The first part of the editorial review is definitely about another book by Uwe Lajer-Burcharth (Necklines) and is not about this book. Only the second part of the review refers to this book but I disagree that this book is recommended only for libraries. I found this book to be quite an intoxicating read as the other reader reviewer has stated.
Here, Warren Roberts display a very lucid understanding of the chronological events of the French revolution as it unfolded and has written a key account, linking it specifically to the lives of two artists who were inextricably linked up with the key events.
The book is divided into 5 sections. An introduction outlines the situation that France found herself in shortly before the French revolution took place. Then the next section focuses in on the key events of the revolution, linking them up to practically all of the chronological engravings of J Prieur. The true value of this book really is in the 60-odd historical tableaus drawn by Prieur and the marrying of the somewhat confusing chronological events of the French revolution to these tableaus. The author gives a thorough description of each historical tableau within the text, not in the captions, and this is what makes the book so readable. With hindsight, Prieur apparently recorded quite faithfully all the key events iand this contemporary visual evidence is the closest that we have to unbiased visual documentation of the period. The third section gives a very comprehensive essay on Roberspierre and the various factions within the French republic. This is then followed by a section on J.L. David and his accomplishments. Most readers will probably be familiar with David's biography and there are no surprises here. A concluding section brings all the threads together.
The two artists selected and contrasted here are J.L. David and J. Prieur, both Jacobin members and the contrasts in their abilities and fortunes could not have been more dramatic. Both artists worked for the revolution and recorded them, David in a painterly academic style which created the classical movement in art whilst Prieur was an unremarkable jobber, whose 60-odd historical engravings are now housed in the present Carnavalet museum, Paris, and has been rescued from relative obscurity by Roberts in this enlightening and entertaining book. While David survived the revolution, Prieur was beheaded shortly after completing his last scene.
I came away with a good understanding of the French revolution due to the complete empathy that Roberts gives to the period.
The only complaint that I have is that the book is physically quite small and hence, the reproduced engravings are small, too, hence 4 stars.
Highly recommended even for the layperson.

As a student of both art and art history, I found Dr. Robert's book intoxicating. From beginning to end this impecccably researched book provides the facts in a stunning and original way. There is no better book telling the story Of the Revolution and the effect it had on art.

It's not too often that you get a Civilian view of the Civil War. This book shows how Seccesh and Unionists acted towards each other in a border state, depending upon who's troops were occupying the town of Lexington (Home of John Hunt Morgan). The diary was written by a homebound girl (she had epilepsy) with Union leanings. The area that she saw from her window still exists today, including her home and others mentioned and also show up on a hand-drawn map that is in the book. A very good book for those seeking something besides the same old worn out War stories.

A very good diary of the occupation of Lexington KY by both CS and US troops during the Civil War. Since the city was home to both Unionist and Secceshionist Civilians, it shows how each acted depending on who occupied the city at the time. It is a good illustration of Home Front activity.

I really wanted to like this book since I had loved Dumas' "The Count of Monte Cristo" and the first two books about the musketeers so much, but unfortunately, I found it to be a big disappointment.

The main story in this book is a love story involving Louise de la Valliere and King Louie XIV. This story could have been very good and interesting but it wasn't because of the poor characterization. Louise and Louie were both dull and uninteresting. Dumas entirely failed to make me feel what these two characters felt. This whole story was just very weak and lacked thought.

Another story in the novel involves Aramis and a prisoner in the Bastille. The scenes that were spent on this story were good, but there were too many dull and uninteresting parts packed in between these scenes to make the read flow really well.

Then there were just several other stories thrown into the book that had no business being there. They were boring and pointless and added nothing meaningful whatsoever.

Also, Dumas seemed to have developed a fondness for long paragraphs while writing this book. There were quite a few paragraphs in the book that went on for two or three pages and they were very difficult for me to read.

And like "The Vicomte de Bragelonne", this book does not have very much to do with the four musketeers. This time, Athos is hardly in it, which annoyed me extremely since he is my favorite. D'Artagnan, Aramis, and Porthos are in it a little more than Athos but not much. The first several chapters of the book involves at least one of the four musketeers, but don't let this fool you. If you're reading this book for the characters, you will be greatly disappointed by the amount of time they have in the novel.

And I DID NOT think that "The Man in the Iron Mask" was worth reading through this one to get to. That book was an appalling disaster in my opinion.

I read the Vicomte of Bragelonne, and the story is about Raoul, son of athos. The book contain all the three stories, Bragelonne, La Valliere, and The man in iron mask. This is the original book, some editors, split the book in three, and La Valliere is the second part of it. In my opinion is not the best story of Dumas, because like a reader you simpathetic, whit Raoul and Louise cheat him whit the king. I recomend read the entire book of bragelonne.

However, despite the fact that the title character does nothing for me (my sympathy is all with Raoul), I do recommend this book. It is part of the Musketeer Cycle, after all, and that connection in and of itself is enough to keep this book in a place of honor on my shelf. As another reviewer said, you really do have to read the series in order; and I'd like to add that, with Le Vicomte de Bragelone/Louise de la Valliere/The Man in the Iron Mask, you should be certain that your books are of the same edition and from the same publisher. Different publishers tend to break these three books (which are intended to be one book) at different chapters.

Louise de la Valiere is the least action-oriented of the Musketeer novels, but the writing is brilliant and the characters are true to themselves. Also, the translation is well-done. Queen Margot is the Dumas novel that has never been properly translated in my opinion. (And yes, I do speak French and have seen the novels in their original languages.)

Just remember that Dumas is not a fan of "Happily ever after . . ."

I read Mouse Tales twice in a two week period. I could barely get through this book! There were pages I skipped because I found it so boring. Being that I read Mouse Tales within the past couple of months, I saw repeated statements in More Mouse Tales. It seems as if the author ran out of things to say, so he found employees (or many former ones!) to trash Disneyland and to blow the lid off The Happiest Place on Earth and it's politics. Disneyland fans do not need to know this. I would rather be oblivious to the nasty politics, backstabbing and other [stuff]that goes on there. Disneyland is there to make people forget this gloomy world - not to be reminded of it as this book does.

I have read both the first book and this book. The first "Mouse Tales" book was delightful, with it's history of Disneyland's conception and opening (and all of the tales of what went wrong), hi-jinks of its employees, and knowledge of how Disneyland has evolved.

"More Mouse Tales" tells the story of the Disney empire as it becomes the "Evil Empire". It talks about the strike-breaking, the employee disgruntlement with stupid guests, the anger and hatred that goes one where none of the guests can see. As a Disney fanatic, I found the book to be more depressing than informative. The Disneyland protrayed in this book is less like "the dream that nearly wasn't" and more like a Coney Island with a new coat of paint.

While it may be accurate, most Disney fans will finish this book with a sour taste in their mouths.

Are you obsessed with the mouse? Do you love Disneyland? Or are you just curious what makes Disney tick?

Personally, I fit in with the last two questions. I have visited Disneyland numerous times and everytime I've always asked myself and (to their annoyance) my family how did the Disney company make such a place. This same question is often asked by an audience member watching a magic show -- how did s/he created the illusion? Well, this book reads like a truthful tabloid. Sounds like a contradiction? It's not.

While I was reading this book I felt like I had picked up the latest issue of a weekly tabloid that proudly read on the front cover "Ex-employee of Disney tells all!" But this story is truth, unlike the majority of the tabloids, I'm sure. If you wanted to know how Disneyland works, read this book. I was laughing and enjoying the reading from cover to cover. Being an ex-amusement park employee myself (Legoland, CA. for over a year) I could related to a lot of the stories that were told by Disneland employees (or I should say cast members). This book will give you a new perspective about the mouse and his land. I think it's a very good read!

Make sure you read the first book "Mouse Tales: A Behind-the-Ears Look At Disneyland" in addition to this one.

CAUTION: "Me Talk Pretty One Day" is one of the FUNNIEST books you'll EVER read. You'll laugh out loud until you're embarrassed. You'll roar at wisecracks so biting and mean that you'll feel guilty. And if you read a certain (in)famous chapter you'll howl with laughter, pretend you shouldn't have read it -- and read it again...and howl.. again.

The acid-pen Sedaris shot to fame reading his humorous stories over National Public Radio (and he still insisted on cleaning houses for money). The book's first half has stories on various subjects (family, art class, teaching writing, working for tough bosses etc.). The second deals with his experiences in moving to France with his lover.

Sedaris spares no one -- not his father, sister, teachers, artists or himself -- from his scapel-sharp, insight-filled humor. Some wisecracks are instant classics. When he tries to
become an artist, dabbling in questionable performance art, he writes of artists: "Their artworks were known as 'pieces,' a phrase I enthusiastically embraced. 'Nice piece,' I'd
say. In my eagerness to please, I accidentally complimented chipped baseboards and sacks of laundry waiting to be taken to the cleaners. Anything might be a piece if you looked at
it hard enough."

When a museum wants him to do some performance art it seemed "as though I should play hard to get, but after a moment or two of awkward silence, I agreed to do it for what I called 'political reasons.' I needed the money for drugs."

In a chapter detailing the lives and deaths of his various pets: "When my mother died and was cremated herself we worried that, acting on instinct, our father might run out and
immediately replace her." When he's invited to teach: "I was clearly unqualified yet I accepted the job without hesitation, as it would allow me to wear a tie and go by the name
Mr. Sedaris." And what a sadistic French teach told him:"Every day spent with you is like having a cesarean section."

In his most innovative "piece," a chapter called Big Boy, he describes his battle with (ahem) something he sees in a toilet. You'll roar while you read this short three page story
and hate yourself for reading it...and read it again. The book contains some adult language and adult situations. DESERVES MORE THAN FIVE STARS!!

My absolute favorite humor writer is Dave Barry, but Sedaris gives him a run for the money. His sense of humor is different than Barry's, but his ascerbic observations will have most readers howling in the aisle. One of his crasser stories, Big Boy, had me gasping for breath. Who hasn't encountered a giant turd "no toilet paper or anything, just this long and coiled specimen, as thick as a burrito" in a bathroom and has had to deal with it? If this kind of humor offends you, pick another book to read.

His stories of trying to learn French are hilarious as well, particularly the American couple on the train who assume that Sedaris does not speak English because they are in Paris. The husband says loudly to his wife, "Peeeew, can you smell that? That is pure French baby...this little froggy is ripe," referring to our narrator! Of course, he understands everything, but doesn't want to give away his English abilities until he hears what other stupid things they have to say. I also loved the final story about his immigrant father who stashed away ancient food items so that they didn't go to waste. After insisting on eating a very old carrot, his father pretends to enjoy it as the carrot, "too weak to resist, quietly surrendered to the force of his jaws."

Sedaris is very observant and these essays are filled with self-deprecating humor and funny tales that will keep you reading until people on the train with you with wonder what is making you laugh so uncontrollably.

David Sedaris delivers a delightful array of autobiographical moments in "Me Talk Pretty One Day" The author not only forces the reader to laugh out loud, but beneath the mirth are serious and thoughtful moments. The poignancy and humor are a delightful mix.

The first chapter sets the stage as Sedaris describes his speech therapy in a Carolina grade school. The school is trying to correct his lisp. In reality they are concerned about his potential homosexuality. Sedaris has fun describing the scene. Beneath the surface you feel his anguish.

The rest of the book is a colorful blur of stories about his family, early jobs and other facets of his life. Two highlighted phases is an early addiction to speed and a later residency in Paris. In each incident Sedaris is a clown when it comes to self-depreciation, but his smiles lightly cloaks some more serious themes.

I recommend "Me Talk Pretty One Day" because of the diverse perspective it delivers. At minimum you will be entertained. At the same time David Sedaris introduces real social and cultural issues without sermonizing.

This is the last part of Alexandre Dumas' Musketeer Cycle, so do read the first four books first. (Oh, all right, you can read this one first if you want to. I did, to be honest. But it is made all the more powerful by the backstory.) Also, do yourself a favor and get an edition of The Man in the Iron Mask that matches your edition of Louise de la Valliere and Le Vicomte de Bragelone. Different publishers cut into the story (the three novels were intended to be one novel) at different chapters.

I cried and stayed awake all night the first time I read this one. It depressed me for a week-- but it is beautiful novel, and the action writing is as good as any Dumas ever does. Would you expect any less in D'Artagnan's last adventure? The tale, by the way, is that of D'Artagnan and his friends. The title character is for the most part a plot device. (AND NO, NONE OF THE MOVIES HAVE MUCH TO DO WITH THE BOOK! THE BOOK IS BETTER!)

Long live Athos, Porthos, Aramis, and D'Artagnan.

Many years after their first meeting; Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D'Artagnan reunite once more but in conflict. With king Louis XIV raging havok in France, Aramis, Athos and Porhos do what is in their power to overthrow him, yet D'Artagnan as captain of the musketeers tries to stop their secret plan to repalce Louis with Philip the kings twin brother that rests unseen in La bastille under a dreadful Iron Mask. If you saw the Latest Movie you have to read the book or else you will never know how little favor the film does to it. (Also recomend the Count of Monte Cristo.)

I won't lie. When I first read this book I felt terribly cheated. I had followed the adventures of the Four Musketeers for months. And then, Dumas reminded me that they could trick Richelieu and Mazarin, but they couldn't outsmart Louis XIV nor time.

Know something? I loved it!

This book isn't as fast-paced as the previous stories. It has lots more intrigue and romantic tension, since it's centered around Raoul de Bragelonne (Athos' son) and, as D'Artagnan says, the youngsters of Louis XIV's court aren't what they used to be. Neither the musketeers! Athos has become quieter, Aramis more mysterious, Porhos more innocent and D'Artagnan is tired of devoting his life to persons that forget him once they're powerful. Their final fight against time makes this a great book, even if during the final chapters I cried a lot. Any Musketeer lover would.

Finally, and for moviegoers, my advice: don't even try to compare the movie to this book. It's completely different, though the musketeers are nicely portrayed on it, and shouldn't be compared. Alternate realities, anyone?

Are you already extremely knowledgeable about the French Revolution, with a detailed memory of all events and individuals involved? Are you uninterested in what has been said about the French Revolution in this century or the last? Did you find other 19th century accounts of the Revolution (e.g. those by Guizot, Michelet, Tocqueville, Mill) too easy to follow? Do you prefer a pretentious, self-important, and overly ornate literary style that calls attention to its own artfulness to one that is simple and direct? Do you like pretentious authors who assume that you're more interested in seeing them display their verbal wit than in learning anything about the subject they're purportedly writing about? Well then, Thomas Carlyle's history of the French Revolution may be the book for you!

I am, of course, being somewhat tongue-in-cheek here... Thomas Carlyle was one of Victorian Britain's great writers. He's an important historical figure and his prose style is unique, distinctive, and is in many ways, quite beautiful and poetic. Yet, the fact remains that those who are not already familiar with Carlyle should be wary-- very, very wary-- of picking this book up.

There are several reasons for this. First, the fact of the matter is that Carlyle's 'history' is not history as we might think of itThere is little/nothing in the way of exposition or explanation in the sense of laying out 'what happened' or 'who was involved'. Rather, this book is written from the premise that the readers are already familiar with all the facts and details of the Revolution and are more interested in reading an artful, witty, and clever 'retelling' of it. Individuals and events are alluded to vaguely, metaphorically, with the expectation that the reader knows all of this already like the back of his/her hand. When you read something like, "With Rumor unleashed, She flies from De Berry! That Scarlet Woman!", you're expected to already know who's being talked about and to know pretty much everything there is to know what it is that's being alluded to... Carlyle, you see, doesn't explain, or introduce, or contextualize... and you don't read Carlyle for explanation or introduction or contextualization. Rather, you're supposed to already be informed-- and then to read him for the sheer pleasure of his witty wordplay and to nod appreciatively at it. But if you're not already familiar with the persons and events of the Revolution-- you'll quickly find yourself unable to understand anything and will just be lost.

Nor can one consider Carlyle's _The French Revolution_ to be a scholarly study. The man *was* extremely learned of course-- he knew his stuff. But he's not really advancing an argument or thesis about the Revolution or why it happened... the sorts of things academic scholars dispute. He does wax abstractly on occasion, but not to make general claims about the Revolution (or even history in general), but rather to make vague interjections on obscure metaphysical matters (largely derived from German idealist philosophy... and again, these are unexplained... you're expected to already be familiar with thus stuff).

Finally, there the matter of Carlyle's style. As noted above, it's highly poetic and possesses a kind of ornate (if pretentious) beauty that can be appreciated in small doses. Yet, the fact remains that his peculiar mannerisms (including unnecessary capitalization, archaic and pompous turns of phrase, incomplete sentences followed by exclamation points, the constant use of the present tense even though he's writing about the past, apostrophic asides, etc.) become extremely annoying to read after more than a few pages. At best, it's an acquired taste... and personally, I'm not sure that there are many folks around today who will find the effort spent in acquiring the taste to be worthwhile.

In sum.... don't get this book hoping to learn anything about the French Revolution. Only get this book if you want to read Carlyle for the sake of reading Carlyle. Put otherwise, don't get this if you want to read a work of history about the French Revolution-- you'll be wholly disappointed. The only reason to get it, in fact, is for its value as an example of Carlyle's unique and self-indulgent literary style.

Thomas Carlyle's unique poetic style of prose may be tough to take early on, but after a few pages, it does grow on you. It's all overly dramatic and sensational, but what subject could be more so than the French Revolution itself? Carlyle paints a grim description of the complete and utter chaos of the times, particulary the Great Terror of mid-1794. He does, however, remain somewhat non-judgemental regarding the Revolution's key figures, and lets the readers sort out for themselves who the real culprits are. He may over-simplify the obvious at certain junctures in the book, but his style is riveting and as this shocking and dismal tale of woe continues, the reader is further drawn into a daze and trance similar to the Terror's unfortunate victims.
Some have suggested that it's better to read a "normal" history of the French Revolution before one undertakes this famous volume. I disagree. This is as good a place to start as any concerning that most volatile of times. Simply put, Carlyle's "French Revolution" is both informative and exciting, and it has held up well since it was first published in 1837.

The authors of the previous review were too harsh on the text - it isn't a mere display of literary muscle turned lightly to the French Revolution, it's an interesting take on the subject from a penetrating mind.

The other reviews saying "Don't read this if you don't know everything about the revolution" seem a little bit silly to me having read it - if you know nothing about French history and the revolution, ok, you might have some difficulties. But if you have even a rough view of the revolution (from a textbook chapter, short article, almost anything) you won't be lost. Once or twice one might be forced to read back or do a tiny bit of side-reading to get a colourful 19th century reference, but it isn't nearly as oblique as the first reviewer made out.

The style is not difficult to read, considering the date, and the narration is often captivating or amusing. The individual, literary portraiture of historical figures is unique and valuable to me in building a kind of familiarity with events, however cautiously. And the claim that it isn't "historically" written by modern standards - perhaps the reviewer was too busy composing clever jabs to note the date of writing? If you want Francois Furet, read Francois Furet, but Thomas Carlyle unfortunately didn't have the benefit of 20th century developments in historical methods.

Reading "Trilby" is like listening to a lively, friendly raconteur taking you into his confidence. All the characters are interesting and lovable despite their faults. Ultimately, du Maurier even has a soft spot for Svengali. Sentimental, yes...but effervescent and with a broad tolerance for life and human weaknesses. It's a fun, memorable read and easy to see why it was a huge hit of the 1890's.

The book which put "Svengali" into the English language. I had heard of this book long ago, of course, though i can't remember whether it was first from learning about Svengali or finding out that du Maurier was Daphne du Maurier's father. But i had never read it. In a way i'm glad i didn't, becuase that has given me the opportunity to read it now, for the first time. It has taken me a little longer than i might have expected, but was well worth the time. The story of the tragic Trilby, who cannot sing a note to save her life, and how she is moulded into the singer who takes Europe by storm, by the evil (?)(i'm not sure) musician Svengali, who uses mesmerism of some kind to play her as an instrument. The story is told from the persepective of three Englishmen who lived in Paris during the time Trilby was an artists' model, before she fell under Svengali's spell. The three, Taffy, the Laird, and Little Billee, who was her fiancé at one point, briefly, are artists, of a sort; they love Trilby for herself, and are devastated when she is removed from them by events. Naturally, they are shocked by her reappearance in the world of Culture. But they are delighted at the possibility of renewing her acquaintance.

I could wish that du Maurier had not been so cute with his French as "spoken" by the English. I could wish that there is less French altogether, as it does slow down the reading ~ perhaps one reason "Trilby" isn't read any more (is it?). It does generate an atmosphere, though, and you begin to know what Western Europe was like in the middle years of two centuries ago. This edition, Dover, has over a hundred illustrations by du Maurier, who had made his name as a cartoonist for Punch. They are lovely, and add immeasurably to the book.

I have to disagree with the reviewer who commented that this novel is at best a curiosity and that it deserved to fade into obscurity. I read this in a course on 19th century novels and fell in love with du Maurier's writings and his drawings. He uses such wonderful devices to flavor the text and in many ways this satirical view of the aesthetic movement informs the period as much as Oscar Wilde's work does. That the work has some anti-Semitic sentiment it is no more worrisome than anything in Shakespeare (meaning that you must take the work as a work in a period of time). The character types are common enough and the message of the story is timeless--I'll leave the discernment of the message to the reader. Reading this was like uncovering your grandad's favorite toy in the attic and realizing it was still fun to play with today.

David Chandler, former teacher at the British Military Academy at Sandhurst is often called one of the foremost Napoleonic scholars of modern times. His monumental tome, The Campaigns of Napoleon is hailed as the single best work of its kind and is the work most frequently refered to by lay people. Sadly, this overly and overtly pro-British goliath is filled with a multitude of crucial erors, omissions and misleading statements designed to convice the reader of one of Chandler's main themes; that Napoleon Boboparte was or became insane. Space precludes listing the vast number of mistakes in the book, but a few should suffice. In regards to Napoleon's invasion of Russia Chandler states that his primary source for the strength of Napoleon's army is a work by R. Burton published in England in 1913. An examnination of Burton's work on the campaign of 1812 reveals that Burton's work has neither notes nor a bibliography but "relies" on a handfull of other secondary sources including a work thought to be relaible by many scholars (Bogdonavitch's study of the war)but which is a work that its author says "relies on the word of god almighty" for its athority. In other words, Chandler has no clear idea of the size of Napoleon's army, and thus cannot calculate the number of casualties inflicted by disease, weather, and fighting! A second example is that Chandler states that under Napoleon's "crazed" directions General Junot led roughly 25,000 Frecnh troops to take Lisbon. Chandler paints Napoleon as too psychotic to appreciate the difficulties of the march and then describes how Junot "lost" 23,000 of the 25,000 men ariving in Lisbon with a little more than 1,500; the rest, Chandler implies, are all dead. However, Chandler offers no evidence for his portrait of the event and his version contrasts completely with that of Sir Charles Oman who states in his multi vollume history of the Peninsular War, that while Junot DID arrive at Lisbon with 1,500 men, the reamining 23,000 were spread out along the roads and DID eventualy arrive a few weeks later. A third and crucial example of Chandler's lazyness is his use of the memoirs of Talleyrand, Napoleon's sometime foreign minister. Despite ample evidence that Talleyrand's memoirs are a tainted, biased, and dangerously one-sided view of events, Chandler uses them without reservation to paint Napoleon as a dangerous mad man bent on nothing but conquest for the sake of his own psychotic gratification. Other mistakes abound in what is the most overrated work, in a field, already crowded to the rafters with mistake laden shilobeths. Chandler is at his best when describing events that don't require him to write the historical equivalent of "God Save the Queen" and "Rule Britania." The descriptions of the major battles and the descriptions of Napoleon's tactis are worth reading. As the book is massive it has the added benifit of covering all of the major battles in which Napoleon took some part. For that it is a worth while refrence text. Beyond that, its obsessively pro-British tilt, its mistakes, and omissions of fact, render it increasingly obselete and, in the hands of those who wont,or can't consulte other works, a dangerously misleading work of propaganda.

Exhaustive, authoritative, monumental, The Campaigns of Napoleon is not the definitive operational study of Napoleon's campaigns. That designation goes to A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars by Brigadier General Esposito and Colonel Elting which came out two years prior to Chandler's work.

This large volume, however, is a valuable book and it is highly recommended to have on every Napoleonic book shelf. Most of the information contained in the volume can be used with confidence, and it is an excellent research tool. Napoleon's Correspondence has been thoroughly used throughout the book, but some dubious resources have also been referenced, such as Jomini's work, Liddell Hart's dubious tomes, Marmont's and MacDonald's memoirs, and the dubious memoirs of Bourrienne, which are mendacious and quite worthless, as well as Thiebault's inaccurate ghost written memoirs, and Thiers inaccurate work.

The section of the book entitled Napoleon's Art of War needs to be used with care. The author tries just a little too hard to systemize Napoleon's method of making war, and generally denigrates the abilities of his subordinates, without whom he could never have achieved as much as he did. The general indicators tend to try and convince the reader that Napoleon didn't train his subordinates in the higher military art. This is incorrect. Those generals that formed his hand-picked generals aides-de-camp, who were all experts in their particular military specialty were all trained by the Emperor in his art of war, and were expected to show initiative and were able to carry out independent missions without supervision. Some of the senior generals and marshals, such as Davout, Suchet, Lannes, St. Cyr, and Massena, were either as skilled as their Emperor, or had military skills of their own. Additionally, the author attempts to throw some doubt on the French generals leading from the front, which they invariably did-one need only look at the casualty lists for the general officers of the period to verify that point. Grouchy was wounded 23 times in 25 years, Oudinot 34 times. Lannes took ten wounds in 60 battles. Napoleon himself was wounded three times and had nineteen horses shot out from under him.

Napoleon's understanding of the art of war was both 'cerebral and visceral.' When the acknowledged principals of the military art didn't quite fit a certain situation, Napoleon's innate understanding as both a soldier and a general usually held him in good stead. This is where the author misses the mark in this huge work-he doesn't convey to the reader just why Napoleon was both a skilled soldier and a great general, he simply tries to 'codify' his way of making war, which with Napoleon really isn't possible, in my opinion.

The author does admire Napoleon very much, and tries very hard not to. He does characterize Napoleon's final defeat, though, as a giant being pulled down by pygmies, which I found to be very profound and quite accurate.

This book is recommended, and everyone should have it. However, if you are only going to own one book on the Napoleonic Wars, this one is not it-A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars is.

Could even Shakespeare have imagined the triumph and tragedy that marked the life of Napoleon Bonaparte?

Like Caesar, Napoleon rose from obscurity and through sheer determination, utter ruthlessness, and all-consuming ambition to become the ruler of the most powerful nation on earth. And like Caesar, Napoleon's moment of triumph was short-lived, although the Waterloo campaign gave Napoleon the second chance his predecessor could only dream of.

David G. Chandler is that rarest of historians who combines the dogged research skills of a born academic with the light writing touch of a master storyteller. While this work is enormous in both detail and scope, it is eminently readable, each page filled with the wonders of the Napoleonic Era.

Far from pure biography, Chandler attempts to unravel the genius of Napoleon and explain the man and his times in terms even the military layman can understand. The longevity of this work (published 1973) attests to the success of this endeavor.

This book is an excellent choice for the budding military enthusiast, the Napoleonic fanatic, or the reader who wishes to begin his introduction to one of the great captains of history with the finest monograph ever published on the subject. Lavishly illustrated with maps, photographs, and drawings, you'll find The Campaigns of Napoleon to be simply the most accessible work on on of history's great men.

Vive L'Empereur! Vive Chandler!

I have not read this book cover-to-cover, but I think I get the idea from reading large sections throughout the book. I don't like it. First of all, much of the contents is OK, but seems like very basic common sense, so I didn't find it that useful. Things that bugged me, though, were:

Talking about how this age is good for using a harness and leash. (not that I haven't considered this!! :-) )

They gave an example of a child's dexterity by talking about how she picked up a toy simultaneously with a cigarette that had fallen out of her father's cigarette pack. I think the authors are European, so smoking is rampant in Europe. But to me, this is an odd example in a book that's supposed to be teaching good practices for parents.

Lastly, they talk about how children at a certain age aren't very social and how they consider people to be like inanimate objects. They gave the example of how toddlers in a stroller don't engage at all with the person pushing the stroller, and that there may as well be a machine pushing the stroller. Therefore, they don't like engaging much with people. Well . . . can you imagine sitting in a stroller facing out and trying to engage with the person pushing you from behind? My child loves to engage with me and others, but in a stroller it's practically impossible!

These examples, and the fact that they totally miss the mark in describing my child - saying they aren't interested in books at all at this age (she loves books! And spends long periods flipping through pages, babbling away, and letting me read to her), among other strange generalizations, make me glad i bought this book used instead of new. It may be helpful to someone out there, but didn't help me.

This book is very outdated. ... says it has been revised, but mine was 15 years old, with no revisions. I returned it.

I must disagree with the above reviewer who complained that the book is 15 years old and is therefore outdated. That criticism would be more vaild if it concerned a book about teenagers or pre-teens, since our culture has changed so much in just 15 years. However, one-year-old children have behaved in similar fashion since the beginning of time. They learn to stand, to totter, they grab ahold of everything in sight. This book is short, easy to read, and packed with a lot of insight. I especially like the suggested toys section--old magazines, blocks, plastic play hammer, old purse, etc. One-year-olds are fascinated by everything, so concentrate on simple, unbreakable items instead of spending hundreds on smashable toys. Good read!