Comments on: The Wars Against Napoleon – Book Review http://www.armchairgeneral.com/the-wars-against-napoleon-debunking-the-myth-of-the-napoleonic-wars-book-review.htm All things military history! Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:05:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Neil Holliday http://www.armchairgeneral.com/the-wars-against-napoleon-debunking-the-myth-of-the-napoleonic-wars-book-review.htm/comment-page-1#comment-11014 Neil Holliday Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:21:21 +0000 http://www.armchairgeneral.com/?p=3718#comment-11014 I found this book one of the most wretchedly written I have ever encountered. The fact is that the authors do have a case, as is demonstrated in Vincent Cronin's excellent biography of 'Napoleon', but this one eyed nonsense? Had the authors tried to lower their emotional input to about one per cent of what is on offer, it might come across as a serious historical book, but the actual feeling given is that of an irrational school master haranguing a class of nine year olds. If that sort of thing is your cup of tea, this book comes highly recommended, but if you want a seriously argued book covering the same ground but with wit and intelligence, go to Victor Cronin and give this one as wide a berth as possible. Alternatively, I'll sell you mine -No money back no guarantee. I found this book one of the most wretchedly written I have ever encountered. The fact is that the authors do have a case, as is demonstrated in Vincent Cronin’s excellent biography of ‘Napoleon’, but this one eyed nonsense? Had the authors tried to lower their emotional input to about one per cent of what is on offer, it might come across as a serious historical book, but the actual feeling given is that of an irrational school master haranguing a class of nine year olds. If that sort of thing is your cup of tea, this book comes highly recommended, but if you want a seriously argued book covering the same ground but with wit and intelligence, go to Victor Cronin and give this one as wide a berth as possible. Alternatively, I’ll sell you mine -No money back no guarantee.

]]> By: Mike Stone http://www.armchairgeneral.com/the-wars-against-napoleon-debunking-the-myth-of-the-napoleonic-wars-book-review.htm/comment-page-1#comment-8771 Mike Stone Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:08:06 +0000 http://www.armchairgeneral.com/?p=3718#comment-8771 Does that mean that France really won the Napoleonic Wars? After all, if they were a continuation of the previous wars against Revolutionary France, and if the latter were wars of self-defence, then France would have won them if she emerged without loss of territory or change to her form of government. And this was in substance achieved. While there were some trivial losses on the Belgian and German borders, these were more than offset by other territories - Avignon/Venaissin, Montbeliard, Mulhouse and other enclaves in Alsace and Lorraine - which she annexed in the same period and was allowed to keep at the peace. So France emerged from the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars with somewhat more territory than she started. Ditto for her form of government. When war broke out in 1792, France was a Constitutional Monarchy under Louis XVI. When peace was made in 1815, she was one under Louis XVIII. True, the constitutions weren't identical, but there was no return to the Ancien Regime, and when Charles X tried to achieve one he was quickly dsiposed of. So France came out of the war with a modest increase of territory and not much more undemocratic than before the wars, and thus could fairly claim to have won them. All the same, I wonder how many Frenchmen saw it that way at the time. Does that mean that France really won the Napoleonic Wars?

After all, if they were a continuation of the previous wars against Revolutionary France, and if the latter were wars of self-defence, then France would have won them if she emerged without loss of territory or change to her form of government. And this was in substance achieved. While there were some trivial losses on the Belgian and German borders, these were more than offset by other territories – Avignon/Venaissin, Montbeliard, Mulhouse and other enclaves in Alsace and Lorraine – which she annexed in the same period and was allowed to keep at the peace. So France emerged from the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars with somewhat more territory than she started.

Ditto for her form of government. When war broke out in 1792, France was a Constitutional Monarchy under Louis XVI. When peace was made in 1815, she was one under Louis XVIII. True, the constitutions weren’t identical, but there was no return to the Ancien Regime, and when Charles X tried to achieve one he was quickly dsiposed of.

So France came out of the war with a modest increase of territory and not much more undemocratic than before the wars, and thus could fairly claim to have won them. All the same, I wonder how many Frenchmen saw it that way at the time.

]]>