanish monarchy and basically dominate western and central Europe without ever facing a truly unified and committed coalition.
Esdaille focuses greatly on Napoleon's personality as a key factor in analysing events. While Napoleon is painted as a figure who has a great command both of military tactics and the strategic affairs of Europe, he is simultaneously painted as a man who could not act appropriately with the knowledge he possessed. Esdaille is not a fan of Napeoleon, whose desire for fame and military glory is attributed as a major driving force in the continuation of conflict.
Likewise these same driving forces are attributed for Napoleons squandering his rise to power and break down of his alliance with Russia, as well as his resistance to sue for peace at various times which could have rescued most of his gains.
It seemed to me that what if stories could be largely disregarded with Napoleon. At times he could have won crucial victories that may have shifted the narrative but in the end, in victory or defeat, Napoleon would always choose another campaign, another war, and defeat was inevitable because France could never dominate Russia, Britain and all of Europe. The strategic gains of the invasion of Russia are particularly dubious according to Esdaille and boil down to Napoleons personality.
The material of this book is very dry and dense. I think Esdaille has done a commendable job by managing a task which eschews the individual battlefield for the complex political and personal narratives that interlock to provide an account of an environment in which decisions were made by europe's leaders, in the context of their historical goals, their capabilities, personalities, without the trap of hindsight, Esdaille takes you to that moment.
Despite all this complexity layered by the author, he constantly returns to the narrative of the dominate singular influence that Napoleons own personal desires and ambitions had on events, to establish this however Esdaille battles with the details of Europe's power games before dismissing it's importance to the whims of Napoleon. I think Esdailles succeeds in harmonizing two ideas that appear at first in contradiction and drops primary responsibility for the wars at Napoleons doorstep.
Comment