Wellington's Eastern Front: The Campaigns on the East Coast of Spain, 1810–1814 by Nick Lipscombe

I haven't 'demanded' anything; I merely asked some questions about what you have posted. Nothing more, nothing less.

I would think that you would be prepared to answer questions about what you have posted in order to back up what you wrote. That would prompt discussion, I would suggest.

Then again, perhaps not.

I know @Kevin F. Kiley this gets you hot under the collar, but that is why I’m intrigued at looking at Napoleon as a human being first, statesman or ogre later. I think it would be folly to see narcissism as part of that Ogre or nationally driven agenda. I’d have hoped we moved on from seeing mental health as pejorative or negative. It’s not an unusual set of character traits in self-made men. It provides some great advantages for a man in Napoleon’s position. They can also provide challenges which can explain some of his struggles and shortcomings. However, Napoleon still had to harness or overcome them to seize the opportunities that he did. That is why we should still be talking about him more than two centuries later. I think it ultimately makes him a much more sympathetic character. Neither the ‘perfect genius’ or ‘ogre’ characterisations, whilst having their ardent adherents, do much to reveal the inner workings or driving motivations. I see both of them as projections on to Napoleon, neither of them much of his own making, although of course he did little to reduce the former. He was clearly an extraordinary man, but as we have seen so often, providence can result in a flawed genius. Or indeed as I see it, it is these ‘flaws’ (ie non-neurotypical) that fuels the genius in the first place. It also explains some of the inconsistencies. Appearing charmingly kind to his soldiers, but seemingly ruthless with their lives. Being benevolent and gracious to sections of society when it suited him, but interpersonally rough on others. As I’ve often stated, I’m an empiricist in outlook, so don’t expect @Kevin F. Kiley to soften opinions one jot. What I do hope for is that you no longer see me as being in the opposing camp. Not really middle ground in the usual polemic views, but coming at the material from a different angle. Sadly, this sometimes makes enemies of everyone!

@david Tomlinson Amen to all that. Middle grounders rarely please either side (I say that from experience of having been a predominantly middle-grounder on most things throughout my life!).

@Zack White it’s something we know in the present, but we don’t apply to the past. We know that basically good honest people have the capacity to make mistakes and do some pretty bad scary stuff. We also know that some terrible human beings can make some huge discovery or capable of acts of sacrifice. We understand that in the real world the Venn diagrams mostly overlap, and the virtuously pure or evil sociopath are extremes. History it seems is the place of solace for a number people who find that aspect of life unsettlingly. They are attracted to historical characters we can vilify (Yes History Channel, we get it, the Nazis were bad) or hero worship (Yesterday, we know Inspector Thompson liked working for Churchill). This includes Napoleon, who was divisive in his day, and continues to be so. I think that either way it gives us something of a comfort blanket. It also leads to some fatalistic thinking. . Had that on LinkedIn once. A young man started ranting on how different governments had the blood of young servicemen on their hands. These poor uneducated dupes being cynically sacrificed. Predictably, there was some backlash from the veteran community. His response was “typical of brainwashed Tory drones” trying to pour scorn on his righteous beliefs. No, I had to explain, it’s because the people you are talking about were our friends. Here was a young man talking about history, whilst we were talking about memory. Ultimately, the world is (and was) a much more nuanced and complex place, and so were the actors who took part in it.

@david Tomlinson

A good, and fair, historian does not usually write a 'pro or con' book at all, but a fair one based on factual material, not biased nonsense. Those I referred to above are inaccurate, extremely biased, and not based on factual material.

@Kevin F. Kiley So are there, in your judgement as a good and fair historian, any inaccurate, not factually based material that you have found that was extremely biased in favor of Napoleon?

@david Tomlinson I found these one to be in the same category as the ones above: Books on Napoleon's murder, The Wars Against Napoleon: Debunking the Myth of the Napoleon Wars by General Michel Franceschi and Ben Weider, NAPOLEON: The Man Who Shaped Europe by Ben Weider.

There are a couple of books on Coignet by an author whose name I forget that are not worth the paper they're printed on.

There are others but I usually stay away from them as they are ahistorical.

@Kevin F. Kiley Sighs. Kevin, not everything needs to be outlined with five examples, and detailed page references. The comment was quite clearly a general one. As I said before 'It is important to take the comments in context'. Failure to do so leads to significant, unnecessary, misunderstanding.

@Kevin F. Kiley I have a complete 6ft shelf if works that I regard as hagiographic. However, some of them are from highly respected academics that I would not seek to ‘out’ just because they have fallen victim to their romantic soul. ditto veterans and those who were writing at a period when disconfirming sources were unavailable. But drippingly hagiographic they are too, going to great lengths to exculpate at all costs. However, with one notable exception (Cronin, which I saw little of value in) I keep them on my shelf and still use them. You see I don’t see the world in terms of credibility at all and I don’t disregard a whole body of work for a few overblown excesses. I refuse to live in an echo chamber. All written sources are biased, primary or secondary. Everyone, or everyone’s ghostwriter, writes with an agenda or opinion. None are ever completely fair or unbiased, just less or more so in particular areas. That means I will embrace some parts of what you see as ‘worthless’ where there is confirming evidence or points of correlation. Like wise I will reject flights of fancy on non-existent staff colleges when I have disconfirming evidence, regardless of the author. I seek Napoleon the man, not Napoleon the super hero or villain.

@david Tomlinson "I seek Napoleon the man, not Napoleon the super hero or villain."

An excellent starting point for that endeavor is Vincent Cronin's biography and yet you denigrate it as 'hagiography.'

Cronin's annex on memoirs is also quite helpful as are the notes for the book. Google books also helps in searching for the reference material in the notes.

Have you read Baron Fain and Marchand? You'll find Napoleon the man there and if you read Caulaincourt you'll find more pertinent information.

And the text is also excellent. The technical information for those interested in the Royal Artillery of the period is essential to understand the advances in design of field pieces and ancillary equipment that the British made. They were the best designed gun carriages, caissons, and limbers of any country of the period.

When the Valee Artillery System replaced the Gribeauval System ca 1827, the gun carriages, limbers, and caissons were based on the British system that the French had admired in the Peninsula. The US Army also used them as a guide for their ordnance that was employed during the American Civil War.

I would suggest that Lipscombes excellent work be used alongside CE Franklin's excellent and detailed work, British Napoleonic Field Artillery: The First Complete Illustrated Guide to Equipment and Uniforms. Franklin's work gives the technical side of the Royal Artillery and it is profusely illustrated as to field pieces, vehicles, and uniforms. It is indispensable.

From Amazon:

"This beautifully illustrated guide by master draughtsman and Napoleonic expert Carl Franklin draws together extensive research and previously unpublished information to provide a new insight into the field artillery and uniforms of the Napoleonic Wars. The evolution of this new form of artillery is shown in full detail for the first time, and its use is fully examined. Particular attention is given to the ammunition, drills, harness, supporting equipment, and uniforms of the period, and each type of field artillery is fully illustrated. "Fire," Napoleon himself proclaimed, "is everything; the rest does not matter." British Napoleonic Field Artillery helps to test the veracity of that statement and is an essential reference for all those interested in Napoleonic history."