Product Description

On the morning of the battle of Waterloo, the Emperor Napoleon declared that the Duke of Wellington was a bad general, the British were bad soldiers and that France could not fail to win an easy victory. Forever afterwards historians have accused him of gross overconfidence, and massively underestimating the calibre of the British commander opposed to him. Andrew Roberts presents an original, highly revisionist view of the relationship between the two greatest captains of their age. Napoleon, who was born in the same year as Wellington - 1769 - fought Wellington by proxy years earlier in the Peninsula War, praising his ruthlessness in private while publicly deriding him as a mere 'sepoy general'. In contrast, Wellington publicly lauded Napoleon, saying that his presence on a battlefield was worth forty thousand men, but privately wrote long memoranda lambasting Napoleon's campaigning techniques. Although Wellington saved Napoleon from execution after Waterloo, Napoleon left money in his will to the man who had tried to assassinate Wellington. Wellington in turn amassed a series of Napoleonic trophies of his great victory, even sleeping with two of the Emperor's mistresses.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #511257 in Books
• Published on: 2002-06-06
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 384 pages

Amazon.co.uk Review
After his provocative Eminent Churchillians and his magisterial, award-winning Salisbury, Andrew Roberts' Napoleon and Wellington moves further back into the past to examine those titans of early 19th-century Europe. One was revolutionary, one deeply conservative. One aimed to change everything, the other aimed to achieve nothing except to stop the other changing anything. Roberts pre-empts the obvious moan regarding this well-tilled field, by pointing out that this is the first book to examine exactly what the two men thought of each other, and revealing the fascinating contradiction between what they said in public and in private. Roberts' cautious, subtle reading of character, and the narrow focus on just two men--not a mention of Rifleman Harris here--gives the book a novelistic brio. Wellington could be every bit as vainglorious as Napoleon, but Napoleon was unforgiving. Wellington saved Napoleon from execution after Waterloo, but Napoleon left money in his will to the man who had tried to assassinate the Duke. And once Napoleon had gone, Wellington amassed endless trophies of his great enemy--including not one but two of the Emperor's mistresses. Roberts' wry comment: "To sleep with one of Napoleon's mistresses might be considered an accident, but to sleep with two might suggest a pattern of triumphalism..." English readers, who have long lived with the notoriously bitchy comment from another of Wellington's mistresses, that one of their greatest national heroes was, in bed at least, "a cold fish," will be delighted to hear a second opinion from one of these ex-Imperial bed-warmers, that compared to Napoleon, Wellington was "beaucoup le plus fort". So there. Roberts is witty as well as wise, with chapter titles such as "The War for Clio's Ear". And he ends on a provocative, characteristically Euro-sceptic note: Wellington may have won at Waterloo, but today's "politically united Europe led by a centralised (French-led) bureaucracy", represents a final triumph for the Napoleonic vision... touché. --Christopher Hart

Review
"Roberts has set himself a massively challenging task and emerged triumphant." Guardian "genuinely revealing" Sunday Times "Stripping his protagonists of mythic accretions, Roberts describes their trajectories with impressive verve." Independent "As well as being intelligent and opinionated, Roberts is a pleasure to read." Daily Telegraph "So many books have been written about Napoleon that it takes something special to justify a new one. Andrew Roberts triumphantly fulfils that obligation... This is an enthralling narrative, full of original insights and bold historical interpretations." Mail on Sunday "A remarkably readable book that serves as an excellent introduction to a key moment in European history, while still offering new insights to the specialist." The Times

From the Author
Napoleon and Wellington by Andrew Roberts

As a schoolboy I was captivated by the romance of history. I’d imagine myself as great historical characters, Alfred the Great one week, Admiral Nelson the next. Once when the teacher asked my classmates what they wanted to do when they grew up – and they said they’d like to be firemen, doctors or policemen - I answered; ‘Lord High Protector of England, please sir.’

Of all the periods of history that I fantasised about, the Napoleonic Wars came top. The beautiful uniforms, the great causes, the extraordinary personalities, above all of course the long litany of bloody battles. By the age of ten I could recite the names of all the captains and the ships they commanded at the battle of Trafalgar, complete with the number of guns on each vessel. History was story-telling, romance, fun.

Then, when A Levels and eventually Cambridge history dawned, I had to do the unromantic slog through ‘real’ history – those social, economic and issue-related topics upon which the world really turned, far removed from the wonderful battles, assassinations and inspirational speeches of the history of my youth.

After having spent six years working on the biography of Lord Salisbury, which was published in 1999 and which won the Wolfson Prize, I decided to award myself a jeu d’esprit. I’d long wondered why, since the Emperor Napoleon was clearly a genius, he had so badly underestimated the Duke of Wellington on the morning of the battle of Waterloo, writing him off as ‘a mere sepoy general’ (i.e. one fit for nothing better than fighting in India), and boasting that he’d win the battle by lunchtime.

A man of Napoleon’s obvious and multifarious abilities must have known that Wellington was far more formidable than that, for had he not defeated six of the emperor’s own marshals during the Peninsular War? From that question the premise of my next book arose. It led to other questions, most importantly: What did Wellington think of Napoleon? How did their views about one another change over the years? Did the battle of Waterloo mark a watershed in their respective viewpoints? Did Napoleon ever admit his error?

There are of course literally thousands of books, papers, pamphlets and articles that have been written about Napoleon in the two centuries since he seized power in France in the Brumaire coup of 1799, and it is completely impossible even in one lifetime to read them all, let alone the two years I had given myself to write this book. Fortunately the glorious London Library in St James’s Square in London had most of them, so I settled down to explore the subject as deeply as I could in the time, consulting several hundred before I picked up my pen.

There, working alone at a desk among the shelves, I rediscovered the passion that had led me to love history a quarter of a century ago. Personalities such as Talleyrand, Metternich and Marshal Soult came back to me, with their schemes and plots and jokes – this book has plenty of jokes. Everyone asks writers whether they enjoy their work, and they often get rather pretentious replies about the ‘pain’ inherent in the creative process. I can honestly say that I adored writing this book and would love to do it all over again.

Customer Reviews

Interesting Viewpoint of Napoleon and Wellington
The popular viewpoint of these famous foes is that Napoleon totally underestimated Wellington therefore his defeat at Waterloo was inevitable. Author Roberts examines their relationship in great detail and his conclusions regarding their opinion of one and other will startle most readers.

Although most of what's written here is of a highly conjectural nature, there is little doubt that there was much more of a psychological battle brewing between these rivals than most historians will care to admit. Was Napoleon's "bad-mouthing" of Wellington merely "sour grapes" after Waterloo? Roberts points out that Napoleon was certainly saved from execution after the battle by Wellington, but the Duke probably had alterior motives besides humanitarian reasons.

Roberts gets some good mileage out of the fact that the Europe of today is much more in line with the vision that Napoleon had two-hundred years ago.
Wellington's old-school aristocracy is merely a remnant of the past now. That shouldn't prejudice the reader, however, to favor the Emperor over the Duke. Wellington did have the distinct advantage of out-living Napoleon by nearly forty years although his own political career as Prime Minister of Great Britain was less than successful. Political and military accomplishments aside, Wellington made it a point during his long life to at least publicly admire Napoleon "the general" even if he regarded the ex-Emperor's reforms with distaste. To his credit, despite all the honors and glory heaped upon Wellington after Waterloo, he never bragged about the victory or used it, either publicly or privately, to insult the vanguished prisoner on St. Helena. His real true opinion of Napoleon, like Napoleon's own viewpoint, will never be known. Roberts at least gives us an insider's view on what might have been. It makes one inevitably sorry that these two titans of the 19th Century never had the opportunity to sit down for a nice long chat.

If you have even the most cursory interest in either subject
Roberts sets out his ideas in a lucid and impartial fashion, allowing events to speak for themselves. Beginning with a brief outline of the two men's similarities - we then discover the fateful steps which demand that their fates must intersect. Waterloo is the venue of that junction - with Wellington's star still in its ascendancy, and Napoleon's upon the wane. On the day, Roberts shows us Wellington as a man who's militaristic skills have been honed directly by confrontation with the best marshals and generals Napoleon had previously mustered against him in Spain. Napoleon himself described the Peninsular War as a 'school for British soldiers'.

Wellington is obsessed with tiny details, and so respectful of Napoleon's tactics, that he anticipates wide flanking manoeuvres and plans pre-emptive measures against them. Napoleon, by contrast, is a man in ill health. Perhaps unaware of the number of Wellington's true force, delegating responsibility to a level that he has never before adopted. A man of previously great strategies, wearily repeating himself - the best of his army lost in Russia, three years earlier. On the day, Roberts shows us Wellington as the man prepared. The aftermath of Waterloo sees a profound change in both men. Napoleon, wrongly believing Wellington responsible for his exile, becomes bitter and mean-spirited towards the man he once respected. So petty that he even bequests 10,000 francs to Wellington's failed assassin. Wellington, the man actually responsible for Napoleon's continued existence, becomes a somewhat ghoulish collector of Napoleonic ephemera - and spends the rest of his life referencing his greatest battle, either as a 'party piece' or correcting the mistakes of an antagonistic press.

Roberts paints an equally vivid portrait of the environments these two men inhabited. Napoleon, becoming an icon within his own lifetime, invulnerable to criticism - controlling the domestic press. Whilst Wellington is often undone by the actions of his own countrymen - whether it be the leaked dispositions of British troops or Napoleon deriving ceaseless encouragement from his British 'fan club' of Whigs. Ultimately, Wellington seems well aware of his subordinate place in history. And, astonishingly, in the later years of his life, even questions the benefit of Napoleon's removal - over the continuance of the Bourbon thrones. Such is the power of Robert's writing, the reader may ask themselves the same question.

Fairly easy to read comparison of the 2 'great' men.
One of the most helpful pieces of information in this dual Biography is the date by date list of key events in the lives of the protagonists which forms a useful and easy to follow reference at the front of the book.
The information is handled well and with a degree of challenge to the popular views of the great men. For instance it seems that there was some respect between each regarding their respective military abilities despite all the propoganda and the post event rationalisations.
It did leave me wondering whether Wellington was able to learn from all his involvement in the great events of the time, the subjct of another book, perhaps?
As for the Emperor he 'lost' but eventually ended up with a much more impressive funeral and final resting place in Paris.
Roberts also offers us a tempting glimpse of the sexual morality of the 2 great men, both were inveterate womanisers and Wellington went out of his way to collect Napoleon's former lovers when he was in Town!
The final conclusion is thought provoking, Napoleons vision of a European state, run by a central legistlative body, dominated by the French,with a central HQ 15 miles from Waterloo!
Mon Dieu, Wellington would be turning in that elegant final resting place in St Pauls.