Wellington and Napoleon (Clash of Arms 1807-1815)

I like this book. Its not very weighty, and gives a pretty breezy overview of a long period of time. It also tends to be a very traditional telling of the story of Napoleon's downfall. However, I would like to point out that the previous reviewer somewhat miscontrued the nature of this book.Neillands goal is to see Wellington and Napoleon as parallel lives. Both lived in the military traditions of their countries, and in important ways, came to embody those traditions; Napoleon, the audacious, fast moving, hard hitting French soldier, and Wellington, the quieter, conservative, and solid nobleman/soldier. Napoleon moved through the professional training schools of the Old Regime, to become a general of the French Revolutionary armies. Wellington became an officer in the quaint English way of buying his commission. Both learned warfare by working through the ranks, Napoleon in Provence and Italy, Wellington in India. And both finally fought each other at the last battle of the wars, at Waterloo.Neither man really ever fought the other until that last battle. Napoleon's attention was focused on Central Europe - Austria and Germany - and Russia, while Wellington spend almost the entire time period covered by this book in Spain and Portugal. Only briefly did Napoleon personally intervene in Spain, preferring to leave Spanish affairs to his brother Joseph, Napoleon's handpicked king of Spain, and his Marshals. Wellington marched all over the western and central portions of the peninsula, and experienced great frustration working with the Spanish generals and Spanish system (calling it a government might be generous)Napoleon's overstretch, which led to his eventual downfall, began in Spain, with the Spanish uprising. The French could beat just about any Spanish regular military force, but they had no way to defeat the guerillos who swarmed along every road and in every town. French soldiers were killed retail, which, in the long run bankrupted the French war effort. The Spanish ulcer, despite its 'sideshow' quality, was the major cause of Napoleon's collapse. He could not afford the strain on manpower, supplies or treasure that the Spanish war caused France.Now, the reason the ulcer was inflammed and played its role as a drain on French resources was Wellington. His army, led, not always brilliantly, but for the most part competantly and professionally, kept the French off guard, helped keep the Spanish and Portuguese armed and supplied and gave the Spanish regular armies, after their usual drubbings, a place to rally. Napoleon could continue to through troops into Spain, but it was, by 1810, a losing investment, but one that he couldnt write off.Napoleon himself was losing his touch, to be sure. The battles of Aspern-Esseling and Wagram are not prime examples of Napoleon at his best, and the invasion of Russia was clearly a disaster. But, without the drain on his resources caused by Spain, would he have been better or worse off? Would the extra hundred