What do you think?
Rate this book
Blundering to Glory: Napoleon's Military Campaigns
Renowned for its accuracy, brevity, and readability, this book has long been the gold standard of concise histories of the Napoleonic Wars. Now in an updated and revised edition, it is unique in its portrayal of one of the world's great generals as a scrambler who never had a plan, strategic or tactical, that did not break down or change of necessity in the field. Distinguished historian Owen Connelly argues that Napoleon was the master of the broken play, so confident of his ability to improvise, cover his own mistakes, and capitalize on those of the enemy that he repeatedly plunged his armies into uncertain, seemingly desperate situations, only to emerge victorious as he "blundered" to glory.
Beginning with a sketch of Napoleon's early life, the book progresses to his command of artillery at Toulon and the "whiff of grapeshot" in Paris that netted him control of the Army of Italy, where his incredible performance catapulted him to fame. The author vividly traces Napoleon's campaigns as a general of the French Revolution and emperor of the French, knowledgeably analyzing each battle's successes and failures. The author depicts Napoleon's "art of war" as a system of engaging the enemy, waiting for him to make a mistake, improvising a plan on the spot-and winning. Far from detracting from Bonaparte's reputation, his blunders rather made him a great general, a "natural" who depended on his intuition and ability to read battlefields and his enemy to win. Exploring this neglected aspect of Napoleon's battlefield genius, Connelly at the same time offers stirring and complete accounts of all the Napoleonic campaigns.
Beginning with a sketch of Napoleon's early life, the book progresses to his command of artillery at Toulon and the "whiff of grapeshot" in Paris that netted him control of the Army of Italy, where his incredible performance catapulted him to fame. The author vividly traces Napoleon's campaigns as a general of the French Revolution and emperor of the French, knowledgeably analyzing each battle's successes and failures. The author depicts Napoleon's "art of war" as a system of engaging the enemy, waiting for him to make a mistake, improvising a plan on the spot-and winning. Far from detracting from Bonaparte's reputation, his blunders rather made him a great general, a "natural" who depended on his intuition and ability to read battlefields and his enemy to win. Exploring this neglected aspect of Napoleon's battlefield genius, Connelly at the same time offers stirring and complete accounts of all the Napoleonic campaigns.
264 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1987
About the author
Owen Connelly
21 books2 followersOwen Connelly was an American historian who specialized in military history, especially the Napoleonic wars. After earning his doctorate at the University of North Carolina, he taught at the University of South Carolina, where he retired as Distinguished Professor of History Emeritus and Caroline McKissick Dial Professor of History Emeritus.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
March 23, 2020
A short, concise overview of Napoleon's campaigns from Toulon to Waterloo with an interesting thesis. It is not intended to be detailed or analyse the campaigns in-depth.
The narrative starts off with noting that a more accurate title for the book would be ''Scrambling to Glory''. Connelly's thesis, at least on paper, is that Napoleon was a military genius who had plans that fell apart once battle commenced, forcing Napoleon to improvise. This ability to improvise and adapt to the situation, or ''scramble'', made Napoleon win his battles and gave him a reputation for military brilliance.
The book follows Napoleon from his birth throughout his military campaigns to the end of his life, focusing on his military career and giving side theatres small mentions in relation to the campaigns that Napoleon personally participated in. The first chapters follow Napoleon from his birth to his appointment to command of the Army of Italy. They come across as a rather unoriginal recounting of the well-known history with several anecdotes and quotes from Napoleon to accompany the narrative.
The First Italian Campaign partially stands at odds with the thesis of the work, seeing as Napoleon had a plan that succeeded. Napoleon managed to drive the armies of the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Sardinia away from each other, defeating Sardinia separately. Connelly gives most of the credit for the battles to Napoleon's divisional commanders rather than Napoleon himself. While commanders such as Massena and Augereau do deserve credit and did play vital roles in several battles, taking away all the credit from Napoleon is something I find a bit over the top.
The next chapters cover Napoleon's Egyptian Expedition, the Marengo Campaign and the War of the Third Coalition. The coverage of the first two campaigns is a brief, but unoriginal recounting with the Third Coalition being more notable. I found this particular chapter to be inaccurate with several errors, in particular the influence of Archduke Ferdinand in the Ulm Campaign.
The rest of the book is a concise recounting of the rest of the campaigns, written in a brief but readable manner. Several statistics appear, but with no footnotes or analysis to confirm them. These include the population of France, army sizes, occasional financial numbers and several others.
The book is readable and moves quickly, but only covers the basics of each campaign. Several inaccuracies appear such as some statistics, the claim that the Austrians never attempted to adopt a supply system of living off the land, the influence of Archduke Ferdinand in the Ulm Campaign among others. By themselves, these can be dismissed as small errors that make one raise an eyebrow but do not damage the work, however they do eventually add up and take away from the book when all of them are considered.
The thesis that Napoleon was a scrambler is never properly set forward and Connelly's argument isn't clear. In situations when Napoleon's behaviour does suit the argument of him being a scrambler, this is pointed out. In situations where events do not suit the argument there is nothing to be said and the narrative simply continues on. This makes the thesis of the work come across as a set of nitpicks rather than a general argument with the result being that the argument never seems to form.
With all this said, the book comes off as a concise, readable but unoriginal overview of Napoleon's campaigns with a thesis that is interesting in principle but is poorly argued in practice. It makes for enjoyable reading but is nothing remarkable.
Final Rating: 5/10
The narrative starts off with noting that a more accurate title for the book would be ''Scrambling to Glory''. Connelly's thesis, at least on paper, is that Napoleon was a military genius who had plans that fell apart once battle commenced, forcing Napoleon to improvise. This ability to improvise and adapt to the situation, or ''scramble'', made Napoleon win his battles and gave him a reputation for military brilliance.
The book follows Napoleon from his birth throughout his military campaigns to the end of his life, focusing on his military career and giving side theatres small mentions in relation to the campaigns that Napoleon personally participated in. The first chapters follow Napoleon from his birth to his appointment to command of the Army of Italy. They come across as a rather unoriginal recounting of the well-known history with several anecdotes and quotes from Napoleon to accompany the narrative.
The First Italian Campaign partially stands at odds with the thesis of the work, seeing as Napoleon had a plan that succeeded. Napoleon managed to drive the armies of the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Sardinia away from each other, defeating Sardinia separately. Connelly gives most of the credit for the battles to Napoleon's divisional commanders rather than Napoleon himself. While commanders such as Massena and Augereau do deserve credit and did play vital roles in several battles, taking away all the credit from Napoleon is something I find a bit over the top.
The next chapters cover Napoleon's Egyptian Expedition, the Marengo Campaign and the War of the Third Coalition. The coverage of the first two campaigns is a brief, but unoriginal recounting with the Third Coalition being more notable. I found this particular chapter to be inaccurate with several errors, in particular the influence of Archduke Ferdinand in the Ulm Campaign.
The rest of the book is a concise recounting of the rest of the campaigns, written in a brief but readable manner. Several statistics appear, but with no footnotes or analysis to confirm them. These include the population of France, army sizes, occasional financial numbers and several others.
The book is readable and moves quickly, but only covers the basics of each campaign. Several inaccuracies appear such as some statistics, the claim that the Austrians never attempted to adopt a supply system of living off the land, the influence of Archduke Ferdinand in the Ulm Campaign among others. By themselves, these can be dismissed as small errors that make one raise an eyebrow but do not damage the work, however they do eventually add up and take away from the book when all of them are considered.
The thesis that Napoleon was a scrambler is never properly set forward and Connelly's argument isn't clear. In situations when Napoleon's behaviour does suit the argument of him being a scrambler, this is pointed out. In situations where events do not suit the argument there is nothing to be said and the narrative simply continues on. This makes the thesis of the work come across as a set of nitpicks rather than a general argument with the result being that the argument never seems to form.
With all this said, the book comes off as a concise, readable but unoriginal overview of Napoleon's campaigns with a thesis that is interesting in principle but is poorly argued in practice. It makes for enjoyable reading but is nothing remarkable.
Final Rating: 5/10
March 17, 2020
A concise, clearly written history of Napoleon’s military campaigns, from Italy to Waterloo. Connelly argues that Napoleon was basically an opportunist.
Connelly argues that Napoleon’s genius was in his ability to perfect tactics that were already common. Napoleon, he argues, was great at “scrambling,” by which he means improvising solutions on the spot. Napoleon, he argues, was successful because he could adapt to his own mistakes and those of his enemies. He does not argue that Napoleon was a gifted planner, strategist or tactical innovator. Of course, Napoleon was also fortunate not to have to fight all of the European powers at once; when he did so after 1812, and against able enemy commanders, he just ran out of luck. Connelly also briefly looks at Napoleon’s personality and the experiences that made him a cynical, hardworking and ambitious loner.The maps are mostly detailed and helpful. The narrative moves pretty fast and might not have the level of detail you expect.
There is a bibliography, but no citations. Also, it seems like Connelly only used the term “blunder” to make potential readers curious. The actual blunders he talks about seem like standard, random fortunes-of-war stuff. Also, the legacy of Napoleon’s tactics is not discussed.
An accessible, well-argued work.
Connelly argues that Napoleon’s genius was in his ability to perfect tactics that were already common. Napoleon, he argues, was great at “scrambling,” by which he means improvising solutions on the spot. Napoleon, he argues, was successful because he could adapt to his own mistakes and those of his enemies. He does not argue that Napoleon was a gifted planner, strategist or tactical innovator. Of course, Napoleon was also fortunate not to have to fight all of the European powers at once; when he did so after 1812, and against able enemy commanders, he just ran out of luck. Connelly also briefly looks at Napoleon’s personality and the experiences that made him a cynical, hardworking and ambitious loner.The maps are mostly detailed and helpful. The narrative moves pretty fast and might not have the level of detail you expect.
There is a bibliography, but no citations. Also, it seems like Connelly only used the term “blunder” to make potential readers curious. The actual blunders he talks about seem like standard, random fortunes-of-war stuff. Also, the legacy of Napoleon’s tactics is not discussed.
An accessible, well-argued work.
December 31, 2023
I enjoyed this book and I find it funny how I finished this book on December 31st, because around this time last year I read Andrew Roberts biography on Napoleon, which got me interested more in the Napoleonic wars.
The premise of the book is that Napoleon was a military genius, no doubt, but that it was not through pre-conceived military plans that made him such, rather it was his ability to "scramble" (the author uses this term often) up plans quickly, outwit and defeat his enemies. The author says that this ability to do so enhances Napoleon military genius. I have mixed feelings about the evidence he lays fourth and his analysis of the campaigns because I am still developing a full understanding of Napoleons campaigns; so I can't say that I entirely agree or disagree. The author makes great points, and I would personally like to come back to this book at a later date, re-read it and see where my stance lays.
I would definitely recommend it.
The premise of the book is that Napoleon was a military genius, no doubt, but that it was not through pre-conceived military plans that made him such, rather it was his ability to "scramble" (the author uses this term often) up plans quickly, outwit and defeat his enemies. The author says that this ability to do so enhances Napoleon military genius. I have mixed feelings about the evidence he lays fourth and his analysis of the campaigns because I am still developing a full understanding of Napoleons campaigns; so I can't say that I entirely agree or disagree. The author makes great points, and I would personally like to come back to this book at a later date, re-read it and see where my stance lays.
I would definitely recommend it.
July 26, 2011
An interesting, though flawed, analysis of Bonaparte's generalship. For an alternate (and more plausible) explanation of the phenomena examined in this book, see Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton by Martin Van Creveld, for starters. Let it be reiterated as well that the greatest generals--Alexander, Caesar, Belisarius, Napoleon--recognized and counted on "blundering" to ensue when hostilities commenced, and gambled accordingly. The first casualty of every battle is the Plan.
April 16, 2019
Hardcore Napoleonic grognards will tell you that you have to read David Chandler's book on this subject. Maybe some day I'll care enough to want to read a 1,300 page book. In the meantime, this one is 1,000 pages shorter.
It is allegedly known for its brevity and readability and I found both to be true. It is brief, to be sure, though it appears to cover all(?) of Napoleon's engagements. My only real complaint on that front is his "scrambling", when the allies invaded France, felt like it was given short shrift and not as much detail as other battles.
Since it is brief, it is also bound to raise a number of questions that it doesn't really have the space to answer very satisfactorily. The author is certainly a Davout fan -- and makes a decent case for him -- but never makes it particularly clear why Napoleon didn't use him as much as the author implies he should have. (There are one or two almost throwaway lines about Napoleon not wanting Davout to get too famous and becoming a rival power.)
Likewise, Napoleon's collapse as a commander (e.g. the period of the Peninsular War to the end of the Russian fiasco) is explained somewhat (that he had gotten fat & lazy) but his renaissance later on isn't really explained.
Still, I found this very readable. There are numerous maps, each battle has a map dedicated to it, which many military & history books do a surprisingly poor job with. I found the maps pretty well done overall. There were only a few instances where I had trouble guessing where a particular village was -- usually they were the site of skirmishing by secondary elements.
For anyone interested in Napoleonics but hasn't devoted a decade of their life to memorizing unit designations and how Murat preferred to take his morning tea, this seems like an ideal starting place before jumping off into the many (many!) more detailed accounts available on individual battles or biographies or whatnot.
It is allegedly known for its brevity and readability and I found both to be true. It is brief, to be sure, though it appears to cover all(?) of Napoleon's engagements. My only real complaint on that front is his "scrambling", when the allies invaded France, felt like it was given short shrift and not as much detail as other battles.
Since it is brief, it is also bound to raise a number of questions that it doesn't really have the space to answer very satisfactorily. The author is certainly a Davout fan -- and makes a decent case for him -- but never makes it particularly clear why Napoleon didn't use him as much as the author implies he should have. (There are one or two almost throwaway lines about Napoleon not wanting Davout to get too famous and becoming a rival power.)
Likewise, Napoleon's collapse as a commander (e.g. the period of the Peninsular War to the end of the Russian fiasco) is explained somewhat (that he had gotten fat & lazy) but his renaissance later on isn't really explained.
Still, I found this very readable. There are numerous maps, each battle has a map dedicated to it, which many military & history books do a surprisingly poor job with. I found the maps pretty well done overall. There were only a few instances where I had trouble guessing where a particular village was -- usually they were the site of skirmishing by secondary elements.
For anyone interested in Napoleonics but hasn't devoted a decade of their life to memorizing unit designations and how Murat preferred to take his morning tea, this seems like an ideal starting place before jumping off into the many (many!) more detailed accounts available on individual battles or biographies or whatnot.
November 13, 2021
Written with fluidity and clarity which is hard to achieve in a narrative primarily based around military campaigns, as they very often become a stream of place names and commander names. Owen Connolly makes a quite modest claim that Napoleon’s military genius did not lay in extensive planning, but in his ability to react quickly, and this ability was often inconsistent and compensated for by independent decisions of his subordinates.
A minor criticism would be that Owen sometimes loses the thread of this argument and gets caught up in giving the narrative of the battles, but his ability to form coherent narratives out of battles is the book’s biggest strength. It makes his central thesis sort of secondary to the narrative, but makes for a better reading experience overall.
A minor criticism would be that Owen sometimes loses the thread of this argument and gets caught up in giving the narrative of the battles, but his ability to form coherent narratives out of battles is the book’s biggest strength. It makes his central thesis sort of secondary to the narrative, but makes for a better reading experience overall.
March 27, 2021
I read “Blundering To Glory” in preparation for a class on Napoleon. It sets the stage by providing provides a brief introduction to the legacies of the Old Regime and the European armies of Napoleon’s day, their officers, weapons and warfare and Napoleon’s early life before chronicling his campaigns and battles in sequence. It addresses each in detail, noting the troops involved, the importance of the battle, its movements, turning points, casualties and outcome, basically everything you would want to know. The many maps are aids to understanding. I recommend this for a quick and detailed history of Napoleon’s martial career.
September 29, 2020
Decent attempt at demythologising Napoleon.
February 27, 2024
read for class
May 17, 2021
Blundering to Glory is a short, enjoyable revision of Napoleon's campaigns and abilities as a military leader, accentuating the role that pure luck and happenstance played in so many of his victories. From Desaix arriving in the nick of time to rescue him from his error at Marengo, to his almost disastrous misreading of Austrian intentions at Ulm, to Russian errors at Austerlitz, to Davout's superb victory at Auerstadt, to the Spanish ulcer and the ultimate of all blunders, the winter campaign of 1812, it examines the Napoleonic idol's feet of clay, both tactically and strategically. Having five years on St Helena in which to polish his legend, rewrite history and play down the roles of others no doubt helped cement his reputation as a 'military genius' and this little book adds a pleasant counterpoint to the enormous library of fawning works that agree with Napoleon's verdict on himself. Far from the 'master of tactics', it shows many of his famous victories to be unimaginative frontal attacks enormously costly in French and allied lives - Eylau, Friedland, Wagram, Borodino and, ultimately, Waterloo. These had the ultimate effect of destroying the superb French Army, while those of his opponents grew in number, skills and generalship to the point where they ultimately overwhelmed him. Napoleon made much of the superiority of his planning, but in reality - as Owen Connolly argues - he was more a gifted 'scrambler', able to improvise and squeak a victory by keeping on the move and recovering from an earlier error, or being bailed out by a loyal subordinate arriving in the nick of time. Most of his maxims of war, written in retirement, were for posterity rather than the rules he himself abided by.
November 29, 2009
This was a very interesting and refreshing account of Napoleon the general and his military campaigns. Overall it offers a concise and interesting look at Napoleon's campaigns and battles and shows that he was a master of adapting to battlefield conditions.
The author states from the beginning that his book is not an in-depth account and anaylsis of Napoleon's military strategy and he does nothing that detracts from Napoleon's legend/myth. He argues that on a number of occassions Napoleon blundered in his strategy but he always regrouped and utilised what ever advantage he had to overcome his enemies.
I think the author did a good job in substaining this arguement and offers a number of accounts to justify his claims. You might not agree with what he has to say but you could not always fault his logic. Either way it was an interesting but quick story and I enjoyed the book.
November 1, 2011
How did Napoleon succeed in battle? According to Connelly it was by having detailed and perfect plans that fell apart leaving Napoleon forced toimprovise. Napoleon's ability to improvise on the battlefield were the true ways he won. His enemies expected him to follow his plans which were easy to discern and when he did not he won battles. This provides excellent accounts of various battles and does so without becoming bogged down in details. I highly recommend it for those starting out with Napoleon and want to understand how he won battles. (as someone who did their thesis no Napoleon this book would have been invaluable at the time). The book is well written and a quick read that will help understand the Napoleonic wars in the context that they were in.
May 6, 2013
A very readable, concise guide to the Napoleonic wars and napoleon as a general. I'd give the book a 5 but it petered out a bit in the final chapters and as is the case with most histories, spend an inordinate amount of time on the battle of Waterloo. Still it's a very good guide that includes more critical commentary of Napoleon and his techniques than most works. Kudos to having plenty of maps which, while no stellar, do illustrate the actions. special mention for the fact that fvirtually every town/city mentioned in the text appears on an actual map, a rare occurance in all to many historical books.
June 13, 2021
Maybe the best concise 1 volume history of the military action of the Napoleonic wars. If you started here you would get a great overview of period. The title and framing I feel to be a bit misleading. “Scrambling” to glory would be more indicative of Connelly’s narrative. Blundering sounds like Napoleon was a fool who lucked into his success. Connelly’s point is that Napoleon was a master improviser, who would plan little and rely on his instincts and judgement to adapt his plan to whatever might occur after contact with the enemy.
December 27, 2011
The best one volume history of Napoleon's campaigns and supported by an excellent thesis. My only gripes are with the dry language, shoddy maps, and a few strange observations, such as his assertion that Jerome Bonaparte was a solid commander.
April 8, 2013
Interesting thesis. Worth reading.
September 26, 2013
Excellent -- I liked the last sentence: "Napoleon was probably the greatest commander of all time, but his genius lay in scrambling, not in carrying out a preconceived plan."
September 18, 2014
An outstanding history written in a clear, concise style. An engaging and easy-to-follow narrative that answered many of my questions about Napoleon as Emperor and Commander-in-Chief.
December 2, 2015
This seems like a good book to read to get oversights of Napoleon's various battles. Unfortunately, that part of the book was very difficult for me to follow probably due to very limited maps
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews