Napoleon and Wellington: The Long Duel by Andrew Roberts

Napoleon and Wellington: The Long Duel Reviews

• 
  Sean Chick

  I wish I could rate this more highly, for Roberts is a good writer with a keen insight into Wellington's personality and the battle over history. Yet the book fails because of his conservative bent, that while relatively under raps, comes through in the book. Wellington, the arch-conservative, is therefore his hero, and his British critics are consistently insulted. I am always struck by the Anglo-American conservative love for British "traditions" and yet their tacit denial of the right to disagree with those traditions. Apparently torture and mass arrests are only bad when done by non-English speaking peoples.
  
  Roberts's unsaid contention is that Wellington was the superior soldier, and while he does not go in for hero-worship, he also pushes the lie that Wellington never lost a battle. Napoleon meanwhile is never given the benefit of the doubt and his description of Bonaparte as both man and general is shallow. The author rightfully complains about pro-French historians denigrating Wellington, while failing to call out the hacks who see Napoleon as a forerunner to Mussolini and Stalin. Ultimately he ends with some vague fears that the British "system" is being eclipsed by something closer to Napoleon's vision. Not that he is wrong in this regard, but rather that his fear seems reactionary and goofy, but it is in keeping with his obsessions over an "angloshpere" that will rival the EU, Russia, and China.
  
  So there you have it, a fine writer done in by the British obsession over denigrating Napoleon. He was a flawed man, but hardly the proto-Hitler of the British imagination. With Napoleon, you get the feeling that guys like Roberts, Horne, and Keegan are pleading their case, because Napoleon remains a more famous and captivating man than any of their Tory heroes. Roberts does not quite say it, but he is pained by a simple truth: Wellington won Waterloo, but Napoleon won the war of memory.
• 
  Paul Mamani

  Gossipy and anecdotal, at times amusing and at other times enlightening, this book meanders across an era looking for connections between its two greatest generals.
  
  
  
  
  
  British Sunday Telegraph contributor Roberts (Eminent Churchillians) concentrates not on the respective merits of Napoleon and Wellington, but on what they thought, wrote, and said about each other. He spices his text with vignettes such as an extensive description of Napoleon's hemorrhoid problem on the eve of Waterloo, and its successful treatment by the famous surgeon Baron Larrey. Then he demonstrates the relevance of his stories—in this case by showing that Napoleon was by no means as debilitated on the day of battle as popular myth accepts. Wellington and Napoleon did not face each other until Waterloo in 1815. Napoleon, who first heard of Wellington in 1808, never showed his great rival quite the respect he deserved, let alone the respect Wellington considered his due, Roberts shows. Though partisans and critics of both men stress their differences, Roberts's text makes a convincing case that Napoleon and Wellington were more alike than either of them would have conceded.
  
  
  
  
  Both considered Hannibal their military hero; both carried Julius Caesar's Commentaries in the field. They even shared a couple of mistresses—Wellington was at pains to show his post-Waterloo triumph in every way possible. Both were self-confident to the point of arrogance, consciously unemotional and obsessively focused on success. And they spent increasing amounts of time, particularly after 1815, blackguarding each other in the fashion of contemporary professional wrestlers. This history presumes a high level of background knowledge, but readers interested in the rivalries of the period will find it thoroughly absorbing.
• 
  Gerry

  The story of a relationship. They never formally met, but each had plenty to say about the other. What began with mutual respect and some admiration became, after Waterloo, inimical. Here, Wellington enjoys the advantage in part because he survived Napoleon by thirty-one years. After the battle, Napoleon gave little credit to Wellington for his victory, but blamed his defeat on his own subordinates, the weather, and other factors save his opponent's competence. Meanwhile, the Duke publicly admired Napoleon (beating a praiseworthy foe reflects well upon oneself) while privately disparaging him. Along the way, we encounter mistresses, good generals, bad generals, brief biographies, a burned violin, imperial hemorrhoids, "pachydermal penetration," and the dismissal of several battlefield legends. While not a detailed study of Waterloo (and it doesn't claim to be), it's an interesting read. I appreciated learning more about Wellington, not having read much on him. Unfortunately, the book does look to be shoddily bound (Simon & Schuster via Barnes & Noble).
• 
  Simon

  I enjoyed this book but ultimately the weakness of the book is the weakness of the title. It is only interesting up to a point to have these 2 great historic figures continually compared and contrasted. My view is it works for about 200 of the 350 pages .
  
  The other aspect which I found not so interesting was to read over many pages the interpretation that both Napoleon and Wellington put on their own battles and successes and failures. Napoleon on st Helena has much time to muse and we get a steady account of the blame he heaps on his generals, on the weather on strategy on others for his ultimate failure at Waterloo. This I found long and repetitive.
  
  Against these weaknesses there is nonetheless Roberts outstanding scholarly and ironic presentation. I particularly like his ability to inject wit and irony into his account of these 2 greats occasionally debunking even our greatest national military General.
• 
  Andrew

  Napoleon and Wellington are historically joined at the hip because of their epic encounter at Waterloo. Yet other apparent similarities are striking: both were born in the same year (1769), both were born of prominent fathers who died when the boys were in early adolescence, both had four brothers and three sisters, both spoke French as their second language, both were self-taught in military matters, both led their nations (Wellington as prime minister from 1828-30), they even shared two mistresses (though perhaps less remarkably Wellington picked them up after Napoleon’s defeat), and one of Wellington’s brothers even married the sister-in-law of the ex-wife of one of Napoleon’s brothers.
  
  But Andrew Roberts has not set out to offer a dual biography. Rather his purpose is to compare and contrast Napoleon and Wellington especially as their lives and events led up to and followed Waterloo. In particular, he focuses on what the two thought of each other before and after 1815.
  
  Perhaps because of Napoleon’s outsized personality, genius, and accomplishments, historians have been prone to see the contrasts between the two adversaries in high relief. As one put it, “Whereas Napoleon consistently misunderstood and underrated Wellington, Wellington was never in doubt about the genius of Napoleon.”
  
  Roberts comments, “Yet the reality is not nearly so simple. History might not repeat itself, but historians repeat one another, and the myth has grown up of ludicrous Napoleonic over-confidence. This in turn almost for the sake of contrast, has spawned a mirror myth of Wellington’s modesty and near-perfect gentlemanliness, always ready to accord Napoleon the first place in the hierarchy of generalship. It is these two myths that the present work sets out to dispel, for the truth is far less straightforward and much more interesting.” (pp xxxi-xxxii).
  
  To do so, Roberts largely follows Wellington’s career and brings in Napoleon as needed to round out the larger context and to lead up to their confrontation in 1815. I was happy with that choice since I knew less of Wellington and since even summarizing Napoleon’s life would have unbalanced the work. Wellington’s campaign against French forces in Portugal and Spain (1808-13) was especially instructive in understanding his military mind and his approach to Waterloo.
  
  No, Wellington was not always the consummate, self-effacing gentleman. Roberts’s thesis (spoiler alert) is that Wellington did indeed always praise Napoleon publicly for his military prowess since to denigrate the emperor would be to tarnish Wellington’s own reputation as the conqueror of the world’s greatest general. In private, however, Wellington was quite critical of Napoleon’s strategies and tactics especially in the Russian campaign as well as at Waterloo.
  
  Napoleon, on the other hand, expressed considerable appreciation for Wellington and his victories prior to Waterloo. To put himself in a better light following 1815, however, he criticized Wellington and chalked up his victory to dumb luck and to the mistakes of Bonaparte’s own underlings.
  
  And who won history? Europe today more closely resembles Napoleon’s vision of a united continent significantly influenced by a logical, organized Napoleonic legal code (though not under French hegemony) than it resembles Wellington’s aristocratic sensibilities and a legal system based on precedent.
• 
  James Varney

  Just a really good, fun history. It's not a military history. Obviously, Roberts talks about the various battles each famous general won, and Waterloo most of all, but it is more about how each saw the other. Roberts draws on voluminous sources, chiefly from those around when both were alive, and especially a wealth of history about the comments, public and private, Wellington and Napoleon made about each other. Roberts' concluding chapter is excellent, summarizing what the book reveals: namely, that Wellington sometimes was much more scathing about Napoleon privately than he ever was publicly, while Napoleon's allegedly dismissive, almost contemptuous attitude toward Wellington is a fiction. One delicious bit comes from the *very end* of the book, however, which was published in 2001. It comes when Roberts talks about how history seems to have swung away from the convincing victory the British outlook had won over the French in the 19th century. He notes the EU shows Napoleon's "Continental system" had emerged. Ha! Brexit has moved the historical needle yet again.
  
  Highly recommended, really fun to read book.
• 
  Pieter Baert

  Andrew Roberts succeeds in telling the complex story of two great men who never actually met with class and clarity. He uses his work to debunk serveral myths of Napoleon and Wellington and the finished product is a book that offers a nice comparison between both men (how were they alike and how were they different), how they viewed each other etc. Roberts takes his time in pointing out that historians often misintepreted the words of both men and relied to heavily on sources that were honestly coloured. Even though Roberts is known to be a great Napoleonfan, he does not let this come in the way in pointing out Napoleon's mistakes, character defects and when Napoleon was unfairly harsh on Wellington. Towards the end it offers a nice insight in the mind of Napoleon on St-Helena as he seems to slip further and further into depression and disillussion with his current faith and how he blamed Wellington for a large part of it. Worth reading!
• 
  Tom

  In my mind this book was more of a direct comparison of the moral and ethical values of two individuals who were both very successful battlefield commanders. Much of the book dealt with their personalities and their activities off the field of battle. Only the last few dust ups leading toward Waterloo offered direct comparisons of their actions when facing each other. As to the strategies these two commanders utilized the author presented only brief descriptions. I gave the book four stars in recognition of the research involved. Don't draw on this book to determine who was the greater of the two.
• 
  David Newell

  A solid read, well put together, this duel biography does a good job of comparing and contrasting the two great men of this age (ha! two of the great men of their age, rather)
• 
  Anna

  Having read his most recent biography of Napoleon at the beginning of this year, I had very high expectations for this book, and whilst it did not entirely disappoint, it took some time for me to become properly invested.
  
  As I have found before, Roberts writes in a way which evokes quality and knowledge, producing well sourced and referenced judgments. Once again he frequently used anecdotes, many of which were entertaining which lighten the text.
  
  However, the discussion of the military pursuits of Napoleon and Wellington whilst detailed, was very dry. Furthermore, as other reviewers have noted, Roberts does at times appear to be biasedly favorable towards Wellington although he is by no means blind to some of his faults.
  
  Overall, a great read which I found made me learn a lot about Wellington's character and reinforced my fascination with Napoleon as a man with many intricacies and contradictions. People fascinated with early modern warfare will really enjoy this book.
  
  (I would give it a rating of 3.5 stars if possible)
• 
  Old-Barbarossa

  A historical look at the lives of the two men, comparing and contrasting their lives and styles of command, where their lives crossed or very nearly did. Full of things that, with my limited knowledge of the period, I had no idea about (eg: the large amount of Whig support that Napolen had in England). Towards the end of their lives it appears that Wellington became almost obssessed with collecting Napoleon related souveniers (including 2 of his mistresses), while Napoleon grew more and more bitter and blamed everyone but himself for the defeat at Waterloo. Lively and enjoyable history.
• 
  Betsy

  A good look at two of the most important military leaders of the 19th century. Focusing on their one meeting on the field of Waterloo, the author discusses their views of each other's generalship. For the most part, I felt the author tried to be objective, and I learned a great deal about the two men.
• 
  Duzzlebrarian

  I'd like to do the opposite of recommending this edition. Don't waste your money. No matter that the actual text of the book is excellent, the binding was so awful it fell to pieces after being read three times. THREE TIMES. Ridiculous.
  
  
• 
  Blair

  An engaging and often funny account of two great commanders in the age of revolution and war. It is a well balanced and unbiased view of both men's personalities and motivations both on and off the battlefield.
• 
  Stewart Crichton

  One of the more entertaining biographies I have read of these men. Roberts held my interest and kept me reading even during what could be called the duller content. Where it falls down is a slight bent in Wellington's favour as a little bias creeps through. Over all a good read.
• 
  Mark Watson

  brillantly researched and a useful tool for those of us into 19th century military history
• 
  Polarbearandy

  good book, but slightly slanted to the british. other than that it was worth readng if you like the napoleanic era.
• 
  Urey Patrick

  Interesting look at the personalities of Napoleon and Wellington juxtaposed against their careers and campaigns - and how each affected and influenced the other.
• 
  Dominik Niekowal

  .
• 
  Ben Van Kurin

  Very factual but hard to follow