I read Napoleon: A life - it was a great book with fascinating insights.
For example, Napoleon's first big break came not particularly from outstanding competence but because, in the midst of the french revolution, all reputable officers had fled for the hills in fear of getting guillotined. Napoleon was one of the only halfway competent officers still around in Paris, so they picked him for a mission where he performed heroically.
Additionally, the myth that Napoleon only slept for 4 hours a night is both true in false. It's literally true, but he was known for falling asleep in the middle of roundtable meetings, and all those who were afraid of him didn't dare wake him - so his lieutenants just sat in silence for an hour while he dozed off!
Lastly, his infamous defeat in Russia was initially a sound plan - he was going to capture Moscow and spend the winter there - and he actually defeated the Russian army in combat, forcing them into a retreat. What was incredibly audacious of the Russians was that they burned their own capital city to the ground in order to prevent Napoleon from wintering there, which was incredibly brutal and unexpected. It's like the modern equivalent of American military command nuking NYC to prevent its federal gold reserves from being taking.
The detailed account of the continent-wide collapse of the napoleonic system after his return was riveting, in no small part because it actually happened.
If anyone here wants more info regarding the French Revolution, I heartily recommend listening to the Revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan. He really goes into detail into the French Revolution and of course covers the period
Of Napoléon.
I tried listening to that, but found it incredibly dull. I much prefer Hardcore History, and it's a pity Dan Carlin hasn't yet done a series on the French Revolution.
I love Carlin, especially his series about the Persian empire, but for my taste he gets too caught up in military history. You can tell he’s a tabletop wargamer. Mike Duncan isn’t nearly as gripping a storyteller (practically no one is), but he covers events from a more holistic point of view.
If you started Revolutions from the beginning and gave up, maybe give it another try with a later episode. IMO the first series, on the English civil war, is the weakest one I’ve listened to.
Yeah, I agree that Carlin is primarily a fan of the military side of things, and that's really what he focuses on. I do enjoy a wider view than one merely focusing on the military side, and for that I've found a pretty good podcast called Literature and History, hosted by Doug Metzger. It's no Hardcore History, but, as you point out, nothing is.
By the way, my favorite Hardcore History series was Wrath of the Khans, and I can heartily recommend it to anyone who hasn't tasted Hardcore History before. Last time I looked it was still free on his site, so get it while you still can.
I'm loving the Revolutions series. The first season is a little unpolished, but it gets better by the French Revolution.
On the other hand I really didn't enjoy the Dan Carlin episodes about WW1. His overly dramatic and histrionic delivery becomes tiresome. After about twelve hours of scenery chewing about how awful trench warfare was and all the grisly suffering, I decided he was enjoying it too much and gave up.
I was just listening to an audiobook recording of Resolute Determination: Napoleon and the French Empire by Donald MG Sutherland, which was ok.
As someone almost completely ignorant of the history of the French Revolution and of Napoleon, I was surprised by a number of things:
First, that Napoleon was Corsican, and actually originally a militant Corsican nationalist, and not from the French mainland. He had an Italian accent for which he was made fun of. He wasn't a good orator, though he was a master of written French.
Second, that Napoleon was poverty stricken and completely unknown, though well read, before his rise to fame. Right up to the point of becoming emperor, he was greatly underestimated, even by some of the most perspicacious of minds, partially due to prejudices that might at first glance seem to be of his time and place, but many similar prejudices that could blind people to others' potential are alive and well even now.
Third and most depressing, was the brutality with which Napoleon, the soldiers under him, many in the Revolution and various wars acted, with the wanton slaughter of their enemies, prisoners, and civilians.
Listening to this just made me ever more convinced that revolutions only bring endless bloodshed, cruelty, and sorrow.
I haven't read Andrew Roberts's book but picked up and enjoyed an even more recent bio by Adam Zamoyski also titled Napoleon: A Life. It's much less focused on the military details and is framed more like the story of an ambitious Corsican family, centered on its very successful son.
> Britain and France are continuously at war from 1803 onwards until Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo in 1815, a period of war unmatched in any of the other coalitions. What do you think is the main motivation for why the Brits are so uncompromising?
This actually short-changes how much Britain and France actually fought during this time. This is the tail end of what some historians call the Second Hundred Years' War:
Also, for those interested in the military side, check out Swords Around a Throne, John Elting’s excruciatingly detailed history of the Grande Armee, or anything by Brent Nosworthy.
Napoleon is underrated not only as a military general, but as a builder of civilization and a visionary of what it could be. Too often he's just seen as another general who was pretty good during that time when warfare was very orderly and everyone wore garish uniform. But countries were scared of him, deftly scared of him (especially Great Britain, but mainly because they didn't want another country that wanted to conquer the world as much as they did). There's a reason why Europe went ~100 years without another continent-wide war.
I don't see why this is an issue. The affiliate relationship is disclosed in the footer, the recommendations are coming from a legitimate historian (Andrew Roberts) instead of from the site itself, and the site is adding value both by reaching out to Roberts to get his recommendations and by interviewing him to get context on why he recommends them. It's definitely not one of those "we searched for this word on Amazon and here are the first five books that came back" blogspam pages.
For example, Napoleon's first big break came not particularly from outstanding competence but because, in the midst of the french revolution, all reputable officers had fled for the hills in fear of getting guillotined. Napoleon was one of the only halfway competent officers still around in Paris, so they picked him for a mission where he performed heroically.
Additionally, the myth that Napoleon only slept for 4 hours a night is both true in false. It's literally true, but he was known for falling asleep in the middle of roundtable meetings, and all those who were afraid of him didn't dare wake him - so his lieutenants just sat in silence for an hour while he dozed off!
Lastly, his infamous defeat in Russia was initially a sound plan - he was going to capture Moscow and spend the winter there - and he actually defeated the Russian army in combat, forcing them into a retreat. What was incredibly audacious of the Russians was that they burned their own capital city to the ground in order to prevent Napoleon from wintering there, which was incredibly brutal and unexpected. It's like the modern equivalent of American military command nuking NYC to prevent its federal gold reserves from being taking.