Adam Zamoyski

'Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 was one of the most dramatic episodes in European history, an event of epic proportions, etched deeply in the popular imagination.'

And indeed, one just have to think about the battle of Borodino ('the greatest massacre in recorded history, not to be surpassed until the first day of the Somme in 1916' ) or the crossing of the Berezina ('a powerful symbol of the failure and tragedy that lie at the heart of the Napoleonic myth') to get an idea of how the show more Russian campaign was a tragedy on a massive scale, unheard of before!

Adam Zamoyski of course tells of the conduct of the war, from a baffling Russian retreat culminating in the burning of Moscow to Napoleon's blunders that will cost him so dear. Relying on first hand accounts (letters, diaries...) he also paints vibrant portraits of all whose involved, and the gruesome ordeals they had to go through, as this was a war like no other and which will leave both sides scared for years to come.

What I found striking however, is his interpretation of the cause of the conflict. I am used to read about Napoleon being portrayed as the aggressor, and it's actually not quite the case here. The author doesn't hide his harsh and cynical view of the French Emperor:

'Napoleon was in large measure driven by nothing more complicated than the lust of power and domination over others.'

Yet, delving into the breach of the Continental System and, most importantly, the fate of Poland following the peace of Tilsit, one is here left with the impression that it was in fact the Tsar Alexander who, by his attitude, started the hostilities:

'(...) even as French society was looking forward to a golden age of peace, Russia was coming to see war with France as unavoidable, desirable even, while her ruler was entertaining dreams of his own for the regeneration of Europe.'

Also interesting is how Adam Zamoyski shows the ambiguities of the Russian people towards the French -hailed on the one hand as the paragon of Enlightenment ideals yet, on the other, feared as a threat to the conservatism of an archaic feudal system. The impact on Russian society, the serfs especially, will be deeply felt:

'The majority of Russian society saw the events of 1812-1814 not as a spur to regeneration but as a divine vindication of the existing constitution of the Russian state, which alone had been deemed worthy by the Almighty of carrying out His will in the struggle against the evil of revolutionary and Napoleonic France. Abandoning his youthful liberalism, the Tsar himself espoused this view. There would be no more reforms, and the system became in some ways even more stultifying than before.'

I just regret the author didn't push more on that point (e.g. detailing the influence the campaign will have from the Decembrist coup of 1825 up to the Revolution of 1917). But that's being fussy! This book is indeed great as it is.

'1812' is not only a fascinating and harrowing account of a bizarre and terrible war, but also an interesting perspective on what ultimately caused it. Brilliant! show less

One of the best history books ever. Been lurking unread on my shelves for years.After reading War & Peace felt spurred to open it and was blown away (pardon the phrase). Full of detail which only enhances th e overall narrative: the politics, the generalship, the logistics, the mistakes, the uncomfortable uniforms, the unfed horses, the courage and cowardice. In a capsule: Napoleon was decisive that's why he lost; Kutuzov was indecisive, that's why he won.
If I enjoyed this more than "W&P", show more perhaps it just says I'm more of a fact than a fiction man. show less

This is a book about a paranoia. After the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Era, the powers that met in Vienna the establish the settlement of 1815 tried to turn back the clock. But the conservative governments clearly lacked confidence that they had achieved a stable solution, and in hindsight they had good reason to doubt it. Adam Zamoyski tells the story of their fears, their attempts at policing and repression, and their tendency to hypnotise themselves with lurid conspiracy show more theories.

It is an account that strips many of the protagonists of their dignity. Metternich emerges not as a diplomatic genius, but as an increasingly irrational statesman, constantly panicking at small incidents and derided for it by his more cool-headed colleagues. The drift into mysticism of Czar Alexander and his growing belief in his own martyrdom is described mercilessly, and his successor does not get any clemency either. Zamoyski's study of the police archives delivers a large list of ridiculous accusations and absurd conspiracies.

Zamoyski believes that the fears of conservative governments were misguided because there was no grand international conspiracy to overthrow the existing order, nor a comité directeur in Paris to lead it. But the stark reality was that they were sitting on a volcano, or, as the British government described it to Metternich, a "pressure vessel without a safety valve", they just misjudged what the threat was. A later generation of historians and theoreticians would start to think in terms of the great impersonal forces of history and the evolution of society, which would ultimately sweep away the absolute monarchies of Europe. Most of the statesmen of 1815 had not learnt to think in these terms. Confronted with the forces of nationalism, liberalism and socialism that would ultimately defeat them, they struggled to give them a face, and in doing so they often fell victim to conspiracy theories.

For the modern reader too, the lack of clear protagonists and antagonists makes the story confusing. Zamoyski describes the ebb and flow of popular opinion, the interactions of movements and counter-movements. He occasionally devotes longer sections of text to particularly important personalities (such as Metternich and Alexander), but on the whole this is the story of a society on the boil, with its bubbles, turbulence and steam. It is hard to get a clear view and some sections of the book are, in consequence, rather dull. Others are hilarious. (I'm still inclined to recommend Mike Duncan's excellent Revolutions podcast, which among its many chapters also includes sections on the revolutions of 1830, 1848, and 1871. It's really good and very entertaining.)

Ultimately, the book is somewhat lacking in theme and conclusion. Zamoyski in his own conclusions merely argues that the climate of conservative repression that beset Europe in the late 19th century was harmful. It's hard to dispute that, but still a somewhat weak conclusion about the emerging police state. show less

This book was brutal.

The author manages to tell the story of Napoleon's invasion of Russia in a factual but still engaging manner, both with compassion for the players but without shying away from the horror.

As he mentions in his introduction, this event still echoes in our global consciousness as the memetic mother of all bad ideas, but which few people really understand. And as he notes in our conclusion, the outcome of this campaign perhaps changed the course of world history.

I was deeply show more affected by the book and it will be in my mind for a long time to come. show less