Reviews for Napoleon's Army

The average rating for Napoleon's Army based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-02-02 00:00:00 Thomas Morrison I found this a most thrilling coverage's of Napoleon's army on my first read from the library, such that it became a must own. Since then I have moved on and deeper and this is a little more superficial than I'd look for now, but it had its great influence in its time. The second part on Davout at Auerstedt was of similar effect

Review # 2 was written on 2010-03-05 00:00:00 Donna Mccracken I read this book for an introductory graduate school class about the reading and writing of history. It's hard to pin down exactly what sub-topic of history to place this book in. On the surface, it's a book about the Brazilian military, with a specific focus on their recruitment practices. But as Beattie shows the changes to their practices over time (from impressment to a draft), he meanders through some significant periods in Brazil's history... from the colonial period, through their revolution and independent monarchy to the democratic reforms afterwards. As he does that, the book begins to feel less like a work of military history and more like a work of political or national history (even though he uses military sources throughout). Additionally, he weaves in many sources of social history (newspaper reports, popular songs, etc.) and even delves into microhistory, when he spends an entire chapter focusing on the punishment records of the army during one year. In the end, he shows that the Brazilian army evolved from a source of shame that no one would want to be involved in to a source of national pride and an instrument of Brazilian nationalism. Positives - The book is well written and draws from a wide variety of reliable sources (like newspapers, army data, primary accounts, popular songs, etc.). He breaks up his writing style between sections, shifting from narrative to topical and back to narrative. Negatives - some of the data is a bit exhaustive and some of his points a bit belabored. By including so many subfields of history, it makes the reader think "what kind of book am I reading?" which is thought provoking, but I can see where it can be a bit confusing. People who are interested in colonial and post-colonial Latin America, military history or nationalism would like this book.