"Essential Napoleonic Books" Topic

What would you consider to be "essential" reading for this period?
I'm making a reading list.

Thanks.

Chandler: Campaigns of Napoleon
Elting: Swords Around a Throne.
Muir: Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon.
Connelly: Blundering to Glory (controversial )

Gosh there are sooo many. I would recommend listing must read Authors first.
VR
James Mattes

Chandler has to be on the list. Pick whatever two others you want….

@Connard – I like the Connelly book, was an interesting read.

Add most anything (everything I've read) by John Gill.

Elting

Start with Chandler: Campaigns of Napoleon. Not reading that would be like trying to learn about christianity without reading the bible (well thats what my thesis advisor told me).

Watch which authors you recommend – you could start another 300+ post long thread. You're probably safe not reading anything by anyone currently posting on TMP.

La Grand Armee by Georges Blond, Marshall May – A very easy read that flexes smoothly while describing grand tactical events, tactical events and personal annecdotes.

La Grand Armee by Georges Blond,

I hope he got his genders sorted

Esdaile: The Peninsular War is another good 'un. Not very broad in scope of course

There are so many books on the Napoleonic period its hard to know where to start, BTW I have never read Chandlers campaigns.

There have been some excellent modern books written by authors like Goetz, Gill, Mikaberidze, Arnold, Muir, Smith, Nafziger.

I think you need to try and decide what your interests are maybe 1815, 1812, 1809, 1805,6,7 Peninsular, Waterloo, Russia

Uniforms, campaign histories, biographies, tactics etc

but whatever you choose, make sure you include some memoirs to get a real feel for the period, there are lots published mostly British, but some French and German (all translated)

You have the classics like Petre and Britten Austin, Houssaye.

Chandler, Blonde, and Elting are all good introductions to the period. Petre is great for individual campaigns and a few of them are available for free on the net:

link

If you decide you like 1809 then do not miss Gill's excellent trilogy!

A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars by Esposito & Elting
Campaigns of Napoleon by Chandler
Imperial Bayonets by Nafziger
With Musket Cannon & Sword by Noseworthy
On War by Clausewitz

Chandler: Campaigns of Napoleon
Elting: Swords Around a Throne.
Muir: Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon

All excellent recommendations, and all very readable. I like Nafziger's "Imperial Bayonets" too, although it's hard going in places.

Graf Bretlach is right about the memoirs. Read as many as you can, not so much because they'll give you details, but they'll certainly provide a better insight into the mindset of the times. I think that's an often-overlooked aspect of the Napoleonic Wars.

I think it is worthwhile reading at least some Sharpe books.

No, of course they aren't realistic research books, and yes, they do perpetuate a lot of popular misconceptions. But they give a good idea of how the general public of today view the Napoleonic Wars, whether rightly or wrongly.

Plus I found they give rather readable overview of actual battles (realistic or mythic doesn't matter – they merely provide starting points for deeper research if you so desire).

And, most of all, in my humble opinion, they're FUN!

Salamanca 1812 – Muir

This book I really enjoyed a great deal. It was so in-depth and enlightening. Muir also goes into the fighting retreat the French made at the end in great detail. Fantastic book.

@Connard – I had Connelly as a professor, he was an interesting cat, was a ranger in Korea. Not that it has anything to do with his book.

I rather liked it too.

Ditto on Petre.Don't forget Napier, Fortesque, and Oman to cover the Peninsular war (Foy and Suchet too for a French perspective). Oh, and Napoleon and his Guard by Lachouque/Brown as well.

"I had Connelly as a professor, he was an interesting cat, was a ranger in Korea. Not that it has anything to do with his book."

I also had him as a professor. His monotone was famous. Interesting classes, though.

I agree with Graf Bretlach and Tit Dictator's posts*

Good authors write good books which are almost always worth reading, while its almost unheard of for someone otherwise rubbish to write a gem, so go for authors first, and then ask for specific books by each author later

and narrow down your focus a little, or the list will be too long

- you needs some general overview / context books (Chandler is excellent, for example).
You need some on specifics – tactics, organisation, drill, cavalry, artillery, uniforms
then you will end up looking at specific campaigns and theatres.

I would add
Rothenberg, Silbourne, Leivin, Britten-Austin, Dempsey, Kagan, Duffy, Smith/Pivka in particular.

I'm unconvinced yet by Haythornthwaite as I've ony seen a few thin 'newbie' books from him, but he used to crop up frequently on hese lists, so I'll mention him too.

*(except Clauswitz On War – I just finished it yesterday (see post 2 years ago on unfinished books on my shelf)
its the James Joyce Ulysses of my collection – only there to show off to passers by, but really, far too much effort for the reward. Jomini and Du Piqc were at least readable without pain killers afterwards.

Chandler, Elting and Muir, as has been mentioned. But you should start with Chandler.

As a non-Napoleonics player, just a reader, may I add that some of the old classics are good fun – 'the March of the 26' by Delderfield, and the Exploits of Baron Marbot.

It is easy when looking at a new period to be too serious. Neither of these are – but they are good reads.

Pat

"As a non-Napoleonics player, just a reader, may I add that some of the old classics are good fun – 'the March of the 26' by Delderfield, and the Exploits of Baron Marbot."

Good fiction… :)

As above, if I had to buy only one, then Chandler.

Brent Nosworthys 'Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies' is interesting if you like the minutiae of formations etc.

I also have a soft spot for the Waterloo section in Keegans 'The Face of Battle'.

Pagets 'Wellington in the Peninsular' is an excellent one volume source for Peninsular battles, both for wargaming them and for walking them now.

Actually Nosworthy's "The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War" is interesting in that a decent part of it is about the evolution of warfare from Napoleonic to ACW in the same sort of way that BToNaHE talks about the evolution from SYW to Napoleonic.

To add to the many good suggestions above, James Arnold Crisis in the Snows "The Eylau Campaign 1806-1807".

Except, I've just googled it to check the title and its £175.00 GBP from Caliver or $440 USD from a company in the US.

Is there such a thing as 'essential' reading?

I would suggest reading as many books on the period as possible. And usually, a reader will then find themselves being more attracted to certain characters, regiments or campaigns, which in turn, might then define what further titles they prefer to buy and read.

Thank you.

Sir Sidney, Somebody is having a laugh I think!

I'd take to my desert island Phipps' Armies of the First French Republic, Oman's History of the Peninsular War and Fortescue's History of the British Army. That should keep me going until rescued.

For a bit of light reading the Conan Doyle Histgroical Romances, particularly the Gerard stories.

Chandler and Elting? I don't think so. They are typical products in my view of late 20th century historical writing very little of which has stood the test of time. They haven't been replaced I know but they certainly need to be.

Bill

OMG that is bad news about "Crisis in the Snows" was hoping to pick up a copy this summer, i sure won't be paying that price.

I agree with Bill on Chandler and Elting (although quite a few people will get upset)

Phipps YES, Oman YES, Fortescue, Not so much these days.

The complete Austrian/Prussian 18th C. staff histories would certainly keep me out of trouble.

Took me a while to work out what BToNaHE meant, I thought your keyboard must have sneezed!

Don't say Chandler is no good. I've got to sell my books to pay for my wedding and I've got a copy!

Keep the books, forget the wedding!

Wise words from Graf!!!

aye, don't sell your passion for the passion of a woman!!!

Chandler and Elting? I don't think so. They are typical products in my view of late 20th century historical writing very little of which has stood the test of time. They haven't been replaced I know but they certainly need to be.

More revisionism due?

Chandler and Elting? I don't think so. They are typical products in my view of late 20th century historical writing very little of which has stood the test of time. They haven't been replaced I know but they certainly need to be.

That's OK then. Everyone's entitled to an opinion.

Chandler and Elting were produicts of a time when there was little material about anything warlike. They took mostly secondary material and attempted to produce an overall guide – that is why they have stood the test of time, despite everything which has followed. That was Chandler's intention – to provide the foundation on which others could build and he was always most interested in what turned up, even when he was shown to be 100% wrong (something a few people round here could learn from).

The book to bin is Nosworthy – utter rubbish from start to finish.

Connard,

Of course though you wouldn't think so from some of the stuff that is posted here. I have Campaigns and Swords both bought when first published and I thought they were excellent at the time, and they were, but historical writing is by its very nature revision of what was written before. In 2011 Campaigns and Swords both need revising just to bring them up to date and correct mistakes and as I remember Elting was in the process of revising Swords when he died. Historical revision is a legitimate part of the historical method which includes a challenge process. The term is often used incorrectly to describe historical denial or distortion.

Bill

Theres 'revision', and there's 'revisionism'.

That aside, because a work needs revising that doesn't mean it should be dismissed out of hand. Oman's work is still valid, if only for use as a comparison with both previous and later authors.

'and as I remember Elting was in the process of revising Swords when he died.'

No, he was not. He was in the process of researching a 'Swords II.' I have some of the material that he was gathering. It was graciously given to me by Mrs. Elting when I visited her after the Colonel passed away.

'Chandler and Elting were produicts of a time when there was little material about anything warlike. They took mostly secondary material and attempted to produce an overall guide'

If you check Col Elting's footnotes and his bibliography for Swords, you'll find that most of the material is primary sources-much of it untapped in English until he brought it in and had it published. A lot of the primary sources are published in credible secondary works also. A quick look at the book's bibliography will verify this.

'They are typical products in my view of late 20th century historical writing very little of which has stood the test of time. They haven't been replaced I know but they certainly need to be.'

Funny that, I haven't seen where the material in Swords hasn't 'stood the test of time.' Accurate information is accurate information. Other material has been found since 1988 when Swords was published and I don't see where Swords needs to be 'replaced.' Supplemented, yes, but replaced? I don't think so and it is a misplaced idea that the book should be. As stated earlier, Col Elting was starting work on Swords II when he died as there was much more material that needed to be published. Swords was the work of 30 years of study and research. It was part of Col Elting's trilogy of the Napoleonic period-the Atlas (which I believe is much superior to Chandler's work), Swords itself, and the four uniform books.

K

I was talking more about the Atlas as it and Chandler are mid-60s. However, if you do check the Swords bibliography, you will find that much of the list comprises books published in the 20th century and nearly all post-1870, which would make much of the material secondary.

You are again incorrect and I would check again if I were you. A lot of the primary material from the period was published in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Much of the references from La Sabretache, which I have 25 volumes of the older material, has a plethora of primary source material from the period published from 1898-the late 1920s.

Are you not familiar with French primary sources and therefore cannot recognize them?

K

'Theres 'revision', and there's 'revisionism'.'

Again, very observant and absolutely correct. One has to do with updating and the other is agenda driven-excellent.

Sincerely,
K

Given that I can read French to a reasonable standard and so, don't suggest that "le donna" is part of an award (see your FE article on Gribeauval, I can have a go.

Why not Chapter 1:
Avril 1824

Bourcet 1792 – trouble is, Elting did not read it, see Chapter V, where he is taking material from de Phillip "an excellent reference" 1912

Corvoisier 1979

Deschards 1986 – but a reprint of the Carnet, which began in 1893. It is not clear whether this is original or has a commentary in it.

Dumoulin 1906

Frederick the Great – not a French source.

Lynn 1984

Mention n.d

Phipps 1926

Quimby 1957

Saxe 1757, French equivalent to Frederick and often reprinted

Six, 1937.

The footnotes:

Carlyle n.d

Hamilton 1964

Savory 1966

Segur (1971, but 1830s originally I think)

Scott 1981 – one contemporary quote

Sabretasche 1962 – secondary work about div staffs (three times)

Phillips 1940

Watteville 1954, mentioning 5 relevant pages, which may include contemporary quotes

JOB 1913

Pardiellan n.d., but a contemporary memoir

Not what you would really call primary work, is it?

Excuse me, I asked for book suggestions, not an argument.
Take it to a different thread.

The question was which books were essential reading – you need to have some grasp of a book's nature to see how it might be essential and where you go after it.

You should understand that a great deal of material on the period is one-sided repeated claim. Yes, Elting is essential reading like Chandler, but not the whole story by a long way, due to its secondary nature.

If you are starting from scratch or want the latest thinking on the armies, then "Armies of the Napoleonic Wars" would be a good place to start,a s it is written by a group of specialist authors. It goes well with Osprey's book of the same name, although that is a cut-and-shut of their various types of book, MAAs, Campaigns etc. on the period, but a nice overview of those aspects. Many of the Osprey books would be essential reading, depending on which ways your interests take you. Perhaps you can be clearer about whether you are just starting out or looking to cover the key works in one area.

Caesar,

This site does not have enough band-width to answer your question fully and as the answer is a matter of opinion which is bound to generate discussion some of which may be better informed than others, I suppose one just has to go with the flow. Once you start a thread forget about controlling it is my advice. If you are just starting out Chandler's Campaigns and Elting's Atlas and Swords are not a bad start but they are only introductions albeit fairly comprehensive ones and far from definitive these days.

Bill

Caesar,

You're problem is that these days the Revisionist Faction pounce on anything that is on their watch list of boolks that need 'fixing'. Opposing them is the Idiot Tendency (their words, and of which I am a minor part) who actually think most of the stuff worth writing got writ some time ago. It's one thing looking at new leads but an altogether different thing to want to change the course of history because you happen to dislike the main character.

I kind of feel bad at times being part of this because frankly it even gets on my but my father was from Yorkshire and the first thing he taught me of worth is that you always fight your corner and you don't back down unless you know you are wrong.

I'm as guilty as any at times here and sometimes I just come straight out swinging. Many won't say it but for whjat it's worth I'm sorry your thread got trashed so horribly quickly. I don't believe you should be forced to accept that this unceasing brawling is inevitable. At the very least if Bill wanted to make an example of all of us involved he'd create a special Napoleonic board where it was understood that this open warfare would take place and free the rest of the place up. I guess you could say the old History board was just that, but perhaps the time has come to formally accept our 'problems' in Napoleonic and do something positive.

here we go again, hollins destroying a thread to further his agenda.

I cannot understand why he is tolerated so easily by some people here.