Comentarios del público
 Somewhat Flawed But Well Worth Reading
Perhaps better named, "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Peninsula War", as the focus is on the British Peninsula experience, supposedly due to a lack of sources elsewhere. The author provides a good analysis of why Wellington was victorious, and he gives a good discussion of light infantry tactics also. Throughout the book psychological factors in battle are always highlighted. The examples given concerning infantry tactics are very useful but somewhat confusing without maps, and it is difficult to remember what action the author is discussing, so I found myself re-reading sections just to clear these things up. Differing troop densities are briefly discussed but are not elaborated upon, and there is less than I would have liked on the interaction of arms, perhaps because this was less important in the Peninsula. As a result, grand tactics are hinted at but largely ignored. Sadly only around half of the book is on tactics, with the rest on the experience of battle, making it like "The Face of Battle" but once again mainly on the Peninsula. Long passages from participants are featured which are usually useful and entertaining, but which can become a bit tiresome. Despite its flaws, this book is useful and well worth reading.
Fecha: 2006-01-01
A worthwhile read of the Napoleonic Era.
I found this book to be an enjoyable read not just research. I am currently in the process of rewriting a set of Musket Era wargame rules, to which I am co-author. Along with Philip Haythornthwaite's two volumes, "Napoleonic Cavalry" and "Napoleonic Infantry", I found this volume to be very helpful in understanding the ebb and flow of the battlefield.
Muir reinforced a theory that I had been formulating as to the importance of morale to the cohesion of a unit and that morale is the factor that can be checked to determine the success of any unit on the field. This book helped me in determining just when morale should be checked.
Now having read this book I am tempted to go back and re-read David Chandler's "Campaignes of Napoleon" with my new insight.
If you are interested in reading history this book may be just a diversion for you, it's a different point of view, but if you are interested in what was actually taking place on the battlefield and why, I think you will find this to be worthwhile time spent.
Fecha: 2005-08-17
 An Extended Version of the Face of Battle
Rory Muir's "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon" is in many respects an extended version of the chapter on Waterloo in John Keegan's "The Face of Battle." Muir, the author of an excellent study of the Battle of Salamanca, draws on a variety of sources to describe how the combat arms of infantry, artillery, and cavalry accomplished their missions on the battlefields of the Napoleonic age. His book also provides insights into the human aspects of battle in that age, including the experience of the individual soldier. Muir's selection of sources is rather British-centric, although he does include some selections from the other major combatants (France, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Spain, for example). Perhaps reflecting the preponderance of British sources, many of the examples derive from the Peninsular War and the Waterloo Campaign.
The discussion of tactics is at a fairly basic level, but does presume a general familiarity with the Napoleonic era and especially with the more important battles. There may be no great insights here for serious students of the military art or of the Napoleonic wars, but the book does provide very useful context for understanding the environment in which Napoleonic-era warfare took place. Although lacking the punch of Keegan's writing, Muir's prose is serviceable and easy to follow. Many of the first person accounts he includes are quite moving. The analysis sometimes seems anecdotal rather than systematic; this may have been a function of the limits of the available materials.
"Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon" may be most useful as a companion volume to the work of other authors who focus primarily on the strategic and operational levels of war. Muir has provided the astute reader with an appreciation of the capabilities and limitations of the combat arms in that time. Readers unfamiliar with the experience of combat should be forewarned that Muir's book includes some fairly graphic descriptions of the horrors of the Napoleonic battlefield.
Fecha: 2005-02-22
 Questionable Sources, Good Contrast to Keegan's
In Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon Rory Muir explores what it's like to be a soldier during the Napoleonic wars. The book is divided into four parts. Part I describes the solder's feelings and reactions as they are about to face battle and on the battlefield. Part II describes the interaction between different sections of an army - artillery, infantry, light infantry, infantry combat (musketry, hand-to-hand combat, bayonets) and cavalry (cavalry vs. cavalry, cavalry vs. artillery, cavalry vs. infantry). Part III discusses the role of the General, the subordinate officers, morale and cohesion, and attitudes and feelings. Part IV discusses the aftermath of battle - the soldiers' feelings and reactions after winning or losing the battle.The first thing the reader discovers is that, despite the title, the book is not about Napoleon's tactics or the experiences of soldiers in Napoleon's armies. Rather, it is about the tactics and experiences of British soldiers during the age of Napoleon.
Muir relies almost exclusively on British soldiers' experience, arguing that it is universally applicable. Relying on memoirs, diaries and letters of mostly British soldiers, he defends his premise, stating: "I doubt that this emphasis [on British] sources greatly affects the result, for at this level of combat national differences mattered comparatively little: Russian, Scot or Portuguese, a line of horsemen galloping straight at you looks much the same, and the steadiness of your unit will depend on its confidence and training, its recent experiences and losses, not on its mother tongue." While Muir assumed that the British experience was universally applicable, a premise I disagree with, it is doubtful that he would have found the reverse acceptable. Certainly, he would not have found the experience of the French, Russians, Prussians or Austrians as "universally applicable" and therefore indicative of the British experience. We will not know this, however, as Muir did not extend his research beyond British sources, except for a few minor French sources. Thus, the overall flavor of the book is Anglocentric. Muir defends the Anglo point of view, stating: "The Anglocentrism of [writers on the Peninsular Wars] approach was not simply the product of national bias ... but rather reflects the fact that for the period of the Napoleonic Wars there is an extraordinarily rich collection of first-hand British accounts of combat, which appears unmatched in any other language." He cites the frustration other authors have encountered in their attempts to find sources of Napoleonic history comparable to British ones. He acknowledges one author was able to uncover significant new material in the French archives, but even then, he notes: "[I]t is fair to say that it is seldom as rich and detailed as the British literature." Muir attempts to extend John Keegan's chapter Waterloo and also attempts to emulate Keegan's style in discussing the glory and horror of the battlefield from the perspective of the combatant. However, Muir's book does not have the historical authenticity of In the Face of Battle. While Keegan's book relied on well-researched, factual evidence, which then were presented to the reader along with the author's analysis and conclusions, Muir heavily relies on soldiers' subjective recollection, recorded long after the events, as the basis of his book. There is no attempt to offer any corroborating evidence supporting this limited, inherently unreliable form of research. Muir's book thus dangerously approaches the realm of "historical fiction." The book is fairly easy to read, except for Part III, dealing with Command and Control. This section discusses a number of different battles, and constantly shifts between them, making it very confusing. Otherwise, the book is written in fairly plain English. I would not recommend this book as a study of Napoleonic Wars. As to its value as a book on British tactics and experience, I would still have reservations due to the inherent unreliability of Muir's sources. However it is a book that is a good contrast to Keegan's and serves as a reminder to the student of history to consider the reliability of the author's sources.
Fecha: 2004-02-16
Very Informative, Densely descriptive...
Rory Muir does an excellent, praiseworthy job with his book "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon". Although he closely analyzes the British experience of war more so than the French, he comments in his preface that this is because there is abundantly more information from the British accounts from that time. Regardless, this is a valuable source for analyzing the age of Napoleon and follows in the path of Keegan's tour-de-force, "The Face of Battle". Well Done!
Fecha: 2003-02-25
|
