What do you think?
Rate this book
The War of Wars: The Great European Conflict 1793 - 1815
At the turn of the 18th century the greatest nations in Europe, separated by only 21 miles of water, offered history two distinct ideals that would shape the new century: England was a democratic, constitutional monarchy; while France had suffered the cataclysm of Revolution which ripped the absolute King from the throne and replaced him with the Mob. Out of this emerged, Napoleon Bonaparte, commander of the revolutionary army, who would conquer Italy and Egypt before returning to Paris to proclaim himself Emperor. As Napoleon gained power in France, the world stood on the brink of total war. By 1805 the General Napoleon was making plans to cross the channel and invade England. The subsequent drama reaches from the frozen plains surrounding Moscow to the Caribbean waters, from the debating chamber of the Parliament to the muddy fields of Waterloo. The Great French Wars (1793-1815) can truly be called the first global war; and also the first conflict driven by industrial might. Mostly, it was a battle between commanders that history will never forget; as Napoleon's revolutionary guard ravaged Europe, men like the Duke of Wellington, Horatio Nelson, and their allies, stopped Napoleon's complete domination of the continent.
832 pages, Hardcover
First published October 26, 2006
54 people are currently reading
806 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
April 17, 2015
I call myself a history lover, so it is with some embarrassment that I must admit how little I know about one of history’s greatest actors: Napoleon Bonaparte. A quick rundown on my mental file on the diminutive conqueror. He has a very large tomb in Les Invalides, which I visited during college but could not enjoy because I spoke zero French. I once watched part of a miniseries about Napoleon and his wife, Josephine. Their relationship makes my marriage look excellent! I also read the first installment of a planned multi-volume biography, but was so disenchanted with the author’s pedantic prose that I never reached for the second book. But based on Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, he seems like a pretty chill guy.
Whenever I feel at a deficit regarding a historical topic, my remedy is to find the biggest book available and read that. This is a very unscientific way of doing things, but time is always slipping away, and this is a mode of catching up. Robert Harvey’s The War of Wars, covering the Napoleonic Wars from 1789 to 1815 leapt out at me as exactly what I was looking for. It was, indeed, impossible to miss, for it is roughly the size and weight of a brick. It is an imposing, 926-page literary edifice. (That is 926 pages of text, so we’re talking War and Peace levels of verbosity). If a mugger had come up to me on the subway and tried to steal this book away, I could have easily beat him over the head with it, thereby forcing his submission. Fortunately, that did not happen in this case.
Harvey uses those 926 pages to tell a big story. He starts with the French Revolution and ends at Waterloo. In between, a few things happened. There were battles, many of them epic, at Austerlitz and Borodino and Cadiz and Dresden and – well, you see what I’m doing here. There is a battle for almost every letter in the alphabet. And that’s just on land. Upon the water you have the Glorious First of June, the battle of Cape St. Vincent, the Nile, Copenhagen, and – of course – Trafalgar. There is also sex, just in case you are wondering what to read while George R.R. Martin labors away on the next installment of A Song of Ice and Fire. There is Napoleon’s tempestuous relationship with Josephine; Josephine’s many affairs; and even Admiral Nelson’s open cuckoldry of his friend, Sir William Hamilton.
Harvey chooses to tell this story in true narrative fashion. There is no analysis of events. There is no quibbling over sources. There is no hemming and hawing over what actually occurred verses what might have occurred verses pure mythology. He chooses the best story and he tells it. This is a lot like the Napoleonic version of Shelby Foote’s American Civil War trilogy, right down to the utter lack of source notes.
I can’t really complain too much about this approach. It is a hell of a lot of fun to read. For a person, like myself, just embarking on a subject, this is the best kind of book. It kept my attention, introduced me to the important players, and kept me flipping pages. Later on, once I’ve got a taste for it, then I can start worrying about the academic debates. Now, it is enough that I get a little blood and thunder (and adulterous affairs!).
Throughout, the emphasis is always on storytelling. Take, for instance, the battle of Trafalgar, which Harvey recounts in heated, credulous prose, especially the death pageant of his hero, Nelson:
Between the massive bloodletting, Harvey finds time to recount the gentler pursuits of the generals and admirals who ruled this era. For instance:
(Reviewers Note: No, I’m not sure what that description means. Yes, I did attempt to find out).
Even with close to a thousand pages, there is not space for everything. There are tradeoffs. Harvey is clearly more interested in the sea than the land. Thus, more attention is given to naval battles than land battles. He devotes an entire chapter to the raider Lord Cochrane, while giving a sentence to the Battle of Ulm.
There is also the old forest-verses-the-trees conundrum. Here, Harvey’s story is so pointillist and character driven that I lost sight of the overall geopolitical situation. The skirmishes and battles sort of bleed (pun: intended) into each other, without separation or explanation.
Furthermore, in presenting a seamless narrative, unencumbered with footnotes or endnotes, there is no way to verify the sources Harvey used in his interpretation. I am a rank amateur when it comes to the Napoleonic Wars. I’ve admitted as much already. But certain facts struck me as questionable. One example: the Battle of Marengo. Harvey states that at Marengo (which I’d never heard of), “[s]ome 6,000 Austrians were killed.” Once again, I don’t know the Napoleonic Wars from a basket of rabies-stricken albino squirrels. But I do know some history generally. That’s more fatalities than the bloodiest day of the American Civil War at Antietam. It’s almost as many fatalities as the combined three-day total at Gettysburg. It is higher than the fatalities suffered by the Allies on D-Day. I’ve read books by Dave Grossman and SLA Marshall regarding the correlation between fire-rates and training. I know that in 1800, these were levee armies using inaccurate smoothbore muskets that fired one or two or three shots per minutes and which emitted a cloud of smoke that hung over the battlefield like a veil. With all this in mind, I doubt that figure. Of course, I can’t check where Harvey got it, since there are no source notes.
It’s also clear, even to a Napoleonic newbie, that Harvey has some strong pro-British biases. He swoons at British seamen, and is constantly degrading Napoleon. At one point, in talking about France’s Revolutionary Armies, he states that there were any number of more talented generals than Napoleon. I doubt that – if they were as talented as Napoleon, they would have been Napoleon. Harvey comes close to referring to Napoleon as a monster – holding out his treatment of the Mameluk in Egypt – conveniently forgetting that the British Empire did not hold sway over the world by handing out kind words and butterscotch candies. He is dismissive of Napoleon’s political prowess and his famous code of laws, without ever really explaining why this is being dismissed.
These downsides are always going to be the downsides of any history book of this type. Its faults are the very things that make it immensely readable and digestible. And a bit exhausting.
Whenever I feel at a deficit regarding a historical topic, my remedy is to find the biggest book available and read that. This is a very unscientific way of doing things, but time is always slipping away, and this is a mode of catching up. Robert Harvey’s The War of Wars, covering the Napoleonic Wars from 1789 to 1815 leapt out at me as exactly what I was looking for. It was, indeed, impossible to miss, for it is roughly the size and weight of a brick. It is an imposing, 926-page literary edifice. (That is 926 pages of text, so we’re talking War and Peace levels of verbosity). If a mugger had come up to me on the subway and tried to steal this book away, I could have easily beat him over the head with it, thereby forcing his submission. Fortunately, that did not happen in this case.
Harvey uses those 926 pages to tell a big story. He starts with the French Revolution and ends at Waterloo. In between, a few things happened. There were battles, many of them epic, at Austerlitz and Borodino and Cadiz and Dresden and – well, you see what I’m doing here. There is a battle for almost every letter in the alphabet. And that’s just on land. Upon the water you have the Glorious First of June, the battle of Cape St. Vincent, the Nile, Copenhagen, and – of course – Trafalgar. There is also sex, just in case you are wondering what to read while George R.R. Martin labors away on the next installment of A Song of Ice and Fire. There is Napoleon’s tempestuous relationship with Josephine; Josephine’s many affairs; and even Admiral Nelson’s open cuckoldry of his friend, Sir William Hamilton.
Harvey chooses to tell this story in true narrative fashion. There is no analysis of events. There is no quibbling over sources. There is no hemming and hawing over what actually occurred verses what might have occurred verses pure mythology. He chooses the best story and he tells it. This is a lot like the Napoleonic version of Shelby Foote’s American Civil War trilogy, right down to the utter lack of source notes.
I can’t really complain too much about this approach. It is a hell of a lot of fun to read. For a person, like myself, just embarking on a subject, this is the best kind of book. It kept my attention, introduced me to the important players, and kept me flipping pages. Later on, once I’ve got a taste for it, then I can start worrying about the academic debates. Now, it is enough that I get a little blood and thunder (and adulterous affairs!).
Throughout, the emphasis is always on storytelling. Take, for instance, the battle of Trafalgar, which Harvey recounts in heated, credulous prose, especially the death pageant of his hero, Nelson:
Aboard the Victory, the long, heroic, pathetic and tragic tableau of Nelson’s death was unfolding. When the ship’s surgeon reached his side, Nelson told him, “I am mortally wounded. You can do nothing for me Beatty. I have but a short time to live.” Beatty prodded the wound with his finger and realized his admiral was right. He was running a high temperature and desperately thirsty. “Drink, drink, fire, fire” he kept repeating and was given lemonade, water and wine. He asked repeatedly for Hardy. The captain came after an hour during a lull in the fighting. “Well, hardy, how goes the day with us?” Nelson asked. Hardy replied that twelve or fourteen ships had surrendered. “I hope none of our ships have struck, Hardy?”
“No, my Lord, there is no fear of that.”
“I am a dead man, Hardy,” the admiral replied. Hardy returned to his duties and Nelson turned back to the doctor: “All pain and motion behind my breast is gone and you know I am gone.” Beatty concurred. “God be praised. I have done my duty,” breathed Nelson.
Between the massive bloodletting, Harvey finds time to recount the gentler pursuits of the generals and admirals who ruled this era. For instance:
[Napoleon] was romantically besotted with his wife, to whom he wrote a letter every day, begging her to join him. But she was otherwise engaged: she had taken a lover, Hippolyte Charles, a small but dashing hussar addicted to drinking and gambling, the polar opposite of the intense, self-disciplined Napoleon. The young general ordered his two most faithful friends, Androche Junot and Joachim Murat, to bring her to him. Of the first, he wrote crudely: “You must return with Junot, do you hear, my adorable one, he will see you, he will breathe the air of your shrine. Perhaps you will even allow him the unique favor of a kiss on your cheek…A kiss on your heart, and then another a little lower, much much lower.” He also remarked that she had “the prettiest little vagina in the world, the Three Isles of Martinique were there.”
(Reviewers Note: No, I’m not sure what that description means. Yes, I did attempt to find out).
Even with close to a thousand pages, there is not space for everything. There are tradeoffs. Harvey is clearly more interested in the sea than the land. Thus, more attention is given to naval battles than land battles. He devotes an entire chapter to the raider Lord Cochrane, while giving a sentence to the Battle of Ulm.
There is also the old forest-verses-the-trees conundrum. Here, Harvey’s story is so pointillist and character driven that I lost sight of the overall geopolitical situation. The skirmishes and battles sort of bleed (pun: intended) into each other, without separation or explanation.
Furthermore, in presenting a seamless narrative, unencumbered with footnotes or endnotes, there is no way to verify the sources Harvey used in his interpretation. I am a rank amateur when it comes to the Napoleonic Wars. I’ve admitted as much already. But certain facts struck me as questionable. One example: the Battle of Marengo. Harvey states that at Marengo (which I’d never heard of), “[s]ome 6,000 Austrians were killed.” Once again, I don’t know the Napoleonic Wars from a basket of rabies-stricken albino squirrels. But I do know some history generally. That’s more fatalities than the bloodiest day of the American Civil War at Antietam. It’s almost as many fatalities as the combined three-day total at Gettysburg. It is higher than the fatalities suffered by the Allies on D-Day. I’ve read books by Dave Grossman and SLA Marshall regarding the correlation between fire-rates and training. I know that in 1800, these were levee armies using inaccurate smoothbore muskets that fired one or two or three shots per minutes and which emitted a cloud of smoke that hung over the battlefield like a veil. With all this in mind, I doubt that figure. Of course, I can’t check where Harvey got it, since there are no source notes.
It’s also clear, even to a Napoleonic newbie, that Harvey has some strong pro-British biases. He swoons at British seamen, and is constantly degrading Napoleon. At one point, in talking about France’s Revolutionary Armies, he states that there were any number of more talented generals than Napoleon. I doubt that – if they were as talented as Napoleon, they would have been Napoleon. Harvey comes close to referring to Napoleon as a monster – holding out his treatment of the Mameluk in Egypt – conveniently forgetting that the British Empire did not hold sway over the world by handing out kind words and butterscotch candies. He is dismissive of Napoleon’s political prowess and his famous code of laws, without ever really explaining why this is being dismissed.
These downsides are always going to be the downsides of any history book of this type. Its faults are the very things that make it immensely readable and digestible. And a bit exhausting.
February 17, 2016
Catastrophic ! Although written in a very agreable style this book is full of incredible errors. To list just a few :
According to Mr Harvey :
Napoleon I used Baron Haussman to reshape Paris (it was his nephew Napoleon III that did it, 50 years later)
The king of Prussia is repeatedly referred to as 'The Kaiser' , (His son Wilhelm will only acquire this title - which means emperor in german - in 1871)
On the isle of Hispaniola, Haiti is located in the east and Santo Domingo in the west (it is actually the opposite)
The capital of Martinique is Port Royal (It is actually Fort-de-France ; Port Royal was the former capital of Jamaica before being destroyed by an earthquake in 1692).
etc, etc
Also several characters are described in completely opposite ways in different pages such as Gen Cornwallis or king Georges III (competent, efficient and a few pages later incompetent and useless).
Names are very often mispelled.
Coming from an Oxford graduate and a former MP one can only be dismayed by the poor quality of this book
According to Mr Harvey :
Napoleon I used Baron Haussman to reshape Paris (it was his nephew Napoleon III that did it, 50 years later)
The king of Prussia is repeatedly referred to as 'The Kaiser' , (His son Wilhelm will only acquire this title - which means emperor in german - in 1871)
On the isle of Hispaniola, Haiti is located in the east and Santo Domingo in the west (it is actually the opposite)
The capital of Martinique is Port Royal (It is actually Fort-de-France ; Port Royal was the former capital of Jamaica before being destroyed by an earthquake in 1692).
etc, etc
Also several characters are described in completely opposite ways in different pages such as Gen Cornwallis or king Georges III (competent, efficient and a few pages later incompetent and useless).
Names are very often mispelled.
Coming from an Oxford graduate and a former MP one can only be dismayed by the poor quality of this book
May 23, 2022
It was the Great War before 1914, a two-decade long conflict with only a brief period of peace reminiscent of the Peloponnesian War of Ancient Greece. The War of Wars: The Epic Struggle Between Britain and France 1793-1815 by Robert Harvey relates the military and political history and the men who shaped the period on land, sea, and in the halls of power.
Harvey doesn’t stray from historical conscious by having Napoleon as the most prominent historical actor that he follows throughout his historical survey, but this is not the mythologized Napoleon but the one that was the politically and diplomatically inept military dictator of France. Yet until Napoleon made his debut in 1793, the French Revolution had been going on for years and Harvey documented how that political upheaval influenced the beginning of the Revolutionary phase of the Wars. Though this was a pan-European War, Harvey focuses on Britain as the primary nemesis of France in every sphere of the conflict on land and sea, as well as economics and politics. While Napoleon has become the dominate figure of the period on the French side—through Harvey brings to the fore those that preceded him and might have been better overall militarily—he brings forward numerous British military and naval commander as well as the leading politicians of the day through stark language that doesn’t hero worship nor for the most part verbally bury either.
The War of Wars covers a two-decade long period of European history in a little over 900 pages of text with battle maps situated in the front of the book. Robert Harvey not only narrates the course of events in a very readable way, he writes very informative biographical sketches for the main individuals that decided the course of events.
Harvey doesn’t stray from historical conscious by having Napoleon as the most prominent historical actor that he follows throughout his historical survey, but this is not the mythologized Napoleon but the one that was the politically and diplomatically inept military dictator of France. Yet until Napoleon made his debut in 1793, the French Revolution had been going on for years and Harvey documented how that political upheaval influenced the beginning of the Revolutionary phase of the Wars. Though this was a pan-European War, Harvey focuses on Britain as the primary nemesis of France in every sphere of the conflict on land and sea, as well as economics and politics. While Napoleon has become the dominate figure of the period on the French side—through Harvey brings to the fore those that preceded him and might have been better overall militarily—he brings forward numerous British military and naval commander as well as the leading politicians of the day through stark language that doesn’t hero worship nor for the most part verbally bury either.
The War of Wars covers a two-decade long period of European history in a little over 900 pages of text with battle maps situated in the front of the book. Robert Harvey not only narrates the course of events in a very readable way, he writes very informative biographical sketches for the main individuals that decided the course of events.
September 14, 2025
Without doubt one of my favourite history books of all time, making it very securely into my History Book ‘Top 10’!
Harvey’s single volume, brilliantly narrative history of the Napoleonic Wars is undeniably amazing and is an absolute must read for all; he makes sure to accommodate to the spectrum of his reader base, whether they are avid Napoleonic historians or complete novices in the field.
An incredible feat, at just under 930 pages, Harvey keeps the reader gripped with easily digestible chapters that are succinct, to the point and genuinely gripping. I simply can’t remember the last time a history book has so inspired me. Such a shame this stands as basically his only work to date.
An exceptional piece of literature here! I encourage you all to read it if able.
Harvey’s single volume, brilliantly narrative history of the Napoleonic Wars is undeniably amazing and is an absolute must read for all; he makes sure to accommodate to the spectrum of his reader base, whether they are avid Napoleonic historians or complete novices in the field.
An incredible feat, at just under 930 pages, Harvey keeps the reader gripped with easily digestible chapters that are succinct, to the point and genuinely gripping. I simply can’t remember the last time a history book has so inspired me. Such a shame this stands as basically his only work to date.
An exceptional piece of literature here! I encourage you all to read it if able.
August 16, 2017
Given the enormous number of books available on this period, both academic and popular history and biography, I'd suggest looking elsewhere if you're really interested in learning more about the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. This book isn't worthless, but it needed serious editorial intervention before it got published. There are mangled sentences, missing words, really odd punctuation, and seriously wonky statements. This one, near the end, is a doozy: "His body was surprisingly fat and well preserved and he appears to have suffered from a rare condition slowly transforming his sexuality to that of a woman which may account for some of the hysteria he often displayed" (760). What does that even mean? No explanation, no evidence, no source, just that very weird and ridiculous sentence. Honestly, there are better books out there. Read one of those instead.
June 8, 2014
I'm so proud of myself for reading this - but of course actually 927 pages on the Napoleonic wars is easy when it's as well written as this. Never heavy, full of interesting and amusing insights into characters, fantastic descriptions of the horrors of the wars, the retreat from Moscow etc. i loved the pen portraits of characters completely new to me, such as Cochrane, and many mysteries were solved regarding names I know so well but know so little about, like Wellington. A philanderer! who knew!
Interesting to be reading this as we gear up for the centenary of WW1, and seventy years on from D-Day. the bloodshed, atrocities and torture are extraordinary to read about. And the British were not always the innocent party. Humanity does move on, but you don't have to dig very far to find the dark side.
Interesting to be reading this as we gear up for the centenary of WW1, and seventy years on from D-Day. the bloodshed, atrocities and torture are extraordinary to read about. And the British were not always the innocent party. Humanity does move on, but you don't have to dig very far to find the dark side.
March 17, 2021
If I wanted a close-minded, factually incorrect, ‘Britain is great’, and quite frankly, poorly written history of Europe, I’d read The Sun newspaper.
Historians will know that this book is worthless within 100 pages. Those who just want a broad history of the era, there are far superior options elsewhere - literally anything else.
Just a bad book written by someone who is not a historian or a writer.
Historians will know that this book is worthless within 100 pages. Those who just want a broad history of the era, there are far superior options elsewhere - literally anything else.
Just a bad book written by someone who is not a historian or a writer.
March 28, 2023
Resurfaced after being submerged in World War 2 history and wanted to check out a different time period. It’s been a long time since I learned about the French Revolution and Napoleon, and I only had fairly surface-level knowledge. Austerlitz, Trafalgar, Waterloo, etc. After watching a few cool Youtube documentaries about Napoleon’s early campaigns in Italy, I decided I wanted a deeper read of the Napoleonic Wars that went beyond the highlights I learned about previously. Found this book collecting dust on my shelf (owned it for so long that it still had its Borders sticker on it!) so decided to put it to use to scratch that itch.
Realized about a third of the way through that this book approached the Napoleonic Wars from the perspective of Britain versus France. Unfortunately, it wasn’t exactly what I was looking for to be quite honest..was hoping for more of a focus on the wars and battles fought by the French Republic and then by the French Empire. Was hoping for maps of clashing battle-lines and armies maneuvering across Europe with in-depth looks at the French political, military, and economic strategy. What I found was that this book felt like it spent as much if not more time talking about the time period from the British perspective. It went into detail and painted a good story about the struggle between Britain and France, but it wasn’t necessarily the story that I wanted. More of an issue with me not picking out the right book all those years ago, because this WAS a good book for what it set out to do: it just wasn’t the one I wanted to read. The only battle it really went into the detail I was expecting was Waterloo, and only then because it was focusing on Wellington and the British involvement.
Overall, it was a solid book showcasing the British struggle against Napoleon in great detail that I never considered before. It gave a solid overview of the conflict between Britain and France during the Napoleonic Wars. but it just wasn’t the book I was looking for: 3/5
Realized about a third of the way through that this book approached the Napoleonic Wars from the perspective of Britain versus France. Unfortunately, it wasn’t exactly what I was looking for to be quite honest..was hoping for more of a focus on the wars and battles fought by the French Republic and then by the French Empire. Was hoping for maps of clashing battle-lines and armies maneuvering across Europe with in-depth looks at the French political, military, and economic strategy. What I found was that this book felt like it spent as much if not more time talking about the time period from the British perspective. It went into detail and painted a good story about the struggle between Britain and France, but it wasn’t necessarily the story that I wanted. More of an issue with me not picking out the right book all those years ago, because this WAS a good book for what it set out to do: it just wasn’t the one I wanted to read. The only battle it really went into the detail I was expecting was Waterloo, and only then because it was focusing on Wellington and the British involvement.
Overall, it was a solid book showcasing the British struggle against Napoleon in great detail that I never considered before. It gave a solid overview of the conflict between Britain and France during the Napoleonic Wars. but it just wasn’t the book I was looking for: 3/5
May 10, 2019
Nice, as it runs in breathtaking speed through a period in history that was very interesting and that gave Europe one of its first big conflicts, involving all of Europe. Disappointing, as it is extremely anglocentric, and often disturbingly so, almost in a Brexit way: Europe fucks up, Britain saves Europe... While what it mainly did was protect its interests, and nothing more. But a nice read for a holiday, and well written. Not for historians, only for amateurs.
May 27, 2016
If you have no understanding of what happened to Europe between the start of the French Revolution of 1789, the 'Terror', and the slow but inexorbitant rise of the Corsican Corporal known as Napoleon Bonaparte, then, as a quite hefty primer (coming in at just over 900 pages long..hmm), then this book would suffice. Written in narrative format, the book takes certain prominent individuals during the Napoleonic Wars, expands on them and using those as a base to work around, tells the history of Europe from 1789 till Napoleons eventual defeat and exile to St. Helena in 1815, after his futile attempt to regain his power. A British author with his own personal agenda (I mean, he spends quite considerable time with Nelson and the Royal Navy and other Admirals too such as Cochrane - which was interesting), I did feel he 'glossed' over certain parts, just very briefly mentioning important people such as Tallyrand and many of Napoleons Marshalls.
You may feel (as I did) that a book this size (my version has 929 pages plus bibliography) that you are going to get a huge study. However, with no disrespect to Robert Harvey at all, the focus of this book is from the British side, which is plain obvious, as I mentioned, with quite large sections devoted to, sigh, Nelson and associated Admirals. Yes, Napoleon is included too, but nothing new I gleamed about him; it just became standard Biography notes explaining his most commonly known traits and military victories. For a study as huge of this, it is understandable that the most important events are only quite briefly written up, plus it is not just a military study either - there is some social history here too, but I was left wanting to know more about some campaigns and their aftermath. The author I felt brushed over just slightly too much here (but the book is a kitten-squisher as well..so?)
If you have no clue about the French Revolutionary Wars that started after the 1789 Revolution, if you have no idea about who Napoleon was and how fascinating his rise to power became, if you really are not that familiar with Nelson and his relationship with the British 'Upper Class', or of British Naval Strategy of those times, what happened during Napoleons disastrous Russian invasion of 1812 (the beginning of the end essentially), then this book is a fantastic (large) primer into those times, characters and events. I guess however, for the biggest conflict ever to happen prior to World War One (the first Total War in European history whose legacy was only to become apparent during WW1), a conflict that lasted over 23 years, then it just 'covers the ground', leading you hopefully into much more refined and intricate studying of the period.
You may feel (as I did) that a book this size (my version has 929 pages plus bibliography) that you are going to get a huge study. However, with no disrespect to Robert Harvey at all, the focus of this book is from the British side, which is plain obvious, as I mentioned, with quite large sections devoted to, sigh, Nelson and associated Admirals. Yes, Napoleon is included too, but nothing new I gleamed about him; it just became standard Biography notes explaining his most commonly known traits and military victories. For a study as huge of this, it is understandable that the most important events are only quite briefly written up, plus it is not just a military study either - there is some social history here too, but I was left wanting to know more about some campaigns and their aftermath. The author I felt brushed over just slightly too much here (but the book is a kitten-squisher as well..so?)
If you have no clue about the French Revolutionary Wars that started after the 1789 Revolution, if you have no idea about who Napoleon was and how fascinating his rise to power became, if you really are not that familiar with Nelson and his relationship with the British 'Upper Class', or of British Naval Strategy of those times, what happened during Napoleons disastrous Russian invasion of 1812 (the beginning of the end essentially), then this book is a fantastic (large) primer into those times, characters and events. I guess however, for the biggest conflict ever to happen prior to World War One (the first Total War in European history whose legacy was only to become apparent during WW1), a conflict that lasted over 23 years, then it just 'covers the ground', leading you hopefully into much more refined and intricate studying of the period.
April 9, 2021
I would give it 3 stars, it tackles a very interesting period in European history, it is for the most part a well written book, but there are a couple of issues with it that a prospective reader would need to be aware of:
1) It's written from a British point of view granted, but the author portrays the British troops of being well behaved, orderly troops, while the French soldiers are portrayed as rapists, cannibals, savage, plunderers and acting not unlike criminals. It should be noted that British troops themselves are no angels, as their experiences in North America, India, Ireland and later on in Africa attest to. The French troops were forcibly marched miles on a daily basis and were not supplied, whereas the British particularly in the Spanish/ Portuguese were typically in well entrenched defensive positions and well supplied.
2) The start of the book goes into a lot of detail, often veering off on tangents to cover peripheral figures while the downfall of Napoleon is covered in about 200 pages at the end of the book. It suggests that the author was in a hurry to finish the book. The end of the book is filled with passages from other authors in what is a very lazy way to finish a historical epic such as this.
3) There are also glaring error with dates in the book, which again poses the question whether this book was finished in a hurry.
4) However, the most utterly bizarre passage in the book is reserved for the end, where the Robert Harvey makes an astounding claim that Napoleon's body was in the process of changing sex. A groundless and absurd claim with absolutely no evidence, the author doesn't even state his source for his claim.
All in all, it's starts very well but with a rushed finish which is it's biggest downfall.
1) It's written from a British point of view granted, but the author portrays the British troops of being well behaved, orderly troops, while the French soldiers are portrayed as rapists, cannibals, savage, plunderers and acting not unlike criminals. It should be noted that British troops themselves are no angels, as their experiences in North America, India, Ireland and later on in Africa attest to. The French troops were forcibly marched miles on a daily basis and were not supplied, whereas the British particularly in the Spanish/ Portuguese were typically in well entrenched defensive positions and well supplied.
2) The start of the book goes into a lot of detail, often veering off on tangents to cover peripheral figures while the downfall of Napoleon is covered in about 200 pages at the end of the book. It suggests that the author was in a hurry to finish the book. The end of the book is filled with passages from other authors in what is a very lazy way to finish a historical epic such as this.
3) There are also glaring error with dates in the book, which again poses the question whether this book was finished in a hurry.
4) However, the most utterly bizarre passage in the book is reserved for the end, where the Robert Harvey makes an astounding claim that Napoleon's body was in the process of changing sex. A groundless and absurd claim with absolutely no evidence, the author doesn't even state his source for his claim.
All in all, it's starts very well but with a rushed finish which is it's biggest downfall.
February 26, 2022
I give this book 4 stars generously due to the focus of its story, the conflict between Britain and France. A main criticism I would have of the book is its coverage of the involvement of fellow allied states (Prussia, Austria, Portugal, etc). Harvey even downplays the contribution of Prussia in the very brief coverage of Waterloo (and downplays the importance of Waterloo in general) which is quite against the general consensus of modern historians - though this book is from 2007 I believe.
I admire Harvey for the lofty task of covering such a huge and complicated period of history in only 900 pages. On the main, he does it well enough for both somebody new or experienced with the topic to familiarise themselves with. I am a big Napoleonic era fan but the contribution of the British naval officer Thomas Cochrane was quite a mystery to me before this book. That said, the exploits of both Nelson and Cochrane takes up a huge portion of the book, perhaps 100-200 pages in total. Obviously the naval aspect of the Napoleonic wars is crucial (especially from a British v France point of view), but when the descriptions of Marengo, Austerlitz, etc. were so brief I was surprised by the immense focus on naval history.
The attention given to politics in this book is nicely balanced. Harvey's characterisation of major players is also a strong point, again given how swiftly the book must go through events he gives a good overview of the motivations and backstory of individuals. However, he does do a common thing which always irritates me in history novels, which is to endlessly go over the sex lives of both Napoleon and Wellington. Given how much content had to be in this book, I was simply amazed by how often was I reminded of who exactly Napoleon was or wasn't having it off with - just unnecessary really.
Overall, I would recommend this book in very particular circumstances. Because of its focus on the conflict between Britain vs France, I probably would not recommend somebody inexperienced with the war to read this first, as the contribution of fellow allies is not covered in great detail. However to somebody who has particular interest in British history rather than the Napoleonic wars in general, this book is probably the most comprehensive answer to their needs.
I admire Harvey for the lofty task of covering such a huge and complicated period of history in only 900 pages. On the main, he does it well enough for both somebody new or experienced with the topic to familiarise themselves with. I am a big Napoleonic era fan but the contribution of the British naval officer Thomas Cochrane was quite a mystery to me before this book. That said, the exploits of both Nelson and Cochrane takes up a huge portion of the book, perhaps 100-200 pages in total. Obviously the naval aspect of the Napoleonic wars is crucial (especially from a British v France point of view), but when the descriptions of Marengo, Austerlitz, etc. were so brief I was surprised by the immense focus on naval history.
The attention given to politics in this book is nicely balanced. Harvey's characterisation of major players is also a strong point, again given how swiftly the book must go through events he gives a good overview of the motivations and backstory of individuals. However, he does do a common thing which always irritates me in history novels, which is to endlessly go over the sex lives of both Napoleon and Wellington. Given how much content had to be in this book, I was simply amazed by how often was I reminded of who exactly Napoleon was or wasn't having it off with - just unnecessary really.
Overall, I would recommend this book in very particular circumstances. Because of its focus on the conflict between Britain vs France, I probably would not recommend somebody inexperienced with the war to read this first, as the contribution of fellow allies is not covered in great detail. However to somebody who has particular interest in British history rather than the Napoleonic wars in general, this book is probably the most comprehensive answer to their needs.
June 5, 2018
An epic book about an epic war!
Really enjoyed this book about an era of history I knew little of. Although I don’t often read big books like this, 926 pages, I found it easy to read and got through it a lot quicker than I thought. I thought I might have to take a break half way through it, but I didn’t. This book wasn’t too in depth so for someone like me it who knew very little of this era, so it was a great read. Also there wasn’t much analysis of events just told as it happened, so others may look for more comment etc. But I found it just right amount of information e.g. explaining about the conditions on the ships of the British Navy was very informative without taking you away from the subject. Also was great to learn more about Napoleon himself.
One small gripe, I did notice some grammar errors, spelling mistakes. Although it is a big book, I was still surprised to see these!
Really enjoyed this book about an era of history I knew little of. Although I don’t often read big books like this, 926 pages, I found it easy to read and got through it a lot quicker than I thought. I thought I might have to take a break half way through it, but I didn’t. This book wasn’t too in depth so for someone like me it who knew very little of this era, so it was a great read. Also there wasn’t much analysis of events just told as it happened, so others may look for more comment etc. But I found it just right amount of information e.g. explaining about the conditions on the ships of the British Navy was very informative without taking you away from the subject. Also was great to learn more about Napoleon himself.
One small gripe, I did notice some grammar errors, spelling mistakes. Although it is a big book, I was still surprised to see these!
November 30, 2019
good on military detail, bad on political history. Feels like he kept trying to take a bigger scope than just falling into the Great Man historiography trap but kept failing.
Also, way too many irrelevant titillating details of all these people's lives along with snide judgements on people that just feels tired. My favorite facepalm surprise was the ending of the paragraph on Napolean's death (spoiler?):
"His body was surprisingly fat and well preserved and he appears to have suffered from a rare condition slowly transforming his anxiety to that of a woman which may account for some of the hysteria he often displayed."
But cant argue that a lot of work went into this. It was informative but a slog to read.
Also, way too many irrelevant titillating details of all these people's lives along with snide judgements on people that just feels tired. My favorite facepalm surprise was the ending of the paragraph on Napolean's death (spoiler?):
"His body was surprisingly fat and well preserved and he appears to have suffered from a rare condition slowly transforming his anxiety to that of a woman which may account for some of the hysteria he often displayed."
But cant argue that a lot of work went into this. It was informative but a slog to read.
November 17, 2021
In Western Europe we grow up with the legacy of the confilicts around the Napoloeonic era in our culture, geography and politics (to say the least), but who can say how, for example, the British fleet came to meet the French and Spanish at Trafalgar, or why Wellington was tramping across Belgium in 1815. Not a short read, but a compulsive which leads the reader through the course of events from the fall of the Bastille to St Helena in a well written and accessible style.
Spoiler alert - The French come second
Spoiler alert - The French come second
July 2, 2025
An entertaining read, although I wouldn't use this book as a source for serious historical research, as there were more than a couple historical and geographical errors. (Smolensk being a suburb of st. Petersburg? Really? Seeing St. Petersburg from Smolensk? The distance between the cities is around 600 Kms).
Other points include wild speculation (Napoleons genitalia being transformed into female genitalia towards the end of his life?) and personal opinions of the author.
Again, if you treat it as a read for pure entertainment, it's good, but it's not a good source.
Other points include wild speculation (Napoleons genitalia being transformed into female genitalia towards the end of his life?) and personal opinions of the author.
Again, if you treat it as a read for pure entertainment, it's good, but it's not a good source.
December 30, 2025
An epic retelling of the Napoleonic Wars from a British perspective. Sweeping in its scale - telling the story from before the French Revolution right up to the aftermath of Waterloo - Harvey manages to write a comprehensive, yet sweeping and well-paced narrative of one of the defining military conflicts in history. In places the book could have done with some extra editing but overall a great read. Harvey also includes perhaps the best one-line description of Napoleon I've come across: 'He was a military genius, a political and diplomatic third-rater, and a monster.'
April 13, 2018
This book is a most engaging, thoroughly captivating abundance of flowing information. Robert Harvey takes the reader through the 26 years of conflict in a convivial logical manner. If you never read another book about these momentous war years, this is the book to read. Do not be daunted by its 962 pages; it is remarkably easy to read. Chapters are short yet succinct. Information is never overloaded. The narrative is bold. History comes alive. In deed a pleasure.
September 7, 2020
‘The War of Wars: The Epic Struggle Between Britain and France 1789-1815 by Robert Harvey’ ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Genre: Monograph (aka history book).
‘The War of Wars’ is a collective history of the French Revolution, the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars from 1789-1815. Harvey does a wonderful job at balancing the lives of the major players with the vivid story-telling of each battle movement on both the battlefields of continental Europe and the high seas.
Genre: Monograph (aka history book).
‘The War of Wars’ is a collective history of the French Revolution, the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars from 1789-1815. Harvey does a wonderful job at balancing the lives of the major players with the vivid story-telling of each battle movement on both the battlefields of continental Europe and the high seas.
November 25, 2019
A very interesting and informative book sadly marred by by a very large number of typos that detracted from the narrative. Swapping carriage for carnage, noting for rioting, spam for Spain, mannes for marines. Is this human or bot error?
November 7, 2021
An historical reminder of how those arrogant unelected bureaucrats of the European Union were not the first people to attempt to force their rules and regulations on the freedom loving British Nation. Bonaparte tried it in the nineteenth century and he also failed. As Robert Falk has pointed out, the book is littered with errors. But it's still an enjoyable read, and just as in the democratic Brexit referendum Britain comes out a winner. 😁
Read
November 14, 2023An entertaining read but not what I would call scholarly. He also pulls entire pages from other authors to describe events, rather than provide his own analysis or even provide a footnote to explain conclusions.
January 9, 2026
A voluminous work, however deeply prejudiced against Napoleon. The author cannot and will not miss any chance of painting evil on him, and seemingly history suffers. Otherwise it contains important details regarding the times, major players and how their actions and careers shaped the world.
December 10, 2017
Gives a good understanding of the life Napoleon Bonaparte from his childhood until his exile to St. Helena
July 24, 2018
There is not a dull moment in the entire book, which is over 900 pages.
September 22, 2019
A well written but easy to read study of the wars of France and the rest of Europe
May 21, 2020
Covers 20 years of European history - so there re gaps. Very good on naval history and battles - less good on political. Overall a very good summary
September 15, 2020
I decent enough history of the conflict, but needed a better editor. Several typos and volumes of block quotes. I would prefer the author to read the source material for me and provide a synopsis.
October 16, 2020
Tried, found the writing abysmal, suspected shoddy research, read other reviews, had suspicions confirmed, gave up.
June 15, 2021
Informative but harshly critical of Napoleon and has some mistakes.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews