"Views on Michael Leggiere's books on 1813-1814? " Topic

Has anyone read these, and if so, what did you think? I hadn't heard of him but there is a 2-volume set at about £20.00 GBP a volume I am mulling over buying.

There is a two volume set by Michael Leggiere covering only the 1813 campaign, not the 1814 campaign. The first volume covers the spring campaign, the second covers the fall campaign but focuses mainly on the Army of Silesia.

I highly recommend it.

Stephen

I just checked Amazon.com and I see that volume 1 is selling for 10.41USD and volume 2 for 23.55USD. Hard to beat these prices.

Stephen

I recommend both the 1813 vols, plus the one on 1814. Search the Internet for a review by Charles Esdaile of the 1813 vols, as well, Leggiere has provided a rebuttle. Good reading.

Esdaile: PDF link

Leggiere: PDF link

Mikaberidze: link

Griffith: link

Pretty much the ultimate source on 1813. Somewhat Bluecher centric. But will increase your knowledge and insight into those campaigns tenfold. Essentially a must-read!

Thanks, Whirlwind!

Thanks Whirlwind, my google-fu was weak today……

Also essential reading is Michael Leggiere's "Napoleon and Berlin: The Franco-Prussian War in North Germany, 1813"

Covers von Bülow's defence of Berlin in the Autumn campaign.

link

Blimey, old Leggiere didn't like Esdaile's review, did he?

I thought Esdaile's book on the Peninsula very heavy going in places.

I CAN vouch for "Napoleon and Berlin: The Franco-Prussian War in North Germany, 1813", it was a very enlightening read, full of background details on how the Prussians prepared for war.

I would also recommend Leggiere's volumes, however it is worth noting that they are more about the war at the strategic & grand tactical rather than tactical levels. In the debates about these volumes I am surprised that Nafziger books on the same subject are not mentioned more. If you want OOB's you need the Nafziger books.

Garry

In the debates about these volumes I am surprised that Nafziger books on the same subject are not mentioned more.

The problem is Nafziger is a great researcher but has problems with his writing "voice," he's not an easy read. Not because of the level at which he employs the English language, it's not as difficult as the technical material I read every day. I find myself rereading paragraphs or even individual sentences because of his stylistic failings.

Napoleon and Berlin is an excellent book. And while Leggiere does like Blucher, he researches well and is a very good speaker.

I would highly recommend his books whether or not you agree with his conclusions.

I liked 'Napoleon and Berlin', but found book one of '1813' uninteresting – too much emphasis on diplomatic issues. Never bought book 2. Esdaile's book on the Peninsular war is 2 – 3 grades better in comparison. Petre is still my preferred source for the 1813 campaign, which is kind of sad.

I have read (and own) the four Leggiere's books on 1813-1814 campaigns. He is a meticulous and thorough researcher. I wouldn't say that I "like" his books; not in the traditional sense. He is not as engaging as, for example, Zamoyski or Lieven. However, his books are rich in detail, not just military -regardless Esdaile's criticism, Leggiere is not a traditional military historian; he doesn't care for the operational and tactical side of things, but for the political inter-action between the major players and how the compromises and needs of everyone of them conditioned the operational decisions and tempo of the campaign. While it is true that sometimes it might be somewhat hard to read -lot of detail, and complex discussion-, it is equally true that you can learn a lot from him, regarding the 1813-1814 campaigns.

Mind that Leggiere is an specialist in Prussia, and therefore his analysis is perhaps a little bit too "Prussocentric". He doesn't hide the fact, though.

He sounds like a proper academic historian, then?

I didn't do a history degree, but from talking to those among my circle who did, my understanding that is the study of history is in large measure the study of historians. So a typical essay question is "How did we get from A's understanding in 1700 of Issue B as being all about C, to X's view of it by 1800 as having really been all about Y?"

Military history is then not really history in that sense at all. A "new" history of a campaign in our era is likely to be one that has gone and looked at some other sources or evidence. You don't get chapters in our type of book explaining what previous historians wrote, why they missed stuff, what they got wrong and hence analysing why something should be seen in a new light. You get claims of newness all right but rarely does any historian I've read name names and say X's thinking led through Y's to Z's and now to their own.

It is this fault that undermines much revisionism. Holocaust deniers trying to prove it didn't happen would need, to be credible, to look at the huge quantum of historiography and explain how all that came into being if it didn't happen.

What we get, if we're lucky, in Napoleonic works is hyper-historiography, where someone rootles in an archive and proves thereby that Austrian gun barrels were three inches longer than French ones. Whether this qualifies as history or not I am not sure. It perhaps to history what econometrics is to economics.

4th Cruissaier

Professor Dominic Lieven has some interesting things to say about the state of military history in the academic world. Basically, if you want to right the type of book that would interest the average wargamer, concentrating on military operations, you aren't going to get very far with your career.

Here is a lecture he gave on the 1813-1814 campaign at the LSE in 2009:

link

He expresses the problems for historians interested in military history far more elegantly that I can in the preamble.

I'm sure you're familiar with Lieven's book on Befreiungskreige and the 1814 campaign, but for others who're newer to the period, check out:

From the UK:

link

From the US

link

Yes, they are the same book. The US editors assumed that most 'Merkins wouldn't have the sense to buy the book if it didn't reference Tolstoy. Think of it as the whole Philosopher's Stone/Sorcerer's Stone argument for adults.

He sounds like a proper academic historian, then?

He is an academic historian, through and through. Proper? Well, that depends. Poststructuralists would consider him "un-proper", while Positivists would find him perfectly adequate.

A "new" history of a campaign in our era is likely to be one that has gone and looked at some other sources or evidence. You don't get chapters in our type of book explaining what previous historians wrote, why they missed stuff, what they got wrong and hence analysing why something should be seen in a new light. You get claims of newness all right but rarely does any historian I've read name names and say X's thinking led through Y's to Z's and now to their own.

Maybe that it's true in divulgative narratives, but in most academic analysis (Leggiere's being paradigmatic of this approach) the author explains where the historical knowledge stands and how he or she is going to augment, re-asses or analyze in a new light, by asking new questions to the existing evidence or by bringing to light new documents. Problem, of course, is that in many cases what reaches the reader is not the original manuscript as intended by the author, but an edited version. That has its advantages, of course; however, some times, the editors cut what they believe is uninteresting for the potential readers, and the "state of the question" (i.e. the historiographical debate) is one of the first things at being cut out of the final product.

Divulgative is an interesting word. Is that a recent addition to English from a Romance language?

And is it a synonym for "popular" here? Or does it mean "giving information rather than analyzing"?

Divulgative is an interesting word. Is that a recent addition to English from a Romance language?

Don't think so. Attribute it to my lack of writing skills in English! I think I've used what it's called a "false friend".

Or does it mean "giving information rather than analyzing"?

Yes and no. It does mean that analysis, while might exist, takes a step back and leaves the stage to entertaining information in the form of narrative history.

Zamoyski narrative of the 1812 Campaign is paradigmatic in that regard. It is clear that Zamoyski knows a lot of the subject, and it is not that it lacks analysis, but the story itself is more important. In a book like that the historiographical debate is of secondary importance.

Leggiere's books are excellent for what they cover on 1813. If you are looking for a definitive study of the overall campaign you will be disappointed.As someone said above they are very Prussocentric. As a history of the Army of Silesia's campaigns it is superb particularly the battles of Goldberg, Lowenberg, and the Katzbach.However,if you are looking for information on the battles of Dresden,Kulm or anything involving the Army of Bohemia you will find very little. That said they are an excellent read and well worth the purchase.