Napoleon: A Life

“Napoleon: A Life” is a vast work that describes the life of Napoleon in great detail. I have tried to read many biographies in my life. Without any question I put this biography in the top tier that I have ever read. I purchased the Kindle and paid extra at the time of purchase for the accompanying audiobook. As I will explain, I am glad that I did both. This is a lengthy detailed book that took me multiple months to read and study. It was worth it. I learned a great deal. It was like a college history course. Years ago I began to assess my actual education and real knowledge. It occurred to me, as an American working man, that I had an abysmal lack of knowledge of European history. I started reading non fiction books on the subject and found that authors would make references to people, places, and things under the assumption that I, the reader, would obviously know what they were talking about. And of course, I did not. In regard to Europe evolving from the Middle Ages to modern Europe, The French Revolution was a gigantic event. Out of The French Revolution eventually emerged Napoleon. Napoleon becomes one of the central figures in bridging Europe of The Middle Ages to Modern Europe. He was not alone and far, far from perfect. But his impact was so immense that eventually all the traditional monarchies of Europe, “The Allies” banned together to stop him. This biography attempts to explain that whirlwind of events. The project would have been too big for me. The reason I am very glad that I purchased the audiobook along with the Kindle is the numerous inevitable foreign, to me, pronunciations. The narration was very professional and was similar to listening to a gifted lecturer. On the other hand, the Kindle provided correct spelling. There are hundreds of footnotes that cannot be included in the audiobook. There are also numerous maps and portraits on the Kindle. For an individual such as myself, doing parallel study, the Kindle proved indispensable. If I was really fluent in French, I might not have needed the audiobook, but I really liked it. In summary I thoroughly enjoyed this combination of Kindle and audiobook. I learned a great deal. From my past reading, if one studies this work and wants to take the next step in Pan European History and incorporating emerging America, one might consider “Diplomacy” by Henry Kissinger. I am going to now reread that work. It does include more than European History, but as I recall it starts with diplomacy at the time of Napoleon and moves forward from there. It is another huge work, another history course. Thank You for taking the time to read this review.

A marvelous, unparalleled account of one of history's greatest characters. Andrew Roberts has done what many thought to be impossible - coming up with a new biography on Napoleon that, despite the sheer volume of biographies on him, succeeds in almost every possible way in dethroning the others' and assuming the rightful mantle as the leading book on the subject. Having showered much deserved praise upon this latest entry into this ever growing genre, I have yet to delve in what makes it stand out from the previous installments. Indeed, having previously read Vincent Cronin's masterful account, I only hesitantly got around to reading this book. And oh boy, was it worth it... Let us begin with Roberts' access to a sheer volume of recently published memoranda, memoirs and letters on and of the late emperor which shed some much needed light on Napoleon's character. As stated by the author, all too often is our favourite corsican depicted as an aloof and grave individual, virtually detached from the jovial mundanity typical of the way in which mediterranean people often behave when in private. The same applies for the comradeship, respect and even intimacy he showed to his subordinates, from the higher echelons all the way to the rank-and-file. Then, Roberts' perfect accounts of Napoleon's battles and accompanying maps go a long way in clarifying the state of affairs on the battlefield. Any and all military enthusiasts can and may very well find these chapters utterly enthralling. This is truly a book that is hard to put down, especially after the Italy chapters begin. However, those who can't stand reading to long and detailed battle reports would do well in considering whether this book is the one they ought to read, as it bears the mark of the military historian from start to finish, feeling sometimes more as an exhaustive analysis of Napoleon's campaigns instead of his private life. It's been a while since I read Cronin's book, but I remember him devoting much more time to explaining/analysing other, non-military events surrounding Napoleon or even at other courts (Cronin explicitly retells the Murat melodrama in 1814-1815, which is barely mentioned by Roberts with no context at all provided. While I knew of the affair beforehand, thanks to Cronin's take on the subject, some readers who may be first delving into the subject might be a tad lost in some paragraphs, which could have used a bit more fleshing out). The Zenith Chapter, for instance, was all that was devoted for Napoleon's time as uncontested ruler of Europe, and even then, not even the whole chapter. His wedding options are barely discussed, and of his & Marie Louise's marriage we get to know little - I recall Cronin devoting far more pages to it. Roberts does make up for this in providing the various bits of recently published information mentioned above. There's also the author's masterful prose and pace, which is not to be underestimated in a volume which spans such a length as this one does (over 800 pages of content, plus over a hundred more on notes and bibliography!). Which leads us to the final bit of acclaim: that the author has gone the extra mile to provide us with such a masterful and unrivalled reflects on the bibliography: dozens, if not hundreds of sources - both primary and secondary - have been used by the author to bring about this jewel. His effort deserves every single bit of my praise. One single bit that did bother me was the "britishness" so overly present in some bits of the biography. There was a particular sentence at the final chapter which derided Archduke Charles while showering praise on Wellington, to the point of depicting him as one of the very best military minds of the late 18th and early 19th century. Able as Wellington's command was during the Peninsular War and after the Napoleonic wars, it is difficult to ascertain if he would have been able to cope with Napoleon's pre-1814 genius, which more often than not allowed him to gain the upper hand on other impressive commanders such as the aforementioned Charles, Schwarzenberg, Blücher and Kutuzov. That the very last paragraph of the epilogue is dedicated to Wellington's thoughts on Napoleon, as he were as important a figure as Josephine or even Murat, speaks for itself. The "arch-enemy" relation is hinted in various bits in the book, while I find no reason at all that could compellingly explain why Wellington ought to be deemed as such, having fought only a battle - even if the most decisive one - against the corsican giant. That remark aside, I cannot recommend this book enough - it is a gem amid so many unimaginative biographies, and ought to be read by anyone looking to know more of Napoleon and/or the period. 5/5 stars.

Avant-Garde Politician: Leaders for a New Epoch Reading this book as a case study of leadership, historic processes and their intersections, the following lessons emerge: On leadership, Napoleon was unique, far above accepted classifications, such as "transformative leadership." He is a prime example of what I call in my recent book "prototype avant-garde politician." "He had transformed the art of leadership" (p. 802). However Napoleon, as some other history-swerving political leaders (and other types of "future makers") should be viewed as a "mutant": what made him uniquely "great" cannot be learned, such as outstanding multitasking and a unique combination between radically innovative generalship and revolutionary enlightenment reforms. Still, many useful lessons on leadership are provided by Napoleon, such as: reading a lot in history and political philosophy, being very inquisitive, hard-working, insisting on meritocracy, being interested in science and a patron of art, and relating personally to subordinates. Not less so, many lessons on what to avoid are provided by Napoleon's persistent errors, such as nepotism and engaging too much in micromanagement. Striking is the strange combination between interest in science and gross neglect of its military uses.Thus, he disbanded the military balloonist unit (p. 795, note) and did not develop a rockets capacity, despite their proved efficacy when used by the British (p. 682). This may well show that his interest in science was not profound. More important are two fundamental flaws which led to his ultimate personal failure: (1) Napoleon misread a critical feature of reality, namely Great Britain and its strength; and (2) he did not knowing when to stop, refusing reasonable peace opportunities, such as at the Congress of Prague (after his retreat from Russia) - apparently because of self-conceited imagining himself as a new Caesar (who was his main role model) . As stated in the text "... almost every other statesman of the day would have agreed to [the] terms. But the Emperor of France, the heir to Caesar and Alexander, simply could not bring himself to accept what he saw as a humiliating peace." (p. 661). On historic processes: Napoleon's career demonstrates the critical role of various forms of "luck," much more so than implied in the view of history as "contingent," or the treatment of Fortuna by Machiavelli. The author provides some examples (p. 269), but much more was at stake: All of his becoming Emperor was a result of counter-probabilistic chains of events, starting with the match between his basic traits and the situation into which he was born (fitting the contingency theory of leadership. On the intersection between leadership and historic processes: Napoleon was clearly a "Hero" impacting strongly on the future of Europe and beyond, being not only the last but the most important of the Enlightenment absolutist beneficent rulers (pp. 527-528). As put by the author "To large numbers of people across Europe Napoleon seemed to represent the ideas of progress, meritocracy and a rational future" (p. 529). And British historian H. A. L. Fisher was right in judging, as quoted in the book, that "Napoleon`s Empire shattered the obdurate crust of habit and substituted wide ideas...for narrow, slovenly, lethargic provincialism." (pp. 527-518). Given the many merits of this book, still it does not succeed to "re-enact history," as proposed by the philosopher of history R. G. Collingwood. Despite extensive reliance on letters by Napoleon no real insights into his mind are arrived at. Shorter discussion of the battles (from which no valid lessons for modern military affairs can be drawn), and more concentration on the interiority of Napoleon would have made the book more interesting, at least for me. As it is, the book makes good reading on a "grand adventure" and an important historic episode. But its lessons on leadership and the processes of history could have been better presented in 400 instead of 810 pages of text. Professor Yehezkel Dror The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

In this massive biography, Andrew Roberts has produced an epic review of Napoleon Bonaparte. He focuses on Napoleon the man rather than the myth. He succeeds at presenting a mostly-balanced account of his life, showing us a human being capable of inspiring immense respect and awe even 200 years after his feats. But we also see the failures of mind and body, with evidence aplenty of Napoleon’s more repulsive qualities. Overall, Roberts sees Napoleon’s contribution to history in a positive light, and this is evident throughout the book. But we also clearly see the common cliché regarding the corruptive influence power has on the mind. Even Napoleon's remarkable mind was susceptible to these influences. Roberts’s work is unique in that his is among the first biographies to leverage recently published primary documents that provide new windows into Napoleon and his character. This allows fresh glimpses of the man both at work and at play. What takes shape is a human being, not a God-like myth or statue with a rigid character. Napoleon, like most of us, changed throughout his life. He adhered to (or was influenced by) competing values that frequently fought one another for dominance within his mind. Who he was at 25 was very different than who he was at 40, and again at 50. The value of Roberts’s work is that it reveals the folly of casting an historical character like Napoleon in one specific light. Was he an idealistic revolutionary who believed in a society free from the prejudice and injustice of the old world? Was he a tyrannical despot who imprisoned his enemies and used war to advance his own personal interests? Casting him into molds like this is what we typically seem to do, but it simplifies what Roberts’s clearly shows is a story of far more complexity and contradiction. What this means is that Napoleon is too complex of a subject to summarize in a single paragraph. But a few sentences will give you an idea of the view of Napoleon through Roberts’s research. Napoleon was an enlightened agnostic with a love of knowledge and learning and a belief in their power to do good for all humankind. He was an intellectual of the highest order and was just as at home in a library as he was on a battlefield (in fact, he frequently traveled with his personal library). He adhered to enlightenment ideals blossoming during his youth that stressed liberty and merit as opposed to aristocracy and privilege. He was also a militarist, and it imbued him with discipline and courage. His capacity for knowledge, memory, and quick-thinking was truly legendary, and examples abound of his incredible memory even as late as his exile on Elba. He can relatively easily be associated with egomania and megalomania, and yet—for most of his life—he showed a capacity for self-reflection and self-criticism uncharacteristic of such a personality disorder. He displayed genuine concern for people under his charge. His staff members, as well as members of the army, are frequently quoted describing his hard work ethic but also his playful and caring attitude toward them. He was, in many ways, advanced for his time regarding social issues. He favored full equality for Jews and Protestants (indeed, all religions) and leveraged their talents. He was tolerant of homosexuality in an age where it was generally not tolerated: his veritable vice-ruler for much of his reign was Cambacérès, who was gay. But Napoleon’s faults are also laid bare in Roberts’s narrative. Throughout his life, he generally showed a lack of great integrity and a willingness to break rules to suit his own purposes. He clearly had a view of women that was not progressive, and did much to undermine the freedoms women gained during the Revolution. He naturally was an anxious man, and I believe that “impatience” is probably the character trait that persisted most saliently through every phase of his life. He lacked an understanding of economics, and this, more than any other mistake, was the root of his downfall (the infamous Continental System). He was not a bloodthirsty person in any sense, and his rule was very rarely characterized by repression based on terror. But he was directly responsible for needless executions on at least three occasions throughout his life, and humanity came second to victory when his army was on campaign. As caring as he could be with staff members and soldiers, he often completely lacked emotional intelligence when it came to his own family members (particularly his siblings). Here we see some of Roberts’s most vehement criticisms. Napoleon’s use of his siblings as rulers of client states defies beliefs that he long held (and fought for) regarding meritocracy, and also ignored the sheer lack of talent possessed by some of these family members. These kinds of ideological clashes, modeled here by Napoleon’s belief in meritocracy but pervasive practice of nepotism, illustrate what I like to call the “Napoleonic Paradox” or “Napoleonic Contradiction.” One cannot read Roberts’s work and not see the ironies presented in Napoleon’s life. There are numerous examples where beliefs and practices of one period of his life simply contradict those of other periods (or even the same period). This is not, I believe, traceable to any kind of inherent character flaw in Napoleon. Rather, it is the natural and (relatively) slow metamorphosis in a belief system over the life of a man—visible in many other famous statesmen reviewed in such a way. Roberts’s work gives us the chance to see these changes take shape. Overall, I believe it is fair to say that Napoleon’s idealistic and modest qualities began to give way to more megalomaniacal qualities after his victory at Austerlitz (1805) and especially after the Treaty of Tilsit (1807). It was here that he reached a level of power unlike any achieved by any other European for centuries. During the years of his zenith (1810-1812) and his subsequent downfall (1812-1814), we see a Napoleon generally unchecked by the modesty and reason more characteristic of his early years in power, and instead see a man corrupted by his awesome authority. But throughout all of his life, we see this war of ideals and practices vying for dominance within him. Napoleon himself does not seem to have been overtly conscious of many of these contradictions, or this war of ideas taking place in his subconscious. As far as Roberts’s writing style, the narrative is chronological, which makes sense for a biography and is easy to follow. Roberts does not spend much time analyzing the myriad evidence and relaying an argument to the reader. His goal, after all, is to use evidence to show Napoleon the man, providing us a deep-dish look at his successes and failures—the roundness and depth of a man. He does not have an overarching thesis he is using the evidence to prove. Some readers will love this, as it allows for the reader to form their own conclusions. Others may be frustrated that we rarely can catch our breath and read, “what does it all mean?” This isn’t to say that Roberts does not offer opinions from time to time. He defends Napoleon in many of his most controversial moments (for example, the Cadoudal-Pichegru conspiracy and the execution of the Duc d’Enghien). He also specifically identifies Napoleon’s exaggerations or outright lies, and does not shy away from criticizing his decisions (Roberts believes Napoleon only has himself to blame for the disaster in Russia in 1812 and his final defeat at Waterloo in 1815, among others). If you like to read about battles, oddly enough this “biography” provides a great deal of detail. There is plenty in the narrative regarding most of the battles Napoleon took part in, usually with detail on troop movements and the units involved. Lovers of military history will likely eat this up—others may find it tedious. The first group will likely be as disappointed as I was in the maps available—but this is a criticism I make of just about every military history book I review. Napoleon was a complex man. He lusted for greatness and was the epicenter of conflict for more than a decade. But we also see a man with good intentions, compassion, and an oft-doting father and husband. It is these stories of tenderness, combined with ones of ruthlessness, that make Roberts’s biography ultimately so effective. We are able to see Napoleon, not as an historical caricature, but as a man possessed of both awesome virtues and crippling faults. Napoleon's greatness and contribution to history is thoroughly revealed. So too are his foibles and failures. It is a story that often leaves you equal parts repulsed, impressed, and sympathetic. I can think of no possible better outcome for a biography.

In this detailed but accessible biography by Andrew Roberts, we get what is arguably the defining biography of Napoleon for our generation. It covers the life of this giant of history, showcasing his monumental achievements and their impact on history, but also his flaws and mistakes. Although generally a positive portrait, Roberts does not shy away from criticisms of Napoleon's conduct, such as the Jaffa massacre or the murder of the Duke d'Enghien. Nor does it hide Napoleon's flaws as a person, such as his temper and his tendency to meddle in the love lives of his family. Mostly though, the biography celebrates Napoleon's talents, achievements, & personality. One really gets a good idea of Napoleon's charm and what he might have been like in person. It also showcases his incredible capacity for work and searing intellect. His achievements speak for themselves, but I personally liked the details of his non-military achievements as much as his famous victories, and the book spends considerable pages highlighting his civil achievements. The code Napoleon, which remains one of the most influential law texts today, is a great example of his lasting legacy. (The book also deals with his diplomatic and economic failures such as the continental system). As for Napoleon's campaigns, Roberts does a fine job describing the political situation before the battle, the marches and maneuvers, as well as the flow of the actual battle. I found this part accessible and easily understood, with detailed maps marking the units helping to paint a fine picture of Napoleon's famous victories and defeats. It also gives good reasoning on why Napoleon won and why he lost. Mostly Napoleon's defeats were instances where he doesn't follow his own military maxims. Overall Roberts does a great job illustrating Napoleon's campaigns for the layman and amateur military historian, but for those that want a really detailed analysis of his battles, they should also read "The Campaigns of Napoleon" by David Chandler, the defining classic on the military side of Napoleon's career. I highly recommend this book for those that want to read the definitive biography on Napoleon. This is the first biography that incorporates many personal letters Napoleon wrote that wasn't published until recently, so it really does give a more detailed look at his personality. Yes it is highly positive portrait, but I wouldn't call it a hagiography either. I found it fairly balanced overall. If there are any criticisms, it would be that the chapter on the Waterloo campaign was a bit shorter than I expected, but it gets to the core issues. I would have also liked a longer analysis on Napoleon's impact and influence on our politics and institutions after his death, although these are mostly woven into the chapters where his individual policies are written about. Personally though I would have liked a chapter at the end summarizing what this giant of history's lasting historical legacies were. Regardless I give this book 5 stars, I don't think you can go wrong if you want to know about Napoleon's life and times. Does Napoleon deserved to be called the great? Or was he a blood thirst tyrant? We have to look at him through the lens of the times he was in. Was Napoleon more of a dictator than any other of the reining monarchs in Europe or the world at the 18/19th century? Many of his laws were quite liberal by the standards of the day including his treatment of the Jews, especially compared to other European countries like England. Was he especially blood thirsty? Well most of the Napoleonic wars were declared against him by successive coalitions so again, is he any worse than the others? In fact one of his greatest mistakes in following the Russians deep into Russia was due to the desire to have a pitch battle as soon as possible so the war can be shortened and a political settlement reached. Yes he was overly ambitious in attempting to spread French influence at the expense of other European powers, resulting in war. However that was par of the course in the age of Empires. Luckily for us times have changed since. If any lessons can be drawn by the story of Napoleon, it was that political mistakes can not be compensated by battlefield victories. Napoleon was no doubt a genius, however his ambitions and personality got the better of him, and as a result he made a series of unsustainable peace treaties at the expense of other powers which would guarantee animosity. His desperate last campaigns against overwhelming enemy numbers were a direct result of this mistake. Our current political leaders will do well to remember it. * it's also worth getting the audiobook. Narration was great and it's really convenient to listen to while you are on the train or car.

How many figures in world history have been the subject of as many biographies as Napoleon Bonaparte? Probably Jesus, maybe Caesar and Lincoln, Churchill coming up fast, possibly George Washington. But this one-volume history of Napoleon (always referred to by his given name, not his surname) is an absolutely first-rate work in its scope – running to more than 800 pages – and the magnitude of the drama playing out page after page. Andrew Roberts, one of the most distinguished British historians gives it all. We read about Napoleon’s almost unbelievably rapid surge from a remote village in Corsica to military school in France and, at only age 27, the leadership of the France army in its invasion and conquest of Italy. This was quickly followed by a smashing victory in Egypt where its magnificent prizes were shipped back to France, where many of them continue to be on display today, mainly in Paris. At only 30 years of age, Napoleon seized power in a revolt against the fragile government created by the French Revolution. He became the First Consul of France, initially joined by two other consuls. The Bourbon reign had been ended, tragically for the reigning monarch, Louis XIV, and the country’s government was in the hands of ardent revolutionaries, who were far better at scheming than governing. Napoleon rapidly shouldered all competitors aside and turned his energies to sorting out the mess of Europe. The Austrian state was in its final throes of decay but it still had enormous assets, both military and financial. Britain was separated from Europe by water, lots of water, and exercised its power only when one or another European state became clearly ascendant. Russia was a distant presence on the borders of Eastern Europe but had a huge population and strong ties to the royal houses of central Europe. This was clearly an unstable situation, with each major state anxious to extend its influence, almost always at the expense of one or another of the major powers. Napoleon understood that military victories gave him enormous civil power. Austria remained a strong power in northeastern Italy and Napoleon moved to engage the Austrian army, first by drawing the Austrian army further away from its supply lines in Central Europe. At Marengo, he soundly defeated the Austrian army and returned to France in triumph. Napoleon’s career moved from one brilliant military success after another and in 1804 he was crowned Emperor. This enabled him to lead both the army and the government. He redrew the map of Paris, he reformed the French educational system, he encouraged the arts, he commissioned many of the most remarkable buildings still glittering in Paris, he consolidated the power of France, never more complete than in the early years of his reign. At the peak of his power, Napoleon moved much further east across the European continent to invade Russia. He had defeated the Russian army earlier, in 1807, but this was in the heart of central Europe. Russia’s power centers, Moscow and Petersburg, were hundreds of miles to east and Napoleon elected to knock out not only the Russian army but its government, headed by Tsar Alexander, with whom Napoleon had established strong bonds of friendship earlier. This effort to subdue Russia, with its huge population, hideous winters, vast expanse, and powerful allies – mainly Britain – was a disaster for Napoleon. It marked the beginning of his decline, not precipitous at first but relentless. By 1814, France had tired of Napoleon and, without significant emotion, dismissed him, sending him to Elba, a small island in the Mediterranean. His confinement there lasted less than a year and by February 1815 he arrived back on the southern shores of France. Initially with only a fragmentary force, he picked up support steadily as he moved north and arrived about a month later in Paris. The bloated Louis XVIII fled Paris and Napoleon reassumed his role as Emperor, 18 days after arriving on French soil and without any military opposition. The end was near. In late-March, many of the major European powers joined together to form a Coalition against Napoleon. In mid-June, Napoleon moved his troops north into Belgium where a huge force under the Duke of Wellington waited for the French army. Napoleon’s superb military instincts enabled him to vanquish army after army for more than ten years but these instincts failed him at Waterloo. He was destroyed by the British-Prussian-Dutch-Belgian force. Napoleon resigned and in mid-July 1815 he was sent to a distant island in the mid-Atlantic, St Helena, 4400 miles from the shores of France. Here, he lived until his agonizing death almost six years later. This is a great story told by Andrew Roberts. It presents a balanced view of a very great man, a man who made a great difference to France and French values. He was the master of Europe for almost a decade, starting as a raw prodigy and ending as one of the greatest military minds of world history. He was, however, far beyond only a military genius. Napoleon reshaped France and Paris into one of the first modern states in Europe and his legend continues to glow. One can only, in the end, admire Napoleon for all his gifts and we have Mr. Roberts to thank for shining his light on this great story.

I enjoy biographies and I picked this one up, along with several others at the same time. I recently finished Ronald White’s biography of Ulysses Grant and this biography of Napoleon Bonaparte suffers greatly by comparison. While White’s book was very approachable and a pleasure to read, this effort was most decidedly neither. Most perturbing to me is a frequent absence of maps where desperately needed. How can you possibly expect a reader to follow page after page of descriptive troop movement, place names, battlefield strategy and tactics without maps. While the Grant biography contained copious and well-crafted maps, this biography contained only a handful, some of which were virtually useless. While the major battles included a single map for each, much of the pre and post battle maneuvering, though painstakingly detailed in the text, without an accompanying map were nothing more than meaningless babble. The chapter devoted to the Italian campaign was an absolute mess. Almost every biography I have ever read, particularly those associated with political figures, have an angle. Very rarely can a writer put aside their personal feelings when depicting a historical figure. Most commonly, this takes the form of hagiography and the author here makes no apologies for his admiration of Napoleon. He is a total fan boy, even admitting to owning a lock of the Emperor’s hair, among other items of Bonaparte memorabilia. Nevertheless, much of his hero worship is warranted. While many are familiar with Napoleon the General, they are less familiar with his work in the areas of civil and legal administration. Many of his political and legal reforms exist to this day. Much of what was in the book was already known to me, however many of the other historical personages, family members and functionaries were not. Some of the items concerning Napoleon’s personal life and idiosyncrasies were new to me as well. All in all, this was not a bad biography, and had it contained a better collection of maps, I might have felt better about it, but following on the heels of the Grant biography, it simply suffered in comparison.

Large biographies like these typically take me months read, but this one was so riveting that it took me only a few weeks. This is excellently written, interesting from first to the last page, and offers an extremely nuanced and personal look into Napoleon's life. That being said, the author definitely does have a pro Napoleon slant, which is obvious while reading, but it is difficult to know the extent until you read other sources of the era. The Napoleonic Wars are often portrayed as highly aggressive wars waged by a bellicose, expansionist Napoleon on Europe. Roberts' does much to dispel this myth; he states more than once that war was declared on Napoleon twice as often as he declared war on others and he emphasizes Napoleon's attempts to remain at peace in the lead up to wars. However, he is very light on the details about what Napoleon did to provoke war and why the nations that declared war on France did so. For instance, Roberts has this to say about the lead up to Prussia's declaration of war in 1806: "Von Haugwitz, who had earlier lauded the French alliance, wrote three memoranda that concluded that Napoleon was looking for a casus belli against Prussia, and was trying to detach Hesse from the Prussian orbit. He recommended that Prussia build up an anti-French alliance comprising Saxony, Hesse and Russia, and forgo the annexation of Hanover in order to secure British war subsidies." He then goes on to say Napoleon did not want war with Prussia or Russia and highlight an anecdote about Prussian officers sharpening their sabers on the steps of the French embassy in Berlin. This frames the upcoming conflict as the Prussians looking for an excuse to war with Napoleon, and the subsequent conquest of Prussia as almost poetic justice. Other sources paint a very different picture. In Christopher Clark's history of Prussia "Iron Kingdom," more light is shed on Haugwitz's casus belli that Roberts mentioned: "news reached Berlin of a further French provocation. In August 1806, intercepts revealed that Napoleon was engaged in alliance negotiations with Britain, and had unilaterally offered the return of Hanover as an inducement to London. This was an outrage too far. Nothing could better have demonstrated Napoleon's contempt for the north German neutrality zone and the place of Prussia within it" Roberts doesn't mention the north German neutrality zone nor how Napoleon's actions disrespected established agreements with Prussia. These details paint a clearer picture of a Prussia that feels disrespected and backed into a corner, and of a Napoleon that is untrustworthy and contemptuous of other nation states. The truth lies between both narratives, of course. Clark's history similarly deemphasizes Prussian acts of provocation and escalation; war is ensued by Frederick William III's absurd demands that the French abandon all territory west of the Rhine, but Clark is more critical of Napoleon's response to the ultimatum, which he describes as breathtakingly arrogant, aggressive, and sarcastic (making such demands of the victor of Austerlitz is breathtakingly arrogant and aggressive, and also stupid). Roberts' biography is still highly insightful and absolutely worth reading. Just keep in mind that he may be leaving out some details that are less flattering of Napoleon.