"New book by Major General Jonathan Riley - 1813.." Topic

link

link

More insights on the coaltion fighting of 1813, by a former Coalition Task Group Commander…If its half as good as his previous book it will be a corker – Buy it!

Thanks for the recommendation and it might be an interesting book to read.

I wasn't impressed, though, with his Napoleon as a General…

B

Best thing is to obtain it from a library first, especially at the price being quoted.

Thankfully, I obtained his Napoleon as a General from a library, which persuaded me not to buy it. Nothing really new in it and full of obvious statements.

(page 202)
'It is probable that only the conditions of revolutionary France could have allowed someone of Napoleon's youth, provincial status, and lowly connections to rise so far, so fast.' Duh, ya don't say! I bet no one else had thought of that!

And on same page we get-.
'And what of luck? Napoleon is quoted as having demanded subordinates who were lucky; but perhaps successful generals make their own luck; through careful calculation before a campaign in order to minimize chance, and through allowing their intuition full rein.'

Nothing wrong with that, expect he does not seem to want to believe the same of Napoleon, the best commander of them all -
'Where Napoleon can be said to have been supremely lucky was in being in the right place, at the right time, and in the right circumstances, to launch his career.'
So, according to Riley, it was only being in the right place at the right time that allowed Napoleon to rise to become General, Consul and then Emperor of an Empire!

I really do hope his new book is much, much better and less biased. But I shall certainly wait until it is available in the library first. I don't like wasting money on material and opinions I can already find in books I already own.

Worth viewing are the two reviews on his Napoleon as a General title before purchasing his new book. And read the full reviews.

link

Sparker thanks for the heads up, what was his other title that you mentioned?

Thank God you mentioned this!!! It's been a desolate 2 months and one week since Dr. Tango mentioned this – FAR too long!!!

And of course it will be just as good as his previous work. After all, it is a reworking of his 2000 publication…

I suppose we will get a lot of authors jumping on the Napoleon Anniversary bandwagon. And very disappointing if it is just a reworking of one of his earlier books with a new title.

And his Napoleon as a General book basically destroys Sparker's theory of those who served being the better authors. Not always the case, it seems.

And his Napoleon as a General book basically destroys Sparker's theory of those who served being the better authors. Not always the case, it seems.

Your highly subjective statement hardly represents a comprehensive survey does it?

Although it does shed some light on how you arrive at some of the other conclusions you come to!

The other of JP Riley's books I was referring to was 'Napoleon and the World War of 1813 – Lessons in Coalition Warfighting':

Which is a serious study, not a 'coffee table book' which of course 'Napoleon as a General' was, and should be assessed as such.

Its my opinion that someone who has experienced, for real, not second hand, the stresses and strains of cobbling together and commanding Operations within a coalition has a unique insight into the particualr circumstances of 1813.

But since my opinion is not something anyone's published, it can't be right!

Sparker

I think your British bias is certainly showing through!

And you can't seem to cope with the fact that because someone has served it will not necessarily make them good authors? It is more likely their own personal interest and the level of research they actually do, plus any skills at writing they make pick up, once they have left the forces and possibly worked in academia, that helps make them authors and some of them good authors.

I'm not sure the author would agree with your view of Napoleon as a General as coffee table book, especially since it can found in University libraries. Are you using the 'coffee table' label as an excuse for it being a bad book?

And my reference to Riley is based on my reading of the book. Sadly, I found most of what is stated in the 2nd Amazon UK review, a negative one, to be true. He starts by throwing the blame for defeats solely on the commander and also giving the credit for victories totally to the commander. But victory and defeats depend on a variety of aspects, the skill of the commander, good plans, good troops, supplies, weather, and of course the same aspects concerning the enemy. Victory and defeat is not always black and white as Riley suggests.

His views (page 204) of Napoleon's enemies is very revealing for an ex-military man and when referring to Napoleon's fate and final destination at St. Helena 'To get him there took more than 20 years of ruinous wars-mainly against poorly co-ordinated coalitions, inefficient armies, and elderly, second-rate generals.' Really? So it must have been sheer luck on the allies side when they won at Aspern-Essling, Leipzig and Waterloo.

Sorry, Sparker, Riley completely destroys your theory on military men make the better authors. The reality is that some do and some certainly do not. But before you blow a fuse, that is just my opinion, based on my reading of his books and I do hope his writing had improved for his latest work and that it is not just a rewritten anniversary bandwagon title.

Sparker,

I didn't realize that General Riley's Napoleon as a General was a coffee table book. I have a copy and it is regular size and is not full of pictures.

Did I miss an edition? If so, I'd like to have it.

And I just ordered his new book based on your recommendation.

B

Another case of where the message gets drowned by the messangers around here.

Milder than most tete a' tete's here and good points were actually brought up on both sides of the argument.

Sadly though, I'll pass on this one…at least until (if) I see it in my local B&N where I can make up my own mind.

Well, in the 13 years since its release, it appears no one, other than Sparker, has actually read it. And while Sparker gave it a big thumbs up back in the day, he'd didn't have much more to say than that. TMP is structured to promote conversation – any conversation. So we end up talking about books about the Napoleonic wars, then talking about talking about books about the Napoleonic wars, then talking about Stifle!s and who has them and what should be done.

This place just is not real conducive to talking about the Napoleonic Wars.

I know Hew and the water's been poisoned quite a bit from others earlier on in the TMP cycle, just hate to see what very well may be a good book, or two, drowned in the back and forth.

I'll check the Amazon reviews.

I read 'Napoleon and the World War of 1813 – Lessons in Coalition Warfighting' – a good overview, but not terribly exiting. Regarding the war 1813 in Germany (which is my main area of interest) it doesn't add anything to Petre, Maude, or Leggiere.

Hew Johns

I've read both of Riley's books and like Kleist13 was not impressed, in that they offered nothing new and contained many obvious statements. However, the 1813 book is worth seeing if you have little on 1813.

Saying that, I will gladly give his new title a go but, based on my experience of his previous work, I will check it out in a library first before considering if to pay out for a copy.

I've read and have Napoleon as a General. I don't think too highly of it as there were just too many errors of fact in the book.

General Riley to my mind does not understand the armies of the period, especially the Grande Armee.

That being said, I have his two books on 1813 inbound which I was not going to get until I saw this thread.

B

I didn't realize that General Riley's Napoleon as a General was a coffee table book. I have a copy and it is regular size and is not full of pictures.

Did I miss an edition? If so, I'd like to have it.

Dear Brechtel,

I don't think 'Napoleon as a general' has been officially classifed as a 'coffee table book', or even if there is such a category officially. I merely use it in the sense of a overall general survey of a subject designed for the general reader, rather than a book that purports to be definitive.

So it would have to assume no prior knowledge on behalf of the reader. So in this case making general statements and overviews would be entirely appropriate.

Sorry if I have confused you!

Sparker

I think your British bias is certainly showing through!

@ Gazzola,

I post this more in weary exasperation rather than in hope, but, for the record, can you please point out exactly where my 'British bias' is showing through in my posts in this thread please?

And, if as I suspect you can't actually provide any evidence for this statement, please, just for a second, do yourself a favour and stop a moment and ask yourself who is carrying the bias here?

Sparker

I think, in my opinion, you mentioned him because he served, and served in the British Army, which fits into your theory that those who served make the best authors.

And you stick up for the author even though, firstly, you stated that Riley's Napoleon as a General should be assessed as a coffee table book, then you state that there is no such category and that it should be assessed as a general interest book, which is basically what people have been trying to say, that it is not that good, but more of a general interest title. Nothing really new in it at all and only worth buying if you have nothing else on Napoleon.

However, it will interesting to see how his new (or reworked) 1813 title goes down. I'm looking forward to seeing the reviews. If it looks good, it will certainly go down on my list.

"Napoleon as a General" is on its way to me as I type this.
I shall read and then form an opinion.
Regarding the gentleman in question my understanding is he is a Lt General; has Bachelor, Master and PhD degrees [does this partly satisfy academic?]; served in a variety of roles which may give him a better insight into strategy than non-military gents and with a little bias was Colonel of the Royal Welch Fusiliers at one time. An old school chum of mine had this privilege too. But being just a lowly Sapper what would I know?

Disposalman

Yes, he has academic qualifications and I think is a Professor at some University, just like other ex-military men. I think however, it is more their own interest and level of research that makes them become authors, good or bad, rather than being ex-military.

And, as far as I can see, so far, Riley appears to be more of a general interest author, although his 1813 book wasn't too bad. But it tried to cover far too much, covering Wellingon's Spanish Campaign, Napoleon's 1813 German campaign and also the War of 1812 in Canada, all in one title, so no space for more than average detail.

But, although I'm hoping I'm wrong, it looks like his latest book is a reworking of his earlier 1813 title, but with the War of 1812 taken out, hence half the size of the new book. I do hope it is not just a case of cutting bits out but an entirely new written title, which might make it worth buying, especially since Amazon are now offering it at a lower price.

I would very interested to compare the contents page of his new title with that of his previous 1813 book, but I've been unable to find it online.

I meant to add that Riley's earlier 1813 title is available for free on googlebooks

link

Looks like our Mr. Riley also worked at the Armouries until last year but was suspended-

link

I will still consider buying his latest book if it is worth having, but will certainly wait until I hear what people think of it.

Why was he suspended? The article is hinting at financial irregularities does anyone know?

BTW, thanks Gazzola for the heads up on the freebie!

The 'googlebooks' version appears not to be the whole volume.
Not sure how much of it is there.

Marcus Maximus

I did wonder why the article did not explain more clearly why he was sacked, which does make one assume it may have been connected to something dodgy or even criminal. But without knowing the full facts, which the Armouries seem reluctant to disclose, one can't be too judgemental.

Sadly, Disposalman is correct, the googlebooks version does have some pages and the illustrations missing. But I think most of the book is there and it should be available via interlibrary loan or from good libraries, where I obtained my copy from.

Of course we can't comment authortitively but I suspect that he refused to provide the usual supportive statement after massive cutbacks to the Minister that the reduction of his staff and budget by 40% in no way affected service. A regular requirement of defence chiefs recently.

Without wishing to prolong the discussion away from Riley's status as an author, rather than than roles in civilian life,
the following makes interesting reading. Politics maybe?
link

Nah, I think he was caught red handed reworking his previous 1813 title, when he should have been doing his highly paid job. LOL

Forgive me, but does one detect a slight amount of bias in that statement?

Gazzola? Biased? Shurely ye jest!

That a great find Disposalman. I must admit I'm relieved to find there was no dishonesty involved, just someone trying to do their best for their staff and getting snarled up in the red tape.

And our Modern Major General would have the experience to know that once the Treasury has marked your card, its game over!

In the RAO at 11 Sigs, they had a framed Treasury form hanging on the wall – it was a request form to obtain a form!

Biased? Some people always have to find an excuse if someone points something negative out about something or someone they like. I even included his previous 1813 title in the reading list in a magazine article.

And I notice that the Armouries have replaced him now. A shame, considering he referred to the position as his 'dream job'. Some dream, eh? Nicely paid one though!

Anyway, enough of politics, finances and stuff – I just hope his new 1813 title is not just a much reduced reworking of his previous 1813 title. Time will tell, I guess.

I personally do not like or dislike him.
I will make a judgement on his score as an author, after I have read his General's book, which has arrived, and the part online book you kindly linked to above.
May I respectfully point he resigned and had been undergoing treatment for cancer. Cancer does tend to make one focus on life and what is, and is not, important.

Disposalman

Same here. I do not know him so would never say I like or disliked him as a person. It is just the opinion of his books that is discussed or relevant here.

Like others, I was a little disappointed with his previous works but will probably, if not more than likely, obtain a copy of his latest book, mainly because there does not seem that many available covering 1813, although there are titles available covering the battles mentioned in the publicity.

Although I'm turning more to 1814 now, I might still consider his latest 1813 book. However, I'm still waiting to see a description of the contents become available, which seems a little odd, since the contents are often shown early on.

And yes, any serious illness certainly does put things into perspective and one wishes him the very best. I had a bit of a health scare not so long ago, which thankfully turned out not to be a problem. At the time, books and people's opinions on any matter were totally unimportant, apart from close family and the medical people that is.

As far as the campaign of 1813, I learned a lot from this book and greatly enjoyed it:

Russia Against Napoleon
link

The author's only apparent bias is that a distant relative was a Russian division commander and therefore he can't resist bringing him up at every opportunity. Other than that, I found it an excellent read, a good mix of strategic overview and tactical anecdote. It also helped me understand much better the Coalition dynamic in the Allied headquarters. The book actually covers the 1812 campaign through 1814 and the fall of Paris.

Yes for what its worth I would also endorse the Lieven book 'Russia against Napoleon' as a great study of Russians operations 1812 thru '14.

Lieven's book is okay, but it could have been much better and far more detailed, had the author not tried to cover so much in one title.

What maps there are, are more location maps than detailed battlefield maps and none of the battlefield maps display troops positions. And it only includes two Orders of Battle, which only cover the Russian army in June 1812 and Autumn 1813. But yes, if you don't have much on 1812, 1813 and 1814, still worth having.

Gazzola,

I think you have to understand and accept that Lieven wrote the book that he wanted to write, not the one that you want him to have written. He did not set out to write a detailed operational and tactical history in the style of George Nafziger.

As an examination of the Russian war effort from 1812 to 1814 and as an analysis of the functioning of the allied command, it is excellent.

Jurgen

By the way, why does is always rain at weekends in England?

Its God's way of telling you to stay in and play more wargames…

Ah, but I was outside playing wargames:(.

Jurgen

Flecktarn

Thank you for basically agreeing with my view on his book.

I think YOU have to understand that I was not expecting, nor have ever expected, him or anyone else for that matter, to write a particular book that I might want. I own quite a variety of books and I do not always go for titles that only contain detailed descriptions of battles, OOB's and good maps, which Lieven's book does not contain. I knew that before I bought the book, so please stop assuming YOU THINK you know what people want! You DON'T!

For what it is worth, I actually gave my opinion of the book, in case people did think it contained detailed battle accounts, OOB's etc. And like I said at the end of my post, which seemed to get you somewhat rattled, it is worth having if you do not have much on 1812, 1813 and 1814. But other than the background info, it is not that helpful, if at all, if you wanted to plan a wargame. You okay with that?

Sparker

I'm surprised you agreed on Professor Lieven book, because I don't think he has ever served in the forces. He is however, an academic.

And he is biased towards the Russians, so much so that he has even named his pet dog Barclay de Tolly! LOL

Gazzola,

Wow! What an over reaction from you. I thought that you had stopped behaving like an arschloch.

Jurgen

Flecktarn

Overreaction – no. Just bored with sad people who seem to think they know what other people are thinking and what they want.

Gazzola,

Read your own words in your 7:30am post from 13th October; it is very clear what you wanted Lieven's book to be like.

Jurgen

Flecktarn

I can only repeat – you must stop trying to think what other people want – you really do not have a clue.

Being a sucker for new Nap books, as well as wanting to support Napoleonic book publishers, and not wanting to wait for a library loan, I went and bought a copy of Riley's 1812 title, advertised as a 'timely new study'.

I've not read it yet but found some evidence that my original viewpoint of what the book may be, might possibly be correct, in that it does look to be a reworking of the authors previous 1813 book, rather than an out and out new book or study.

eg-in previous 1813 book-
'Because of his supreme position at the centre of French power, napoleon is seldom regarded as a coalition general: and indeed he faced none of the difficulties with which Wellington, Schwarzenberg or Prevost were so familiar. Napoleon needed no councils of war, consulted no peer, had no need to placate any opinion.

page 5-new book-
'Because of his position at the centre of French power, he faced none of the difficulties that beset Wellington, or Prince Karl von Schwarzenberg. He was head of state and commander-in-chief; he called no councils of war but rather gave out demands for resources; he consulted no peers but rather issued decrees; and he had no need to placate any opinion – public or political.'

-previous 1813 book-
'By 18th August Napoleon himself had reached Gorlitz. Here he learned that the Russians had reached Bohemia and that the Austrians had crossed the Elbe. Uncharacteristically Napoleon decided on a change of plan – 'it is possible I might enter Bohemia at once and fall upon the Russians and catch them en flagrant delit' – he wrote.

-new book-page 143-
Napoleon himself arrived in Gorlitz on 18th August, where he learned that the Russians had reached Bohemia and that the Austrians had crossed the Elbe. Uncharacteristically, Napoleon decided on a change of plan: 'It is possible I might enter Bohemia at once and fall upon the Russians and catch them en fragrante delit' he wrote.

If the rest of the text shows it to be a reworking (or revised) version of his earlier 1813 title, I do wish the advertisements and publicity would have reflected this, rather than boast it is a 'timely new study'.

Anyway, if it is a reworking/revised title, it still looks worth having, especially, if like me, you do not own a copy of his previous 1813 book. The previous title does offer you an insight to the War of 1812, which sadly, has been removed from the new book, possibly to cut down on the overall size. So first impressions overall are, not as bad as I thought it might be, but not as good as I hoped it would be.

Meant to add that the new book contains no OOB's at all, in case anyone was hoping it did. It is also out of stock at Amazon but still available via Book Depository at a higher price.

Oops! Guess what I found in Mr. Riley's Napoleon as a General – page 42

Napoleon is more usually cited as a general who, with a unified command, opposed a series of coalitions, rather than a coalition commander himself. Because of his supreme position at the centre of French power, he faced none of the difficulties with which, for example, Wellington, or Prince Charles of Schwarzenberg were so familiar and, as has been noted in Chapter II, he embodied in himself the position of head of state and commander-in-chief. Napoleon called no councils of war, consulted no peers, had no need to placate any opinion – public or political.

Now where have I heard that before…?