What do you think?
Rate this book
Napoleon and Wellington: The Long Duel
On the morning of the battle of Waterloo, the Emperor Napoleon declared that the Duke of Wellington was a bad general, the British were bad soldiers and that France could not fail to have an easy victory. Forever afterwards historians have accused him of gross overconfidence, and massively underestimating the calibre of the British commander opposed to him. Andrew Roberts presents this revisionist view of the relationship between the two greatest captains of their age. Napoleon, who was born in the same year as Wellington - 1769 - fought Wellington by proxy years earlier in the Peninsular War, praising his ruthlessness in private whilst publicly deriding him as a mere sepoy general. In contrast, Wellington publicly lauded Napoleon, saying that his presence on a battlefield was worth forty thousand men, but privately wrote long memoranda lambasting Napoleon's campaigning techniques. Although Wellington saved Napoleon from execution after Waterloo, Napoleon left money in his will to the man who had tried to assassinate Wellington.
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
54 people are currently reading
888 people want to read
About the author
Andrew Roberts
204 books1,503 followersDr Andrew Roberts, who was born in 1963, took a first class honours degree in Modern History at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge, from where he is an honorary senior scholar and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). He has written or edited twelve books, and appears regularly on radio and television around the world. Based in New York, he is an accomplished public speaker, and is represented by HarperCollins Speakers’ Bureau (See Speaking Engagements and Speaking Testimonials). He has recently lectured at Yale, Princeton and Stanford Universities and at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
June 4, 2024
“Death is nothing, but to live defeated is to die every day.”
- Napoleon
In this book, Andrew Roberts examines the relationship between Napoleon and Wellington, their enduring rivalry and their opinions and beliefs.
What did Napoleon think about Wellington? What was Wellington’s opinion about Napoleon? Who was more brilliant?
Napoleon’s ambitions were monumental, incorporating Europe, Russia and even the Orient, while Wellington’s were those of the rest of his class and profession, entirely circumscribed by parliamentary government. Yet although their characters are usually described as mirror opposites – romantic Napoleonic genius versus prosaic Wellingtonian practicality – there was a single-minded determination for victory and a tendency to ruthlessness that united them. Napoleon had won sixty of his seventy battles; Wellington had fought far fewer, but had won them all. For both men Waterloo was to be their last.
The book begins by the two legends’ birth, their education and military careers, recounts their triumphs and losses in battles, and goes on to detail the battle of Waterloo, which ends with the defeat of Napoleon and his eventual exile and later, death.
The book includes excerpts from letters, memoirs and quotes by those close to Napoleon and Wellington.
‘Incomprehensible day!’ said he (Napoleon) in a tone of sorrow; ‘Concurrence of unheard-of fatalities! Grouchy! Ney! D’Erlon! Was there treachery or only misfortune? Alas! Poor France!’ Here he covered his eyes with his hands. ‘And yet’, said he, ‘all that humans could do was accomplished!’
- Napoleon
In this book, Andrew Roberts examines the relationship between Napoleon and Wellington, their enduring rivalry and their opinions and beliefs.
What did Napoleon think about Wellington? What was Wellington’s opinion about Napoleon? Who was more brilliant?
Napoleon’s ambitions were monumental, incorporating Europe, Russia and even the Orient, while Wellington’s were those of the rest of his class and profession, entirely circumscribed by parliamentary government. Yet although their characters are usually described as mirror opposites – romantic Napoleonic genius versus prosaic Wellingtonian practicality – there was a single-minded determination for victory and a tendency to ruthlessness that united them. Napoleon had won sixty of his seventy battles; Wellington had fought far fewer, but had won them all. For both men Waterloo was to be their last.
The book begins by the two legends’ birth, their education and military careers, recounts their triumphs and losses in battles, and goes on to detail the battle of Waterloo, which ends with the defeat of Napoleon and his eventual exile and later, death.
The book includes excerpts from letters, memoirs and quotes by those close to Napoleon and Wellington.
‘Incomprehensible day!’ said he (Napoleon) in a tone of sorrow; ‘Concurrence of unheard-of fatalities! Grouchy! Ney! D’Erlon! Was there treachery or only misfortune? Alas! Poor France!’ Here he covered his eyes with his hands. ‘And yet’, said he, ‘all that humans could do was accomplished!’
October 11, 2025
Men without Equals
Napoleon and Wellington is a not a biography of Napoleon Bonaparte or Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Moreover it is a look into how both their lives crossed one another and what one another thought, said and wrote about the other. Andrew Roberts is the master of revisionist history and once again he has looked to change our perceptions with the relationship between the two greatest men of their age. This is a story of an organic and constantly changing relationship, one of pride, propaganda, nostalgia and revenge. Both were stubborn and believed they were right and with good reason.
Napoleon and Wellington (and Viscount Castlereagh) were all born in the same year, 1769, each had four brothers, both their fathers died when they were young and both were born in a contentious arm of their mother country, Corsica and Ireland respectively. There are many parallels. Although never meetings in person Napoleon fought Wellington by proxy during the Peninsular War, praising his ruthlessness in private but denouncing him as a mere ‘sepoy General’ in public. In contrast Wellington praised the Emperor of the French stating that his presence on the battlefield was worth 40 thousand men, but privately wrote notes criticising his campaign techniques.
Both as it seems had opposite methods. They did things their own way. Their lives were interwoven; Wellington ultimately saved Napoleon (but not Marshall Michel Ney) from execution, whilst Napoleon left money in his will to the man who tried to assassinate the Iron Duke, in a bitter mistaken belief that Wellington had orchestrated his exile to Saint Helena. In turn Wellington assessed memorabilia and trophies on his great victory, his London seat, Apsley House, still owned by the current Duke of Wellington today is full of these items. Including a huge statue of his great rival which Napoleon had commissioned for himself. The duke even slept with two of Napoleon’s mistresses. What is overriding in all of this is that they were both able to inspire their men. Even if Wellington considered his men to be the ‘scum of the earth’ he led from the front and placed himself in the line of fire. Whilst Napoleon tended to be at the back (he was brave in other ways), he went to great lengths to know his men and even remembered details about some of them and many of their names. He had the ‘common touch’. Wellington ultimately found a way to defeat Napoleon and never feared him. Napoleon for his part never understood the Duke or his strategy.
Roberts once again writes with flair and his high mind, he is truly a literary genius. There is so much knowledge inside of this man. However, I have only been able to give Napoleon and Wellington three stars as I feel it hasn’t lived up to the hope it should do. Somehow I found it quite boring in places. All of the facts are there and every point meticulously covered, so the depth and history is there, just not the excitement. But it should be as the history writes itself. It’s still Andrew Roberts so it is still first class, just not my favourite book.
Napoleon and Wellington is a not a biography of Napoleon Bonaparte or Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Moreover it is a look into how both their lives crossed one another and what one another thought, said and wrote about the other. Andrew Roberts is the master of revisionist history and once again he has looked to change our perceptions with the relationship between the two greatest men of their age. This is a story of an organic and constantly changing relationship, one of pride, propaganda, nostalgia and revenge. Both were stubborn and believed they were right and with good reason.
Napoleon and Wellington (and Viscount Castlereagh) were all born in the same year, 1769, each had four brothers, both their fathers died when they were young and both were born in a contentious arm of their mother country, Corsica and Ireland respectively. There are many parallels. Although never meetings in person Napoleon fought Wellington by proxy during the Peninsular War, praising his ruthlessness in private but denouncing him as a mere ‘sepoy General’ in public. In contrast Wellington praised the Emperor of the French stating that his presence on the battlefield was worth 40 thousand men, but privately wrote notes criticising his campaign techniques.
Both as it seems had opposite methods. They did things their own way. Their lives were interwoven; Wellington ultimately saved Napoleon (but not Marshall Michel Ney) from execution, whilst Napoleon left money in his will to the man who tried to assassinate the Iron Duke, in a bitter mistaken belief that Wellington had orchestrated his exile to Saint Helena. In turn Wellington assessed memorabilia and trophies on his great victory, his London seat, Apsley House, still owned by the current Duke of Wellington today is full of these items. Including a huge statue of his great rival which Napoleon had commissioned for himself. The duke even slept with two of Napoleon’s mistresses. What is overriding in all of this is that they were both able to inspire their men. Even if Wellington considered his men to be the ‘scum of the earth’ he led from the front and placed himself in the line of fire. Whilst Napoleon tended to be at the back (he was brave in other ways), he went to great lengths to know his men and even remembered details about some of them and many of their names. He had the ‘common touch’. Wellington ultimately found a way to defeat Napoleon and never feared him. Napoleon for his part never understood the Duke or his strategy.
Roberts once again writes with flair and his high mind, he is truly a literary genius. There is so much knowledge inside of this man. However, I have only been able to give Napoleon and Wellington three stars as I feel it hasn’t lived up to the hope it should do. Somehow I found it quite boring in places. All of the facts are there and every point meticulously covered, so the depth and history is there, just not the excitement. But it should be as the history writes itself. It’s still Andrew Roberts so it is still first class, just not my favourite book.
January 7, 2025
I wish I could rate this more highly, for Roberts is a good writer with a keen insight into Wellington's personality and the battle over history. Yet the book fails because of his conservative bent, that while relatively under wraps, comes through in the book. Wellington, the arch-conservative, is therefore his hero, and his British critics are consistently insulted. I am always struck by the Anglo-American conservative love for British "traditions" and yet their tacit denial of the right to disagree with those traditions. Apparently, torture and mass arrests are only bad when done by non-English speaking peoples.
Roberts's unsaid contention is that Wellington was the superior soldier, and while he does not go in for hero-worship, he also pushes the lie that Wellington never lost a battle. Napoleon meanwhile is never given the benefit of the doubt, and his description of Bonaparte as both man and general is shallow. The author rightfully complains about pro-French historians denigrating Wellington, while failing to call out the hacks who see Napoleon as a forerunner to Mussolini and Stalin. Ultimately, he ends with some vague fears that the British "system" is being eclipsed by something closer to Napoleon's vision. Not that he is wrong in this regard, but rather that his fear seems reactionary and goofy, but it is in keeping with his obsessions over an "Anglosphere" that will rival the EU, Russia, and China.
So there you have it, a fine writer done in by the British obsession over denigrating Napoleon. He was a flawed man, but hardly the proto-Hitler of the British imagination. With Napoleon, you get the feeling that guys like Roberts, Horne, and Keegan are pleading their case, because Napoleon remains a more famous and captivating man than any of their Tory heroes. Roberts does not quite say it, but he is pained by a simple truth: Wellington won Waterloo, but Napoleon won the war of memory.
Roberts's unsaid contention is that Wellington was the superior soldier, and while he does not go in for hero-worship, he also pushes the lie that Wellington never lost a battle. Napoleon meanwhile is never given the benefit of the doubt, and his description of Bonaparte as both man and general is shallow. The author rightfully complains about pro-French historians denigrating Wellington, while failing to call out the hacks who see Napoleon as a forerunner to Mussolini and Stalin. Ultimately, he ends with some vague fears that the British "system" is being eclipsed by something closer to Napoleon's vision. Not that he is wrong in this regard, but rather that his fear seems reactionary and goofy, but it is in keeping with his obsessions over an "Anglosphere" that will rival the EU, Russia, and China.
So there you have it, a fine writer done in by the British obsession over denigrating Napoleon. He was a flawed man, but hardly the proto-Hitler of the British imagination. With Napoleon, you get the feeling that guys like Roberts, Horne, and Keegan are pleading their case, because Napoleon remains a more famous and captivating man than any of their Tory heroes. Roberts does not quite say it, but he is pained by a simple truth: Wellington won Waterloo, but Napoleon won the war of memory.
October 26, 2023
I've very much enjoyed this examination of the relationship between Wellington and Napoleon, somewhat to my own surprise. I don't usually read military history and I must have read an enthusiastic review somewhere to encourage me to request it from our library - I'm afraid I don't recall where.
Andrew Roberts began his story in Spain, during what came to be called the Peninsular Wars, well before the two army commanders met each other. Waterloo, in fact, was the first time they had fought directly against the other, as Napoleon deputed his Iberian wars to his generals, and that was where Wellington spent most of his time on his return from serving in British India.
Reading this, I understood for the first time why control of the Iberian peninsula was so important to both parties, and I found this fascinating.
Later sections of the book cover the period of 100 days when Napoleon was exiled to Elba; the battle of Waterloo itself; the subsequent battles of words about who won and whose fault was the French loss (not his, Napoleon argued with vitriol); a rapid tour of historians' different viewpoints of the two men and the legends and myths surrounding them.
Roberts has managed to draw a lively tale from a vast archive of resources, comparing accounts as he goes and summing up nicely at the end. It's an impressive achievement
Andrew Roberts began his story in Spain, during what came to be called the Peninsular Wars, well before the two army commanders met each other. Waterloo, in fact, was the first time they had fought directly against the other, as Napoleon deputed his Iberian wars to his generals, and that was where Wellington spent most of his time on his return from serving in British India.
Reading this, I understood for the first time why control of the Iberian peninsula was so important to both parties, and I found this fascinating.
Later sections of the book cover the period of 100 days when Napoleon was exiled to Elba; the battle of Waterloo itself; the subsequent battles of words about who won and whose fault was the French loss (not his, Napoleon argued with vitriol); a rapid tour of historians' different viewpoints of the two men and the legends and myths surrounding them.
Roberts has managed to draw a lively tale from a vast archive of resources, comparing accounts as he goes and summing up nicely at the end. It's an impressive achievement
January 31, 2024
This book was written for people who are REALLY REALLY interested in the Napoleonic wars.
I am only somewhat mildly interested, on a good day.
So three stars for not being as boring as it could have been, considering just how dense and detailed it is.
I am only somewhat mildly interested, on a good day.
So three stars for not being as boring as it could have been, considering just how dense and detailed it is.
January 7, 2020
Gossipy and anecdotal, at times amusing and at other times enlightening, this book meanders across an era looking for connections between its two greatest generals.
British Sunday Telegraph contributor Roberts (Eminent Churchillians) concentrates not on the respective merits of Napoleon and Wellington, but on what they thought, wrote, and said about each other. He spices his text with vignettes such as an extensive description of Napoleon's hemorrhoid problem on the eve of Waterloo, and its successful treatment by the famous surgeon Baron Larrey. Then he demonstrates the relevance of his stories—in this case by showing that Napoleon was by no means as debilitated on the day of battle as popular myth accepts. Wellington and Napoleon did not face each other until Waterloo in 1815. Napoleon, who first heard of Wellington in 1808, never showed his great rival quite the respect he deserved, let alone the respect Wellington considered his due, Roberts shows. Though partisans and critics of both men stress their differences, Roberts's text makes a convincing case that Napoleon and Wellington were more alike than either of them would have conceded.
Both considered Hannibal their military hero; both carried Julius Caesar's Commentaries in the field. They even shared a couple of mistresses—Wellington was at pains to show his post-Waterloo triumph in every way possible. Both were self-confident to the point of arrogance, consciously unemotional and obsessively focused on success. And they spent increasing amounts of time, particularly after 1815, blackguarding each other in the fashion of contemporary professional wrestlers. This history presumes a high level of background knowledge, but readers interested in the rivalries of the period will find it thoroughly absorbing.
British Sunday Telegraph contributor Roberts (Eminent Churchillians) concentrates not on the respective merits of Napoleon and Wellington, but on what they thought, wrote, and said about each other. He spices his text with vignettes such as an extensive description of Napoleon's hemorrhoid problem on the eve of Waterloo, and its successful treatment by the famous surgeon Baron Larrey. Then he demonstrates the relevance of his stories—in this case by showing that Napoleon was by no means as debilitated on the day of battle as popular myth accepts. Wellington and Napoleon did not face each other until Waterloo in 1815. Napoleon, who first heard of Wellington in 1808, never showed his great rival quite the respect he deserved, let alone the respect Wellington considered his due, Roberts shows. Though partisans and critics of both men stress their differences, Roberts's text makes a convincing case that Napoleon and Wellington were more alike than either of them would have conceded.
Both considered Hannibal their military hero; both carried Julius Caesar's Commentaries in the field. They even shared a couple of mistresses—Wellington was at pains to show his post-Waterloo triumph in every way possible. Both were self-confident to the point of arrogance, consciously unemotional and obsessively focused on success. And they spent increasing amounts of time, particularly after 1815, blackguarding each other in the fashion of contemporary professional wrestlers. This history presumes a high level of background knowledge, but readers interested in the rivalries of the period will find it thoroughly absorbing.
January 25, 2015
The story of a relationship. They never formally met, but each had plenty to say about the other. What began with mutual respect and some admiration became, after Waterloo, inimical. Here, Wellington enjoys the advantage in part because he survived Napoleon by thirty-one years. After the battle, Napoleon gave little credit to Wellington for his victory, but blamed his defeat on his own subordinates, the weather, and other factors save his opponent's competence. Meanwhile, the Duke publicly admired Napoleon (beating a praiseworthy foe reflects well upon oneself) while privately disparaging him. Along the way, we encounter mistresses, good generals, bad generals, brief biographies, a burned violin, imperial hemorrhoids, "pachydermal penetration," and the dismissal of several battlefield legends. While not a detailed study of Waterloo (and it doesn't claim to be), it's an interesting read. I appreciated learning more about Wellington, not having read much on him. Unfortunately, the book does look to be shoddily bound (Simon & Schuster via Barnes & Noble).
December 4, 2025
Love how willing Roberts was to examine Napoleon and Wellington as infinitely fascinating, ever-memorable giants of the age and totally fallible, catty boys at the same time. Each was so overly childish and petty about the other, I love it. Can see Arthur hastily writing rebuttals, crosses, and question marks in the borders of his perfectly bound, first edition copy of O'Meara's Napoleon in Exile, huffing at everything Napoleon had said that he disagreed with, all while sitting in his manor full of carefully collected Napoleonic memorabilia. Can absolutely see Napoleon moving every third conversation he ever had while exiled on St Helena to how much Wellington totally sucked as a general (which he only actually decided was his opinion after he lost to Wellington and was sent into exile in 1815, of course). The perfect imperfect rivalry.
August 12, 2025
really interesting, well-written and easy to understand, even for people like me who don't know a lot about the subject. I think the topic was really well chosen (the foreword is the reason I picked up this book) and clearly proved to be something unique and interesting. I liked the writing, I think the author did a great job at presenting the facts, refuting common mistakes, drawing his own conclusions, and still coming off as professional and objective. you could also clearly hear his voice when he would word something in a certain way, meant to be sarcastic, which drew a laugh out of me several times. I really enjoyed this and learned a lot.
July 15, 2019
I enjoyed this book but ultimately the weakness of the book is the weakness of the title. It is only interesting up to a point to have these 2 great historic figures continually compared and contrasted. My view is it works for about 200 of the 350 pages .
The other aspect which I found not so interesting was to read over many pages the interpretation that both Napoleon and Wellington put on their own battles and successes and failures. Napoleon on st Helena has much time to muse and we get a steady account of the blame he heaps on his generals, on the weather on strategy on others for his ultimate failure at Waterloo. This I found long and repetitive.
Against these weaknesses there is nonetheless Roberts outstanding scholarly and ironic presentation. I particularly like his ability to inject wit and irony into his account of these 2 greats occasionally debunking even our greatest national military General.
The other aspect which I found not so interesting was to read over many pages the interpretation that both Napoleon and Wellington put on their own battles and successes and failures. Napoleon on st Helena has much time to muse and we get a steady account of the blame he heaps on his generals, on the weather on strategy on others for his ultimate failure at Waterloo. This I found long and repetitive.
Against these weaknesses there is nonetheless Roberts outstanding scholarly and ironic presentation. I particularly like his ability to inject wit and irony into his account of these 2 greats occasionally debunking even our greatest national military General.
July 7, 2018
Napoleon and Wellington are historically joined at the hip because of their epic encounter at Waterloo. Yet other apparent similarities are striking: both were born in the same year (1769), both were born of prominent fathers who died when the boys were in early adolescence, both had four brothers and three sisters, both spoke French as their second language, both were self-taught in military matters, both led their nations (Wellington as prime minister from 1828-30), they even shared two mistresses (though perhaps less remarkably Wellington picked them up after Napoleon’s defeat), and one of Wellington’s brothers even married the sister-in-law of the ex-wife of one of Napoleon’s brothers.
But Andrew Roberts has not set out to offer a dual biography. Rather his purpose is to compare and contrast Napoleon and Wellington especially as their lives and events led up to and followed Waterloo. In particular, he focuses on what the two thought of each other before and after 1815.
Perhaps because of Napoleon’s outsized personality, genius, and accomplishments, historians have been prone to see the contrasts between the two adversaries in high relief. As one put it, “Whereas Napoleon consistently misunderstood and underrated Wellington, Wellington was never in doubt about the genius of Napoleon.”
Roberts comments, “Yet the reality is not nearly so simple. History might not repeat itself, but historians repeat one another, and the myth has grown up of ludicrous Napoleonic over-confidence. This in turn almost for the sake of contrast, has spawned a mirror myth of Wellington’s modesty and near-perfect gentlemanliness, always ready to accord Napoleon the first place in the hierarchy of generalship. It is these two myths that the present work sets out to dispel, for the truth is far less straightforward and much more interesting.” (pp xxxi-xxxii).
To do so, Roberts largely follows Wellington’s career and brings in Napoleon as needed to round out the larger context and to lead up to their confrontation in 1815. I was happy with that choice since I knew less of Wellington and since even summarizing Napoleon’s life would have unbalanced the work. Wellington’s campaign against French forces in Portugal and Spain (1808-13) was especially instructive in understanding his military mind and his approach to Waterloo.
No, Wellington was not always the consummate, self-effacing gentleman. Roberts’s thesis (spoiler alert) is that Wellington did indeed always praise Napoleon publicly for his military prowess since to denigrate the emperor would be to tarnish Wellington’s own reputation as the conqueror of the world’s greatest general. In private, however, Wellington was quite critical of Napoleon’s strategies and tactics especially in the Russian campaign as well as at Waterloo.
Napoleon, on the other hand, expressed considerable appreciation for Wellington and his victories prior to Waterloo. To put himself in a better light following 1815, however, he criticized Wellington and chalked up his victory to dumb luck and to the mistakes of Bonaparte’s own underlings.
And who won history? Europe today more closely resembles Napoleon’s vision of a united continent significantly influenced by a logical, organized Napoleonic legal code (though not under French hegemony) than it resembles Wellington’s aristocratic sensibilities and a legal system based on precedent.
But Andrew Roberts has not set out to offer a dual biography. Rather his purpose is to compare and contrast Napoleon and Wellington especially as their lives and events led up to and followed Waterloo. In particular, he focuses on what the two thought of each other before and after 1815.
Perhaps because of Napoleon’s outsized personality, genius, and accomplishments, historians have been prone to see the contrasts between the two adversaries in high relief. As one put it, “Whereas Napoleon consistently misunderstood and underrated Wellington, Wellington was never in doubt about the genius of Napoleon.”
Roberts comments, “Yet the reality is not nearly so simple. History might not repeat itself, but historians repeat one another, and the myth has grown up of ludicrous Napoleonic over-confidence. This in turn almost for the sake of contrast, has spawned a mirror myth of Wellington’s modesty and near-perfect gentlemanliness, always ready to accord Napoleon the first place in the hierarchy of generalship. It is these two myths that the present work sets out to dispel, for the truth is far less straightforward and much more interesting.” (pp xxxi-xxxii).
To do so, Roberts largely follows Wellington’s career and brings in Napoleon as needed to round out the larger context and to lead up to their confrontation in 1815. I was happy with that choice since I knew less of Wellington and since even summarizing Napoleon’s life would have unbalanced the work. Wellington’s campaign against French forces in Portugal and Spain (1808-13) was especially instructive in understanding his military mind and his approach to Waterloo.
No, Wellington was not always the consummate, self-effacing gentleman. Roberts’s thesis (spoiler alert) is that Wellington did indeed always praise Napoleon publicly for his military prowess since to denigrate the emperor would be to tarnish Wellington’s own reputation as the conqueror of the world’s greatest general. In private, however, Wellington was quite critical of Napoleon’s strategies and tactics especially in the Russian campaign as well as at Waterloo.
Napoleon, on the other hand, expressed considerable appreciation for Wellington and his victories prior to Waterloo. To put himself in a better light following 1815, however, he criticized Wellington and chalked up his victory to dumb luck and to the mistakes of Bonaparte’s own underlings.
And who won history? Europe today more closely resembles Napoleon’s vision of a united continent significantly influenced by a logical, organized Napoleonic legal code (though not under French hegemony) than it resembles Wellington’s aristocratic sensibilities and a legal system based on precedent.
July 12, 2025
A great study into the lives of the era's two greatest generals.
I think this book is well researched, well supported and well argued, but I'd be lying if I called it interesting, Roberts does not have a very gripping or readable way of writing. I'm glad this book wasn't merely a biography of both but I was hoping it would be a study and comparison of their tactics and strategies, whereas it was mostly a comparison of their personalities, up until the Waterloo half of the book, a section which, if we're being honest, is probably too long given that this is aimed at an audience with an already strong grasp of the wars and both commanders.
Another thing I'd like to address is complaints in these reviews that Robert's is trying to glorify Wellington, and that the book is essentially hero worship. To this I disagree completely. I feel like Roberts' main agenda here is fighting the growing number of people that have started calling Wellington 'overrated', while trying to assess his accomplishments in the proper light of someone who was so often at a disadvantage in the war. Roberts is more than willing to be critical of him when he makes overconfident or inaccurate assessments of himself or his adversaries. The reason why Napoleon was not held to the same standard is because 200 years of military history has already elevated Napoleon to unparalleled esteem. It simply wasn't necessary to spend as much time defending him as he had to for Wellington.
Either way, it is still more than worthy as a piece of historical non-fiction, and I will never give that a bad rating. I always trust boring historians.
I think this book is well researched, well supported and well argued, but I'd be lying if I called it interesting, Roberts does not have a very gripping or readable way of writing. I'm glad this book wasn't merely a biography of both but I was hoping it would be a study and comparison of their tactics and strategies, whereas it was mostly a comparison of their personalities, up until the Waterloo half of the book, a section which, if we're being honest, is probably too long given that this is aimed at an audience with an already strong grasp of the wars and both commanders.
Another thing I'd like to address is complaints in these reviews that Robert's is trying to glorify Wellington, and that the book is essentially hero worship. To this I disagree completely. I feel like Roberts' main agenda here is fighting the growing number of people that have started calling Wellington 'overrated', while trying to assess his accomplishments in the proper light of someone who was so often at a disadvantage in the war. Roberts is more than willing to be critical of him when he makes overconfident or inaccurate assessments of himself or his adversaries. The reason why Napoleon was not held to the same standard is because 200 years of military history has already elevated Napoleon to unparalleled esteem. It simply wasn't necessary to spend as much time defending him as he had to for Wellington.
Either way, it is still more than worthy as a piece of historical non-fiction, and I will never give that a bad rating. I always trust boring historians.
October 20, 2017
Andrew Roberts succeeds in telling the complex story of two great men who never actually met with class and clarity. He uses his work to debunk serveral myths of Napoleon and Wellington and the finished product is a book that offers a nice comparison between both men (how were they alike and how were they different), how they viewed each other etc. Roberts takes his time in pointing out that historians often misintepreted the words of both men and relied to heavily on sources that were honestly coloured. Even though Roberts is known to be a great Napoleonfan, he does not let this come in the way in pointing out Napoleon's mistakes, character defects and when Napoleon was unfairly harsh on Wellington. Towards the end it offers a nice insight in the mind of Napoleon on St-Helena as he seems to slip further and further into depression and disillussion with his current faith and how he blamed Wellington for a large part of it. Worth reading!
June 14, 2018
In my mind this book was more of a direct comparison of the moral and ethical values of two individuals who were both very successful battlefield commanders. Much of the book dealt with their personalities and their activities off the field of battle. Only the last few dust ups leading toward Waterloo offered direct comparisons of their actions when facing each other. As to the strategies these two commanders utilized the author presented only brief descriptions. I gave the book four stars in recognition of the research involved. Don't draw on this book to determine who was the greater of the two.
May 14, 2025
Informative, but very slow at times. Would have been a spectacular long essay or research paper, but just feels as if it is stretching the subject matter a bit too thin. Not nearly as masterful as Roberts’ biography of Napoleon, but interesting nonetheless
March 8, 2018
A solid read, well put together, this duel biography does a good job of comparing and contrasting the two great men of this age (ha! two of the great men of their age, rather)
March 9, 2020
main text about waterloo battle
March 12, 2023
It is an interesting perspective and enjoyable read to imagine a relationship that wasn't. Skyhigh I like history as it unfolds this perspective is interesting but may not be detailed enough for some
March 27, 2023
interesting dual biography of two great commanders who faced each other in only one battle: Waterloo. The rest is history
May 26, 2023
Fine, good beginning, boring af in the last half to the point I skipped most of it... Really got the picture about what they thought about it after the first eighty quotes and pencil notations.
February 5, 2016
With schoolboy humour and a jibe at fellow-historians, Andrew Roberts undertakes to dispel myths about Napoleon and Wellington. One could say he sets himself up for the Battle of the Storyline. In some ways it is a wonder there is still interest in the style of warfare of this period. But that drawing of battle lines makes it relevant for today in ways that may not have otherwise been.
With all the twists and turns of alliances throughout the countries of Europe in the past, it seems strange to be considering them now. In reality the story that is still not told here is the one of the ordinary people. Contradictory comments are peppered throughout this work that make much of the partisan efforts in Spain turning world history against Napoleon, but even this is not adequately and convincingly put. After all if we had a definitive answer to the whys of history what point would there be in yet another book covering this well-worn ground?
In some ways the persisting story is the one that places a shadow over all our lives. There is always the threat of someone’s aggression if we are not ever-vigilant against it.
If the figures of those who starved after the war were presented, and the efforts to replant and grow the crops for future generations, then we might have a view worthy our time. But perhaps these are just the conversations the publishers of such books are keeping from us, so that those who have vested interests in controlling world supply and domination of markets can get on with what they are doing behind our backs – in time for their next onslaught.
We might hope not, but can we be sure?
With all the twists and turns of alliances throughout the countries of Europe in the past, it seems strange to be considering them now. In reality the story that is still not told here is the one of the ordinary people. Contradictory comments are peppered throughout this work that make much of the partisan efforts in Spain turning world history against Napoleon, but even this is not adequately and convincingly put. After all if we had a definitive answer to the whys of history what point would there be in yet another book covering this well-worn ground?
In some ways the persisting story is the one that places a shadow over all our lives. There is always the threat of someone’s aggression if we are not ever-vigilant against it.
If the figures of those who starved after the war were presented, and the efforts to replant and grow the crops for future generations, then we might have a view worthy our time. But perhaps these are just the conversations the publishers of such books are keeping from us, so that those who have vested interests in controlling world supply and domination of markets can get on with what they are doing behind our backs – in time for their next onslaught.
We might hope not, but can we be sure?
March 27, 2023
Just a really good, fun history. It's not a military history. Obviously, Roberts talks about the various battles each famous general won, and Waterloo most of all, but it is more about how each saw the other. Roberts draws on voluminous sources, chiefly from those around when both were alive, and especially a wealth of history about the comments, public and private, Wellington and Napoleon made about each other. Roberts' concluding chapter is excellent, summarizing what the book reveals: namely, that Wellington sometimes was much more scathing about Napoleon privately than he ever was publicly, while Napoleon's allegedly dismissive, almost contemptuous attitude toward Wellington is a fiction. One delicious bit comes from the *very end* of the book, however, which was published in 2001. It comes when Roberts talks about how history seems to have swung away from the convincing victory the British outlook had won over the French in the 19th century. He notes the EU shows Napoleon's "Continental system" had emerged. Ha! Brexit has moved the historical needle yet again.
Highly recommended, really fun to read book.
Highly recommended, really fun to read book.
August 28, 2015
Having read his most recent biography of Napoleon at the beginning of this year, I had very high expectations for this book, and whilst it did not entirely disappoint, it took some time for me to become properly invested.
As I have found before, Roberts writes in a way which evokes quality and knowledge, producing well sourced and referenced judgments. Once again he frequently used anecdotes, many of which were entertaining which lighten the text.
However, the discussion of the military pursuits of Napoleon and Wellington whilst detailed, was very dry. Furthermore, as other reviewers have noted, Roberts does at times appear to be biasedly favorable towards Wellington although he is by no means blind to some of his faults.
Overall, a great read which I found made me learn a lot about Wellington's character and reinforced my fascination with Napoleon as a man with many intricacies and contradictions. People fascinated with early modern warfare will really enjoy this book.
(I would give it a rating of 3.5 stars if possible)
As I have found before, Roberts writes in a way which evokes quality and knowledge, producing well sourced and referenced judgments. Once again he frequently used anecdotes, many of which were entertaining which lighten the text.
However, the discussion of the military pursuits of Napoleon and Wellington whilst detailed, was very dry. Furthermore, as other reviewers have noted, Roberts does at times appear to be biasedly favorable towards Wellington although he is by no means blind to some of his faults.
Overall, a great read which I found made me learn a lot about Wellington's character and reinforced my fascination with Napoleon as a man with many intricacies and contradictions. People fascinated with early modern warfare will really enjoy this book.
(I would give it a rating of 3.5 stars if possible)
April 6, 2008
A historical look at the lives of the two men, comparing and contrasting their lives and styles of command, where their lives crossed or very nearly did. Full of things that, with my limited knowledge of the period, I had no idea about (eg: the large amount of Whig support that Napolen had in England). Towards the end of their lives it appears that Wellington became almost obssessed with collecting Napoleon related souveniers (including 2 of his mistresses), while Napoleon grew more and more bitter and blamed everyone but himself for the defeat at Waterloo. Lively and enjoyable history.
October 4, 2010
Well-written dual mini-biography, concentrating on interaction between Napoleon & Wellington. They never met, but appear to have been obsessed with each other. Napoleon comes through as the long range strategic thinker, envisioning a unified Europe, which is only now coming to pass, following the cold war. Wellington appears to be a more traditional, parochial British figure, but of great character. Author points out that Waterloo not far from Brussels, now the "capital" of unified Europe.
August 4, 2011
A nice parallel biography. It not only looks at the lives of both men, but chronicles the thoughts they had about each other. Interesting, but not overwhelmingly exciting. Nicely written work, but kind of pedestrian. One of my biggest complaints is that the author often quoted things in French, but didn't always translate. I don't speak French, so the impact of what he's trying to say is lost.
September 10, 2015
Was an ok book. Not great I wanted to see more about the tactics that were used. However I did find interesting the fact that Wellington protected his lines of communications. It offered insight into napoleon himself his thoughts on the battle, and who he blamed for the loss. He had no shortage of who he blamed. He gave no credit to Wellington and his genius from the peninsula until waterloo.
February 10, 2016
A good look at two of the most important military leaders of the 19th century. Focusing on their one meeting on the field of Waterloo, the author discusses their views of each other's generalship. For the most part, I felt the author tried to be objective, and I learned a great deal about the two men.
March 16, 2009
I'd like to do the opposite of recommending this edition. Don't waste your money. No matter that the actual text of the book is excellent, the binding was so awful it fell to pieces after being read three times. THREE TIMES. Ridiculous.
July 17, 2012
An engaging and often funny account of two great commanders in the age of revolution and war. It is a well balanced and unbiased view of both men's personalities and motivations both on and off the battlefield.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews