"Napoleon's Blackguards" Topic

"Spain 1808. A remarkable debut novel, Napoleon's Blackguards introduces Captain James Ryan – brutally courageous, but haunted by the horrors of war – wanted by the British for his part in the 1798 Irish Rebellion, he escapes to France and joins Napoleon's Irish Legion. The Irish unit's reputation as the most hard-fighting and ill-disciplined unit in the French Army has been hard-earned, for they comprise a motley crew of blackguards, deserters, and others escaping the long hand of the law, all led by a band of former Irish rebels.

Ryan's Irish battalion deployed to Spain during the Peninsular War, a war that drew England into the conflict in ousting the invading French from the Iberian Peninsula. When the British army arrives in Spain they are faced with a much larger French force led by Napoleon himself, and forced to retreat, fight a desperate rear guard action to reach Corunna, to ship them, Dunkirk-style back to England…"

link

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Sounds interesting. Nice to see something from the French side of the lines.

Apparently, it isn't very good.

link

Have to read it…

Amicalement
Armand

I'm skimming through it. Lots of historical and other bloopers, and written in a combination of "boys own" and intentional shock style. Neither works.

It would be nice if there was a book where the main character is 100% French, and not some hybrid mix, and if the action occurred somewhere other than the freaking Peninsula!

There's more here about Corunna and Moore than about Napoleon.

and you have to say it right.

Esp for our Trans Atlantic cousins,

This is a very Irish term…..pronounced…

"Blaggard..s". I admit it depends how far south you were born

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

'An albino Captain Darkford of the 4th Light Dragoons, who murdered Ryan's family, is among them' – 'them' being the British Army heading to Corunna

Well one of those statements is interesting, another is impossible!

"Captain Darkford of the 4th Light Dragoons"

Not before 1818, anyway….

I think 'blaggard' is/was pretty much universal.

Hmm. On the one hand, it is nice to see a new Napoleonic novel. And, although stating the main character took his 'shako' off to wipe his brow and then put his 'helmet' back on, in the first short paragraph might not bode well, although the author could be saying helmet in case the reader did now know what a shako was, it might still be worth giving it a go. And, although I think many of us would like to see a new Napoleonic novel set in a location other than Spain or Portugal, it is a first novel and novels with a Peninsular background do sell well. And perhaps the author has plans for his main character to have adventures in other areas, who knows? And I don't think any historical novel ever written has been error free or totally historically accurate. After all, it is a novel, a work of fiction and, like many so called historical films, it is aimed more for entertainment value than historical accuracy.

Oh, dear, Gazzola--the infamous "But it's just a novel!" defense. Doesn't work, mon ami.

Historical fiction to be worthy of the name is equal parts accurate historical accuracy not only in terms of events and dates but also regarding social norms, economics, politics, clothing, manners, speech, and world views appropriate for the era, and a strong plot with well-developed characters.

Come up short on either part and all that is left is a pile of horse droppings.

MaggieC70

I disagree, but only if the novel reads well. And surely anyone looking for pure and full historical accuracy in any novel is wasting their time. Although I am sure we'd all love historical novels to be well, accurate and have a true 'period' feel about them, the reality is usually different, probably because reality and historical timelines would not fit into the author's plot. And no doubt every author, if not reader, will have their own opinions and viewpoints of historical events and characters anyway.

But look at Tolstoy's War and Peace. It is full of fictional characters and fictional events, alongside historical events. And I don't know if it is true but the author was said to have described it as 'not a novel, even less a poem, and still less a historical chronicle'. LOL

In my opinion, whatever the author's intention, War and Peace is a novel, and one about fictional people, with events that just happens to be set during the Napoleonic Wars. Whether it should be considered a good read or not depends on the reader.

But novels are novels, they are not historical records or historical accounts. And I'm pretty sure a British rifleman called Sharpe did not capture a French eagle during the Napoleonic wars. Yet Cornwell's novels are good reads and very popular, albeit not very 'accurate historically', even less so the TV series based on his novels. LOL. But the novels were still popular (and the drama series) because the readers were looking for a good read, not a history book.

But I would be interested in hearing any examples of the historical inaccuracies contained within this novel? They must be pretty bad and possibly worse than those in the Cornwell's novels, going by your comments? That is sad, if true, because it's been a long time since a new historical novel with a Napoleonic background has become available, so it would be good to know more about it.

Everyone seems to trot out War and Peace s the exemplar of historical fiction, closely followed by anything by Walter Scott. My comments were directed toward historical fiction published in the past 20 years or so, to include any eras, not just the Napoleonic Wars.

And yes, I understand the popularity of Cornwell's Sharpe among a large group of readers, although I've never been one of them.

Sorry, but I'm a purist, and I expect historical fiction, with or without fictional characters, to be an accurate representation of whatever period the author chooses. To give any author a pass because "reality and historical timelines would not fit into the author's plot" completely defeats the purpose of the historical fiction genre. It that is true, then the result becomes historical fantasy, which is something else entirely.

MaggieC70

War and Peace was mentioned for two reasons, firstly, it is probably the best known 'Napoleonic' novel and secondly, I am posting in the Napoleonic boards. As we all know, Napoleonic novels are few and far between anyway, which is why I was suggesting giving the new one a chance, at least until someone has actually read it and reviews have been offered.

But I'm certainly not giving anyone a 'pass' for any historical period novel. I'm saying that those of us who would 'prefer' everything to be as accurate as possible, historically, should perhaps not expect or be surprised that sadly, that ideal does not exist in reality. Novels are a bit like newspapers stories in that authors tend not to let the truth get in the way of a good story. And at least some authors offer their reasons for altering historical facts, timelines or for even inventing events at the start or end of their books. And historical novels generally are a fantasy, a fantasy of the authors imagination. They have just chosen to write their fantasy within a certain historical period.

But if it reads good then the reader has to decide if they can ignore the inaccuracies and continue reading. And if they can't ignore them, no matter how good the actual writing might be or how interesting the story or plot is, then I can imagine there will be very few novels that they can attempt to read and it might be best if they just stick to reading non-fiction titles. The inaccuracies would have to be pretty bad, such as Wellington being Welsh and Blucher a Frenchman. It would be good if someone annoyed by historical inaccuracies had a go at writing a totally accurate historical novel. That would be very interesting to see and hopefully good to read.

Art McGrath wrote two books about an Irish/French soldier who served with Ney before the Grande Armee was official and then during the campaigns until the end of 1806. They are well-written, the second more so than the first, and both are historically accurate. Tom Williams also does a credible job on both the writing and research fronts.

Thus it can be done: combine good writing with good scholarship. But my point is simple: too often many readers have settled for second- and third-rate novels just because, as you said, there are just not that many novels set during the period.

I'm a historian, so no matter how well-written a book may be, if it contains historical mistakes, not on or two but scores, then I will definitely express my negative opinion.

You're right that for those of us who can't get past inaccuracies, reading historical fiction can be a real minefield. Yet look at the popularity of Philippa Gregory, Alison Weir, and a number of other writers in other periods who distort history but attract legions of undiscerning fans…

MaggieC70

I don't think it is a case of settling for second and third rate novels. That is suggesting a sort of elitism. I just think that, as with historical films and drama, most people do not go to see them for historical accuracy as you would with a historical documentary, they go to be entertained. It is the same with novels. I think some people can switch off and just enjoy the story, providing it is entertaining and well written to whatever level the reader will accept and some people can't. So a bad or good novel depends on the opinion on whoever is reading it.