"Recent Writing on Napoleon and His Wars" Topic

"Let us begin with a rather obvious question. Over the past two hundred years the subject of Napoleon Bonaparte, his wars and his empire is one that has been discussed ad infinitum by numerous scholars in Britain, France and other countries. Why this should be the case is obvious enough, but it does rather beg a very serious question. In brief, if so much has been said already, is there anything left to say now? To this question, however, the answer is a most unequivocal 'yes': there are many areas that, at least in English, remain all but unexplored, and others that are in great need of further attention. Amongst these last, particular mention should be made of the military aspects of the question. If this last statement is doubted, let us consider the historiography. In effect, this is dominated by certain rather formulaic approaches which were for far too long pursued to the exclusion of almost everything else. Thus, the campaigns of Marengo, Austerlitz and the rest have generally been viewed either as an integral part of lives of Napoleon or as an exercise in narrative undertaken for its own sake. In both cases, the result is the same in that what we get is a series of linked stories that are retailed in greater or lesser detail according to the space that is available and the audience that is being catered for but rarely move away from the sphere of operational history. There is nothing wrong with this approach per se – before deeper issues can be discussed, it is essential to get to grips with the chronology of the wars and to develop a clear understanding of their detail – while it has on occasion not only been pursued in masterly fashion but married with effective discussions of such matters as Napoleon's generalship and the contemporary art of war. Yet the chief thrust remains essentially uniform, and is hardly varied by the numerous studies that have appeared of individual campaigns such as those of Wagram or Waterloo. Nor do such works address the whole of the story. Obviously, the first thing that comes to mind here is the so-called 'new military history' that views wars and warfare as as much as social and political phenomena as they are military ones, but much more serious is the fact that simple narratives of Napoleon's campaigns do not provide comprehensive coverage even of areas of study that are central to conventional military history. Until the publication of the current reviewer's own Napoleon's Wars: an International History, 1803-1815 (London: Allen Lane, 2007), for example…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Wow! Read this statement a couple of times. Sounds like something Sir Humphrey Appleby would write.

I think its trying to draw our attention to 4 books written about 10 years ago with, in the authors opinion, some new perspective and relevance.

Remarkably complex way of saying it. Perhaps the intended audience is limited to university professors only? Although they're hardly the mass market if you're trying to sell books.

Seems to me to be a case of dazzling with brilliance versus baffling with BS.

Published in the Journal of Military History and clearly a senior academic, to judge by his brief CV. His writing style does not make for east reading and there is great need for proofreading to correct many verb conjugations, in just this short text.

I thought the "Yes Minister" comment was inspired……

Most weeks I will peer review articles submitted to a particular medical journal. Different audience of course, but this would be returned for a drastic reduction in the word count, after the first paragraph. Senior academics would rarely persist in reading through such text, I feel. Their students, however, might have to struggle through and then feel required to produce such, for the rest of their lives.

Bit like The Law Profession………