"Best general history/biography on Napoleon" Topic

John,

One of the problems I believe is that some people confuse Napoleon's Correspondence with the Bulletins-they are not the same thing. The Correspondence was never intended by Napoleon as history-it was designed to confuse enemy intelligence efforts, build up morale, and as propaganda.

Napoleon's letters are something else again and are quite revealing as to Napoleon's personality, intentions, and character. That was Cronin's point. The original 32 volumes which were published by order of his nephew, Napoleon III, was edited for content so as not to show his uncle in a bad light. However, the unedited correspondence has been published since which sheds more light on the subject.

For example, if you read Napoleon's letters to Eugene at the beginning of the Campaign of 1809, he is coaching Eugene in generalship and is basicaly sending him a field manual on how to be an army commander. This is also excellent evidence that Napoleon did train his subordinate commanders.

Another good example are Napoleon's letters to Berthier in the 1800 campaign in Italy. Napoleon's character and personality definitely show up and one comment he made to Berthier at the end of one of the letters is indicative of Napoleon-he tells Berthier to 'cheer up' after a particularly gloomy letter to Napoleon.

Cronin also states in his preface that he used new material that had not seen the light of day in English. That shows good research techniques and you would think that those people who constantly insist on 'new' material would be overjoyed at that prospect. Obviously that is not the case, as Cronin's material shows Napoleon in a sympathetic light, and Napoleon, according to those who criticize Cronin's work, has to be either the bad guy or the aggressor and therefore had to be defeated and deposed. Anything in Napoleon's favor is not to be used or admitted. To me, that is intellectual dishonesty, but that is only my opinion.

As to Cronin's appendix on memoirs, it is quite obvious that not only has Cronin read all that he talks about on that subject, but that he has dug into the past and demonstrated why certain memoirs are unreliable and who was dishonest and had an axe to grind against the Emperor, especially after the fall and to ingratiate themselves with the Bourbons-the highlight there being two of Napoleon's oldest friends-Marmont and Bourrienne-to whom Napoleon had been more than generous and indulgent.

The statement that Cronin 'cannot handle source material' is both ludicrous and disingenuous. Cronin's research is excellent and his conclusions come from what he has found in his research.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Hi kevin

Good post. However, you know we must really be careful agreeing on something because 'certain 'people' will be accusing us of conspiring together. You know how the minds of some paranoid and egocentric people think.

John,

Life's rough, then you die. If some don't like it, then too bad. Seems to me those 'certain people' need to grow up and get a life. They make fun of others, or they denigrate people personally, and that isn't the way things work.

There was a segment on a news program last night of how the internet allows faceless invective, character assassination, personal attacks, etc. The newscaster came out and actually stated that was cowardice and it wouldn't be done by those type of people face to face. It was an interesting segment. What prompted the segment was politics of all things.

Sincerely,
Kevin

John,

It also seems to me that Vincent Cronin followed historian Henry Adams advice when doing historical research:

‘The historian must not try to know what is truth, if he values his honesty; for, if he cares for his truths, he is certain to falsify his facts.'-Henry Adams

What else is going on much too often on the forums is summed up quite nicely by Demosthenes:

‘Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.'
-Demosthenes.

As an example that is also appearing too often is the supposition that either the Russians or the Austrians developed almost every new innovation of the period from 1700-1815, from staff development and functioning to every new idea about artillery. And if those who believe that are contradicted or proved wrong, the personal attacks start and 'winners' of the 'argument' proclaim themselves correct. That's nothing but mental self-adoration which is nonsense. You have to collect and follow historical facts to a conclusion in the study of history and not start with a self-proclaimed 'truth' which doesn't exist.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Sorry, Kevin, but we can only go on the evidence. If you have evidence to the contrary, then put it up, but make sure that it is what the original source says, because there are plenty of people on here able to check them out. If it turns out that anyone has been making things up
or quoting third hand claims, which are not based on the evidence, then that is theior iown doing. It is not character assassination or ad hominem attacks, because it goes to the nature of the claim presented.

Running off to Amazon to make childish attacks, beause you cannot read the original material does not help your position.

As far as Cronin goes, I am sure we can all appreciate that if you just reproduce what suits you and ignore/denounce what doesn't, then the "credibility" goes out of the window. That standard is fine for hagiography, but the research world has mioved beyond that.

I will leave you with one point – Nap the Third was already in power when Marmont's memoirs were published in 1854, so his alleged motivations simply don't stand up, but Cronin forgets to mention this. He also forgets to mention that the same N3 regime positively encouraged the material he likes. It is just not scholarly.

The question posed by the title of this thread is: what is the best general history/biography on Napoleon?

Many people respond to this question as if it asks: what is the most *accurate* history/biography of Napoleon? That is fair enough, if absolute accuracy is your thing. But accuracy is not necessarily the only way of defining "best".

"Best" could also mean one or a combination of:
- "best written" (language, turn of phrase, readability etc)
- "best looking" (lavishly illustrated and bound)
- "best received" (critically acclaimed, popular).

All of these are perfectly valid definitions of "best", depending on your particular desires for what makes a history/biography good. For me, personally, a "best history/biography" would be determined by the following criteria in this order:

1) Readability – it must be easy and enjoyable to read with a narrative feel. Napoleon was an exciting character living in exciting times – the writing should reflect this. No turgid mass of facts and deductions, but instead high drama and period feel.

2) Look – it must not be dense text, badly paragraphed or poorly set out. It should be well illustrated (preferably colour) with good quality prints.

3) Usefulness to what I want – my needs in a book are not necessarily the same as the next guy's. I might need a quick overview for adding "flavour" to my gaming, others might need an in-depth and accurate account.

4) Accuracy – it is only at this point I might (and I stress "might") be concerned if it is absolutely accurate or not. Often the legend is more enjoyable that the reality, and that is fine by me! Life would be bland if we kicked out myth and legend on matters that are not important to how we live. And because it really isn't that important, I don't even care if an author states a legend as if it is the truth.

That's true – a 300p well-written survey is going to be more useful than a turgid 600pp on just part of his life. However, as Chesney pointed out in his Waterloo lectures, the beauty of the French language had even by the late 19th century, led to a situation where the French version of events held sway, so flowery language mixed with bad research can produce a terrible product, which misleads many readers.

That's just my point, Dave. Some people *are* genuinely more concerned with what you dismiss as the 'flowery' language (or indeed the other attributes as I mentioned above) than whether the research is good or bad, or whether it misleads.

Regarding such a book as a "terrible product" only applies to readers for whom accuracy is the most important criterion.

For example, accuracy is only #4 on my criteria list for what makes my favourite histories/biographies – but of course that's for me personally, and others' mileage will vary, as they say.

The problem with that view is that if we reduce historiocal writing to a literary contest, there is not much point doing it. The best books would be accurate and well-written and any book using flowery language to cover a basic failure to produce accurate work should be condemned as "terrible" because its underlying intention is to mislead the author, who ahs shelled out a few quid for it.

Although readability and appearance are important in any published written work, a work of history must conform first and foremost to the rules and guidelines of The Historical Method. In the context of sources it is wrong to dismiss a document as unreliable on the grounds of the author's character because it is not the author but each piece of extracted information which is tested individually.

Bill

Dave – That is by your definition of "best", not mine. As they say, one man's rubbish is another man's treasure!

I would much prefer to shell out a few quid for a book that inspires and motivates me by its good writing and presentation, even if it is not strictly accurate in all its facts; than for a well-researched but badly written or presented book that presents a dull quagmire of (albeit accurate) facts but fails to deliver me any inspiration or motivation.

Actually, the true "best" book for me might be one that covers all my criteria: well-written, looks good, is useful for my desired purpose, *and* is absolutely accurate. But I'm happy to ditch that last criterion if the other three stack up for me.

Anyway, vive la différence!

XV – that might be the case in academia. But there is no law that says anyone writing a history book must "conform first and foremost to the rules and guidelines of The Historical Method".

If there was such a law, then I would suggest the majority of popular history books in the history section of my public library would be illegal and have to be turfed out.

XV,

Do you know what the Historical Method is? If you do could you enlighten us please?

K

'In the context of sources it is wrong to dismiss a document as unreliable on the grounds of the author's character because it is not the author but each piece of extracted information which is tested individually.'

I would agree with that assessment. It is also reasonable to assume, however, that if an author is dishonest in his everyday life, or worse, then there would be a tendency for him to be dishonest in the written word. Still, you have to prove it.

And that is what Cronin did, if you are referring to him in your posting. He didn't just look at the authors' individual characters in his assessment but what the author wrote and then checked that against reliable and accurate material.

Col Elting did the same thing in his assessment of Jomini's historical writings. Jomini was saddled with an extreme ego, was a failure as a staff officer, chief of staff, and military governor, as well as a renegade and a deserter. Does that necessarily mean that his historical writings would be inaccurate? No, that would have to be proven, and Col Elting neatly accomplished that task admirably.

If you don't understand that from reading Cronin and Col Elting's assessment of Jomini and his writings, then I suggest that you take another look for you assumption is incorrect.

K

If Jomini were as neatly dismissed by Col. Elting as you say, why are you talking about Jomini in the year 2011 ?

Just making a point, that historical accuracy can have several layers of meaning to it.

Jim

That merely reveals the nonsense of Cronin's methods. Elting actually dismisses several of the same authors as "worthless" and makes no use of them, so he and Cronin are not using the same methodology. then we come to the comparison with "reliable" material. Who says the other material is reliable? Cronin merely says it is. While a document written by Napoleon on a given date was written by him then (unless proven a fake), its contents are not therefore true. For example, "I have descended on Italy like a bolt out of the blue" in 1800 to Joseph was a lie as Napoleon knew the Austrians knew he was coming. Yet Cronin tells us there is no special problem with this kind of material!

Then we have the apparent "motive" of Marmont – yet the book was published two years after N3 became Emperor! Bourienne is dismissed – yet his quote from lannes at Montebello is used everywhere. Now, much of that has been shown to have been ghost-written, but that is not the same as accusing Bourienne of making things up in his own papers as Cronin does. Apparently mpotives of money and advancement do not apply to those, who publsihed in the reign of N3 when everything glorifying N1 was encouraged.

It is just a nonsense.

Jim,

First, you'd have to read what was written. Then, make up your own mind. Many people have not read Col Elting's work in general and this one in particular. If you're interested, the Jomini material can be found in the book The Superstrategists, Chapter VII.

In general, what is usually read by Jomini is his work on strategy, and it is compared to Clausewitz's On War. That is usually as far as many people go. Those two authors' works on historical topics are usually not read or are ignored because they are not as well known.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin,

Thanks for the recommendations. I'll have to look those authors up. I have Clausewitz, but not his historical stuff.

In my experience, when authors, writers and/or historians have nothing to contribute to historical understanding for whatever reason, it takes far less time than nearly two centuries to dismiss them. And that's not to say Col. Elting doesn't have some valid points.

Jim

'It is just a nonsense'

If that is so, then I suggest that you at the very least attempt to show it. You haven't done that and you usually don't even attempt to do that-you merely accuse without cause or evidence on your part.

For example, if the Austrians were not surprised that Napoleon came out of the Alps in 1800 in their rear and cut their line of communications, forcing them to turn around and face him, then how did Napoleon get in their rear in the first place? If the Austrians were aware of what Napoleon was doing and they let him do it, then they demonstrated an incredible level of gross incompetence.

You have overlooked what Cronin actually said of those memoirs that are reliable-he gives his reasons for them and it is also obvious that scholars have not had the problems with them that they do with Talleyrand's, Marmont's, Bourrienne's, et al memoirs. Further, it is quite obvious that Cronin has read them (as did Col Elting if he mentions them or used them in his research).

By all means question others' conclusions, but you have to do it in a scholarly way, such as read them yourself and then compare/contrast them with other material that is factual. Merely criticizing others' work because you disagree with it because it is in disagreement with your own beliefs without any way of backing it up proves nothing.

Of course, you have also reivewed one of the books that you contributed to, reviewed at least one book you never read, and made accusations that were not correct merely out of sour grapes, accused people of not 'reading the material' when it is apparent that you've done what you've accused others of. If I am wrong in that assumption based on your previous 'performance' on various Napoleonic forums, then prove me wrong. I invite you to actually participate in a bone fide historical discussion and not an hyusterical diatribe such as the one you posted above. I am sure you can do that, can't you?

K

Arteis,

Yours is a view, and I am confident that there is no 'law' covering the writing of history but I have to agree that most popular history is very poor because it ignores The Historical Method.

Bill

I would disagree with you. That depends on the author and how accurate the work is. Again, could you please define the 'historical method'?

K

To go back to Arteis notion of 'best' being what will be read and enjoyed, I can put up some out-of-period texts as examples (sorry, not a Nap scholar, I do underwater/historical archaeology and did Japanese/East Asian history).

I have on my shelf Coox's tome on the battles of Nomohan in the late 1930s between the Soviets and Japanese, a densely packed volume that puts me to sleep if I read it for too long. On the same shelf I have Miyamoto's "Vikings of the Far East" and Hugh Byas's "Government by Assassination." The latter two books are incredibly biased but wonderfully (or perhaps floridly is better) written.

If I want facts, I'll read Coox. If I want to feel what the period was like, I'd rather read the clearly biased narratives, because they communicate the feelings of the time MUCH more effectively than Coox does.

Jim,

I don't think that 'dismissed' is the correct term. That to me (and I'm not saying that is what you meant) usually means getting rid of it just because you don't like it. What I'm referring to with Cronin and Col Elting is a process of long study where the subject is analyzed thoroughly and a conclusion based on facts is made. No one has to agree with it, but it should (not must) be taken into consideration.

Further, I believe that everything should be read that you can get your hands on to give a wider viewpoint of any historical period, especially this one.

For example, Jomini claimed that he helped in a significant manner during the Berezina operation in November 1812 and was in on the planning. No one else mentions him being there except as a 'bridge crosser' and there is no evidence, except for Jomini saying it himself, that he helped plan anything during the operation. If he had, Oudinot, Napoleon, or some of the other surviving senior officers that did plan and execute the operation would have mentioned his contribution-none did. And he had no command, as he had been the military governor of first Vilna and then Smolensk, in both posts proving himself incompetent. All he did at the Berezina was get himself across the river and home.

That is digging into the facts and not just looking on the surface (that is not a river joke).

As to his writings, he outlived Clausewitz and basically named himself Napoleon's 'interpreter.' Both of these instances are ego-gone-wild. Further, he was always a staff officer and really had no feel for soldiers or soldiering, whereas Clausewitz started as a combat infantryman (he fought at Auerstadt) and knew what war was about. Jomini writes leaving out the human element-the most important part-of war; Clausewitz does not.

In the study of military history, Jomini and Clausewitz are usually taken together, which is an interesting exercise. In comparing the two, Clausewitz to my mind is clearly the superior.

Not too many senior veterans wrote books on strategy and tactics in the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars-that's where Jomini has the definite advantage. Clausewitz wrote, but his publications were not aggressively marketed, and On War, which wasn't finished when he died in 1831, was published after his death by his widow.

Soldiers were looking for works on how Napoleon did it-Jomini basically said, here I am, I was there, and this is how it happened. With little or nothing to check Jomini's work against, it isn't surprising that he was taken at his word.

Interestingly, one period veteran, the American general Winfield Scott, didn't need Jomini's interpretations and he fashioned the US Army based on his combat and command experience in the War of 1812. What he wrought defeated Mexico in an amazing campaign that astonished even the Duke of Wellington and gained immense territory for the United States.

Interestingly, Scott was in Paris after Waterloo to study and on the first anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans hosted a dinner party to celebrate that victory. He told his guests to come armed-in case the occupying British officers took offense and wanted to settle any insult by force of arms. ;-)

Sincerely,
Kevin

I hope this poll goes live and also one about the best book on Napoleonic history for a newbie not really familiar with European history of the time.

Jason
Stafford, VA

#'It is just a nonsense'
If that is so, then I suggest that you at the very least attempt to show it. You haven't done that and you usually don't even attempt to do that-you merely accuse without cause or evidence on your part.

> Read my post again – the tests he uses are not applied consistently. He says nothing about any source he likes, beyond the ones using contemporary notes (which does of course speak in their favour). Indeed, he says he finds one reliable solely because the author fell out with Nap and was nice about him. Hopwever, we have yet to hear whether the "unreliable" ones should be used when they say what he likes (Cronin) or are "worthless" (Elting). those views are not consistent.

# For example, if the Austrians were not surprised that Napoleon came out of the Alps in 1800 in their rear and cut their line of communications, forcing them to turn around and face him, then how did Napoleon get in their rear in the first place? If the Austrians were aware of what Napoleon was doing and they let him do it, then they demonstrated an incredible level of gross incompetence.

> I recommend you study the campaign, especially the report prepared on the eight possible crossings – then tell us a) which N intended to use, b) which he did use and c) which was the usual main route in NW Italy. I will give you a clue – none is the same. That of course flags up two things about N's letters from this time, which makes them open to closer inspection than Cronin would suggest. the letter to Massena saying it was all okay as N would save them was a lie – N went to Milan as he always planned and of course, his crossing of the Alps was via the emergency route as the Austrians had already marched on Genoa. You really must read up on the campaign before making accusations.

# You have overlooked what Cronin actually said of those memoirs that are reliable-he gives his reasons for them and it is also obvious that scholars have not had the problems with them that they do with Talleyrand's, Marmont's, Bourrienne's, et al memoirs. Further, it is quite obvious that Cronin has read them (as did Col Elting if he mentions them or used them in his research).

> No it isn't, as his claims are only to blacken those memoirs he does not like and he does not test the others at all, merely declaring them "reliable" (the ones with notes aside). Elting says some are "worthless" so I doubt he read them – probably just copying Cronin (albeit incorrectly).

# By all means question others' conclusions, but you have to do it in a scholarly way, such as read them yourself and then compare/contrast them with other material that is factual. Merely criticizing others' work because you disagree with it because it is in disagreement with your own beliefs without any way of backing it up proves nothing.

> That's Cronin. I only need to read his analysis to see the faults in it.

# Of course, you have also reivewed one of the books that you contributed to,
> Yes, because two people were waging a campaign of lies against it and the "I am the author and would like to say" has gone. What does an author do when a few agenda driven book burners write lies about your work?

#reviewed at least one book you never read,
> it is a benefit of legal education that it is easy to spot lies and nonsensical arguments. It was alleged that a composer had been murdered with lead – conveniently ignoring the facts that lead was used in the water system and was in the industralised air. A claim, which falls apart as easily as that is not worth reading.

>and made accusations that were not correct merely out of sour grapes, accused people of not 'reading the material' when it is apparent that you've done what you've accused others of. If I am wrong in that assumption based on your previous 'performance' on various Napoleonic forums, then prove me wrong. I invite you to actually participate in a bone fide historical discussion and not an hyusterical diatribe such as the one you posted above. I am sure you can do that, can't you?
# If you cannot cope with others examining your work and pointing out its very obvious failings, especially in the fabrication of material and failure to read the original sources, then you really should not be writing books. It is perhaps ironic that in your bizarre 11 year campaign against my work, your commenst about the first and last ones have been shown to be wrong, simply because you did not check the source material yourself. I am quite happy to discuss matters with anyone, but I find it easier if we all tell the truth about where we got our material from, listen to others and admit when we are wrong.

XV said:

… but I have to agree that most popular history is very poor because it ignores The Historical Method.

The reason XV feels that most popular history is very poor is because sticking to 'The Historical Method' is obviously vitally important for him. And nothing wrong with that.

However, the reason popular history is … er … popular is because it satisfies the many readers for whom sticking to 'The Historical Method' is not their main requirement in a history book.

What I'm trying to point out in my postings on this thread is the fact that historical/biographical books serve many different audiences, and not just academia. Those different audiences often have different criteria for what they see as "best" history/biography. Yet we automatically jump to the conclusion (as has happened in this thread) that "best" means "most accurate".

You guys are ridiculous! Grow up for God's sake! I have spent thirty years teacing adolescents and I have never, NEVER,come across infantile behaviour to equal that displayed by you two, ie. Hollins and Kiley (and your various acolytes)on this board.
You are beyond shame, you are brave men at a distance and you take smug satisfaction in your banality.
I own all of your books (and Hofschroer's) and they are all going to the charity shop without delay – I do not want them in my library – I will look to other writers on Napoleonic subjects to entertain and educate me and will,I am sure, find the expereience to be altogether more mature and satisfying.
Take a leaf from authors like John Gill etc. and once again GROW UP!!!

it is a benefit of legal education that it is easy to spot lies and nonsensical arguments. It was alleged that a composer had been murdered with lead – conveniently ignoring the facts that lead was used in the water system and was in the industralised air. A claim, which falls apart as easily as that is not worth reading.

I'll second this contention: books can be fairly considered and evaluated without the need to read the entire text. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have any legal training, but I know enough to know, that's what lawyers do; they can digest masses of information with a few or perhaps several comprehensive, strategic and/or tactical glances. That said, it perhaps sounds as though Col. Elting has been more literary, than literal in his attempted full-fledged dismissal of Jomini according to 10th Marines.

OK Arteis, we differ. I just take the view that all published history should be as accurate as possible. I don't see the point of it otherwise

Bill

Yep, I'm happy to differ on that, XV! I'll read history that stirs and motivates and fascinates, you'll read history that aims to be as accurate as possible. We'll both happily enjoy ourselves, which is really what the point of published history is in the end, as it doesn't have much other use!

As stated earlier, vive la différence.

K.,

"Jomini claimed that he helped in a significant manner during the Berezina operation in November 1812 and was in on the planning."

Please, can you tell me where would one could find this in a work authored by Jomini, published in its original language, with publication/edition information and page number(s) – in other words, a "standard" source citation?

Thank you in advance.

it is a benefit of legal education that it is easy to spot lies and nonsensical arguments.

Oh the irony.

Mr. Hollins

I am trying to ignore what you say but really, why do you keep bringing up the Armies book reviews, if that is what you are referring to? You are totally out of order to accuse any reviewer of writing lies and being a 'book burner', just because you don't like their opinions on a title they bought.

You said 'What does an author do?' But it is only YOU, not the other 9 authors that have a problem – and it is fairly obvious what you do, you write in the comments section, which you have done anyway! But a GOOD author ignores negative reviews and lets the book and word of mouth do the selling, or not, depending on what customers think about it. That's what the other authors of the Armies book have done. You should learn from them. Of course, they have had more experience of books being published than you have, so perhaps it is a learning process? If so, I do hope you learn the lesson sooner rather than later, for all our sakes.

But my review was written purely from the point of view of a very disapointed customer. My review, if that is what you were referring to, is not a 'lie' but an opinion. And I do not buy books to 'burn' them. You should learn to control your overinflated ego and paranoia and accept that you were JUST one of TEN authors. It is not YOUR book, so stop acting as if it was.

Customers have a right to express their opinions, although you would obviously prefer them not to. Thankfully, you have no control over that, and perhaps not having that control is something that bothers you more than it should?

Please try to stick to the thread, which is very interesting, rather than trying to divert it your dislike of customer reviews and any other agenda you may have. I can assure you it is not helping your cause in anyway.

Sgt E,

Calm down and have a seat before you hurt yourself. We don't want to send you home damaged.

Get out a brown paper bag, put it over your mouth and nose and as calmly as possible breathe in, breathe out-repeat as necessary…

Sincerely and with Best Wishes,
K

John,

What you have to realize with Hollins, is that if he doesn't agree with something it is a lie, never a mistake or a different opinion. And he is never wrong.

He has to have something to violently disagree with or to hate, be it the United States, Americans, or you and I.

Depends on the situation, I guess.

Sincerely,
Kevin

K,
I have calmed down. But, even in my new relaxed, sober state, I have still decided to part company with you, Hollins and your bitching. Your artillery book just fell off my shelf into a bag destined for the local cancer shop -who knows, it might do more good being sold there than being used as a doorstop which was the only alternative.

Sincerely and with Best Wishes
Sgt. E
(Gerry McGinty – former reader of your writings)

Sergeant Ewart,

Spot on. Just stifle them is my advice.

Bill

Ewart, it is up to you, but you will not find your chum Gill writing on many of the subjects I (or indeed Kevin) have covered.

The question at the start was whether certain books were any good – that will raise different views about their validity. That seems a perfectly rational way in which to consider them.

Gerry,

That is a very generous and selfless action on your part-well done. I'm sure the volumes you are donating will be appreciated by those receiving them.

I've done the same thing in the past with books I didn't need any longer.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Arteis

I will put your opinion to my supervisor, with luck when he is having a pint and see how far he can will spray his beer…

Accurate history can also be readable, indeed quite fun, if the author recognises that if no-one is actually reading it then it might as well not exist. This has not stopped some sadistic historians taking interesting material and making it so turgid and painful it simply has to have been done on purpose.

I always recall a caption AJP Taylor wrote: 'Lloyd George casts an expert eye over munitions girls' and realised there was room for humour and good turns of phrase in historical writing.

K

10th Marines has written :
"Jomini claimed that he helped in a significant manner during the Berezina operation in November 1812 and was in on the planning. No one else mentions him being there except as a 'bridge crosser' and there is no evidence, except for Jomini saying it himself, that he helped plan anything during the operation. If he had, Oudinot, Napoleon, or some of the other surviving senior officers that did plan and execute the operation would have mentioned his contribution-none did. And he had no command, as he had been the military governor of first Vilna and then Smolensk, in both posts proving himself incompetent. All he did at the Berezina was get himself across the river and home.
That is digging into the facts and not just looking on the surface (that is not a river joke)."

Well, it appears that the "facts" are not as 10th Marines would wish them to be:
-- Jomini was not just a "bridge crosser", but had been posted to Orcha at its governor after the retreat from Smolensk
-- he was in attendence at a senior meeting with Napoléon where it was resolved to move from Orcha upon Borisov and the Berezina
-- two general officers at that meeting credited Jomini with giving key advice
-- Oudinot and Victor were not at the meeting
-- Murat and Berthier were there, but died before leaving any memoires
-- a stongly Bonapartist staff captain may have been at the meeting, and wrote later minimizing Jomini's rôle
-- after the meeting, Jomini accompanied and supported général Elbé in the movement to the Beresiza to throw a bridge across it
-- I can't find Jomini claiming anything unusual about his rôle at the Berezina, and had (above) asked 10th Marines to provide a source for this bit, but he did not yet respond.

Actually, it apeears that 10th Marines is rather ponderously repeating a little snippet from a modern English-language secondary work and declaring this to be the "facts". The original sources for the event are easy to find (and most have been published in English), and are recounted and linked below. I think we can decide the "facts" for ourselves.

Amicalement.

=========================================================

Biograhical notes for the brigade general (French service) and general of infantry (Russian service) baron Antoine-Henri Jomini (1779-1869)
link
One will note here his Vaudois or Swiss nationality, his service in both the Russian and French armies and the conflict-of-interest thus caused, and the dislike of Berthier for him.

I think that this is the snippet that 10th Marines wants us to think are "the facts" :
"Before the retreating Grand Armée left Smolensk in 1812, Berthier sent Jomini on ahead to Orsha with a detachment of engineer troops, whihc was to check the bridges along the road. (As Jomini remembered that minor staff chore, he performed the epic feat of guiding the Grand Armée to safety!)"
[Colonel] John R[obert] Elting (1911-2000)
Swords Around a Throne
New York : Da Capo Press, 1997.
page 461 (Col. Elting provides no source for this information or his comment about Jomini)
link

The comte Phillip de Ségur relates in some detail how Jomini, in a conference at Orcha in late November, made key objections to the plan then in train to march north to confront the Russians directly, and eventually convinced Napoléon to continue his march on the main road, aiming for Borisov on the Berezina. The comte de Ségur concludes :
"Disaapointed in this last hope of glory, Napoleon then decided for Borisoff. He ordered General Eblé to proceed with eight companies of sappers and pontonniers, to secure the passage of the Berezina, and general Jomini to act as his guide. But he said at the same time, that it was cruel to retreat without fighting, to have the appearance of flight."
From the contemporary English edition :
History of the expedition to Russia : undertaken by the Emperor Napoleon in the year 1812, Volume 2
London : Thomas Tegg, 1840, pages 220-22.
link
The work in the original French
gutenberg.org/ebooks/20507
During the retreat in 1812, général de brigade comte Philippe-Paul de Ségur (1780-1873) was one of Napoléon's personal aides de camp, and can be assumed to have been present with the Emperor for the events he describes. The comte de Ségur, and his prominent noble family, adhered to the restored French monarchy in 1814.

While noting that Jomini "was at this epoch merely the commandant of the little town of Orcha " and "If Napoleon applied to him for information, it was merely in virtue of his office", baron Gourgand minimizes Jomini's rôle at Orcha, and rather ridicules de Ségur for emphasizing it.
Again from the contemporary English edition :
Napoleon and the grand army in Russia, or – A critical examination of the work of Count Ph. de Segur
baron Gaspard Gourgaud
London, M. Bossange and Co., 1825., pages 364 ff.
link
And in the original French
link
The baron Gourgaud, at the time of the retreat, was a capitaine officier d'ordonnance attached to the Imperial "Maison". He had recently been told that he would be created a baron for having found a mine of sorts in Moscow where Naoléon had planned to spend the night. He was most likely at the French headquarters in Orcha in late November, but may not have been in perosnal attendance at a meeting of general officers with the Emperor. The son of a church musician and an un-wavering Bonapartist, he adhered to Napoléon through both the exile to Elba and then to Sainte-Helena.

A observer that confirms Jomini's activity as the governor of Orcha is Eugène Labaume, an enginner captain in the 4e corps – who notes that his unit got food there (the last distribution having been at Smolensk, Jomini's previous governorship).
English
link
link
Same report of Jomini's efficiency at Orcha from a un-named surgeon in a hussar regiment (also in English)
link

The published relation of the meeting at Orcha by the comte de Ségur was specifically confirmed by another eye-witness, général Dode. Dode's comments, sometime later, on the topic were recoutned to the baron Mounier and the incident found its way into baron Mounier's memoires.
link (sorry, in French this time).
Général Dode adds that Napoléon considered even at this late date turning south and attcking past the Russian 3rd Army and a major fortress into Podolia in the Ukraine – an idea whose impracticality embarrased général Dode.
In November 1812, géneral Dode commmanded the engineers in Victor's corps. He was from a noble family, adhered to the monarchy at the first restauration and was later created a maréchal. He was representing Victor at the meeting.
link

Attendees at the meeting did not include Oudinot or Victor, or Ney or Davout. Murat and Berthier, who were in attendance – and Eblé, who likely was there – did not leave memoires, having not survived into retirement. Prince Eugène, another attendee, did begin to dictate his memoires late in life, and a later attmept to create a sort of memoires from his letters and writings has been published. However almost all his notes and correspondence for the Russian cmapaign were lost in the retreat and the resulting account of 1812 is sketchy at best. It does not mention anything about planning the retreat from Orcha.
I think this explains why we don't have much from 10th Marines' "surviving senior officers" – they did not survive! (exception made for the two general officers who credited Jomini with a key role).

Jomini, in his own relation of the campaign, says that he "addressed to [the Emperor] some information on developments in the area and on the state of communications [lines of march] that seemed to be preferred" (my translation). He then reports being ordered to support général Eblé.
link (sorry, in French).
I could not find in anything Jomini wrote an aggrandized description of his actions prior to the crossing of the Berezina. I have asked 10th Marines what he talking about in this regard, but he has not responded.

Khevenhuller said:

I will put your opinion to my supervisor, with luck when he is having a pint and see how far he can will spray his beer…

I presume your supervisor is an academic historian? If you are going to put my opinion to him, please do point out it is from the perspective of one of the many non-academic users of history books, who often have vastly different requirements than an academic will have ;-)

I WAS an academic historian, and learned to appreciate biased but entertaining sources from academic historians like Dr. H. Paul Varley and Dr. John Stephan. My archaeology profs also appreciated good stories.

Cpt Arexu
Dr Alex Hazlett

What is an academic historian? I take it to mean somebody who is involved in research/teaching the subject at tertiary education level. It doesn't matter who writes it, all published history should be to the same high standard. Unfortunately there is comparatively little of it. For entertaining fiction read Sharpe:-)

Bill

Maybe 'academic' is the wrong word when I'm meaning a much wider range than just someone researching/teaching at university. But it's the only word I could think of. By academic, I meant someone who reads or writes (whether professionally or for recreation) to find out what really happened – the search for accuracy is the be all and end all.

Non-academics are those interested in history for simple enjoyment or inspiration. To them, it isn't the end of the world if a book turns out to be not wholly accurate, or if the research doesn't follow an academic format, if they can derive enjoyment from the book. Readers who enjoy popular histories might often fall into this bracket.

Both types are fully entitled to books suited to their tastes. However, some academic historians appear to look with disdain on the writers (and readers) of popular history.

History is no more than the telling of a story. Some people want stories to be truthful, others want them to entertain, or to teach, or to inspire, or to … etc etc.

Arteis,

All history books will have mistakes in them, including academic histories. I've found mistakes in books from academics that make some pretty basic errors in fact. Unfortunately, too many of those books are boring and will put you to sleep.

I do think, though, that you can write history and be both accurate historically and still tell a good story to keep the interest of the reader, which I agree with you is most important.

I have books on various periods that are not good read-to-enjoy volumes but are packed with information that is essential to understanding the period.

The worst kind are those that are boring and inaccurate.

Sincerely,
K

I find it troubling that anyone would be OK with sloppy research and fabricatred facts in any history. Ideally they should be well-written and entertaining, but if an author is going for entertainment first and accuracy second I would prefer he publish under historical fiction.

Maybe this is just a sign of the times in an age where the local news spends half the broadcast advertising people and shows that just happen to be aired on the same network.

A Twiningham

Good authors can be both entertaining and accurate. Gill is one of them. Others try, but fail miserably on both accounts and should just stick to list making, which is probably the correct level for their limited ability.

But, when it comes right down to it, we all have different tastes and views, so one person's bad-inaccurate-dull book is another's recommended reading.

@A Twiningham,

I agree. It doesn't matter who is writing history for public consumption the research should be systematic and comprehensive and the analysis as unbiased as possible. Writing well is something that very few people can do but that by itself is not enough.

Bill

XV Brigada

Er, why are you stating the obvious?