Rating: 
Summary: The Fran Tarkenton of the Battlefield
Review: Connelly analyzes Napoleon as "strategically challenged," but a masterful improvisor. Thus, per Connelly's analysis, Napoleon blunders into one potential disaster after another and snatches victory from the jaws of defeat only by scrambling brilliantly. Probably a more accurate assessment would be that Napoleon's confidence in his abilities and his troops made him willing to take enormous risks. When things went awry, his mental acumen and military ability usually carried him through to victory in spite of his overweening audacity. The book is an interesting read.
Rating: 
Summary: Blundering to Authorship is more like it.
Review: For some reason, the Napoleonic Era is my passion. I love to consume books about it. I bought "Blundering to Glory" in order to learn more. All I could learn from it is that some people are still fighting the Napoleonic Wars. In the place of muskets and cannon are prejudiced words and propoganda of the age. Mr. Connelly uses the same Anglo-eccentric/ anti-Napoleon propoganda that was used back then. At first, I thought it different, but as each chapter unfolded it became easier and easier to predict what he would say. I usually keep the Napoleonic books that I purchase. Needless to say, this is one that I didn't keep. So, I suggest that you do not make the same mistake I made and instead save your money and look for authors like Peter Hofschroer, David Hamiton-Williams, Scott Bowden, John Codman Ropes, Jay Luvaas, Brent Nosworthy, George Nafziger, Andrew Uffindell,... the list goes on and on.
Rating: 
Summary: Napoleon in a Nutshell
Review: I first read this little gem in 1992 & I've just finished my 4th enjoyable reading. Personally, I can't think of a more readable, economical, introduction to the Napoleonic wars. Following an introductory chapter on Bonaparte, each chapter examines a separate campaign (Italy, Austerlitz, Spain, Russia etc). Professor Connely's lifetime of scholarship in this field is well reflected throughout to include a comprehensive bibliography and a very good bibliographic essay examining works published since the first edition of this book. Whether you agree or disagree with his thesis (Napoleon the opportunist) this work is well worth the price. I also recommend Connelly's FRENCH REVOLUTION/NAPOLEONIC ERA, a short but well-done college text examing the military, political and cultural events of that period. Prior to attacking David Chandler's massive opus The CAMPAIGNS of NAPOLEON, also see
David Gates' The NAPOLEONIC WARS, Charles Esdaile's Thr WARS of NAPOLEON & Gunther Rothenberg's ART of WAR in the AGE of NAPOLEON.
All three are available in paperback. Happy reading!
Rating: 
Summary: A Little Disappointing
Review: I started out very involved and interested in Connelly's premise, but as the book went on, he strained his credibility. With such misleading statements as, "Massena scored a victory over [Wellington] at Bussaco in September 1810," Connelly made me wonder just how strenuously he had checked his facts and just what he may have twisted to suit his argument. Bussaco was a clear defeat for Massena, who had thrown five assaults at the British/Portuguese troops and been repulsed in every case. The allies were not only left in possession of the battlefield but had lost approximately 1,000 men to Massena's 4,000. How Connelly could count that as a victory for Massena is beyond me. Unless, of course the fact that, two days AFTER the battle, Massena's drive to outflank the allies caused Wellington to start his strategic withdrawal toward the Lines of Torres Vedras, is what Connelly calls a "victory." And it made me wonder, what else did Connelly change or leave out...what may he have glossed over because it didn't suit his argument? One reviewer here complained that Connelly covered Napoleon's early battles extensively but barely covered what some consider to be Napoleon's most brilliant display of genius: the battles of 1814. Was 1814 glossed over, perhaps, because it was damaging to Connelly's argument? Who knows? It's too bad, really. This book had great promise, but it lost me through sheer sloppiness. My recommendation: Read it for its interesting approach, but don't expect to be convinced by the end of it.
Rating:
Summary: A Little Disappointing
Review: I started out very involved and interested in Connelly's premise, but as the book went on, he strained his credibility. With such misleading statements as, "Massena scored a victory over [Wellington] at Bussaco in September 1810," Connelly made me wonder just how strenuously he had checked his facts and just what he may have twisted to suit his argument. Bussaco was a clear defeat for Massena, who had thrown five assaults at the British/Portuguese troops and been repulsed in every case. The allies were not only left in possession of the battlefield but had lost approximately 1,000 men to Massena's 4,000. How Connelly could count that as a victory for Massena is beyond me. Unless, of course the fact that, two days AFTER the battle, Massena's drive to outflank the allies caused Wellington to start his strategic withdrawal toward the Lines of Torres Vedras, is what Connelly calls a "victory." And it made me wonder, what else did Connelly change or leave out...what may he have glossed over because it didn't suit his argument? One reviewer here complained that Connelly covered Napoleon's early battles extensively but barely covered what some consider to be Napoleon's most brilliant display of genius: the battles of 1814. Was 1814 glossed over, perhaps, because it was damaging to Connelly's argument? Who knows? It's too bad, really. This book had great promise, but it lost me through sheer sloppiness. My recommendation: Read it for its interesting approach, but don't expect to be convinced by the end of it.
Rating: 
Summary: Very interesting
Review: I thought this book was, in general, very well done. The author laid out his thesis quite openly and made a convincing argument for it, although he was never dogmatic about it. One complaint- the early Italian campaigns are covered in exhaustive detail, while all the post-Marengo campaigns are treated with comparative brevity. I think the author should have written a more balanced treatment. For example, the 1814 campaign in France is dealt with in a few paragraphs when, in my view, it should have had a complete chapter devoted to it. Nevertheless, I thought this book was good and the information contained in it was quite enlightening.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent introduction to the Napoleonic wars
Review: It is a real gem of a volume, and although I have many other books on the Napoleonic Wars I have used it as a reference source countless times. The writing is very good, all trivial matters have been excluded and the maps although simple are numerous and informative. This book is the perfect choice for someone who wants to learn a lot about the wars of Napoleon without spending weeks to read the massive volumes of the other experts on the subject (Chanlder etc.)It gives the essence of Napoleon's operational art and reveals many little known aspects of his campaigns, like his excellent defensive maneuvers under desperate conditions in France in 1814.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting argument
Review: Owen Connelly convincingly argues that Napoleon's genius lay in his spontaneous tactical response on the battlefield rather than his strategic ability. According to Connelly, Napoleon favored attacking numerically superior opponents and then quickly retreating in order to access their response. When the inevitable counter attack came, Napoleon response was quick, spontaneous, and often lethal.Connelly attributes Napoleon's success to additional factors such as the plethora of brilliant generals under his command. Without them, Napoleon's ability to "scramble" effectively on the battlefield would be compromised. Napoleon's ability to divide his opponents and deal with them in a piecemeal fashion was another contributing factor to his string of early victories. But as Connelly points out, by the time of Waterloo, Napoleon's enemies were united and he had far fewer capable subordinates than he did in the early years. This book is appealing for its fresh point of view and its concise, lucid description of battles. Being a book about military history, "Blundering to Glory" is fascinating, but limited in many ways.
Rating:
Summary: Rarely does a book argue so well against itself.
Review: Setting out to assert that Napoleon's victories were primarily due to flexibility and persistence rather than a firm plan, the mark is missed and one finds numerous examples of over statement. Briefly explained in 222 pages, many examples show Napoleon mapping out victory over an enemy and when things do not progress as planned, the Little Corporal persists and defeats his enemy with "scramble." Ignored is the planning, training, national strategy, exemplary leadership shown by his generals and his enormous popular support. Emphasizing Napoleon's incredible ability to recalculate tactics in the midst of battle, Connelly ignores many other ingredients required for victory. Ably explained are the blow by blow of the battles, the preparations and conduct of major campaigns, and the European diplomacy. Personality traits are explored and addressed with respect to how myths and propaganda furthered the overall cause toward victory. All is done without bogging down the narrative in myriad of details slowing the pace and muddling the theme. Good maps provide helpful battlefield reconstruction. Aimed at a general audience, many may not argue with the conclusion. But after a fair and exciting account of Napoleon's military career, the ending overemphasizes one aspect of success and blunders into an incomplete conclusion. Napoleon's remarkable battlefield scramble was only possible due to the persistence of the commanders, the stoutness of the soldiers, the firm support of the national will and the implementation of innovations. All of them combined to bring victory.
Rating:
Summary: An interesting alternative view
Review: This book provides an interesting and different view of Napoleon than that which can be found in many books that tend to cling to the "legend", such as Chandlers' Military Campaigns of Napoleon. The earlier campaigns receive a more complete treatment than the later ones. It is unfortunate that the author avoids the conclusion that the book seems to be leading up to. The work paints a convincing picture of a determined, rather flawed, and yet, at least initially, lucky general whose opponents were, more often than not, incompetents. The conclusion that "Napoleon was probably the greatest commander of all time" seems to hang in mid air.This book is however a valuable addition to any Napoleonic library in that it provides many insights that are difficult to find elsewhere.
|
