Napoleon: The Man Behind The Myth - Adam Zamoyski

I have read several biographies of Napoleon Bonaparte, but this offering by Adam Zamoyski was one I simply had to check out, having enjoyed one or two of the author's other books.

Napoleon: The Man Behind The Myth takes an emotionally detached view of the great man, and is outwardly quite "dry" when compared to such biographies as Andrew Roberts' Napoleon The Great. There is little of the hero worship or hyperbole which sometimes pervade chronicles of Napoleon's life.

The point which Zamoyski appears to be making is that Napoleon was very much a man of his time, who did have some outstanding qualities, but was not a superhuman. I detected a certain scepticism about some features of the French Revolution and its aftermath, particularly concerning how certain principles of the Enlightenment were implemented practically.  Having said all this, I would emphasise that this is a balanced and convincing account, and the author points out many instances where Napoleon was in the right or vindicated by the course of events.

One of the central themes in this book is the notion of Bonaparte "saving" the Revolution, and the tension between revolutionary ideals and the measures which Napoleon deemed necessary to stabilise France after he assumed power.

As hinted at before, the book is written in quite a sober, measured style.  However, what it possibly lacks in "fireworks", it more than makes up for in depth, and genuine insight into political realities and the merits of events and initiatives.  The book can seem to start slowly, but if the reader persists he or she will be richly rewarded.

The biography is strong on strategic matters, but it does not dwell on military intricacies. One will find that certain major campaigns or episodes are not covered in the minute detail which might be expected.  Even in "condensed" form, however, the chronicling of events in Russia in 1812 is still harrowing.

A feature which recurs is the "obsession", especially after 1804, with harnessing monarchical trappings. As someone who has grown very inimical to such things, I found myself very receptive to the author's observations. A lot of care is taken to illustrate Napoleon's exercising of power and how he interacted with those around him, including his often wayward relatives.  Another key aspect of the interpretation is how the subjects of "honour" and "saving face" loomed so large, and how Napoleon became trapped by some notion of being guided by destiny and his "star".

So to conclude this is a highly authoritative and balanced assessment of Napoleon's life and career, which is underpinned by the author's sure grasp of the big picture.

Napoleon The Great - Andrew Roberts - book review

I recently finished reading Andrew Roberts' monumental "Napoleon The Great", which was first published in 2014. I had read and heard great things about it.

Unlike some Napoleon-related works which tend to focus on one or other aspect of his life or rule, this one feels like an effort to write a comprehensive biography. It is put together in a very fluent, accessible and readable form and style, and it is marked by a distinct spirit and exuberance.

The author makes extensive use of quotes from correspondence and memoirs, but he stresses the unreliability of some sources, and he highlights instances where firm evidence is scanty. Where there are conflicting or contradictory versions of events, he carefully weighs the credibility or veracity of each one.

There is a good deal of comment about Napoleon's education, and his early precocity in reading and mathematics. His choice of reading matter is examined for clues to the direction of his life. As with many sections of the story, Roberts does not speculate unnecessarily, and a "less is more" approach is adopted to some elements of the story.

From early on, details are revealed which tell us that not all areas of Napoleon world-view were particularly "progressive", and it is one of the strengths of the book that we are given an honest, open and balanced portrayal of the man, his views and his actions. He had the energy, drive, ambition and brains to make some enlightened and rational changes, whereas others just theorized impotently. Also, it wasn't just what he did which was significant, but who he was.

There are lots of anecdotes about events and influences which shaped his outlook, on religion, politics, leadership and so forth. I was intrigued to read that during his early military career, he economized stringently so that he could buy books and also support his family.  A man after my own heart...

His relationship to Corsica and its politics is also afforded plenty of attention, with some emphasis on how the vagaries of the French Revolution affected the island and the status and fortunes of the wider Bonaparte family. As the tale unfolds, it is also illustrated how, in addition to his prodigious qualities, Napoleon also benefited from the Revolution on more than one level, through the principle of meritocracy, the exodus of officers, and the general administrative chaos in France at that time. When considering the latter, the apparently spasmodic nature of his early army career is well documented here.

Accounts of Napoleon's exploits in Italy and Egypt help to explain how he capitalized on circumstances, through his work ethic and man-management.  His outlook began to crystallize, and he almost imperceptibly became important and indispensable to France.

The excerpts from Napoleon's writings and correspondence are fascinating and revealing, especially those from his younger days. They are often emotional and contradictory, but if nothing else they depict an ambitious, thrusting and inquisitive young man. The "romanticism" of some of Napoleon's literary outpourings, when set against his image as a product of the Enlightenment, is another illuminating thread.

Sometimes the text mixes affairs of the state with the intricacies of Napoleon's private life. To some this might be confusing, but to me it serves to make the story more rounded, less "academic" and less onerous to read.

When working my way through "Napoleon The Great" I was struck by the author's sound and confident grasp of the issues and the realities when pivotal events arose.  This is true of his account of the 1799 coup, for example. My discomfort at Napoleon riding roughshod over constitutions and institutions was matched by my admiration at his activist energy, and awareness of what needed to be done. The vitality of Roberts' writing evokes the drama, tension and moral ambiguity of that episode.

Some of the less enlightened (by our measurements) initiatives on freedom of expression, and the centralizing zeal, may strike a discordant note, but the author seeks to place in perspective these things, by pointing out what was occurring in other countries at the time. He does point out where measures were excessive even by the standards of the early 19th century.

The descriptions of battles are kept relatively snappy, but are also informative, and not over-burdened with military and technical jargon. In all honesty, I was more enthused by the chronicling of diplomatic manoeuvres, and the implementation and impact of Napoleon's domestic programs.

Chapters which cover the 1812 campaign in Russia amply convey the horrors of those months, and they highlight the sheer magnitude of the undertaking, and of the disaster which happened. Efforts are also made to clarify what Napoleon's strategic intentions were beforehand, and to counter accusations that he was afflicted by megalomania concerning Russia.  This is all in keeping with the balanced and reasonable nature of this work.

The Continental System, and its repercussions, are gone into in a little depth, as are Napoleon's endeavours to balance out Russia, Austria and Prussia. When defending some of the Emperor's contentious decisions or moves, the author offers sound reasoning, as with his return to Paris in 1812.

The later stages of this book I found quite moving, such as the parts where he said final goodbyes to family and friends before going into his final exile. His dignity at this time often seemed to contrast sharply with the pettiness and arrogance of his captors.

I found this to be an honest, warts-and-all telling of the tale, highlighting his failings and deficiencies as well as his positive and traits and his praiseworthy achievements. The author does not dwell unduly on some "obvious" areas which excite the popular imagination, but goes his own way.

I loved one phrase employed to describe Napoleon - "he was the Enlightenment on horseback". His lustre endures, and this biography strengthened my understanding of, and admiration for, the man.

In summary, "Napoleon The Great" is endlessly readable and absorbing, a compelling look at one of the most remarkable figures in European history.

The War of Wars - Robert Harvey - book review

I have recently begun to revisit some of the books which I first read about four or five years ago. I thought that I would start with "The War of Wars", by Robert Harvey, a one-volume chronicle of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. It is subtitled "The Epic Struggle Between Britain and France 1789-1815".

The author details the main episodes which characterized the French Revolution. He documents some of the lunacy and cruelty which took place, as well as the ideals, and the undoubtedly good and progressive consequences of the upheaval. Like many people, I find myself  torn between admiration of the general ideological thrust of the Revolution. and revulsion at the often hysterical, absurd and brutal methods.

Of course, much of the story revolves around the person of Napoleon Bonaparte. Yes, he cherished some lofty ideals, but he was also distinctly opportunistic and cynical. Circumstances such as those which prevailed in the late nineteenth century generally allow people such as he to flourish. Those who are adept at manipulating, but also inspiring, the masses.

The book covers the early stages of the Revolutionary Wars. It is sometimes forgotten just how intense those campaigns were. The British involvement is highlighted, as is the often less than united front presented by the "Allies".

One of the most notable aspects of "The War Of Wars" is Harvey's views of Napoleon. They contrast somewhat with those of some observers, who tend to place Bonaparte on a pedestal, and portray him as some kind of demi-god.

Harvey puts many of Napoleon's successes into perspective, not slavishly ascribing every victory to his consummate brilliance, but pointing out where the contribution of others was decisive or instrumental, and those occasions where he succeeded more by accident than design. There is an interesting account of his rise to prominence, and how it was partly triggered by luck and circumstances.

Sensibly, in view of the scope of the events being tackled, the book is divided into "bite-size" sections, each covering a short phase of the conflicts. The naval campaigns are covered in some depth, not always a feature of works about the Napoleonic epoch. There is a "mini-biography" of Horatio Nelson, and his rise to seniority. He does not necessarily come across as a particularly appealing character. The passages about the sea battles also bring to light the struggles of the day concerning meritocracy and the often flawed mechanisms of promotion and command.

Another uncomfortable truth to emerge is that Britain associated with, and endorsed, some rather unsavoury and disreputable people in those times; deeply reactionary monarchs, for example. Was it still early days in British politics, a few decades before genuine democracy and social reform became durable and entrenched?  Napoleon was no angel, but London attached itself a little too assiduously to people who resented and resisted social progress.

In addition, this book serves to re-balance some common perceptions about the extent of Britain's involvement in the conflicts against France. It is often popularly assumed that Britain did little apart from writing cheques to subsidize its continental allies, and dominating the seas in order to protect its far-flung imperial possessions and its trade. However, the truth is that Britain was constantly active in some shape or form, even if many of the projects either ended in failure or were aborted.

Regarding the events of 1799, the version here seems to imply that Napoleon was in the right place at the right time, cultivated the right friendships, and possessed fewer scruples than the others who might have taken power. He was prepared to employ brute force and intimidation, as well as possessing the necessary brand of ruthlessness and ambition.

We are given some balanced and colourful assessments of the key figures, such as Pitt, Wellington and countless lesser participants in the drama. Harvey does not hesitate to illustrate and point out people's failings as well as their assets and virtues.

Some interesting tangents are dealt with, including the activities in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as Napoleon's repeated efforts to stir up trouble for the British in India and elsewhere. Also, the Peninsular Wars in Spain and Portugal, and their impact on the broader picture, are given their rightful prominence.

The telling here also tends to jar with the notion that Napoleon was an all-conquering genius, and that his decline or stagnation only commenced with the invasion of Russia. Harvey correctly observes that the other European powers learned valuable lessons from their earlier chastening defeats at the hands of France. They reformed their military command structures and revised their tactical doctrines. As early as 1807, in the descriptions of the battles, one can sense that the "coalition" forces are proving to be sterner and more flexible opposition.

In his conclusions, the author espouses some views which people might find contentious, but he argues persuasively and cogently, for example in his assessment of Napoleon's merits as a military commander, diplomat and politician. He also makes some probing observations about how the Revolution and Napoleon affected France and the wider continent of Europe, and also how Napoleon's need to sustain his power base and position, coupled with his arrogance, ensured that further conflict, rather than peace, would be seen.

Needless to say, because of its scope, this book cannot hope to cover the various individual topics and theatres of war in the same comprehensive detail which would be seen in more specialized volumes, but it is a worthy and lively effort at explaining this momentous and turbulent period, the course and outcome of which continue to divide opinion and prompt vigorous debate to this day.

1812 - Napoleon's Fatal March On Moscow - Adam Zamoyski

A while ago, I read Adam Zamoyski's superb study of the Vienna Peace Conference, "Rites Of Peace", and this encouraged me to seek out another work of his concerning the Napoleonic period, "1812 - Napoleon's Fatal March On Moscow".

 

 

 

Zamoyski starts by setting the scene, particularly the respective paths to 1812 followed by Napoleon and Tsar Alexander I, following the peace of Tilsit. Disaffection with Napoleon was growing among his "allies", much goodwill having been forfeited by heavy-handedness and a misunderstanding of the feelings of others. The pretensions of Alexander are illustrated, in so many ways a man of his time, espousing progressive sentiments, but hamstrung by the perilous nature of his own position, and the constant need to take heed of opinions at home.

 

The author also provides a handy guide to how the Continental System began to unravel, and also makes clear how important the whole Polish question was in the equation, something which is often overlooked. Also included in these preliminary chapters is an analysis of the Grande Armee, its strengths and shortcomings, how it had been diluted by attrition and campaigning, and also afflicted by corruption and decadence. 

 

The logistics of the invasion, when set out in their constituent parts, are staggering to contemplate in their intricacy and scale, when we consider that this was a pre-mechanization, pre-motorisation era. It would also seem that the stories about Napoleon's personal involvement in minute details are not exaggerated. It is also sobering to think that these daunting logistics to a large degree envisaged a short war.....

 

The great thing about books like this is that they tell the real story, without resorting to the generalisations and clichés prevalent in other media formats.  Here, for example, we learn that the much-vaunted Russian strategy was conditioned by a multiplicity of factors, and that it was not as calculating and pre-ordained as is sometimes made out, but evolved due to the pressure of events.

 

The elements of this book which I found most enlightening were those which addressed the infighting and tensions within Russian society and its "establishment", and how they affected the course of the campaign. Of the generals, Barclay de Tolly appeared to be largely vindicated in his approach, despite the vitriol aimed at him by many. Even after being "sacrificed", he continued to make astute observations.

 

The portrayal of Kutuzov here is also intriguing. For all his "inspirational" and galvanizing qualities, and his symbolic value, he seems to have been an equivocal influence on matters. The course of the conflict appeared to unfold despite rather than because of his conscious decisions. Indeed, some of the most favourable developments, from a Russian standpoint, occurred because they suppressed the urge to do what their instincts told them to.

 

Also, we get a look at the truth behind the level of patriotic and peasant engagement in the struggle, and the ambiguity which existed in the relationship of the masses with their leader. Even well into the long French retreat, opinion at all levels of Russian society was very volatile, and could have come down in opposition to Tsar Alexander.

 

What emerged to me was the fragility of the French enterprise, with a lack of central purpose and clear objectives, betrayed by Napoleon's stress on diplomacy and symbolic shows of power and unity.

It is probably simplistic to say that the Emperor's powers were on the wane, and some of his misfortunes he brought on himself by his flawed behaviour in the aftermath of Tilsit. The fall-out from this was reflected in the agonizing which afflicted him once on Russian soil. Political anxieties assailed him, and ironically the erratic and contradictory signals emanating from St. Petersburg may have harmed France more than they did the Russians, by thoroughly confusing and misleading Napoleon.

 

It is notable that most of the soldiers in his army still retained implicit faith in Napoleon, even during the most terrible travails. This was most likely due to a combination of blind faith, Bonaparte's remarkable track-record and his hypnotic allure. He was still capable of rising to the heights on occasion, as with the crossing of bridges on the return journey from Moscow, and his political antennae still functioned, if more fitfully than before. Another facet of the tale which stood out for me was how some of Napoleon's generals, Ney for example, retained their professionalism and focus amidst the chaos and misery.

The full horror and relentlessness of the Battle of Borodino is amply conveyed too. Reading those passages, one can fully appreciate why historians regard it as one of the most intensely brutal and horrific days of fighting ever seen. The full desperate ebb and flow of the battle comes across, as does the heart-chilling aftermath.

 

Needless to say, a sizeable portion of this book concentrates on the horrors and hardships suffered by both soldiers and civilians. Indeed, conditions during the initial invasion in the summer of 1812 sound terrible enough, as is testified by the figures of attrition. The retreat from Moscow is captured in all its shades, with stories of brutality and compassion, desperation and resilience, endurance and resignation. We are also shown how various "subcultures" developed, to cope with the cold, the lack of food and shelter, and the over-riding need to survive.

To conclude the book, the author summarizes the events which followed the French retreat from Russia, as the events and policies of 1807 onwards bore bitter fruit for Napoleon. There is a note of pessimism, with persuasive arguments about the more conservative path which European politics took after 1815, perhaps in reaction to the rise of nationalism and the newly aroused aspirations of the "lower orders".

This is an engrossing, diligently researched and beautifully written account of this momentous episode. One thing which occurred me increasingly as I worked my way through it was how little Europe in particular learned from the cruelties, callousness and sheer futility of what happened, as was made clear just over a century later.

Napoleon - Alan Forrest - book review

The most stimulating and entertaining biographies are often of those figures who polarize opinion, or whose reputation or legacy is riddled with paradoxes and contradictions.

Napoleon Bonaparte has the capacity to inspire these emotions in many people, and I am no exception. Respect for many of the ideals which he expounded and (in the beginning at least) upheld , co-existing with distaste for his occasional cynicism, folly and vanity.

Alan Forrest's "Napoleon" has a breezy, enthusiastic style, which steers well clear of the pomposity which can mar works about the revolutionary and Napoleonic period.  It is hard not to become caught up in, and enthused by the exuberance and excitement of those times, and how much of a breath of fresh air Napoleon and those like him must have personified.

There is some focus on the problem of his being torn between his Corsican roots and what was "destiny" on the mainland. Indeed, the attention given to Corsica is welcome, in building up a picture of Napoleon's political development. I would have liked a little additional detail on his education and so forth, but I don't think that this sets out to be a definitively detailed, "chronological" biography in that sense.

One aspect of the Napoleon story which is intriguing, and which habitually attracts controversy, is his attitude to the successive phases of the revolution, and to whom, if anyone, he pledged his allegiance along the way. The reformist zeal was tempered with anxiety about the disorder and violence which continued to flare up periodically. Cynics would contend that this also helped to protect his own ambitions. A balancing act which kept own career options open. This encompassed remaining on good terms with people who could help to save his skin when the going became rough.

Unsurprisingly, Napoleon's role in subduing the Toulon uprising of 1794 is highlighted. It was an example of Napoleon "producing the goods" when it mattered, with a flair for the dramatic and the symbolic. He rode his luck from time to time, but some might say that his audacity and courage entitled him to the odd piece of good fortune, and he was thereby well placed when the political breeze blew in his direction.

The pace accelerates with Napoleon's posting to a command in the Italian campaign, and here the author outlines some of the personal qualities, and "people skills" which would soon propel the young commander to undreamed of heights. Equally, we gather hints of the patterns and tendencies which would sow the seeds of later failings.  At this point, too, there is an interesting look at Napoleon's efforts in the fields of propaganda and public relations, as his political horizons began to expand.

The Italian sojourn, and the Egyptian adventure which followed, are given relatively short but quite insightful coverage. Was the Egyptian sojourn the point where some of his credentials began to look a little spurious and questionable; megalomania and naked ambition dressed up in grand ideals?  The evidence was ambiguous, and perception was all that really mattered back in France at that time.

Bonaparte was consciously cultivating the aura of an all-round ruler, inspiration and spreader of civilization - preparing the ground for political struggles to come. Popular adulation and acquiescence soon served to make Napoleon more headstrong and heedless of dissent.

It is interesting to note how low down the pecking order he was when the 1799 plotters were casting around for military support. The inauguration of the Consulate, and the measures introduced thereafter, make sobering reading, as an example of how people often prefer order, comfort and "unity" to freedom and democracy. A reminder of how authoritarian a place France still was, and would continue to be, even making allowances for the standards of the time.  The Duc d'Enghien episode seemed to put the seal on this - it seems that this was the point at which many admirers, including one Ludwig van Beethoven, became disaffected.

Essentially, this is a "political" biography, which means that there is not exhaustive relating of the minutiae of military strategy and tactics. This is a blessing, as other books on this subject concentrate excessively on the battles and campaigns, thereby obscuring and ignoring some of the broader geopolitical arguments, and the more unpalatable truths about Napoleon's rule/reign, particularly in the later days.

I have often found that the more one reads about, or researches, supposedly "heroic" figures, the less edifying and admirable they become. This book furthers the trend with regard to Bonaparte, by condensing the less agreeable tendencies which he and his regime(s) began to exhibit from the turn of the nineteenth century onwards.

The author exudes a real enthusiasm for his subject, and for the enlightened ideals of the time, but this does not preclude a sober appraisal of Napoleon's real motives and achievements. I detected that his praise becomes less generous as the story moves forward.

Forrest's interpretations also reinforced something which has been forming in my mind for a while about the French Revolution in particular;that is, how tenuous and patchy its impact might have been, and how much liberal ideas had really trickled down to the wider population from the politically-aware elites and social groups. Whether this is totally unfair I don't know, but from reading about later French history it seems that things did not truly change for many more decades. Was this something to do with the demographic make-up of the French populace, the balance between rural and urban dwellers? Was the popularity of Napoleon due to base sentiments amongst French people, rather than attachment to lofty or progressive ideals?

Some of the less endearing consequences of Napoleon's dominance are illustrated. His centralizing tendencies, the emphasis on obedience, loyalty and obligations over rights. The censorship and control over free expression and the press. Things are best summed up by the author's observation that Napoleon was an authoritarian, but no reactionary. The expediency was often justified as safeguarding many of the most cherished achievements of the revolutionaries and the Republic.

The descriptions of imperial splendour and excess leave a bad taste in the mouth, though. Many might see him, post 1804, as little different from the "enlightened monarchs" of the previous century. Some revealing material here too on Napoleon's manipulation of the arts and culture to present and spread the "glory" of his rule/reign.

As alluded to above, exhaustive tales of military derring-do are largely absent here, and Forrest prefers instead to elaborate on the diplomatic and domestic implications of Napoleon's crusade to expand his Empire.The further I trekked into this book, the more I realized that it was not a biography in the truest sense, but more a book about Napoleon's political career.  It has less of the strict chronological rigidity of many biographies, and embarks on several enlightening diversions into areas of interest.  It says more in 300+  pages than some tomes of three times its length.

In the end, the contradictions and ambiguities are a large part of the Napoleon enigma and the Napoleon allure, and he remains an emotive figure today. This would be a good place to start learning about him, but it would also serve as a good refresher for anyone.

Napoleon's Wars - Charles Esdaile

Just a few words about a book which I have recently finished reading...

Many books about the Napoleonic Wars cover the familiar ground, with an often narrow, stereotyped view of the geopolitical and ideological aspects, and endless recounting of the famous battles.  Napoleon's Wars is slightly different, in that it devotes substantial attention and space to less obvious episodes and sub-plots.

The author dispels myths and challenges well-worn assumptions about some of the events of that epoch, particularly relating to supposed "popular uprisings" and the issue of Britain's financial assistance to some of the other combatant nations.

Also, this book focuses on less publicized areas of conflict in the Napoleonic era, such as parts of the Mediterranean and The Balkans.  Not only does this add extra interest and variety, but these episodes were in many ways microcosms of the dynamics and trends which were characteristic of the struggle as a whole.

It is also heartening to note that this book is largely devoid of much of the mythologizing about Napoleon which is all too evident in many histories and biographies.  Whilst recognizing Bonaparte's qualities as a military commander, and his charisma and appeal to the French people, it also takes him to task for his intransigence and delusions at various junctures.  Repeatedly, we see highlighted opportunities for Napoleon to have consolidated gains, and secured strategic advantage, which were then ignored or squandered due to the emperor's excessive ambition.

Some of the rhetoric and idealism emanating from Napoleon, often harking back to the French Revolution, sounds more and more hollow and fanciful as the story progresses. Whilst he did indeed espouse and uphold some genuinely noble principles, the overall conclusion which I harboured at the end of the book was decidedly ambiguous.

Not that other rulers and statesmen emerge from the tale with much credit.  The British establishment of the early 19th century comes across as very reactionary, even allowing for its disquiet about the French military threat. The helplessness and impotence of Austria and Prussia for much of the time is also palpable. Much of the narrative concerns itself with the scheming and agonizing of Tsar Alexander I, a fascinating and complex figure.

This book may not be a conventionally comprehensive and "definitive" chronicle of the Napoleonic Wars, but it is both challenging and evocative.  Well worth a read.

Rites of Peace - Adam Zamoyski

During the past two years, I have read and watched quite a bit about the Napoleonic Wars, but comparatively little of this research had centred on diplomatic and geo-political matters, particularly those which became pressing in the years 1813-1815.  This has been remedied by my reading Adam Zamoyski's admirable book, Rites Of Peace.

The early stages focus on the completion of Napoleon's retreat from Russia, and the efforts of the other powers to position themselves to capitalise on the fall-out from his imminent downfall.  The scene is set, and developments placed in their overall context.

Attention is paid to the differing agendas at work, from Tsar Alexander's sense of destiny and mission, to the tension between Austria and Prussia, and the suspicion aimed at Britain, which was viewed as ignorant of the niceties of European diplomacy.

Zamoyski also introduces us to some of the principal diplomatic players, with colourful anecdotes about their characters and backgrounds.  He also begins to unravel and explain the bewildering intricacies of the age, and how interwoven the various countries were by treaty, alliance, marriage, religion and history.

The bargaining and horse-trading could be confusing for even dedicated historians, but Zamoyski does a commendable job of condensing and streamlining the developments,  whilst still seeming to be thorough.

Also in the early chapters, we find out about the desperate attempts by Napoleon to shore up his alliances, and the equally devious and creative methods employed by the "allies" to persuade rulers or armies to defect or declare neutrality.  As these matters progress, there is a palpable withering of morale and enthusiasm in the French camp, belief ebbing away....

We also see how the divisions and discord in the Allied camp intensified as the armies approached the borders of France itself, Russia and Prussia advocating pressing forward, Austria more circumspect.  Britain seemed handicapped by the fragmentation of its diplomatic team "on the spot", but also concerned at being marginalised and deprived of some of the spoils.  France still entertained hopes of profiting from any discord amongst his foes, to secure more honourable terms.

Throughout the book, we are constantly given quotes from the diaries, letters and papers of some of the protagonists. These help to supply an insight into the state of mind and motivations of these people. This is particularly true in the case of  Metternich, the Austrian Foreign Minister.

Some gaps in my knowledge were certainly filled, mainly on the Allied approach to Paris, and the negotiations which followed.  The covert discussions conducted by Alexander are covered in depth, in particular the feeling that he was too magnanimous in his approach. The reasoning behind the return of the French monarchy would certainly strike modern eyes as quaint and curious.

One thing which struck me about Rites of Peace is how some major events themselves were given scant coverage.  This is no bad thing, as the pivotal battles and ceremonies are covered painstakingly in numerous other books.  Zamoyski prefers to concentrate on the work of the diplomats and sovereigns themselves, and their personalities and quirks.

Moving on to the Congress of Vienna itself, the scene is well set, the difficulties and challenges highlighted.  A constant theme is the precarious nature of the Coalition, its cracks and fissures, and its perpetual state of near-collapse. The ongoing attempts of the diplomats to keep the show on the road are beautifully detailed by Zamoyski.

The social scene in Vienna is colourfully depicted, and the romantic dalliances and lavish occasions do help to break up the paragraphs on political discourse.  However, I must admit that I found myself scanning through these passages after a while.  Once you've read about one extravagant occasion, you've read about them all!

Much of the emphasis in the chapters covering Vienna is on the erosion of trust and solidarity between the allies. Napoleon had been defeated and ousted, and having achieved this, the powers permitted old animosities and tensions to resurface.  The vexed questions of Saxony and Poland almost led to war, and Zamoyski leads us adroitly through the discussions which led to some kind of settlement. He also details the lingering resentment harboured by many smaller countries and territories, who felt left out and patronised by the big powers.

Of course, as matters were being tied up in Vienna, Napoleon was re-entering the drama, and reading the paragraphs on this, there is a sense of initial panic and dismay, followed by grim resolve to confront the situation.

In keeping with the approach of the book, Zamoyski does not dwell overly on the military technicalities of Waterloo, but devotes his attention to its repercussions, the unpredictability of the Tsar becoming an ever greater concern. 

After documenting the resolution, or not as the case may have been, of the outstanding territorial issues, the author examines the legacy of the Congress of Vienna, and the period generally.  Many of the purported ideals and objectives of the Powers were either forgotten or simply not implemented. Much of Europe reverted to the clammy grip of absolutism and repression.  Reactionary forces sought re-entrenchment.

Looking at what occurred in Europe after Waterloo, one could be forgiven for wondering whether some had put on a facade of enlightenment in order to secure some moral high ground during protracted discussions. The gains achieved were not always used to advance freedom or justice, but rather to buttress the power of those who wished ultimately to curtail and limit those things.

The last chapter is somewhat downbeat, almost seeming to question which causes were actually advanced or served by the battles won and the treaties signed. Many of the people and ideas defeated by the Coalition soon seemed more wholesome and edifying than those of the victors, and the flaws in the settlements, and the arrogance displayed by the major Powers, may have simply served to fan the flames of agitation and nationalism in parts of Europe.

I would have perhaps liked to have seen more dissection of the struggle between liberal and conservative ideas at the time, but appreciate that this falls largely outside the remit of the book.

Overall, though, Rites of Peace is a very worthy, readable and informative piece of work.  It certainly gave this reader ample food for thought....

The movie "Waterloo"

Just recently, I watched the 1970 film "Waterloo", starring Rod Steiger as Napoleon Bonaparte and Christopher Plummer as the Duke of Wellington. The work was produced by Dino de Laurentiis, and is an account of the pivotal 1815 battle.

I had seen the film on a couple of occasions as a youngster, but decided to revisit it because of my recent study of the Napoleonic era.

The movie opens with a resume of Napoleon's original downfall, abdication and exile to Elba, as well as his dramatic return and reassumption of the reins of power. The rest of the film is devoted to the build-up to Waterloo, and to the battle itself.

Visually, the film is stunning, as would perhaps be anticipated for a de Laurentiis epic. The visuals are ideally complemented by the music.

Steiger gives a superb performance, perfectly capturing Bonaparte's volatility and passion. By contrast, Plummer seemed the ideal choice to embody the cool and aloof Wellington. There is also an excellent supporting cast of character actors, and a cameo for Orson Welles as King Louis.

Although diligent scholars will doubtless detect inaccuracies, both historical and military, overall the film probably takes fewer liberties in these areas than most others of its genre. The battle scenes are suitably elaborate and dramatic, if slightly unrealistic in places. To their credit, the producers do not entirely shy away from the horrors of war in their portrayal of the fighting.

To view the film again in its entirety after a number of years gave me a renewed appreciation of its merits. It remains an accessible, compelling but also reasonably definitive account of its subject.