The book I was reading during my commute was called Salamanca, 1812. I enjoy military history, but my knowledge of the Napoleonic wars is culpably small and insignificant. Salamanca was the most significant battle and allied victory during the Peninsular campaigns.
The book is kind of a two-track book; it is a straightforward account of the battle as well as a look behind the curtain of military history. Each chapter describes a portion of the battle and then is followed by a delving into the sources and their accuracy (or lack thereof) and the choices and weighing that an historian has to do in order to write a coherent narrative that is probably not too far off from the truth.
The narrative of the battle was well done and easy to read. It was clear and I learned a good deal about it even just reading one book once. The other portion I could have done without, for the most part. I think it would have been better to spend less time debating the evidence and what debating was done should have been integrated into the text. On the other hand, that may be so because I have a bit more background (though nothing like a professional historian) in military history than the average person.
The short summary is that it's a good book about the topic and for anyone at all interested it would be well worth the read.
No comments:
Post a Comment