Napoleon and Wellington: The Battle of Waterloo, and the Great Commanders Who Fought It

"The similarities between Napoleon and Wellington are, at first sight, extraordinary." Thus starts Andrew Roberts's great biography and comparison of two of the greatest generals of all time. Written by Roberts, a fresh, young historian, this book provides penetrating insight into the lives of Wellington and Napoleon and the events leading up to Waterloo. A great read for anyone interested about history and the Napoleonic wars. This book is great in its layout. With a comparison timeline in the beginning, pictures in the middle of the book, and chapter titles with their relevant years, it is very easy to read. It also has quotes that show each man's character throughout the book. The content was typically satisfying, though there were a few instances in which it was very disappointing with minimal information and too much redundancy. For example, the Wellington "is a sepoy general" and the Napoleon "is worth 40,000 men on a battlefield kept on appearing. Overall, though, it gave a stream of information and taught me a lot about the two men. In my opinion, I personally disagreed with the book's end theme which told about the posthumous war of the reputations of the two men, which was "For, although Wellington won the battle, it is Napoleon's dream that is coming true." A good addition to anyone's library.

This book was a surprise for me. I picked it up at the library, intending to just read a couple of pages. The next thing I knew, I was 82 pages into the book. It's written well and avoids some of the dryness of other books about these 2 men. Rather than recounting the battles fought by these notorious commanders, the book focuses on the relationship between the two men that led up to the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo. It does assume that you have some historical background and that you know the basics of what happened at Waterloo and the subsequent exile of Napoleon. The angle of this book is different and refreshingly alive.

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 s

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.

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.