How Far from Austerlitz? Napoleon 1805-1815

by Alistair Horne

Daily Telegraph Book of the Year

Genres: History, Military History, Nonfiction, Military Fiction, European History, France, Biography

464 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 1997

About the author

Sir Alistair Allan Horne was an English journalist, biographer and historian of Europe, especially of 19th and 20th century France. He wrote more than 20 books on travel, history, and biography. He won the following awards: Hawthornden Prize, 1963, for The Price of Glory; Yorkshire Post Book of the Year Prize and Wolfson Literary Award, both 1978, both for A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962; French Légion d'Honneur, 1993, for work on French history;and Commander of the British Empire (CBE), 2003.

Reviews

[Philip Allan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have always enjoyed Alistair Horne’s work. He approaches history with the writing style of a born story-teller which makes his books easy and enjoyable to read. In particular, his series of books charting France’s three great clashes with Germany (1870-71, 1914-18 and 1939-40) are particular favourites of mine. On this basis, I approached “How Far From Austerlitz?” with enthusiasm.

The book is a decline and fall narrative. It is a general account of the last ten years of Napoleon’s military career from its zenith in 1805 through to its end on the field of Waterloo. The author concludes that the crushing victory at Austerlitz contained the seeds of its victor’s eventual downfall. This came from a combination of hubris and the imposition of punitive peace agreements on the conquered that fail to guarantee long-term stability. He goes on to identify various potential turning points in history where Napoleon might have chosen a safer path, but his innate belief in his own invincibility made such prudence impossible.

I enjoyed this book, although for me it felt a little rushed. Inevitably in a single volume account covering such a long and turbulent period, the detail will be very thin in places, but I wanted more. The accounts of Austerlitz and Waterloo are reasonable, but much of the military campaigning in between is only covered in the most superficial way. Readers wanting to understand the 1812 invasion of Russia, for example, would do better to look elsewhere. I also found the author’s heavy underscoring of the many obvious parallels with Hitler’s career a little patronising. That said it was still a worthwhile read.

[Dimitri · Rating 4 out of 5]

It goes without saying that Horne tries his hand at Napoléon with his usual elegant writing and walking the battlefields (once the fall of the Iron Curtain made Bohemia accessible) to see for himself the petite nature of the grounds and heights on which the fair sun of Austerlitz once shone. His aptitude for a mild longue durée look at French history births a series of strategic Napoléon - Hitler comparisons that are sometimes in bad taste, but always practical for students of military history working backwards from tank to horse.

The element of hubris is undeniable, with Napoléon slowly losing his edge after 1805, even if the Coalitions against him remained vulnerable to a manœuvre sur les derrières And defeat in detail up to 1815 as they converged in separate tentacles.

L'Albion perfide looms large, not with the Rifles in Spain, but across the sea, through finance and the Royal Navy blockade. Once the Continental Blockade is declared, you can't help but feel it's double work. French Europe did a fine job isolating itself from world commerce, thereby disgruntling its allies.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book to help make sense of War and Peace. For awhile, I was reading it concurrently; then I realized that if I wanted to finish Tolstoy before my 80th birthday, I had to make that a full time committment.

How Far From Austerlitz is a loose historical overview of Napoleon from 1805 to 1815, though the author really stops caring after the battle of Austerlitz in 1805. So really, the full title of this book should be: How Far From Austerlitz?: Napoleon 1805 to I Don't Care.

This book was like eating vanilla pudding. The total whatever experience of life. I didn't really like it, I didn't really hate it, but it got me interested in Napoleon (much as pudding makes you interested in other, better deserts, such as Drumsticks, with the chocolate at the end of the cone, which is among the great things in life, the list going something like this: (1) sex; (2) chocolate at bottom of cone; (3) representative democracy; (4)the Lonesome Dove miniseries).

At the start of the book, there is a pretty good overview of the setting of the Napoleonic Wars, which comes in helpful if your only knowledge of Napoleon comes from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure or the numerous commercials making fun of Napoleon's small stature/penis. Alistair Horne sets the stage with descriptions of England's continental army as well as France's grand armee. There follows a detailed description of the battle of Austerlitz, which is famously told in War and Peace. Indeed, Horne quotes extensively from War and Peace, substituting Tolstoy's narrative for his own.

After Austerlitz, Horne gives a rushed retelling of the signature moments on the way to Waterloo: Ulm, Jena, Vienna, Borodino, Moscow, Friedland, Leipzig, the 100 Days, etc. The best thing that can be said about this book was that it gives the overall context of the last stages of Napoleon's reign over Europe, and as previously noted, got me incredibly excited to find some comprehensive books on the subject. For instance, the author tantalizingly states, almost offhand, that Napoleon's slaughter of Mameluke prisoners at Jaffa was a result of his learning about Josephine's affair. Really? I could read an entire book about that. And I plan to.

I could quibble with the hurried nature of the last portion of the book. Or the shoddy maps. Or the undelineated descriptions of the battles (other than Austerlitz). Or the undefinable characters (how can a book with Napoleon, Murat, Kutuzov, and Wellington be boring? Well...). Or the incomprehensible description of Waterloo. Or the grossly distorted casualty figures (the numbers of killed and wounded Horne throws around exceed World War II battles...I'm going to need some verification here). But I understand that Horne wasn't looking to do these things. I guess I could say that he reached the modest goal he set for himself.

I will quibble with the insufferable and relentless Hitler analogies. It's as though Horne has to rationalize his writing of a Napoleon book by tying it into Hitler. The comparisons have all the depth of a five-paragraph theme written by an Arizona State freshman.

Anyway, if I learned anything, it's that Napoleon has to be the most fascinating character in all of human history. I'm just throwing that out there. At one time, Napoleon held more lives, nations, destinies, in his palm, than any other person who ever lived. Then, like Icarus flying too close to the sun, he plummeted to St. Helena and died of stomach cancer. His story is one of adventure, derring-do, sex, lust, betrayal, courage, murder, war, escape, good men, bad men, beautiful women, and clubbed feet. It's an incredible tale, and I begin my search to find the best tellers.

[happy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mr. Horne has given the reader an excellent introduction to Napoleon and his campaigns. While giving the reader a brief overview on how Napoleon got to 1805, the main storyline begins with a discussion of the strategic situation in 1805. Napoleon is in northwest France with his Army waiting for his Navy to secure the English Channel long enough to get his army across. Even before Trafalgar make his invasion impossible, he moves his army east where enemies are gathering. With remarkable speed he his moves his army from France to what is now the Czech Republic and defeats a much larger force of Russians and Austrians at Austerlitz. This battle is considered Napoleon’s masterpiece and has become a textbook example of how to beat a coalition army.

In discussing Napoleon’s army, Mr. Horne does a good job of illuminating some to the advances he made to the organization of his army, mainly organizing into self-contained Corps. This increased its flexibility and eased some of the supply and movement problems inherent in large armies of that era. After his victory at Austerlitz and the next year an Jena, Mr. Horne states that Napoleon never again gained such overwhelming victories. Napoleon’s battles became near run things and eventually starting with victories and eventually his defeats at Leipzig and Waterloo. Mr. Horne also looks at the disaster that was Russia. The author also comments about the ablily of Napoleon to raise large armies, 100,000 to 300,000 men, even after defeats.

In addition to the battles, the author also looks and Napoleon’s diplomacy and it failures. These failures include harsh peace terms with Austria, which almost invited Austria to rebuild her armies and fight him again. Another failure Mr. Horne looks at is his European Economic system that attempted to starve Britain into submission by denying her European markets.

Mr. Horne gives us a glimpse of his personal life. His relationship with his first wife is discussed, both his infatuation/love for her and his distress when he finds out she has not been faithful. The author discusses the decision to divorce Josephine and his marriage to Marie Louise, in hopes of fathering an heir. His mistresses are also discussed esp Marie Walewska.

I had a couple of quibbles with the narrative. Mr. Horne is constantly comparing Napoleon to Hitler; both in his decision to invade Russia and his desire of dominate Contental Europe. For me at least it got to be a little much. Also in discussing Austerlitz and the Invasion of Russia, Mr. Horne often quotes from Tolstoy’s War and Peace. While beautifully written, I’m not sure it belongs in a history.

All in all this a very readable, fascinating look at Napoleon and his battles – a definite 4+ star read.

[Mastersonmcvoidson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had mixed feelings with Mr. Horne's attempt to cover the age of Napoleon from what is considered the height of Napoleon's military performance and power in 1805 to his eventual downfall in 1815.

While the book's title claims to cover Napoleon from 1805 to 1815 the first chapter of the book gives a very brief rundown of Napoleon's career before 1805 and his rise to power, the coverage of these events is not detailed at all but it's enough to provide at least some context so the events in 1805 and onward can be better understood. What follows are brief descriptions of France under Napoleon's early rule, the situation of the coalitions that formed against Napoleon with a focus on the political and military situation in Britain in particular as well as a very brief, if simplified overview of the battle tactics and the situation of Napoleon's Grande Armee.

After these introduction chapters Horne proceeds to cover the military situation in 1805, starting with Napoleon's army at Boulogne and his early plans for the invasion of Britain. After that the main attention is focused on the Third Coalition.

Some well-known highlights such as the Ulm Campaign and Napoleon's advance into the Austrian Empire before Austerlitz are covered with the main focus given to the Battle of Austerlitz. The part covering Austerlitz is the most detailed part of the book, however it is not necessarily in-depth and doesn't go into a blow-by-blow account that covers every little movement in the battle, which is understandable. Regardless, considerable attention is given to the battle and while the description of Austerlitz is not necessarily original it's readable and easy to understand.

After 1805 the book feels more and more rushed as the narrative goes on with details becoming more scarce and the events simplified. Some descriptions of famous battles such as Jena, Wagram, Friedland, Waterloo, Leipzig and Borodino are briefly put forward but feel extremely rushed and cover some parts of the battles but completely ignore others, making it feel as if Horne started to write about the battles but gave up on it and left it unfinished. The fact that they're unfinished leads to poor, incomprehensible and simplified descriptions which accomplish little.

By the end the book covers the 100 Days Campaign and an epilogue summarising Horne's thesis and the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars as well as giving some brief insight into the lives of some personalities such as the Duke of Wellington, Napoleon's marshals, Napoleon's brothers and some other figures after the Napoleonic Wars had ended.

The narrative goes into almost no detail and focuses more on personalities and sidetracks into some niche, minor events rather than covering the actual history of the Napoleonic Wars. As such many things are simplified, glossed over or simply excluded. This leads to gaps in the narrative and some inaccuracies. On the topic of inaccuracies several Napoleonic myths are repeated and some strange slip ups appear such as the Peace of Amiens being in 1801 rather than 1802, Napoleon's height, Trafalgar crippling Napoleon's fleet forever etc.

Some statistics appear such as the size of the Royal Navy, battle casualties, random stats covering some stuff on the side such as the amount of money Britain spent on the Coalition or how many British ships were in Russian ports before Napoleon's invasion of Russia. While it's interesting to see Horne gives no analysis of numbers at all, leaving much suspicion on where the statistics actually came from and why they're used.

Some annoyances through the narrative which I noticed include the sloppy, undetailed maps for battles and campaigns, the many trivial Napoleon-Hitler comparisons which lack depth and feel like they're made for the sake of being made, becoming increasingly frequent after the chapters covering the Invasion of Russia. Horne quotes from Tolstoy's ''War and Peace'' several times through the narrative and while the quotes are useful to create the atmosphere ''War and Peace'' is a novel and not a factual history book. While it seems that Horne didn't rely too heavily on it as a source I wasn't comfortable with the idea of the novel being cited as factual.

With all this said the book is not necessarily bad. Horne has an excellent writing style that makes the book easy and enjoyable to read even when encountering the annoyances and inaccuracies mentioned above. While the book lacks detail and is far from being in depth it can serve as a decent introduction for readers who have not read much on the Napoleonic Wars beforehand, though it's far from the best source. Another thing worth mentioning is that some niche and interesting events are covered, while several are shrouded in myth it's interesting and enjoyable to read on some tidbits are often not found in other books.

In conclusion: A very readable, interesting history ruined by poor accuracy and a severe lack of detail.

Final Rating: 5/10

[Sean Chick · Rating 2 out of 5]

The part on Austerlitz is an unoriginal, but well written recounting of the famous battle. The rest is a dull and shallow recounting of the Napoleonic Wars. The comparsions to Hitler are mostly trivial, and are of course now stock among British historians. If they really want to find a man like Napoleon, they would have to compare him to Cromwell, but that would be too close to home. In fact that is the trouble with British historians writing about Napoleon. They demonize and demean him, compare him to utterly evil men, and mock him as a warmonger. In the same breath they forget Cromwell, British expansionism, and warmongering. I'm not saying Napoleon was right, because as Spain showed, he was often a nasty man. What I am saying is, I'm tired of British and French historians whitewashing the era by ignoring the less savory actions of their respective nations.

France and Britain were involved in a struggle that touches on nationalistic feelings in both countries. When you read Horne, you'll see the entire catalogue of British virtues paraded before you, but barely a mention of the rigid class system, worker exploitation, numerous violations of neutrality, and refusal to sit down with Bonaparte. In fact, all this is excused as the lesser of evils when fighting the "Corsican ogre." It is almost worthy of British propaganda of the era. Also, the idea that Trafagar doomed Napoleon, while not implausible, seems just a little too convenient to the British Horne, and violates his thesis that Napoleon destroyed himself. As the book proves, the British are very much like Wellington when it comes to Napoleon. They are utterly fascinated and repulsed by him, but more importantly, annoyed that he captures the imagination in a way no Englishmen ever has. Of course, the British have never quite understood the importance of the French Revolution and how it set the world ablaze so go figure.

['Aussie Rick' · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this account of Napoleon and I still think that Alistair Horne is one of the best historical writers on French history around today. The book's narrative flowed along well and it was a pleasure to read, I really did not notice the mistakes mentioned and in total they are only minor. Take the time to sit down and read this book, its worth it.

[Catherine Giangreco · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great subject, I learned a lot about the Napolenic era. I did not like this writers style, he assumes you already know a lot about European history and that you also speak French. It took me a very long time to finish because I kept getting fed up with the author.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an easy to read history of Napoleon's descent from the peak of his success, at the battle of Austerlitz, to his final defeat at Waterloo. The author notes a key lesson of such a study (page xxvi):

". . .it is the old repeated maxim of conquest leading only to further conquest; dictators and nations can win striking victories, but still lose wars--and the peace. Then follows the exhaustion, failure, or death of the dynamic leader, and everything collapses. Wellington understood. 'A conqueror, like a cannon ball,' he observed, 'must go on; if he rebounds, his career is over.' Napoleon and Hitler never perceived this. . . ."

The book begins with a brief description of Napoleon's rise. Then, campaigns from 1805 to 1815 are described. A nice aspect of this book is a series of useful maps, to help make sense of the key battles over time.

The procession of battles begins with major Napoleonic victories at Ulm and Austerlitz. The book does a nice job of explaining how the combination of Napoleon's skills and the skills of some of his key commanders simply was were too much for such inferior commanders as General Mack on the opposing side. Both battles were smashing victories for the French, and may have represented the high water mark of their success on the battlefield.

In 1805--the year of Ulm and Austerlitz--the naval battle at Trafalgar also occurred, and that forever ended any hope of victory at sea. There were other victories to come, but by the time of the win at Wagram (in 1809), these were becoming "hairsbreadth Harry" victories, where the French won but did not destroy the enemy--and led to heavy French casualties. Thereafter, the poor results for France in Spain and the disastrous result of the doomed Russian invasion foreshadowed the ultimate defeat of Napoleon.

Leipzig in 1814 and Waterloo in 1815 ended the Napoleonic era. Overreach. As Horne notes (page 375): "Yet even if Waterloo had been won by Napoleon, it would almost certainly, in view of the overwhelming forces closing in on him, have been followed sooner or later by the ultimate defeat." A lesson that is difficult for major powers to learn. There comes a time when continued efforts at even greater triumphs may lead to ultimate defeat.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

"How Far From Austerlitz?: 1805-1815" by title covers the Napoleanic Wars just from the Battle of Austerlitz through the Battle of Waterloo. This is somewhat misleading as the period prior to that is covered just not as in depth. I really liked the book and found it hard to put down. It contains a wealth of information on a myriad of Napolean related subjects. Of personal interest to me was the sacrifice made by Marie Walewski of Poland who prostituted herself to Napoleon to save her country, Poland, and failed (exactly as was done by Cleopatra with Caesar to save Egypt and failed). The book is extremely readable although I have two very minor complaints. First, there are several phrases and terms given in French. I do not speak or read French and had to get a translation from the internet. A trasnlation in the book, perhaps in footnote, would have been nice. Second, there are constant references to Hitler. I could understand a book about Hitler referring to his repeating the same mistakes as Napoleon but saw no reason to mention Hitler over and over again in a book about Napolean. However, these are my minor irritations and probably not of concern to other readers.

[Farhad Zaker · Rating 2 out of 5]

I started this book with the promise of more in depth analysis on the downfall of Napoleon, but what I found instead was a summarized narration of Napoleon’s campaigns, annoying comparisons to Hitler and sporadic appraisal of British nation. It got to a point where I said to myself, the author should be British !, and it turned out he is! It is only true, that Napoleon was a detriment to the order in Europe in the end of the 18th century, but drawing an analogy with Hitler in any way, shape or form, is both out of scope and irrelevant. Imagine being deep in the events of the early 19th century, to be thrown into the mid 20th century by a tasteless analogy between the main character (who was not certainly a saint) and a genocidal maniac.
That being said, I enjoyed the author’s describing Waterloo, and a short summary of the characters at the epilogue.
Personally, I think this was not the book for me. Before this, I had read Chandler’s campaigns of napoleon, which is far more detailed and fair in describing the period. This book did not fulfill my expectations, which was to provide a political view of the eventual failure after Austerlitz. Furthermore, I felt this book is written for an audience who is not familiar with the complex web of politics, both on the national and the international level. The author insists that France (i.e. people) are tired of Napoleon and war, while paradoxically reporting that the same people and country furnished him with a new army in 1815 etc. In summary, I was not a fan of dismissive (and anglocentric) tone by which the author had tried to simplify and summarize the events.
I have yet to find a compact book with tolerable bias, who is successful in narrating the years of 1805-15 and the politics that played the downfall of the one of the most important characters of this age. But for the time being, I certainly do not recommend this book.

[Rob M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unsurprisingly, given the author is a famous military historian (and the title refers to a famous battle), this book is a military history of Napoleon's wars and not really a general history of Napoleonic France (or, indeed, a biography of Napoleon himself).

As a history of the Napoleonic wars, the book is thrilling. As the premier English historian of France, Alistair Horne brings both passionate intimacy and critical distance to his work, as required. Sometimes we feel as if we're travelling ourselves in the train the Grand Armée, at other times we feel as though we're watching events unfold from London or Vienna. The book certainly lives up to its title - with a wonderful blow-by-blow narration of the Battle of Austerlitz itself.

What's missing is the general sense of the social changes being brought about in France and across Europe in the aftermath of the French Revolution. Napoleon the general is ever present, Napoleon the reformer sidelined. We learn more about Napoleon's love interests than his legal reforms, more about his battlefield commanders than his political supporters.

I enjoyed the book, but am still looking to get my hands on a proper social history of Napoleonic Europe in the style of Christopher Hill's histories of the English Civil War.

[Ami Nosh · Rating 5 out of 5]

I admit, this was not a book that was written for me. This is a book for the legitimate scholar of war strategy and Napoleonic politics. It goes through the fine points of battle, political alliances, and linear timeline of Europe ranging from approximately 1800-1815. It draws parallels and anecdotes based on the writings of Tolstoy, and references to World Wars I and II.

Going into this, I have very little knowledge about war history. As such, I admit that many, many references and fine points were beyond my appreciation. Nonetheless, I would recommend this book to anyone that is interested in the subject. The history, references, maps, paintings, and rich descriptions of not just battle but politics and culture are unparalleled.

For the individual looking for an excellent read on the fall of Napoleon and the lasting social and political results of his reign, I could not recommend a better book. It's not intended for the history novice, though, like me, if you are a novice, there is plenty to learn. For the lover of war history and tactics looking for a deep dive, this would be an incredible read.

[Robert Boissy · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book turned out to be a nice survey through the Napoleonic battles with just enough maps and just enough introduction of military personnel to satisfy my curiosity. Some treatment of personal and social lives of the main characters in the drama, but not overly so. The tone is that of a historian who could easily have gone down into all kinds of detail, but held back to show the amateurs among us what we ought to know. There is some opinion and speculation, though not as much as I might have expected from a book like this. In any case, a reasonable read. At one point I thought we were jumping around in time a bit, but that paved out to a more chronological approach before long.

[Craig · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thoroughly enjoyed this book

It was a very well written account of the Napoleonic era. I recommend it highly to anyone who wants to know what happened during that period. There are more in depth accounts that can than be read if you want to know any part of this era in greater detail.

[Matt Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This won't satisfy the hard core military historian, and leaves a great deal out of the timeline. That being said, it is a great overview of the rise and fall of the 'Corsican Ogre'. The tales of Napoleon's Marshals was a great addition. Well worth a read.

[Matthew Warchal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this a long time ago and just found my copy!

[Bill FromPA · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview of Napoleon's career for those interested in, but not obsessed by the subject. It concentrates on the years of Empire, but goes into more detail on some periods than others within that span. A great deal of time is spent on Austerlitz and, secondarily, Wagram, both instances of Bonaparte's tactical brilliance and daring. Horne seems less engaged by Napoleon's failures or less inspired battles: the Russian campaign of 1812 is given overly brief treatment, with barely any discussion of the battle of Borodino or occupation of Moscow, a no mention at all of the atking of Smolensk. Horne only partially covers historic material treated in War and Peace, which he obviously admires; he does not engage with Tolstoy's ideas about history and historians.

[Red Fox]

Modern view of the impact of Napoleon on world affairs. - he had an extraordinary impact on people, inspired loyalty, had a superhuman reserve of energy, powers of concentration, and favored action over introspection.

Napoleon's defeat of Prussia had destroyed a feudal army, but launched a national one, so unintended consequences for the French in the long run.

The lesson about coalitions is that they are unwieldy, but they often win in the end.

[Betsy · Rating 4 out of 5]

An entertaining, if somewhat tongue-in-cheek look, at the great and not so great years of Napoleon's empire. The man I found most intriguing was Talleyrand. What a manipulator--he even managed to improve France's position after Waterloo!

The battles are discussed, but this book is more about the people and the times--and the consequences of that decade on world history. To go from the heady victory of Austerlitz to the finality of Waterloo, France paid a high price for its short flash of glory.

[Iain · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book, both engaging to read, entertaining and educational as well. The sort of book that makes you seek other books by the same author, even if the topics how little or no interest to you now.

An outstanding overview of Napoleon's military and civilian career. At times it is scant on detail, notably during the Waterloo campaign, but given the span, the swept that the book covers, such can be forgiven.

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent narrative, as is usual with Mr. Horne's books. The Price of Glory and To Lose A Battle are two of my all-time favorite military history books. I gave this 4 stars, though, because the maps, at least in the edition I read, just stink! They are not detailed enough, and they often leave out features/places that Mr. Horne mentions in his narrative. To make matters worse, they usually were stuck 20-30 pages removed from where they needed to be! Otherwise, excellent book!

[Amir Dov · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nice peak into one of the most interesting characters in history. Very informative and interesting, especially for ones interested in Napoleon's personality and European politics of his time. The downside for me was the over detailed description of few specific battles, which I found too long and a bit boring, But on the other hand I guess this should be expected from a biography that focus on a period of only 10 years.

[Claire Binkley · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked seeing the names my instructors discussed, but I felt overall I do not have a strong enough background in French/international history to really understand the subtleties of exactly what happened there.

I sense there's still myriads of things I could still glean from this book, but I must stop reading it now and change to something I understand better.

[Frederic · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books I have read on Napoléon, focused on the last ten years of his reign. The Battle of Austerlitz (1805) is widely considered Napoléon's greatest battle, as his tactics were brilliant. Things went downhill from there.until his 1815 defeat at Waterloo and second abdication.

[Douglas Berry · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fine overview of Napoleon's career, reaching from his height of success to final exile and death. Highly recommended for anyone curious about one of the men who shaped modern Europe, but don't want to get bogged down in the muntains of information we have about the Napoleonic Age.

[Morleymor · Rating 5 out of 5]

A real pleasure to re-read this masterpiece. Greatness carries the seeds of its own demise.

[Alaric Longward · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoroughly enjoyable book, Alistair's keen arguments on the peak of Napoleon's power being Austerlitz, gives new light to some of his later decisions and triumphs.

[Duzzlebrarian]

So far, I have only read the introduction of this book - but already it has grabbed me!