PDF Wars Against Napoleon: Debunking the Myth of the Napoleonic Wars by General Michel Franceschi; Ben Weider in History

Review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Mixed feelings...By Bookworm64I wanted to like this book a lot; and it is a very passionate in conveying its point of view. Most of the books in English tend to be written by the British; and obviously there is the 'must defend why Boney was evil' angle. Some of them do try to be fair; but that stuff does slip in (Paddy Griffith or David Chandler; for example; great works; but still see their dislike for Napoleon). This one is very honest about being pro-Napoleon; and it does work. It doesn't get five stars; however; because there are a few problems with it. First; the layout is off-putting. Sections are noted by a center-aligned sentence; with some space; in the exact same font and size. Would have been a bit better if in boldface; or underlined; or something. The passion that was put into the writing made it just seem; meh. The maps are barely good enough to convey the actions described; but this is okay if one is a student of military history with better maps (I have the Napoleonic Atlas; Chandler's Campaigns; so it was no problem for me to get more info). The art on the plates is decent; but not really applicable to the book. While the authors are talking about Napoleon's trying to rebuild and modernize France; seventeen of the paintings are about the well-known military actions. Showing the public works; the buildings; meetings for the codes as they are written and signed; improving the government; etc. are neglected in a book trying to show Napoleon wasn't a warmonger! Second; the editing/translating had some clear mistakes. Best example: on p. 78; it is being discussed how Joseph is to be installed as king of Holland; and is...then the next paragraph; it's going on about how Louis had to be replaced as king of Holland after his installation for breaking the Continental System. Joseph was never king of Holland! Some of the phrasing wasn't the best; either; but that might be a translation issue; but that will always be a problem with a different language of origin. The last; and by far the biggest problem is what would have given every history teacher and researcher a fit: NO CITATIONS OR BIBLIOGRAPHY!!! There were so many things I wanted to look up from this book; but not a single source is named! In the 1813 campaign; he blames Jomini for convincing Blucher to break the truce early. That would have been interesting to research; because Jomini was an adviser to Tsar Alexander; and on his staff. Given Blucher's Francophobia; I find it hard to believe that he would have listened to a recently French officer; even if he was Swiss and working for the Russians. Given the hatred the authors try to convey; why would he need a prompting; as the Allies had already broken/failed with virtually every other treaty. Add to this Napoleon himself said Jomini was justified in his switching sides. I wound up having this odd feeling that I wandered into a debate where everything mentioned was common knowledge; except for me. Lacking any other works on Napoleon other than three volumes of Jomini's Life of Napoleon (out of four); I would have to give this book a reluctant recommendation. It does a good job of orating a pro-Napoleon point of view; but all the things mentioned hold it back. I wish that I could find out if the French original has the citations and bibliography and it was merely omitted for making the English translation cheaper (if that's possible). More on Napoleon; builder of modern France would have been nice as well; as all the deceitful monarchs and self-serving elites made me wonder if Napoleon could actually read people at all or was simply an overextended workaholic wishing the people problems would go away.4 of 5 people found the following review helpful. Fallen hero's reputation is restoredBy Karun MukherjiAuthors question and debunk the established opinion on Napoleon. They argue Napoleon was neither a blood thirsty tyrant nor had he any imperial ambitions. His belligerency was engineered by the English.Authors argue hostility of European monarchies toward Napoleon stemmed from the fact he espoused a set of values that was against established order: adoption of declaration Man and Citizen; abolition of privileges; substitution of hierarchy by merit; replacement of absolute monarchy by democracy. All these appear natural today and have gained global acceptance.But for the monarchies of 17th; 18th century Europe they looked subversive. Worried that it could have contagious effect on masses; monarchies of Europe under England’s leadership launched a crusade against French first consul. Authors argue Napoleon did not seek armed conflict but wars were imposed on him and had to fight. This is a significant statement; for it gives a diametrically opposite picture of what happened.Far from being war monger Napoleon sought to befriend England. Attempts failed because their social values clashed. Besides English ruling class being vindictive - remembering French role in dispossessing England of her American colonies- sought revenge. Apart from defaming ; maligning French leader numerous attempts were made on his life ;but he survived. Therefore it can be inferred England was Napoleon‘s principal enemy and the chief culprit behind Napoleonic wars.Thus began the era of coalition wars. England raised coalition of powers one after another to fight Napoleon. London being financial capital of the world at that time she had sufficient liquidity for funding opposition . We know French ruler displaying superior leadership and fighting abilities was able to defeat coalitions raised against him ;however; failed in pacifying Europe. It happened because of his failure in vanquishing England; for latter formed ‘ Centre of Gravity’ of war. Centre of Gravity ; an important principle of war; was formulated by Prussian military philosopher Carl Von Clausewitz. It is that point in enemy’s structure (military; political; social) should he be defeated or were he to loose it collapse of national power would inevitably follow. Napoleon realized this . However he lacked naval power to win command of English Channel and strike directly at England. So he relied on continental system to financially cripple England making it impossible for her to raising coalitions against him.Policy was flawed - its implementation even more - which resulted in Napoleon alienating some of his closest allies. England riding the wave of industrial revolution and her goods so much in demand that other European states could hardly desist from having commercial ties . I think Napoleon biggest mistake to remove the king of Spain and installing his brother Joseph on the Spanish throne; a move that inflamed Spaniards who raised the banner of revolt against the French. Further it gave the English under Lord Wellesley ( Duke of Wellington) an opportunity to secure a lodgment in the Iberian Peninsula . Thus began peninsular war which proved a terrible drain on French resources. Afterwards came the invasion of Russia which ended in a fiasco. With that commenced Napoleon’s decline.Authors have performed the act of refurbishing Napoleon’s reputation .What I wish to say I happened to read a biography of Napoleon published in Bengali language. What I found interesting was striking similarity in views. Both have cast a profound impression in my mind.1 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Good or Bad--You dedicdeBy DDTMOnly book of its kind I have yet to read. Does make what seem to be valid points for Bonny. One has to suppose that since he lost in the end that the victors do/have their chance to "get him". I've always wondered was he really a "bad guy" or just like the other heads of state at the time but able to project his power so far superior to the others. All the European monarchs of the time were scheming; manipulating to expand their countries borders and power. Catherine the Great is a prime example. ALL of them greatly feared The French Revolution.