Ákaflega viðamikil saga sem lýsir uppgangi Napóleons Bónaparte, hernaði hans í byrjun 19. aldar þegar hann sigraði hvert ríkið á fætur öðru og að lokum ósigrum hans og niðurlægingu.
Esdaile beinir athygli sinni fyrst og fremst að alþjóðastjórnmálum þessa tíma, skoðanaskiptum fyrirmanna í ríkjunum sem komu að Evrópuhernaðinum en horfir síður til samfélagssögunnar, efnahagshluta hennar né hernaðinum þótt hann gleymi þessum atriðum ekki alfarið.
Þetta er ágætist rit til að fá yfirgripsmikla þekkingu á þessu tímabili og ég fræddist heilmikið um hluti sem voru mér ókunnir. Hins vegar fór í taugarnar á mér að Esdaile útskýrði mikið af ákvörðunum Napóleons sem afleiðing mikilmennskubrálæðis, þorsta eftir frægð og drambs auk þess sem hann kallaði þá sem mæltu ákvörunum franska keisarans bót ýmist Napóleon elskendur eða afsökunarsinna.
( )

General histories of the age focus about 80% on Napoleon, throw in some Nelson and Wellington, and round out with the other players - Russia, Austria, Prussia, etc.

This telling focuses from the outside in or from the larger view down: Napoleon's geopolitical context. Esdaile gives the international perspectives; national goals, aims, vulnerabilities, threats, and strategies; and reasonings as well as Napoleon's. In many ways, this is refreshing, but will ultimately be disappointing to Napoleon's more strident fans. Esdaile's use of context provides readers with a better understanding that doesn't usually put Napoleon in the best light.

Despite what others said, it doesn't put Britain in a very great light either, substantially dimming Britain's role. As another reviewer mentioned, this history doesn't give Britan as much weight as is standard. Russia and Austria are given equal or greater weight (I think justly) as Britain while Prussia, Spain, and Sicily are less. We aren't given extensive retellings of battles but how the battles influenced the people and events following. There is a substantial focus on the diplomatic, political, and economic backend. The book uses extensive primary material as well as secondary material, leading to further readings.

To answer the fanboy criticism of the book, this book admittedly swings to the too critical side. BUT Napoleon was a conqueror who knew his perch solely depended on bringing home victories. As even his many admirers admit, he had no ability to compromise. He was a genius who knew it, with little faith in others' abilities (I think of the SNL computer snob skits). Given those personality traits, I believe Esdaile follows a more realistic analysis of the decisions made than other historians. For fans, this is an important book to counter-balance their otherwise starry-eyed collection.

To answer criticism from the other side, the author points out several times that the eighteenth century was the "Century of War." Every Age has a standard to apply to their leaders. As Hume's caustic denunciation of Richard I showed, otherwise good historians can wrongly apply standards of their time as if these were relevant. The standards of Napoleon's day - Peter, Catherine, and Frederick - all earned their "Great's" from conquering AND being enlightened autocrats - servants with duties and responsibilities. I believe Napoleon tried to meet and exceed the standards of his age. As such, Esdaile's critical phrasing demonstrates a tendency to judge Napoleon anachronistically. I find this anachronistic moral context ironic since this book's aim is to provide context.

My only problem is that of organization: the narrative hops around in time, assuming that players and events are familiar. A Napoleon student will not have many problems, but casual readers may get lost at times. I'm familiar with the period and had to reread sections at times. Surprisingly, the paperback is good quality and lays flat.

ps: If anyone knows of any good books on the Six Days Campaign while fighting the 6th Coalition, I would be grateful. Esdaile included, everyone mentions Napoleon's manic energy and genius in his last days before Elba, but this period is covered in only a few pages. ( )

¿Fue Napoleón, como pretendía, el precursor de la unidad de Europa? Lo que está claro es que sus guerras, que suelen estudiarse como campañas separadas, sólo se entienden plenamente en una dimensión continental, que tome en cuenta tanto la forma en que se combinan entre sí como su relación con el marco de la Europa de su tiempo. Charles Esdaile nos ofrece una "historia europea" de las campañas napoleónicas en un libro innovador, que ilumina la complejidad de unos acontecimientos que cambiaron el curso de nuestra historia. Para el lector español este libro tiene el interés adicional de mostrarle la Guerra de la Independencia en un contexto internacional que le da pleno sentido

This book is kind of the inverse of the military histories of the Napoleonic Wars that are so common: the author spends very little time on the battles themselves, and spend most of the pages putting those wars in context by showing the diplomatic maneuvering that took place between the European heads of state from the First Coalition to the Seventh. ( )