A starring role for the Tsar

In reviewing Robert Harvey’s The War of Wars: The Epic Struggle Between Britain and France, 1793-1815 in these pages three years ago, I asked the question, ‘Who, in the end, defeated Napoleon Bonaparte?’; or rather, I repeated the question that Harvey himself posed at the end of his comprehensive account of the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars.

In reviewing Robert Harvey’s The War of Wars: The Epic Struggle Between Britain and France, 1793-1815 in these pages three years ago, I asked the question, ‘Who, in the end, defeated Napoleon Bonaparte?’; or rather, I repeated the question that Harvey himself posed at the end of his comprehensive account of the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. The question was, and remains, pertinent, he maintained, since all the coalition members at one time or another lay claim to the honours. His answer was unequivocal — that the lion’s share of the honours must go to Britain. Pitt’s, and then Grenville’s, continental coalition-building, the Royal Navy’s ‘astounding feats’ under Nelson and others like him, and Wellington’s ‘relentless performance’ in the Peninsula: these were the pillars of victory. But he prefaced this by laurels for the other three of the coalition’s principal members.

Dogged Austria deserves a large share of the credit, for rising from defeat again and again. Prussia, after its lamentable initial performance, renewed some of its national pride at the end. And Russia can claim credit for the 1812 campaign, in which, although there was no great feat of Russian arms, the French were completely routed.

Dominic Lieven, Professor of Russian History at the LSE, would dispute both Harvey’s apportionment of the honours, and his judgment of Russian feats of arms. He opens up an intriguing debate, with interesting parallels — that of the Eastern v.