aletheathomas's review against another edition
4.0
Solid historical account. Definite must read if you are interested in Napoleon or Russian History.
spacestationtrustfund's review against another edition
3.0
You are aware, I'm sure, of the classic blunders—the most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never try to read this book when staying awake is on the line.
Meticulously researched, incredibly informational, and indelibly dry. If your interest is Russian military history 1812-1814 CE, then you will probably find this book very helpful. It is the furthest thing from light reading.
Meticulously researched, incredibly informational, and indelibly dry. If your interest is Russian military history 1812-1814 CE, then you will probably find this book very helpful. It is the furthest thing from light reading.
cucumberedpickle's review against another edition
3.0
Very long but also informative. This book would have got a better rating if it wasn't so damn long.
abetterjulie's review against another edition
3.0
The best parts of this book are when he is not detailing the battles themselves. It is most interesting to me when he discusses Alexander I and the strategies employed, as well as the political context for decisions. I also really liked it when he shed light on the way the war affected the peasants. I wish there had been more about the Cossacks, that seemed glaringly lacking, as he gave so much detail to all of the other military units.
The last chapter was my favorite. I spent an hour online reading about the places and lines of ascension that followed the War of 1812 because it sparked my curiosity.
The last chapter was my favorite. I spent an hour online reading about the places and lines of ascension that followed the War of 1812 because it sparked my curiosity.
ajtaylor's review against another edition
5.0
This book is really well written and is able to provide the Russian perspectives that have no beeb openly available to Western readers int he past. It dispels many myths such as it was a great patriotic war, developed by Stalinist Russia or that Tsar Alexander was an incompetent despot. Great to see the other side.
madcjones's review
informative
medium-paced
3.75
A little dry at times, but very informative and interesting, especially when compared directly to war and peace
msgtdameron's review against another edition
4.0
Great read that shows the Napoleonic Campaigns from 1812 through 1814 with a non Anglo slant.
Most histories of the Napoleonic era, at least in America are written from the point of view of the English or the French. Napoleon, Wellington and Nelson are the leading characters and it is Waterloo and Trafalgar that are the decisive battles. When seen through the eyes of the rest of Europe the Napoleonic Era is a LOT more complicated. The English sit out a lot, Austo-Hungarian Empire and Prussia get run over a lot, and Russia is the big hero. This book is written from the Russian perspective. It draws on Russian sources, both official and personnel, and adds a lot to ones understanding of what actually happened.
For instance, Napoleons invasion of Russia. Most people think that a week Russia retreated because that was their only option. A fallacy that Tolstoy's War and Peace draws on for it's action, plot and motivation. The facts are that Alexander planned the retreat to Moscow, that the Russians started the flank attacks on Napoleon's supplies well before he entered Moscow, and the only non planed action of the first part of the invasion was the burning of Moscow. Also that it was Alexander as Tsar of the Russia's that led the coalition against Napoleon from 1812 on. one interesting thought: If Wellington had been defeated at Waterloo Napoleon would still have had to face Barclay De Tolly as CC of the coalition forces that were already across the Rhine on Frances boarders when Napoleon was defeated. The Math for Napoleon would have been daunting, approximately 100, 000 French against 160,000 Russians and Austro-Hungarians and 40,00 British and Prussians as a reserve. Also De Tolly was not as indecisive as Shwatzkoph had been in 1814. The history would not have been written by the British and Russia would have been given her due. Just a thought. And this is a great read.
Most histories of the Napoleonic era, at least in America are written from the point of view of the English or the French. Napoleon, Wellington and Nelson are the leading characters and it is Waterloo and Trafalgar that are the decisive battles. When seen through the eyes of the rest of Europe the Napoleonic Era is a LOT more complicated. The English sit out a lot, Austo-Hungarian Empire and Prussia get run over a lot, and Russia is the big hero. This book is written from the Russian perspective. It draws on Russian sources, both official and personnel, and adds a lot to ones understanding of what actually happened.
For instance, Napoleons invasion of Russia. Most people think that a week Russia retreated because that was their only option. A fallacy that Tolstoy's War and Peace draws on for it's action, plot and motivation. The facts are that Alexander planned the retreat to Moscow, that the Russians started the flank attacks on Napoleon's supplies well before he entered Moscow, and the only non planed action of the first part of the invasion was the burning of Moscow. Also that it was Alexander as Tsar of the Russia's that led the coalition against Napoleon from 1812 on. one interesting thought: If Wellington had been defeated at Waterloo Napoleon would still have had to face Barclay De Tolly as CC of the coalition forces that were already across the Rhine on Frances boarders when Napoleon was defeated. The Math for Napoleon would have been daunting, approximately 100, 000 French against 160,000 Russians and Austro-Hungarians and 40,00 British and Prussians as a reserve. Also De Tolly was not as indecisive as Shwatzkoph had been in 1814. The history would not have been written by the British and Russia would have been given her due. Just a thought. And this is a great read.
abetterjulie's review against another edition
3.0
The best parts of this book are when he is not detailing the battles themselves. It is most interesting to me when he discusses Alexander I and the strategies employed, as well as the political context for decisions. I also really liked it when he shed light on the way the war affected the peasants. I wish there had been more about the Cossacks, that seemed glaringly lacking, as he gave so much detail to all of the other military units.
The last chapter was my favorite. I spent an hour online reading about the places and lines of ascension that followed the War of 1812 because it sparked my curiosity.
The last chapter was my favorite. I spent an hour online reading about the places and lines of ascension that followed the War of 1812 because it sparked my curiosity.
mwgerard's review
3.0
I don't pretend to be an expert historian - on Russia or any other topic, but I thoroughly enjoy a good yarn. And there are plenty of true, lesser-known tales to cull from centuries of human complications. Writer and professor Dominic Lieven tackles the mountainous topic of Napoleon's invasion of Russia from 1812-14. ...
Please read my full review here: http://cineastesbookshelf.blogspot.com/2010/04/review-russia-against-napoleon.html
Please read my full review here: http://cineastesbookshelf.blogspot.com/2010/04/review-russia-against-napoleon.html
More...