/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7185051]

What are some quality books about Napoleon and his campaigns?

[Anonymous No.7185058]

>>7185051
war and peace

[Anonymous No.7185060]

>>7185051
Napoleon the Great, Andrew Roberts

shit painting tbh

[Anonymous No.7185062]

>>7185060
This vagina is huge.

[Anonymous No.7185071]

>>7185062
yeah i don't know how someone like ingres could mess it up so bad

[Anonymous No.7185086]

Any of you read any of these?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1885119275/ref=aw_wl_ov_dp_1_10?colid=3AGAWBBG6BSB5&coliid=I3APHL8W04X7N0

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1853673463/ref=aw_wl_ov_dp_2_3?colid=3AGAWBBG6BSB5&coliid=I25CN9DCLYWJU


https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0025236601/ref=aw_wl_ov_dp_1_3?colid=3AGAWBBG6BSB5&coliid=I1KLRQD66SQUL2

[Anonymous No.7185985]

>>7185051
Max Gallo's book

[Twiggy !zf/ZW7mGp6 No.7186004]

the best ones are real expensive

you'd be okay with getting:
napoleon by frank mcwhatever
napoelon by philip dwyer
moscow 1812: napoelon's fatal march
the military maxims of napoleon

[Anonymous No.7187408]

>>7185051
I found the Wellington & Napoleon Clash of Arms (Pen & Sword militar classics) In comparing the differences in warfare between the British and French.

[Anonymous No.7187638]

>>7186004
>napoleon by frank mcwhatever
Well at least I'm not the only person here who's ever even heard of that one.

[Anonymous No.7187682]

>>7185051
The Campaigns of Napoleon by David Chandler

[Anonymous No.7187741]

>>7185086
See:
>>7187682
Absolutely B A S E D.

The level of detail is ridiculous, but note that this will be a HORRIBLE introduction to Napoleon as a person, politician, and leader. It stays true to its name and is entire about his campaigns. With that in mind, however, it is phenomenal for the actual logistics and consequences of the battles: We're talking troop counts, death counts, formations and their utilization hour by hour throughout the battle in question, etc. Quite simply, this book will put you on the fucking battlefield with its level of detail. What it will not do is allow you to appreciate the political, economic, and social settings and consequences of those battles, and it will not impress on you the scale of Napoleon's military achievements.

This was the first book on Napoleon that I started reading, and while it was a blast, the big picture was totally lost on me, and I gleaned very little about Napoleon personally. And to give you an example of how it fails to convey the significance of the battles, I'll point out that even after reading about the battles of Jena and Austerlitz in Chandler's text, I was surprised to later read online just how surprising and overwhelmingly significant they were.

Read a more biographical text on Napoleon before reading Chandler's book (if you read it at all, considering how specific of a purpose it has). I've heard the new Roberts text recommended a lot, and a friend of mine read the "Rise to Power" and enjoyed it, but I can't personally comment on either.

PS If you get the Chandler text, go for a hardcopy, even though they're ~$50 used. The ebook totally falls short in providing you with the maps that are so crucial to understanding the flow of the battles.

[Anonymous No.7187765]

>>7187741
Do you think Wellingtons victory was really only possible because Napoleon fucked up so badly in Russia (losing massive amounts of men and the majority of his heavy horses)?

[Anonymous No.7187802]

>>7187765
I forgot to mention that I stopped reading Chandler at the start of the Russian campaign, so I can't answer that based in any definitive knowledge.

What I will say is that Napoleon had an insane capacity of utilizing his men against overwhelming odds, and while lower troop counts is an undeniable factor, I would never solely impute his loss to it.

I've heard two theories which I think work well in concert with each other:

(1) Napoleon was kind of going crazy. Although he was incredibly impressive in giving his officers the freedom to remain dynamic in executing field tactics and smaller scale strategies, the grand strategy for Europe as a whole rested on Napoleon alone. He worked ridiculous hours, but he was undertaking something very arguably impossible for a single man.

(2) Napoleon was increasingly protective of his elite troops (which I would argue was only exacerbated by his losses in Russia). If you have any familiarity with Napoleonic field strategy, you'll know that these guys were the heavy hitters--not in the sense that they did all of the lifting, but in the sense that they were rarely deployed, but when they WERE deployed it was with inimitable foresight and understanding of the battle: They entered at the perfect moment every time. With that in mind, Napoleon hesitated in deploying them at Waterloo, and had he not done so, it could have ended very differently for him.

Troop counts and supply logistics never stopped Napoleon before in his numerous campaigns in Italy and against Austria and Prussia, so I can not imagine that this factor alone would have fucked him at Waterloo.

[Anonymous No.7187884]

>>7187802
I'd say you'd be correct with those two theories.
I'd add.
1. That his generals were quite average (apart from that D... guy who died in Egypt) all his Marshall's seemed very poor in comparison to Nap himself.
I also think the Russian campaign was really the only other time other than the Egypt campaign when logistics really mattered.
For Russia he basically forced marched his massive army into a place where there was terrible grass for his heavy horse's and barely any roads.
This picture shows that even before the winter his army was melting.

[Anonymous No.7188374]

>>7187765
At Waterloo?
There are various elements which explain this defeat
First of all, Napoleon wasn't on the battlefield (he had hemorrhoid, he couldn't ride a horse), then, of course, he lost a lot of men (and very competent men) during the Russian campaign. But Waterloo was also difficult for the French army because Wellington had the perfect position, and the weather was in his favor).
The failure of the French army to take Hougoumont was decisive, they lost time and men for nothing. There's also the debate about the charge of Ney
And of course Grouchy fucked up with the reinforcement

On the other hand the British fought well and managed to maintain their position. And then Blücher's arrival ended the battle

[Anonymous No.7188408]

This question is asked every 3 days

[Anonymous No.7188421]

>>7188408
I would like to do as she suggests. mamamia

[Anonymous No.7188426]

>>7187802
>He worked ridiculous hours, but he was undertaking something very arguably impossible for a single man.

That's not an excuse. No one worked harder than Alexander. He led almost all the action personally and fought as the lead horse/man in every major battle. And he still found time to run an empire much larger than napoleon's

[Anonymous No.7188464]

>>7185051
The Phenomenology of Spirit

[Anonymous No.7188520]

>>7188426
European diplomacy and politics in the XIXth were much more complex than during the IVth century b.C you know

[Anonymous No.7188546]

>>7185051
Why is there a Plutarch's volume under the table? What's the symbolic? Why Plutarch?

[Anonymous No.7189176]

is there any difference at all between Napoleon: A life and Napoleon the Great? both are by the same author

[Anonymous No.7189222]

>>7188426
Lmao fuck off m8. Yeah Alexander worked like crazy, but most of his victories were either won by his preceding reputation, or the overwhelming superiority of his troops compared with those of Asia. And while he certainly burned the midnight oil when necessary, his logistical issues were nothing compared to Napoleon. Also Alexander was notorious for being cruel and paranoid against threats to his reign, and he had bouts of drunkenness in which he pulled shit like killing his own critics and friends, and fucking burning down the Persian royal palace at Persepolis.

[Anonymous No.7189260]

He actually wrote his own political pamphlet when he was still climbing the ranks.
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k44154z
Worth a read for some insight in his early views.

[Anonymous No.7189283]

>>7185062
It's quite obvious that the pants are too high and he has tucked his dick in his left pant sleeve.

[Anonymous No.7189675]

>>7189222

Overwhelming superiority? You mean like all the times he was outnumbered 5 or 10 to 1? How many sieges did napoleon complete? How much land did he conquer?

Logistical issues were massive in the ancient world. Do you have any idea how complicated it was regulating and paying a composite army hundreds of miles from your power base? Or invading a country where even your interpreters couldn't communicate with the locals?

Did napoleon ever lead a march through the desert or the Hindu Kush? Did napoleon ever have to conduct a battle from inside a cloud of battlefield dust with nothing but horns and his own voice? Did he ever lead so much as a single cavalry charge?

Alexander's drinking has been grossly distorted by the slanderers in Athens led by Demosthenes. Kleitus had it coming but Alexander still grieved three days in the blood stained robe for him. Parmenion was given a chance to prove his innocent and instead betrayed his conspiracy. We will never know what happened at Persepolis.

In many parts of the world the army had no choice but to drink wine. The water was poisonous and they lacked the modern understanding of microbiology which would have allowed them to see the connection between boiling water and sterilization.

On top of all this, napoleon himself idolized Alexander and studied all his campaigns and deeds heavily.

So you fuck off punk

[Anonymous No.7189684]

>>7188546
it was his favorite historian. and he liked to tell an anecdote from his youth about some warlord in corsica, who said that he was straight outta plutarch.

[Anonymous No.7189827]

>>7185051
>ctrl+f
>typed "belloc"
>0 results

c'mon /lit/....

[Anonymous No.7189829]

"Napoleon's Wars" by Charles Esdaile is a fantastic geopolitical history of the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars and is a good character study tbh. Must read.

[Anonymous No.7189852]

>>7189176
DOES ANYONE KNOW ANYTHING PLEASE

[Anonymous No.7189857]

>>7189852
check for free at your local public library

[Anonymous No.7189918]

first hand accounts of campaign 1812 by two of his closest officers, pic related and

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18113/18113-h/18113-h.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand-Augustin-Louis_de_Caulaincourt#Russian_campaign

[Anonymous No.7189941]

>>7189857
I LIVE IN NUNAVUT

[Anonymous No.7190087]

>>7189675
>getting paid
I wonder how that sort of thing was handled. Was there a weekly or bi monthly payday? Did they get raises? Or were they paid by the unit?

[Anonymous No.7190820]

Is there any book which explains why he became progressively shitter as time went on e.g. why were his tactics seemingly quite also-ran at Waterloo

dude reminds me for jose mourinho so much (if anyone here watches soccer)

[Anonymous No.7190865]

>>7189283
Wrong, this is what is really going on

[Anonymous No.7190867]

"In the Words of Napoleon" is very good, just finished it. Bunch of his letters and correspondences.

[Anonymous No.7190868]

I liked this one. Part 1.

[Anonymous No.7190871]

>>7190868
part 2

[Anonymous No.7190876]

>>7190868
>>7190871

These both are pretty in depth about everything napoleon. His personality, his personal life and family, politics, and especially his wars. The wars are definitely the biggest part of the books, it goes play by play through pretty much every single battle.

My favorite part was describing him as a young man in the french military academy. He really acted like a total aspie /lit/ outcast, even writing hilariously, "You're all so fucking stupid and i'm a goddamn genius!" essays.

[Anonymous No.7190882]

>>7190876

didn't he also wrtie a book or two? anyone know if they're any good?

[Anonymous No.7190884]

>>7189675
>You mean like all the times he was outnumbered 5 or 10 to 1?

The Greeks had a 150 year history of beating the shit out of overwhelming Asian troop counts with paltry numbers of their own; this was not Alexander's won doing.

>How many sieges did napoleon complete? How much land did he conquer?

Far fewer, you have a point. But Napoleon's sieges, and the land he conquered, was in opposition to the finest armies in the world. Alexander extremely quickly reached the point where the Asians recognized their inferiority in military prowess. His few noteworthy battles could only be considered such because of how fucking annoying the enemy was (Tyre) or because of crazy circumstances (Porus' elephants).

>Did napoleon ever lead a march through the desert or the Hindu Kush? Did napoleon ever have to conduct a battle from inside a cloud of battlefield dust with nothing but horns and his own voice? Did he ever lead so much as a single cavalry charge?

>yfw Alexander's march through the desert crippled his army and stripped them of their spoils from India
>yfw Napoleon had the world's most impressive, powerful, and dynamic record of in-battle strategy shifts thanks to his speed in communicating, not to mention his inimitable international lines of communication

>Parmenion was given a chance to prove his innocent and instead betrayed his conspiracy
Kek, Parmenion got fucked out of the fucking blue because PHILOTAS, his son, was put on trial, with the whole fucking proceeding being stacked against him. Read Curtius you Arrian-cocksucking ingrate.

>We will never know what happened at Persepolis.
Arrian and Curtius both maintain that Alexander set fire to the palace. The only question is if he did it because it was suggested to him by a palace whore, as Curtius suggests. There is no redemption for Alexander here; it's either bad or worse.

>In many parts of the world the army had no choice but to drink wine

Drinking wine ≠ getting drunk. The fact that Alexander's drunkenness was pointed out is evidence that it was beyond the norm.

>On top of all this, napoleon himself idolized Alexander and studied all his campaigns and deeds heavily.
>a military commander idolizes another military commander

You mean like how Alexander stroked his own cock so hard that he demanded to be called son of Jupiter? Or how he repeatedly put his army in danger because his ego refused to let him leave anyone unconquered? Or how he caused the deaths of a huge number of his men marching them through the desert just to say he did it? Or how he repeatedly did shit just to suck the cocks of Perseus and Heracles in an attempt to establish his own divinity (before being BTFO by Cleitus and Callisthenes)?

[Anonymous No.7190887]

>>7190882
On a similar note, how are the Memoirs of Napoleon by his secretary Bourrienne? A local used book store has a leather bound set in 7-8 volumes that makes my dick hard.

[Anonymous No.7190899]

>>7190882
I think he wrote a book when he was a still a teenager, and entered it into this contest.

Let's just say this:

He was the only one to enter into the contest, and he still lost.

[Anonymous No.7191315]

>>7189176
So no one knows anything huh

[Anonymous No.7191375]

>>7189176
They're the American and British titles of the same book.

[Anonymous No.7191399]

>>7191375
why was it necessary to have it be like that what prompted that decision? Why does one have more pages than the other?

[Anonymous No.7191417]

>>7185051
>that image
was Napoleon searching for the Dragon Balls?

[Anonymous No.7191425]

>>7190884
>Drinking wine ≠ getting drunk.

Yeah, modern wine, and booze in general isn't the same as it used to be. They used to make really weak beer and wine and rum for general drinking purposes, not to get drunk off of. They'd call it small beer, grog and i forgot what the wine was called, but it was really low alcohol content, only had enough alcohol in it to kill germs.

Napoleon was known for drinking a glass of weak wine, cut half with water, for dinner every day.

Alexander was definitely special as at that time, they always used full strength booze, and most everyone was a drunk. So to call somebody a drunk back them would put them in Bukowski range.

[Anonymous No.7191430]

>>7191417
holy

[Anonymous No.7191439]

>>7191399
>why was it necessary to have it be like that what prompted that decision?
How should I know? I'm not the publisher. Probably they thought a different title in America would make for better sales.
>Why does one have more pages than the other?
A small discrepancy in page numbers can have any number of reasons. The choice of font, page size etc.

[Anonymous No.7191452]

>>7191439
Well all right then. Thank you for your help.

[Anonymous No.7192141]

>>7185985
Ah, Max Gallo, the original meme historian. I wonder how many of Napoleon 's Marshalls turn out to be gay.

[Anonymous No.7192273]

>>7185051
I'd say something by Guillemin, but cross your sources

[Anonymous No.7192279]

>>7185051
Stefan Żeromski, Ashes

[Anonymous No.7192281]

>>7192279
>Stefan Żeromski, Ashes
people here too pleb to know it

[Anonymous No.7192284]

>>7190887
it's memoirs of bourienne, not napoleon. dunno about quality, havent read them.
fragments of napoleon's own memoirs can be found in what he dictated to gourgaud, las cases and montholon during st helena time. also the second half of caulaincourt's book, when they drove back to paris in a sled:
>>7189918

[Anonymous No.7192305]

Just read this.

[Anonymous No.7192309]

>>7185060
The only way to go, m8

[Anonymous No.7192318]

>>7189675
I've done a good amount of research on both leaders, and while Alexander's conquest is certainly impressive, the people he conquered, (i.e. Arabs) would rather flee to the mountains and pay for protection rather than fight Alexander's army.

Both were legendary leaders, but to say that Napoleon's conquest of Europe under the formalized treaties against all of France and his eventual downfall. And you're only taking into account the military conquest. All Alexander really managed to do with his troops was alientate them by adopting local customs over his traditional Macedonian practices (see Proskynesis)

The argument that he was losing his mind is absolute garbage, he struggled at Waterloo because of his inability to deploy his artillery troops in time due to the heavy rainfall the night before.

The rising sun was seen at Austerlitz, the setting sun at Waterloo.

[Anonymous No.7192319]

>>7188426
Napoleon ran a modern civiliziation, under progressive and enlightened ideologies. He championed liberalism, had the civil law system essentially re-kindled into existence in Europe after Justinian; and forged France under his control after a rowdy revolution, in an impressive act of political cunning. Even more cunning was his ability to spread liberal ideals in Europe, in the face of absolutist powers such as Prussia and Austria.

Alexander was a young-buck fucktard who vaguely ruled over territories who had been governed by Satraps and governors anyway, with no real sense of allegiance to Persian rule: easy pickings. Alexander was a military genius, granted, but he was no whizz in actually administrating and left it to his cronies: Selcuid, Ptolemy, etc. Therefore, the circumstances are different, and Napoleon had much more to deal with, and handled it in a more complex and impactful way than Alexander, not to mention the age gap between the leaders.

Also, gr8 b8 m8 made me ir8

[Anonymous No.7192321]

>>7190882
He submitted a few essays to L'Ecole, but later retracted them.

Once he came to power he had them destroyed saying how badly written they were lolz. Some of his writings in the Andrew's book at pretty lulzy, definitely seems like a /lit/ poster

[Anonymous No.7192340]

>>7192321
quality cant have been that bad. one of them won first prize or something. when fouche retrieved the original submission and gave it to him, napoleon threw it into the fire. probably its idealism contradicted his later career a bit too much.

[Anonymous No.7192344]

>>7192319
How could he spread liberal ideals when he was a dictator who turned France into a police state?

[Anonymous No.7192357]

>>7192344
A liberal state is the best police state

[Anonymous No.7192367]

>>7192357
>Aphorisms from /pol/

[Anonymous No.7192593]

>>7192340
I don't think they were bad. I believe it was in the Felix or Robert's version where it talks about how his beliefs changed and that he felt embarrassed by his writings in the past.

Completely makes sense, especially given how cringey his school years sound. And the fact that the Sorrows of Young Werther was his favorite book.

[Anonymous No.7193100]

>>7192318

Don't tell me to 'see' anything you daft cunt, I've read all the existing literature on Alexander. His troops were initially a bit skeptical about the prostration, but the rank and file were never bothered with it. He had his officers perform it, and most were glad enough because they were dear friends. Kallisthenes of course refused, and it was clear enough why: he would later contrive to have Alexander murdered by his squires.

Shortly before he died, the entire army rioted when he tried to discharge the veterans back to Macedon. Alexander decided to replace them with loyal Persians. Three days later, they ran in a body to where he was giving address, and flung themselves at his feet, wailing 'you call these Persians your kinsmen, you let them kiss your face; and which of us has kissed you?'

Napoleon was beloved and respected by his troops. Alexander was worshipped like a god by his, and not out of fear.

[Anonymous No.7195333]

>>7185051

Napoleon: The Man Of Destiny by Emil Ludwig

[Anonymous No.7195343]

>>7192284
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3567/3567-h/3567-h.htm

They're memoirs of Napoleon, written by Bourrienne.

[Anonymous No.7195373]

>>7193100
What fucking extant literature have you read on Alexander that you're fucking delusional enough to believe that Callisthenes was rightfully executed?

>it was clear enough why: he would later contrive to have Alexander murdered by his squires.

If you have read any extant fucking source on Alexander you will understand that Callisthenes was indicted as a sympathizer rather than an actual participant, and his execution was just another sign of Alexander's increasing paranoia and impetuousness in quashing potential sources of conflict within his own empire. Philotas' trial was a fucking disgrace, Parmenion's assassination was a fucking disgrace, and Callisthenes' execution was a fucking disgrace. Quite sucking Alexander's cock for long enough to get some actual perspective.

>Alexander was worshipped like a god by his, and not out of fear.

Literally only the memeing cocksuckers in his army did this, and his men cried out to him after their dismissal at Opis because of their own shame (exacerbated by their HELLENISTIC GREEK CULTURAL UPBRINGING you fucking swine) COUPLED with their undeniable respect for him as a military commander. Basically, they felt shitty for abandoning him, and got pissed that he was going to conquer the whole world without him.

If he were worshipped as a fucking god by all of his men, do you really think they would have just said "nah" to crossing they Hyphasis and conquering all of India? Would they have bitched at him if they considered him divine?

Read a book faggot.

[Anonymous No.7195894]

>>7192319
>He championed liberalism
Britain did it better m8, the civil system isn't as good as the common law system when it comes to property rights
>forged France under his control after a rowdy revolution in an impressive act of political cunning
nope. the directory had been in power for 6 years and the revolution was over. yes there were many revolutions and counter revolutions, but they all failed, save for Napoleons...

It was the directory that began centralization, reforming the tax code, taming the countryside (especially Brittany), establishing effective secret police, consolidating the debt and reforming the currency. Bourgeois values were the order of the day. The directory had many military successes in Italy (under Napoleon) and in the low countries. Napoleon inherited a lot of the mechanisms from the directory and claimed all the credit for himself.

>absolutist powers such as Prussia and Austria
nope nope nope, Prussia and Austria were doing just fine without Napoleon and the whole idea of "absolutism" is a huge bogey that never lived up to its name.

[Anonymous No.7195931]

>>7195373

Listen you subhuman trash, you're the one who needs to pick up a fucking book. You talk like one of the Athenian plebs brainwashed by demosthenes. You're spewing absolute nonsense about a man who's been dead for 2300 years.

The squires were tutored by Kallisthenes on a daily basis. They had their minds turned by him and his lectures on glorified tyrannicides. Why the hell would a bunch of nobody pages turn against the most powerful man in Greek history? It was suicide even if they succeed. Kallisthenes was a true disciple of Aristotle right down to the racist beliefs of Greek superiority. Like many others educated in Athens, he was taught to regard Persians as being one step above wild animals. Nevermind that many Greeks (Macedonians especially) were fucking savages compared to blood Persians.

Philotas confessed (!) to concealing knowledge of a plot against Alexander's life. Can you imagine a secret service agent failing to disclose a conspiracy to assassinate the president?

Parmenion was in charge of Alexander's rear guard and the entire treasury. Philotas was his only remaining son and the blood feud would almost certainly have left Alexander and his army cut off in hostile territory. Parmenion had the means and the men to fight Alexander in revenge.

Yet even then he gave Parmenion a chance to exonerate himself. He forged a letter in Philotas name and sent it along with the royal dispatch. The letter detailed the progress of a plot against Alexander. The messengers were ordered to watch his face as he read the letter. When his mirth became obvious, they killed him.

And even belief in divinity is not sufficient to do all things. He couldn't have just sent the men to their death on his authority, and they saw no glory in continuing to fight through India.

Alexander accomplished more, and in a shorter period, than any commander before or since. Those territories he invaded were not even mapped in his day. Napoleon knew what he was getting into.

And still, in 12 years Alexander never lost a battle. By the time he died, he has been wounded by every kind of weapon known to man. All his wounds were in front. While he lead the army, not a single man was killed in flight.

Look on napoleon's disasters and let that sink in.

[Anonymous No.7196087]

>>7188426
>No one worked harder than Alexander.
Entirely subjective and debatable.

>He led almost all the action personally and fought as the lead horse/man in every major battle.
This doesn't prove that he 'worked harder than anyone else'.

>And he still found time to run an empire much larger than napoleon's
For the most part he simply continued an administrative system already in place (Persian satrapy etc), and made no allowance for what would happen after he died, with disastrous consequences for his empire. In fact that was mostly the reason for his vast territorial conquests; an already established empire was practically transferred to his rule as soon as the monarch had died.

[Anonymous No.7196274]

>>7195343
just misleading title.
read a random part and it's always from bourienne's perspective.

>>7195333
very idiosyncratic interpretation of events and sometimes simply ignoring contradicting facts (or maybe wasnt aware of them because caulaincourt's books hadnt been published then). he sacrificed too much to have an appealing novel. the writing itself is also not very good, like a worse version of stefan zweig, who also had sloppy prose himself. wouldnt recommend

[Anonymous No.7197959]

bump