The book:
Napoleon: The myth of the saviour The author:
A master of his material.
The book’s editor:
Failed utterly to present the material in an approachable format that the reader could reasonably make sense of. He had no control over his author. In this case, the author went where he wished. And when a person knows a lot on a topic, there are a lot of places he can go.
The book:
At about only 450 pages in length, this book could still be considered truly encyclopedic in its approach to the topic. Being encyclopedic means that the author often went off on tangents(although knowledgeably so). It is one thing to be knowledgeable and another to be able to communicate that knowledge in a meaningful format.
My approach to the book:
To the question of how long does it take to read an encyclopedia, I can only answer…how much time do you have?
One thing I have found very interesting in reading this book is to discover that Napoleon is really a third rail for many people. Everyone seems to have a very clear opinion on the man being either great or horrible.
I find it of special interest to read De Gaulle on the topic of Napoleon:
Over a century later, French President Charles de Gaulle wrote:
Napoleon left France crushed, invaded, drained of blood and courage, smaller than when he had taken control of her destinies, condemned to ill-drawn frontiers, the evils of which still persist, and exposed to the distrust of Europe which has weighed upon her to this day. But it is impossible to dismiss as of no account the matchless lustre which he imparted to our armies.…
I don’t see Napoleon as all bad or all good but a mixture. I could provide a list to substantiate both, however, this Forum is not the place.
A major warning: anyone reading this book must be prepared to do a lot of background reading on the French Revolutionary Wars, and of course be familiar with the French Revolutionary calendar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_calendarWith that being said, I know that I have only scratched the surface when it comes to understanding the man and the roles he played in his life time.
I think it is fair to say also that the author did not make a clear case as to why he thought that Napoleon was the savior of France.
I would give it 4/10 at this time, with the qualification that in another 2-3 weeks when I have read it again, that the number could change.