Napoleon's Invasion of Russia

by George Nafziger

Release Date: 17 March, 1998

Edition: Paperback

Price:

More Info

A Monumental Task

Quite good as a detailed examination of the major battles as well as smaller engagements but annoying for the "uninitated" in certain matters. Although there is an Errata page at the back, continual mistakes mean you can't even trust that. The maps of the battles are quite detailed but graphically poor although probably "homemade", and fail to mark all the locations mentioned in the text. (The Borodino 2 page spread has the pages in reverse order.) An overall map showing the locations of the battles would have been helpful - I'm still looking for Mir! The orders of battle are good but it's not clear what all the numbers mean, and the order of battle of the Danish Division is given but not mentioned in the main text. An index to the maps and appendices would have been useful. I suppose these are trivial faults given the enormity of the task.

Condescending introduction damages over all value of book

Nafziger's massive tome on Napoleon's ill-fated Russian campaign of 1812 has many important and postive points that makes the book a must to include in a Napoleonic library. The most useful aspects are the orders of battle, and the combat descriptions of the numerous tactical confrontations. So, for "raw" information presented, the book rates "5 stars." Less useful are the less-than-professionally done maps, which are difficult to read and the graphics not very pleasing to the eye. If you can get by these detriments, the maps can be useful. Even less reader-friendly is some of the author's prose, which can be accounted for since this was Nafziger's first "major" work." All the aforementioned, however, is good when compared to the horrendously condescending and insulting "Introduction" penned by the vitriolic David Chandler. Why the publisher, or the author, thought that having this "intro" and Chandler's name on the cover would help the sales of this book is a complete mystery. Chandler has the audacity, as the writer of an introduction for another person's book, to insult the author by calling into question Nafziger's research and conclusions, and then Chandler ends his diatribe by saying that if Nafziger does not agree with him (Chandler), then Chandler begrudgingly admits that this is Nafziger's right! There is no rating possible that can properly convey the total worthlessness of this Chandlerian tripe, which unmistakably conveys the idea that David Chandler believes that he and he alone is the sole fountainhead of knowledge concerning this fascinating period of history. I am hopeful that Mr Nafziger will some day have the opportunity to remove from future reprintings of this book the offensive rantings of one incredibly over-rated and egocentric English historian.