Written in a narrative style that captures both the scope and detail of the Russian revolution, Orlando Figes' history is certain to become one of the most important contemporary studies of Russia as it was at the beginning of the 20th century. With an almost cinematic eye, Figes captures the broad movements of war and revolution, never losing sight of the individuals whose lives make up his subject. He makes use of personal papers and personal histories to illustrate the effects the revolution wrought on a human scale, while providing a convincing and detailed understanding of the role of workers, peasants, and soldiers in the revolution. He moves deftly from topics such as the grand social forces and mass movements that made up the revolution to profiles of key personalities and representative characters.

Figes' themes of the Russian revolution as a tragedy for the Russian people as a whole and for the millions of individuals who lost their lives to the brutal forces it unleashed make sense of events for a new generation of students of Russian history. Sympathy for the charismatic leaders and ideological theorising regarding Hegelian dialectics and Marxist economics--two hallmarks of much earlier writing on the Russian revolution--are banished from these clear-eyed, fair-minded pages of A People's Tragedy. The author's sympathy is squarely with the Russian people. That commitment, together with the benefit of historical hindsight, provides a standpoint Figes can take full advantage of in this masterful history.

moving, 19 Sep 2008
An amazing book, i always wanted to know about the Russian revolution and its cause and effects, Mr Figes not only delivers but makes all the key people involved come alive, i really felt for the peasant farmer trying to reform the agriculture of his village for the greater good.
The title is the most accurate and precise i have known for a book.

An unscrupulous depiction of bolsheviks as cold-blooded despots., 10 Oct 2007
One small example of the problems with Figes' book, small but typical : on pages 631-632 we are treated with the horrendous shooting of Bim-Bom, the clown who dared mock the bolsheviks, at the hands of the Cheka bursting onto the circus in the middle of the comedian's act.

Except that a small amount of research would have made Figes aware that Bim-Bom was not a single clown but a duet, and that no such assassination took place : on the contrary the founder of this famous duet ("Bim" real name Ivan Semenovich Radunskim) died in 1955 after a long career.

But hey ! Why let facts get in the way of a good scene ?


Comprehensive and engaging, 27 Jul 2007
Orlando Figes has produced the definitive account of the events that facilitated the October Revolution of 1917, with significant emphasis placed on the characters who brought it about. He writes with a storytelling style that invites both seasoned historians and novices to the field to truly grasp the scope of this immensely significant and compelling period of history. The emphasis placed on the individual in history is, I think, necessary when it comes to this subject. Without the cunning designs of Lenin, propped up by the rhetoric of Trotsky and with the inability of Kerensky and the Socialist Revolutionaries to recognise the turn of the tide in favour of the Bolsheviks, they were totally incapable of stemming the tide of Socialist Revolution. The post-revisionist concept of the influence of the people in bringing about their own tragedy is brilliantly stated by the master historian, without ever losing sight of the significance of key figures in stimulating revolution.

Detailed and Thorough, Though Annecdotal, 15 Jul 2007
Firstly, I would like to say that this book is an incredible book. It is unlike any book I have read on this or any other historical subject. Figes' prose flows through the book smoothly and enjoyably.

However, this does create some problems within the book. I found that at points throughout the book Figes' prose became too anecdotal; reducing rather horrific actions and events into little more than footnotes within the story. This is not to say that Figes does not tackle the violence and often unspeakable brutality of this period without tact and sensitivity. I think Figes deals with the Russian Revolution and all of the problems it created socially rather well. I believe he captures the essence of the revolution that say, Robert Service could not. Many historians produce accounts of the revolution that paint the revolution as an "Inevitability". This however creates the illusion that the Bolsheviks "Steamrollered" Russia without much hassle. Figes is able to transcend this rather simplified view, painting a very human picture of the leaders of this "People's Revolution" and their roles within this tragedy.

Figes' use of characters within the book creates a drama of epic proportions-hitting home the social uphealval of the time. His particular use of Semenov's story with his battles with the Village hierachy and the meteoric rise of peasant commisars like Os'Kin as well as the linchpin-like Gorky and his role within every aspect of the revolution and his eventual disillusionment with the revolution he had a hand in creating, makes for a tragic and typically desperate Russian Epic.

I will agree with other reviews in that the period after the Civil War is rather rushed compared to the detail in the rest of the book. This rather disappoints and leaves a rather sour taste after such a fantastic book. I think that this as well as Figes' rather flippant style sometimes is the one thing keeping this book from five stars.

This book is an amazing book. Of that that there is no doubt. A must-read for those interested in the Russian Revolution. It succeeds where other books fail; in its concentration of social issues rather than focusing purely on the policital issues/stories.

Masterful and detailed, 18 Dec 2006
Surely this must be the definitive account of the Russian Revolution's origins and course of events. A deserved prize-winner.

Marie Antoinette, Antonia Fraser's first book in five years, heralds the welcome return of her wonderfully lucid, engaging style as she disentangles myth from fact regarding the life of the still controversial, and misunderstood, wife of Louis XVI of France. It is also perhaps her most assured work to date. The daughter of Empress Maria Teresa of Austria, the 14-year-old Marie Antoinette, or l'Autrichienne, was sent to France to marry the Dauphin in 1770 in an act of political union between the two countries. Despite her husband's preference for the hunting field over the bedroom, and a somewhat inexpressive personality--his final terse diary entry was to be, appropriately, "Rien"--a decade of French courtly exuberance entailed. Her disappointment in marriage gave way to an enjoyment of her position, especially on turning 30, yet an increasing number of libelles and scandalous rumours about the new Queen and her sexual proclivities grew from Versailles' whispers to the shouts of what was to be the revolution of 1789. This was followed by her own awful demise and beheading four wretched years later, after the appalling torture of her own young son falsely testifying that he had been sexually abused by her.

Those are the skeletal facts of her life, but Fraser fleshes out the story with her customary composed authority. Her stated ambition is twofold. The book's subtitle, "The Journey", refers to Marie Antoinette's political significance in a union over which she had no control, but also her own personal story, from the ill-educated, overwhelmed teenage bride to the despised monarch who bore the brunt of all the ills of the ancien régime. Fraser, arch debunker, necessarily removes the apocryphal--Mozart the child prodigy saying that he would marry her, the infamous "let them eat cake" comment that preceded her by several hundred years, dressing as a milkmaid at her model village in the grounds of Versailles--to reveal a woman whose misfortunes, she concludes, outweighed her failures. Like the Jemima Shore detective novels she also pens, Fraser displays an unerring ability to ask the right questions. Most of all, though, she writes with an understated, unadorned clarity that imparts her learning with an ease to be both envied and savoured. In 1789, Marie Antoinette famously said to a deputation from the Commune of Paris, "I've seen everything, known everything, and forgotten everything". There could be no wiser, compassionate and judicious reclaimer of her besmirched reputation than Antonia Fraser.--David Vincent

moving, 19 Sep 2008
An amazing book, i always wanted to know about the Russian revolution and its cause and effects, Mr Figes not only delivers but makes all the key people involved come alive, i really felt for the peasant farmer trying to reform the agriculture of his village for the greater good.
The title is the most accurate and precise i have known for a book.

An unscrupulous depiction of bolsheviks as cold-blooded despots., 10 Oct 2007
One small example of the problems with Figes' book, small but typical : on pages 631-632 we are treated with the horrendous shooting of Bim-Bom, the clown who dared mock the bolsheviks, at the hands of the Cheka bursting onto the circus in the middle of the comedian's act.

Except that a small amount of research would have made Figes aware that Bim-Bom was not a single clown but a duet, and that no such assassination took place : on the contrary the founder of this famous duet ("Bim" real name Ivan Semenovich Radunskim) died in 1955 after a long career.

But hey ! Why let facts get in the way of a good scene ?


Comprehensive and engaging, 27 Jul 2007
Orlando Figes has produced the definitive account of the events that facilitated the October Revolution of 1917, with significant emphasis placed on the characters who brought it about. He writes with a storytelling style that invites both seasoned historians and novices to the field to truly grasp the scope of this immensely significant and compelling period of history. The emphasis placed on the individual in history is, I think, necessary when it comes to this subject. Without the cunning designs of Lenin, propped up by the rhetoric of Trotsky and with the inability of Kerensky and the Socialist Revolutionaries to recognise the turn of the tide in favour of the Bolsheviks, they were totally incapable of stemming the tide of Socialist Revolution. The post-revisionist concept of the influence of the people in bringing about their own tragedy is brilliantly stated by the master historian, without ever losing sight of the significance of key figures in stimulating revolution.

Detailed and Thorough, Though Annecdotal, 15 Jul 2007
Firstly, I would like to say that this book is an incredible book. It is unlike any book I have read on this or any other historical subject. Figes' prose flows through the book smoothly and enjoyably.

However, this does create some problems within the book. I found that at points throughout the book Figes' prose became too anecdotal; reducing rather horrific actions and events into little more than footnotes within the story. This is not to say that Figes does not tackle the violence and often unspeakable brutality of this period without tact and sensitivity. I think Figes deals with the Russian Revolution and all of the problems it created socially rather well. I believe he captures the essence of the revolution that say, Robert Service could not. Many historians produce accounts of the revolution that paint the revolution as an "Inevitability". This however creates the illusion that the Bolsheviks "Steamrollered" Russia without much hassle. Figes is able to transcend this rather simplified view, painting a very human picture of the leaders of this "People's Revolution" and their roles within this tragedy.

Figes' use of characters within the book creates a drama of epic proportions-hitting home the social uphealval of the time. His particular use of Semenov's story with his battles with the Village hierachy and the meteoric rise of peasant commisars like Os'Kin as well as the linchpin-like Gorky and his role within every aspect of the revolution and his eventual disillusionment with the revolution he had a hand in creating, makes for a tragic and typically desperate Russian Epic.

I will agree with other reviews in that the period after the Civil War is rather rushed compared to the detail in the rest of the book. This rather disappoints and leaves a rather sour taste after such a fantastic book. I think that this as well as Figes' rather flippant style sometimes is the one thing keeping this book from five stars.

This book is an amazing book. Of that that there is no doubt. A must-read for those interested in the Russian Revolution. It succeeds where other books fail; in its concentration of social issues rather than focusing purely on the policital issues/stories.

Masterful and detailed, 18 Dec 2006
Surely this must be the definitive account of the Russian Revolution's origins and course of events. A deserved prize-winner.


Educates and enlightens while it entertains., 09 Jun 2008
This is the first of Antonia Fraser's historical biographies that I have read and on the strength of it I have already bought her biography on Henry the Eighth and his six wives and I intend to buy more. I absolutely adored the way this book was written, she sets the scene in such a realistic way that you can almost hear the baying of the angry mobs and smell the stench of the prison where Marie spends the last of her days.

Some historical biographies get too bogged down in historical data, quoting endless facts, dates and figures until you feel your brain can hold no more. This is the perfect biography in that it gives you the important information you need in order to understand the causes and effects of the revolution, yet the book never forgets the main subject which is Marie A herself. This book charts her course from a naïve, slightly uneducated child, pawn in her mother's imperial game into the most hated woman in all of France. This book succeeds in cutting through the gossip and anecdotes of the time, which haunt Marie A to this day, and gives her a human face. Yes she was flawed, but in this account we find some of the reasons behind her faults and ultimately come to see her as misguided rather than a bad person.

If this book has a flaw, it is that Antonia Fraser is maybe TOO sympathetic to Marie, in parts of the book you nearly feel like she is making excuses for all of Marie's bad behaviour rather than admitting when she was at fault. However this is the only flaw I could find in this book. Her descriptions of life at Versailles are truly stunning. I particularly enjoyed her description of the pomp and ceremony involved just in getting Marie dressed every morning! Overall, if you want a historical biography with flowing prose and true heart, then you will not find better than this one. I for one came away from the book with a new understanding of probably the most misunderstood woman in history.


Antonia Fraser dispels the myths, 23 Jan 2008
A highly recommended book. Superb research, if a little one sided but still a very engaging book that takes in the queen's entire journey. The pace is slow to start but still captivating from chapter one. As a historical book, it sticks to the facts for the most part although with the supposed affair with the Swede Fersen, there is no proper evidence and the author seems to really wish it happened just as if it would make up for all the sadness in the queen's life. As a story it is quite magnificent. What a life! And it captures that dignity to the very end. The only criticism is the real causes of the revolution are not put into proper context here to show that she died because of what she represented in the French people's eyes. Nevertheless, Marie Antoinette is redeemed in my eyes.

Excellent read - a little one sided., 17 Oct 2007
I've recently become interested in this period in history and found this book very enjoyable. It was an excellent read, and although a "heavy" book I had no trouble getting through it. It tells a lovely story from Antoinette's point of view and I was left with a distinct dislike for the revolution. However, having read other texts, this book could leave you with a biased viewpoint as Antonia Fraser fails to explain the problems in France that led to the Revolution. Although I enjoyed the book I was left with a slightly bitter taste in my mouth that made me feel I hadn't got the full picture. Enjoy the book but make sure you read the whole story some where else.

A convert, 13 May 2005
Less than a year ago I wrote a review of this book, giving it 3*. A lot of what I said then still carries weight - I'm not convinced of the whole Fersen aspect of things, etc. However, upon reading this book more thoroughly I confess that I have been converted by the author's talent as a writer and the sympathy she evokes for Mare-Antoinette's fate. Without doubt, this is the finest biography of Marie-Antoinette currently in print.

Perhaps not quite the definitive biography, 03 Jul 2004
I don't think it's particularly fair to label this book (as one Amazon reviewer has done) as "a royalist's view" of French history - although, interestingly, in terms of Marie-Antoinette's life, royalists have traditionally gotten it more right than others. I'd also completely reject the notion that this is "definitive" and/or "overly preferential to its subject."

This book's plus points are the wealth of detail Antonia Fraser presents about court etiquette at Versailles; the way in which minor characters, like the Queen's maid Rosalie Lamorliere, are brought to life, and its excellent epilogue which explores Marie-Antoinette's place in history and the tragedy behind this most public of royal lives.

However, at times Antonia Fraser seems to be almost tripping over herself to be PC and unbiased. We're so used to hearing detrimental things about Marie-Antoinette that any biographer who goes complete the grain will inevitably be accused of "whitewashing." But the truth is that the real Marie-Antoinette bears almost no resemblance to the Marie-Antoinette of popular imagination, so why did Antonia Fraser's "defence" of this queen seem convoluted and riddled with qualifiers? More accurate portraits of Marie-Antoinette's character and her role as queen have been presented in two modern studies - "The Lost King of France" by Deborah Cadbury and "The Fall of the French Monarchy" by Dr. Munro Price.

Antonia Fraser also fails to fully explain Marie-Antoinette's enormous political influence after 1789, something properly highlighted in Price's book. It's also true that the book at times fails to convey the full gritty reality of 18th-century life, which perhaps would have been useful in explaining why Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette were determined to uphold such high moral standards (thus partially alienating them from certain circles of the aristocracy) after the debauched decadence of Louis XV's reign.

And as for Marie-Antoinette's "affair" with Count Fersen, Antonia Fraser's assertion that the two enjoyed a couvert affair is based more upon wishful thinking than a balanced assessment of the facts. Marie-Antoinette's position made adultery impossible, it could never have been kept a secret, and her up-bringing and personality both conspired to make it fundamentally unlikely that she would commit adultery with anyone. Their relationship was one of the many Marie-Antoinette found safety in - romantic, artificial, non-sexual gallantry.

This biography is an enjoyable one, and Antonia Fraser has done a good job in partially resurrecting Marie-Antoinette from the "rubbish bin of history" but there's still a long way to go before this unlucky queen's "definitive biography" is written.

moving, 19 Sep 2008
An amazing book, i always wanted to know about the Russian revolution and its cause and effects, Mr Figes not only delivers but makes all the key people involved come alive, i really felt for the peasant farmer trying to reform the agriculture of his village for the greater good.
The title is the most accurate and precise i have known for a book.

An unscrupulous depiction of bolsheviks as cold-blooded despots., 10 Oct 2007
One small example of the problems with Figes' book, small but typical : on pages 631-632 we are treated with the horrendous shooting of Bim-Bom, the clown who dared mock the bolsheviks, at the hands of the Cheka bursting onto the circus in the middle of the comedian's act.

Except that a small amount of research would have made Figes aware that Bim-Bom was not a single clown but a duet, and that no such assassination took place : on the contrary the founder of this famous duet ("Bim" real name Ivan Semenovich Radunskim) died in 1955 after a long career.

But hey ! Why let facts get in the way of a good scene ?


Comprehensive and engaging, 27 Jul 2007
Orlando Figes has produced the definitive account of the events that facilitated the October Revolution of 1917, with significant emphasis placed on the characters who brought it about. He writes with a storytelling style that invites both seasoned historians and novices to the field to truly grasp the scope of this immensely significant and compelling period of history. The emphasis placed on the individual in history is, I think, necessary when it comes to this subject. Without the cunning designs of Lenin, propped up by the rhetoric of Trotsky and with the inability of Kerensky and the Socialist Revolutionaries to recognise the turn of the tide in favour of the Bolsheviks, they were totally incapable of stemming the tide of Socialist Revolution. The post-revisionist concept of the influence of the people in bringing about their own tragedy is brilliantly stated by the master historian, without ever losing sight of the significance of key figures in stimulating revolution.

Detailed and Thorough, Though Annecdotal, 15 Jul 2007
Firstly, I would like to say that this book is an incredible book. It is unlike any book I have read on this or any other historical subject. Figes' prose flows through the book smoothly and enjoyably.

However, this does create some problems within the book. I found that at points throughout the book Figes' prose became too anecdotal; reducing rather horrific actions and events into little more than footnotes within the story. This is not to say that Figes does not tackle the violence and often unspeakable brutality of this period without tact and sensitivity. I think Figes deals with the Russian Revolution and all of the problems it created socially rather well. I believe he captures the essence of the revolution that say, Robert Service could not. Many historians produce accounts of the revolution that paint the revolution as an "Inevitability". This however creates the illusion that the Bolsheviks "Steamrollered" Russia without much hassle. Figes is able to transcend this rather simplified view, painting a very human picture of the leaders of this "People's Revolution" and their roles within this tragedy.

Figes' use of characters within the book creates a drama of epic proportions-hitting home the social uphealval of the time. His particular use of Semenov's story with his battles with the Village hierachy and the meteoric rise of peasant commisars like Os'Kin as well as the linchpin-like Gorky and his role within every aspect of the revolution and his eventual disillusionment with the revolution he had a hand in creating, makes for a tragic and typically desperate Russian Epic.

I will agree with other reviews in that the period after the Civil War is rather rushed compared to the detail in the rest of the book. This rather disappoints and leaves a rather sour taste after such a fantastic book. I think that this as well as Figes' rather flippant style sometimes is the one thing keeping this book from five stars.

This book is an amazing book. Of that that there is no doubt. A must-read for those interested in the Russian Revolution. It succeeds where other books fail; in its concentration of social issues rather than focusing purely on the policital issues/stories.

Masterful and detailed, 18 Dec 2006
Surely this must be the definitive account of the Russian Revolution's origins and course of events. A deserved prize-winner.


Educates and enlightens while it entertains., 09 Jun 2008
This is the first of Antonia Fraser's historical biographies that I have read and on the strength of it I have already bought her biography on Henry the Eighth and his six wives and I intend to buy more. I absolutely adored the way this book was written, she sets the scene in such a realistic way that you can almost hear the baying of the angry mobs and smell the stench of the prison where Marie spends the last of her days.

Some historical biographies get too bogged down in historical data, quoting endless facts, dates and figures until you feel your brain can hold no more. This is the perfect biography in that it gives you the important information you need in order to understand the causes and effects of the revolution, yet the book never forgets the main subject which is Marie A herself. This book charts her course from a naïve, slightly uneducated child, pawn in her mother's imperial game into the most hated woman in all of France. This book succeeds in cutting through the gossip and anecdotes of the time, which haunt Marie A to this day, and gives her a human face. Yes she was flawed, but in this account we find some of the reasons behind her faults and ultimately come to see her as misguided rather than a bad person.

If this book has a flaw, it is that Antonia Fraser is maybe TOO sympathetic to Marie, in parts of the book you nearly feel like she is making excuses for all of Marie's bad behaviour rather than admitting when she was at fault. However this is the only flaw I could find in this book. Her descriptions of life at Versailles are truly stunning. I particularly enjoyed her description of the pomp and ceremony involved just in getting Marie dressed every morning! Overall, if you want a historical biography with flowing prose and true heart, then you will not find better than this one. I for one came away from the book with a new understanding of probably the most misunderstood woman in history.


Antonia Fraser dispels the myths, 23 Jan 2008
A highly recommended book. Superb research, if a little one sided but still a very engaging book that takes in the queen's entire journey. The pace is slow to start but still captivating from chapter one. As a historical book, it sticks to the facts for the most part although with the supposed affair with the Swede Fersen, there is no proper evidence and the author seems to really wish it happened just as if it would make up for all the sadness in the queen's life. As a story it is quite magnificent. What a life! And it captures that dignity to the very end. The only criticism is the real causes of the revolution are not put into proper context here to show that she died because of what she represented in the French people's eyes. Nevertheless, Marie Antoinette is redeemed in my eyes.

Excellent read - a little one sided., 17 Oct 2007
I've recently become interested in this period in history and found this book very enjoyable. It was an excellent read, and although a "heavy" book I had no trouble getting through it. It tells a lovely story from Antoinette's point of view and I was left with a distinct dislike for the revolution. However, having read other texts, this book could leave you with a biased viewpoint as Antonia Fraser fails to explain the problems in France that led to the Revolution. Although I enjoyed the book I was left with a slightly bitter taste in my mouth that made me feel I hadn't got the full picture. Enjoy the book but make sure you read the whole story some where else.

A convert, 13 May 2005
Less than a year ago I wrote a review of this book, giving it 3*. A lot of what I said then still carries weight - I'm not convinced of the whole Fersen aspect of things, etc. However, upon reading this book more thoroughly I confess that I have been converted by the author's talent as a writer and the sympathy she evokes for Mare-Antoinette's fate. Without doubt, this is the finest biography of Marie-Antoinette currently in print.

Perhaps not quite the definitive biography, 03 Jul 2004
I don't think it's particularly fair to label this book (as one Amazon reviewer has done) as "a royalist's view" of French history - although, interestingly, in terms of Marie-Antoinette's life, royalists have traditionally gotten it more right than others. I'd also completely reject the notion that this is "definitive" and/or "overly preferential to its subject."

This book's plus points are the wealth of detail Antonia Fraser presents about court etiquette at Versailles; the way in which minor characters, like the Queen's maid Rosalie Lamorliere, are brought to life, and its excellent epilogue which explores Marie-Antoinette's place in history and the tragedy behind this most public of royal lives.

However, at times Antonia Fraser seems to be almost tripping over herself to be PC and unbiased. We're so used to hearing detrimental things about Marie-Antoinette that any biographer who goes complete the grain will inevitably be accused of "whitewashing." But the truth is that the real Marie-Antoinette bears almost no resemblance to the Marie-Antoinette of popular imagination, so why did Antonia Fraser's "defence" of this queen seem convoluted and riddled with qualifiers? More accurate portraits of Marie-Antoinette's character and her role as queen have been presented in two modern studies - "The Lost King of France" by Deborah Cadbury and "The Fall of the French Monarchy" by Dr. Munro Price.

Antonia Fraser also fails to fully explain Marie-Antoinette's enormous political influence after 1789, something properly highlighted in Price's book. It's also true that the book at times fails to convey the full gritty reality of 18th-century life, which perhaps would have been useful in explaining why Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette were determined to uphold such high moral standards (thus partially alienating them from certain circles of the aristocracy) after the debauched decadence of Louis XV's reign.

And as for Marie-Antoinette's "affair" with Count Fersen, Antonia Fraser's assertion that the two enjoyed a couvert affair is based more upon wishful thinking than a balanced assessment of the facts. Marie-Antoinette's position made adultery impossible, it could never have been kept a secret, and her up-bringing and personality both conspired to make it fundamentally unlikely that she would commit adultery with anyone. Their relationship was one of the many Marie-Antoinette found safety in - romantic, artificial, non-sexual gallantry.

This biography is an enjoyable one, and Antonia Fraser has done a good job in partially resurrecting Marie-Antoinette from the "rubbish bin of history" but there's still a long way to go before this unlucky queen's "definitive biography" is written.

collection of myths and prejuces , 17 Jun 2008
The book is an exellent example of manipulation of history made by somebody with a strong ideological background. The only goal of Zamoyski is to show that Russia and Russians have nothing to do with the defeat of Napoleon and this defeat was ceased by anything else - bad weather, illness of Napoleon or maybe little green alliens. The plan of the campaine desined by Barklay de Tolly and followed by Kutuzov is not mentioned at all. Kutuzov is shown as a stupid and lazy idiot (this is an example of manipulation again - he is characterised in the book by exepts from letters of his rivals and enemies only).
Another problem is a discription of brutality of the war. From the book it is completely impossible to understand why russians flew from Moscow in the view of Frensh army. Just a hint: every russian town on the road from Smolensk to Moscow was burnt to ashes. Author ignores any notes about mass executions of russian PoWs (de Segur, Memoires, polish regiment killed all russian PoWs they had to escort).
As well sometimes I had an impression that Napoleon's army consisted mostly from polish regiments with a few italian ones.
The book is written with the great hate to Russia and Russians and has nothing to do with the history.

This is the most fantastic book, 26 Mar 2008
This is the most fantastic book. I was riveted from start to finish. It conjours the beauty of 18th century war with all its posing finery while defly describing the horrifying fate of its victims and it's perpetrators. Zamoyski's style is simple and unadourned. He lets the story write itself but what a story it is and how beautifuly the atmosphere of the occassion is caught. The arrogance and mercurial inteligence of Napoleon is brilliantly portrayed. It is almost as if you are actualy beside him as he is delivering one of his monologues while striding across the snow to his departing carriage.

I'd give it six stars if I could, 24 Dec 2007
Outstanding book. Extremely informative, very readable indeed. I couldn't put it down and read it with the enthusiasm of an adolescent reading a Playboy. The narrative was very interesting, battle tactics were easy to follow (maps in the right places)and you don't lose the thread of who is who (which I, not being an expert historian, tend to do with some history books). I'm sorry I can only give it five stars. If you have a passing interest in this piece of history but worry about whether you can really invest time and energy in a book of this size, put your worries aside and go for it, you won't regret it.


Excellent!, 02 Nov 2007
Whilst it gets off to a slow start, this book is well worth a chapter or two's perseverance. It combines a clear, detailed overview with personal accounts of the campaign and reads like a novel: perfect for those of us who are reading about it for the first time.

Buy it.



Stunning, a triumph, 30 Oct 2007
I'm really not sure if I can do this book enough justice in the space of a tiny review. Before reading it I was, like many others perhaps, very much aware that Napoleon's march on Moscow was a turning point in his career and in European history, but apart from that, well... largely ignorant. Reading Zamoyski's book changed all that, and the only regret I have is not having read it earlier.

"1812" is a stunning history book! The 25 chapters are 'bite-size', just the right size to read at least one chapter each evening before going to bed (or two, or three... I found it very hard to put this book down), and in them Zamoyski gives a fascinating account of the entire campaign (beginning with the reasons why, and ending with the aftermath). In doing so he strikes a perfect balance between on the one hand a crystal-clear analysis of the broader political/military scene and motivations of the principal actors, and on the other hand lots of small but telling anecdotes.

One of the things that struck me most is how (as Zamoyski clearly demonstrates) few of the events were the result of intelligent, strategic decisions taken with clear goals in mind, but rather how one thing led to another and decisions were often reduced to the choice between the lesser of two evils. It's astonishing really, and all the more so if you come to realize the enormous cost in human misery and lives resulting from these decisions.

Zamoyski includes literally hundreds of extracts of private correspondence, notes, diaries, etc. from Napoleon and Tsar Alexander themselves down to foot soldiers, which don't detract from the main story but always succeed very well in illustrating the point Zamoyski is trying to make. I'm sure most of us are aware Napoleon's Grande Armée didn't have a field day in this campaign, but just how horrific it actually was is perhaps never better said than in the (often very moving) words of the actual participants. Last but not least the book contains 23 simple but clear maps, and is written in impeccable English.

This is a real feast from cover to cover!

moving, 19 Sep 2008
An amazing book, i always wanted to know about the Russian revolution and its cause and effects, Mr Figes not only delivers but makes all the key people involved come alive, i really felt for the peasant farmer trying to reform the agriculture of his village for the greater good.
The title is the most accurate and precise i have known for a book.

An unscrupulous depiction of bolsheviks as cold-blooded despots., 10 Oct 2007
One small example of the problems with Figes' book, small but typical : on pages 631-632 we are treated with the horrendous shooting of Bim-Bom, the clown who dared mock the bolsheviks, at the hands of the Cheka bursting onto the circus in the middle of the comedian's act.

Except that a small amount of research would have made Figes aware that Bim-Bom was not a single clown but a duet, and that no such assassination took place : on the contrary the founder of this famous duet ("Bim" real name Ivan Semenovich Radunskim) died in 1955 after a long career.

But hey ! Why let facts get in the way of a good scene ?


Comprehensive and engaging, 27 Jul 2007
Orlando Figes has produced the definitive account of the events that facilitated the October Revolution of 1917, with significant emphasis placed on the characters who brought it about. He writes with a storytelling style that invites both seasoned historians and novices to the field to truly grasp the scope of this immensely significant and compelling period of history. The emphasis placed on the individual in history is, I think, necessary when it comes to this subject. Without the cunning designs of Lenin, propped up by the rhetoric of Trotsky and with the inability of Kerensky and the Socialist Revolutionaries to recognise the turn of the tide in favour of the Bolsheviks, they were totally incapable of stemming the tide of Socialist Revolution. The post-revisionist concept of the influence of the people in bringing about their own tragedy is brilliantly stated by the master historian, without ever losing sight of the significance of key figures in stimulating revolution.

Detailed and Thorough, Though Annecdotal, 15 Jul 2007
Firstly, I would like to say that this book is an incredible book. It is unlike any book I have read on this or any other historical subject. Figes' prose flows through the book smoothly and enjoyably.

However, this does create some problems within the book. I found that at points throughout the book Figes' prose became too anecdotal; reducing rather horrific actions and events into little more than footnotes within the story. This is not to say that Figes does not tackle the violence and often unspeakable brutality of this period without tact and sensitivity. I think Figes deals with the Russian Revolution and all of the problems it created socially rather well. I believe he captures the essence of the revolution that say, Robert Service could not. Many historians produce accounts of the revolution that paint the revolution as an "Inevitability". This however creates the illusion that the Bolsheviks "Steamrollered" Russia without much hassle. Figes is able to transcend this rather simplified view, painting a very human picture of the leaders of this "People's Revolution" and their roles within this tragedy.

Figes' use of characters within the book creates a drama of epic proportions-hitting home the social uphealval of the time. His particular use of Semenov's story with his battles with the Village hierachy and the meteoric rise of peasant commisars like Os'Kin as well as the linchpin-like Gorky and his role within every aspect of the revolution and his eventual disillusionment with the revolution he had a hand in creating, makes for a tragic and typically desperate Russian Epic.

I will agree with other reviews in that the period after the Civil War is rather rushed compared to the detail in the rest of the book. This rather disappoints and leaves a rather sour taste after such a fantastic book. I think that this as well as Figes' rather flippant style sometimes is the one thing keeping this book from five stars.

This book is an amazing book. Of that that there is no doubt. A must-read for those interested in the Russian Revolution. It succeeds where other books fail; in its concentration of social issues rather than focusing purely on the policital issues/stories.

Masterful and detailed, 18 Dec 2006
Surely this must be the definitive account of the Russian Revolution's origins and course of events. A deserved prize-winner.


Educates and enlightens while it entertains., 09 Jun 2008
This is the first of Antonia Fraser's historical biographies that I have read and on the strength of it I have already bought her biography on Henry the Eighth and his six wives and I intend to buy more. I absolutely adored the way this book was written, she sets the scene in such a realistic way that you can almost hear the baying of the angry mobs and smell the stench of the prison where Marie spends the last of her days.

Some historical biographies get too bogged down in historical data, quoting endless facts, dates and figures until you feel your brain can hold no more. This is the perfect biography in that it gives you the important information you need in order to understand the causes and effects of the revolution, yet the book never forgets the main subject which is Marie A herself. This book charts her course from a naïve, slightly uneducated child, pawn in her mother's imperial game into the most hated woman in all of France. This book succeeds in cutting through the gossip and anecdotes of the time, which haunt Marie A to this day, and gives her a human face. Yes she was flawed, but in this account we find some of the reasons behind her faults and ultimately come to see her as misguided rather than a bad person.

If this book has a flaw, it is that Antonia Fraser is maybe TOO sympathetic to Marie, in parts of the book you nearly feel like she is making excuses for all of Marie's bad behaviour rather than admitting when she was at fault. However this is the only flaw I could find in this book. Her descriptions of life at Versailles are truly stunning. I particularly enjoyed her description of the pomp and ceremony involved just in getting Marie dressed every morning! Overall, if you want a historical biography with flowing prose and true heart, then you will not find better than this one. I for one came away from the book with a new understanding of probably the most misunderstood woman in history.


Antonia Fraser dispels the myths, 23 Jan 2008
A highly recommended book. Superb research, if a little one sided but still a very engaging book that takes in the queen's entire journey. The pace is slow to start but still captivating from chapter one. As a historical book, it sticks to the facts for the most part although with the supposed affair with the Swede Fersen, there is no proper evidence and the author seems to really wish it happened just as if it would make up for all the sadness in the queen's life. As a story it is quite magnificent. What a life! And it captures that dignity to the very end. The only criticism is the real causes of the revolution are not put into proper context here to show that she died because of what she represented in the French people's eyes. Nevertheless, Marie Antoinette is redeemed in my eyes.

Excellent read - a little one sided., 17 Oct 2007
I've recently become interested in this period in history and found this book very enjoyable. It was an excellent read, and although a "heavy" book I had no trouble getting through it. It tells a lovely story from Antoinette's point of view and I was left with a distinct dislike for the revolution. However, having read other texts, this book could leave you with a biased viewpoint as Antonia Fraser fails to explain the problems in France that led to the Revolution. Although I enjoyed the book I was left with a slightly bitter taste in my mouth that made me feel I hadn't got the full picture. Enjoy the book but make sure you read the whole story some where else.

A convert, 13 May 2005
Less than a year ago I wrote a review of this book, giving it 3*. A lot of what I said then still carries weight - I'm not convinced of the whole Fersen aspect of things, etc. However, upon reading this book more thoroughly I confess that I have been converted by the author's talent as a writer and the sympathy she evokes for Mare-Antoinette's fate. Without doubt, this is the finest biography of Marie-Antoinette currently in print.

Perhaps not quite the definitive biography, 03 Jul 2004
I don't think it's particularly fair to label this book (as one Amazon reviewer has done) as "a royalist's view" of French history - although, interestingly, in terms of Marie-Antoinette's life, royalists have traditionally gotten it more right than others. I'd also completely reject the notion that this is "definitive" and/or "overly preferential to its subject."

This book's plus points are the wealth of detail Antonia Fraser presents about court etiquette at Versailles; the way in which minor characters, like the Queen's maid Rosalie Lamorliere, are brought to life, and its excellent epilogue which explores Marie-Antoinette's place in history and the tragedy behind this most public of royal lives.

However, at times Antonia Fraser seems to be almost tripping over herself to be PC and unbiased. We're so used to hearing detrimental things about Marie-Antoinette that any biographer who goes complete the grain will inevitably be accused of "whitewashing." But the truth is that the real Marie-Antoinette bears almost no resemblance to the Marie-Antoinette of popular imagination, so why did Antonia Fraser's "defence" of this queen seem convoluted and riddled with qualifiers? More accurate portraits of Marie-Antoinette's character and her role as queen have been presented in two modern studies - "The Lost King of France" by Deborah Cadbury and "The Fall of the French Monarchy" by Dr. Munro Price.

Antonia Fraser also fails to fully explain Marie-Antoinette's enormous political influence after 1789, something properly highlighted in Price's book. It's also true that the book at times fails to convey the full gritty reality of 18th-century life, which perhaps would have been useful in explaining why Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette were determined to uphold such high moral standards (thus partially alienating them from certain circles of the aristocracy) after the debauched decadence of Louis XV's reign.

And as for Marie-Antoinette's "affair" with Count Fersen, Antonia Fraser's assertion that the two enjoyed a couvert affair is based more upon wishful thinking than a balanced assessment of the facts. Marie-Antoinette's position made adultery impossible, it could never have been kept a secret, and her up-bringing and personality both conspired to make it fundamentally unlikely that she would commit adultery with anyone. Their relationship was one of the many Marie-Antoinette found safety in - romantic, artificial, non-sexual gallantry.

This biography is an enjoyable one, and Antonia Fraser has done a good job in partially resurrecting Marie-Antoinette from the "rubbish bin of history" but there's still a long way to go before this unlucky queen's "definitive biography" is written.

collection of myths and prejuces , 17 Jun 2008
The book is an exellent example of manipulation of history made by somebody with a strong ideological background. The only goal of Zamoyski is to show that Russia and Russians have nothing to do with the defeat of Napoleon and this defeat was ceased by anything else - bad weather, illness of Napoleon or maybe little green alliens. The plan of the campaine desined by Barklay de Tolly and followed by Kutuzov is not mentioned at all. Kutuzov is shown as a stupid and lazy idiot (this is an example of manipulation again - he is characterised in the book by exepts from letters of his rivals and enemies only).
Another problem is a discription of brutality of the war. From the book it is completely impossible to understand why russians flew from Moscow in the view of Frensh army. Just a hint: every russian town on the road from Smolensk to Moscow was burnt to ashes. Author ignores any notes about mass executions of russian PoWs (de Segur, Memoires, polish regiment killed all russian PoWs they had to escort).
As well sometimes I had an impression that Napoleon's army consisted mostly from polish regiments with a few italian ones.
The book is written with the great hate to Russia and Russians and has nothing to do with the history.

This is the most fantastic book, 26 Mar 2008
This is the most fantastic book. I was riveted from start to finish. It conjours the beauty of 18th century war with all its posing finery while defly describing the horrifying fate of its victims and it's perpetrators. Zamoyski's style is simple and unadourned. He lets the story write itself but what a story it is and how beautifuly the atmosphere of the occassion is caught. The arrogance and mercurial inteligence of Napoleon is brilliantly portrayed. It is almost as if you are actualy beside him as he is delivering one of his monologues while striding across the snow to his departing carriage.

I'd give it six stars if I could, 24 Dec 2007
Outstanding book. Extremely informative, very readable indeed. I couldn't put it down and read it with the enthusiasm of an adolescent reading a Playboy. The narrative was very interesting, battle tactics were easy to follow (maps in the right places)and you don't lose the thread of who is who (which I, not being an expert historian, tend to do with some history books). I'm sorry I can only give it five stars. If you have a passing interest in this piece of history but worry about whether you can really invest time and energy in a book of this size, put your worries aside and go for it, you won't regret it.


Excellent!, 02 Nov 2007
Whilst it gets off to a slow start, this book is well worth a chapter or two's perseverance. It combines a clear, detailed overview with personal accounts of the campaign and reads like a novel: perfect for those of us who are reading about it for the first time.

Buy it.



Stunning, a triumph, 30 Oct 2007
I'm really not sure if I can do this book enough justice in the space of a tiny review. Before reading it I was, like many others perhaps, very much aware that Napoleon's march on Moscow was a turning point in his career and in European history, but apart from that, well... largely ignorant. Reading Zamoyski's book changed all that, and the only regret I have is not having read it earlier.

"1812" is a stunning history book! The 25 chapters are 'bite-size', just the right size to read at least one chapter each evening before going to bed (or two, or three... I found it very hard to put this book down), and in them Zamoyski gives a fascinating account of the entire campaign (beginning with the reasons why, and ending with the aftermath). In doing so he strikes a perfect balance between on the one hand a crystal-clear analysis of the broader political/military scene and motivations of the principal actors, and on the other hand lots of small but telling anecdotes.

One of the things that struck me most is how (as Zamoyski clearly demonstrates) few of the events were the result of intelligent, strategic decisions taken with clear goals in mind, but rather how one thing led to another and decisions were often reduced to the choice between the lesser of two evils. It's astonishing really, and all the more so if you come to realize the enormous cost in human misery and lives resulting from these decisions.

Zamoyski includes literally hundreds of extracts of private correspondence, notes, diaries, etc. from Napoleon and Tsar Alexander themselves down to foot soldiers, which don't detract from the main story but always succeed very well in illustrating the point Zamoyski is trying to make. I'm sure most of us are aware Napoleon's Grande Armée didn't have a field day in this campaign, but just how horrific it actually was is perhaps never better said than in the (often very moving) words of the actual participants. Last but not least the book contains 23 simple but clear maps, and is written in impeccable English.

This is a real feast from cover to cover!

"L'Elephant, C'est Un Question Polonaise", 11 Oct 2008
We were overdue for a readable history of this period, and Zamowski (bar the odd quibble) has done a creditable job.

In particular, he brings out well the crucial importance of the Hundred Days, not for what might have happened - Napoleon's prospects were never very bright - but for what did, in giving the victors a badly needed cold shower. In the Summer of 1814 - barely three months after Napoleon's despatch to Elba - disputes over Saxony and Poland had brought them to the brink of war - with Britain and Austria ready to ally with France against their fellows. With Napoleon's defeat, all thought themselves "home and dry" and free to quarrel among themselves. The Deus ex machina - or "Diabolus ex Elba"? - delivered the mother of all wakeup calls, ramming home how fragile their victory still was, and concentrating their minds in a Johnsonian sense.

And not just temporarily. The Holy Alliance, formed to preserve their victory, would endure for decades. Britain dropped out early - being an offshore island she could afford to - as did France after 1830, but not until the Crimean War did its core - Austria, Russia, Prussia - fall apart, and it was a further decade (1866) before one of those three actually fought another. Even that war - the work of another "wild card" of even lower probability than Napoleon - remained a unique "exception that proved the rule" until 1914. For Bismarck, having got what he wanted, promptly formed a "Dreikaiserbund" which was essentially the Holy Alliance by another name. All this was Napoleon's work, and specifically the result of his return in 1815. His admirers often speak of how he would have "united Europe" had he won, overlooking the degree to which he did unite a much of it for a remarkably long time. It recalls the old "united Ireland" joke that the Irish can unite only under British rule - because that unites them against the Brits. Napoleon did a similar job of uniting Europeans against himself.

Some nitpicks. Zamowski seems to take Napoleon's 1815 embrace of constitutional government seriously, though a plainer case of "The Devil was sick, the Devil a monk would be" is surely hard to find. And the last chapter spoils it somewhat, with his grumbles about the settlement often sounding plaintive and almost childish. He speaks of "Siberian chain gangs" as if these weren't a normal part of Russian history, or could have been made less common by some change in the Vienna settlement. More generally, complaining about their disregard of nationalism, he talks as if the peacemakers had a "tabula rasa", to draw on as they pleased, after himself spending the earlier and better parts of this work showing they didn't. Take Poland. The Tsar had it and was set on keeping it. Condemning the 1815 arrangements leaves only two alternatives, to close with the Tsar over the Poland/Saxony deal - little change, just slightly more Poles in Russia and less in Prussia - or else return to the carve-up of 1795, which from a "national" viewpoint is even worse. Which does he prefer? Ditto (pretty much) for Germany and Italy. The Kings of Sicily and Sardinia, however "imbecilic", were on the winning side, so could hardly be dispossessed, and if the Tsar kept Poland, Austria and Prussia could only be compensated westwards, ie in Italy and north Germany respectively. South Germany wasn't available, as its rulers had deserted Napoleon in good time, so were also in the winning camp. In short, most of the continent was already "spoken for".

Zamowski grumbles about the arbitrary transfer of "souls" between rulers, as undermining traditional loyalties. But given how much of that Napoleon had done, especially in Germany, it wasn't easily avoidable. Bar Venice and Genoa, extinguished nearly two decades before and not restored, the worst examples were Norway and Saxony, but those who stick too long to the losing side have always risked loss of territory. And given the straggling and quite un-ethnographic borders of Napoleon's France in 1812, the total number of people under foreign rule may have actually gone down.

One can't help feeling Zamowski is just miffed that his own country didn't fare better. It recalls the international school which set an essay on elephants and got -

Englishman - how to hunt an elephant
American - economic importance of the elephant
Frenchman - sex life of the elephant.
German - military importance of the elephant
Pole - the elephant and the Polish question.

Yet, at the risk of blasphemy, did even Poland do so badly? My impression is that through the 18C her "independence" was a joke, and that from the Northern War to the Seven Years, she was routinely trampled over and plundered by foreign armies in pursuing their own conflicts. Was this better for her people than the nasty but brief ordeals of 1830-1 and 1863-4?

Zamowski is rather sniffy about the "century of peace" after 1815. Perhaps, as a Pole, it matters less to him, but the wars between Britain and France, since 1689 (1066?) had been events as regular as the World Cup (and British victories celebrated like Olympic golds) were certainly ended. There was still a rebellion or three, but even counting these, the two biggest - China's Taiping Rebellion and America's Civil War - were in areas not covered by the settlement. Europe got off light. And were the 1830 Poilish and Belgian revolts really "major wars"?

As even Zamowski acknowledges, the peacemakers had an enormous task, and it is far from clear that different decisions would have caused fewer long-term problems. As King Albert of the Belgians told a critic of the Versailles Treaty. "They did what they could". Perhaps an even fairer comment on the 1815 than the 1919 settlement.

Still, with all its faults, an excellent book. Enjoy it.



An excellent read, 21 Jul 2008
At a time when most history seems to consist of unconnected trivia suitable only for pub quizzes, it's a relief to find a book by an author who sees history as a process. The book is a study of the Congress of Vienna at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The Congress was one of the most important gatherings of the 19th century, and it set the tone for 'big power' politics for the next hundred years. The way in which it carved up Europe between the victors and losers without consideration for the wishes of the populations also set the parameters for the two World Wars in the 20th century.

But Zamoyski doesn't just deal with the 'dry' politics - he also deals with the social event that was also the Congress of Vienna. Judging from his description and the quotes from reports in the archives of the Austrian police, many of the main participants spent far more time with their assorted mistresses than trying to sort out the problems caused by the Napoleonic wars.

Even before I read this book I always thought that Talleyrand was the consummate politician of the 19th Century. Having read what he achieved in defending France's interests at the congress, I now appreciate just how brilliant he was. No wonder that when he eventually died, most of the people at his funeral were there to make sure he really was dead, with no chance of coming back!

An excellent read.


A most magnificent book, 27 Apr 2008
I would agree with both the other reviewers here that The Rites of Peace is a most magnificent book. Adam Zamoyski has again written a master piece. He notes in his introduction that there isn't a lot of information published on `The Congress of Vienna'. In future one needs only to read Zamoyski's book.

Zamoyski starts his tale right after Napoleon's disastrous Russia campaign. If you need any background information on this, you should perhaps read Zamoyski's `1812', which covers this campaign quite thoroughly. In fact, 1812 could be regarded as the prequel to `Rites of Peace'.

The lack of loyalty displayed amongst the leading politicians of the day by taking service with one country after the other didn't really surprise me because you can read that right through the history of the time. But thank God it doesn't happen today because otherwise George W. Bush could conceivably be the next Prime Minister in Britain.

The Peacemakers are a rather screwy bunch. Principally, these are Austria, Russia, Prussia and England and France after Napoleon is retired to Elba. The only thing they do all day is to work out how best to take advantage of the other Peacemakers and at the same time hang onto or gain as much new Territory as possible. It struck me as a good joke in a way that the central issue of the Congress of Vienna turns out to be the Kingdom of Saxony and that of Poland.

It doesn't surprise me that the Peacemakers threatened to go to war against each other more than once. With Napoleon gone, there is no common cause. It also didn't surprise me that the Congress of Vienna went on for so long. The constant maneuvering cannot be done quickly. Besides, the whole event struck me as one gigantic orgy. It would appear that never has so much sex been performed by so many people in one place.

What made me laugh was how quickly the Congress of Vienna was over once Napoleon left Elba to conduct his 100 days in power. Amongst the statesmen assembled in Vienna, both Lord Castlereagh and Metternich and probably Talleyrand struck me as the most capable and both Tsar Alexander and Frederick William III of Prussia as a complete waste of space.

At the end of his book, Zamoyski notes that the Congress of Vienna re-shaped Europe and that the effects of this `New Order' could be felt right into the early part of the 20th century. I would wager that some of these could still be felt today.


A magnificent achievement, 07 Mar 2008
Adam Zamoyski says in his introduction (p.xiv) that the literature on the subject is scanty, elusive and one-sided. Noone can say this after having read this magnificent, scholarly and entertainingly written book. 570 pages on essentially three years of diplomacy could have been stodgy, but the writing is extremely lucid, and the minutiae of day-by-day negotiations (sometimes, as over the Saxon question, very repetitive, and just occasionally, as over Swiss affairs, also a little tedious) are seamlessly interspersed with vivid accounts of the personalities involved, of their moods and of the hedonistic and frivolous ways in which they spent their time between negotiations (much of the latter information culled from the reports of Metternich's secret surveillance teams).

Fascinating details include:

1. The ease with which politicians in those days were able to move from employment by one court to employment by another: von Stein from the Prussian to the Russian Court; Hardenberg from the Hanoverian to the Prussian Court (and in office there during Prussia's annexation of Hanover); Gentz from being a civil servant in Berlin to being an agent of the British government and then to taking service in Austria.

2. The intense suspicion between all of Napoleon's opponents. Each constantly feared that others might come to terms with Napoleon at their expense: after all, there had been a long history before Napoleon's invasion of Russia when countries had made just such deals with Napoleon, whose victories had made it possible over and over again for him to play one of his enemies off against another. Even within delegations there were animosities: initially Britain was represented at negotiations by no fewer than three envoys who so obviously detested each other that they were simply ignored by the other diplomats. The English, not well versed in continental politics, were universally considered gauche in manner and women's dress; but eventually Castlereagh took over, and after a while he became one of the key players, and one of the more sensible ones at that.

At one time the allies nearly went to war with each other - but the extraordinary thing is that while the threat of war hung over the Congress, the rival delegates met at balls and other spectacular entertainments every evening.

3. The open and promiscuous randiness of the principals is truly astonishing, as is the readiness of aristocratic and royal ladies to move from bed to bed. So many statesmen had affaires during the Congress: Metternich, who, while he had been ambassador at Napoleon's court, had slept with two of Napoleon's sisters, now fell in love with the Princess of Sagan and wrote her letters as remarkable for their love-struck clichés as for his measureless conceit; Humboldt sought out fat lower-class girls; women threw themselves at the ever-willing Alexander I. There are marvellous chapters (esp. 18, 19 and 21) on what life was like during the Congress of Vienna, how kings away from their courts let their hair down, and how the aura of majesty was dispelled.

4. The immature and headstrong nature of Alexander, who, confident of his huge military might, frequently took unilateral action to the dismay of the other powers. The confidence and skill of Talleyrand. The shameless greediness of Prussia, which exceeded the considerable greed of the other participants.

5. A great deal hung on the moods and personal characters of the principal characters, and this account is certainly a challenge to the structuralist view of history. A powerful final chapter shows how these individuals, backward rather than forward looking, managed to clamp a reactionary settlement on the continent that, so far from producing a stable Europe for a hundred years (a view that Henry Kissinger propounded in the 1950s and 1960s), would create during that time many rebellions, civil and international wars with a heavy cost in human lives.



A social occasion to end all social occasions, 04 Feb 2008
Adam Zamoyski is rapidly becoming one of my favorite Napoleonic era historians. His Moscow 1812 was brilliant, well-researched, and extremely detailed. Now, Zamoyski has added to the previous book with his latest, Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon & the Congress of Vienna. Beginning almost immediately after Napoleon's final withdrawal from Russia, this book tells the story of the aftermath and the end of the Napoleonic wars. Zamoyski's rich detail is included, unfortunately almost too a fault. While the book is definitely interesting, it gets bogged down to the point where it's extremely slow reading for most casual readers.

Once again, Zamoyski doesn't dwell on the military details of battles, though he certainly doesn't gloss over them, either. Readers wishing for in-depth examinations of the battles of Liepzig or Waterloo will be left wanting. Instead, Rites of Peace covers how these battles affected the greater societal whole in Europe, how the various monarchs handled them and what they wanted to do afterward. Zamoyski introduces all of the major players in European politics, with Metternich (Foreign Minister of Austria) getting a lot of detail. Once Napoleon is defeated, the Treaty of Paris is signed and other problems present themselves.

Zamoyski saves his greatest detail for the Congress of Vienna. Opening in early November, 1814, this Congress (which Metternich figured would last about 6 weeks) lasted upwards of 6 months. Ostensibly, it was supposed to solve all of Europe's pressing problems, but it turned into more of a social occasion and negotiations often dragged on to great lengths to solve small issues. Zamoyski spends an incredible amount of time on the sexual escapades and romantic dalliances of all of the attendees, from the Russian Tsar to Metternich and Talleyrand of France. Zamoyski's able to provide this detail because Metternich had the Austrian police keep close tabs on every delegate and the police reports are extensive.

Of course, it wasn't all social occasions. The Congress of Vienna consisted of a lot of horse-trading between the powers, with each side trying desperately to get the best deal that would favor them, often at odds with other European powers. Zamoyski does a great job of showing what each faction wanted and how it contrasted with others' plans. Almost every province or duchy in Europe, in addition to the great powers themselves, has representatives at the Congress, and all of them were looking to get a piece of the action. Zamoyski makes all of this fascinating, as we see all the conflicts that arose from these negotiations.

Unfortunately, Rites of Peace does get mired in the social aspects of the Congress. I agree that these issues are relevant, especially when they interfered with the negotiations. But Zamoyski spends so much time on them that many of the personages started to run together, causing some exceedingly slow reading. This is countered by Zamoyski's writing style, which makes these passages much more interesting then they would normally be.

Rites of Peace is well-researched, with many end-notes to take in if you're the type of reader who does that. Zamoyski also provides an extensive bibliography and index as well. Maps are scattered throughout the text to illustrate points, such as the Swiss territorial gains after negotiation, and there is a block of full-color pictures in the middle of the book, giving a face to all of the major personages involved. That's a big plus in a book where personal and romantic issues are so much at the forefront. The book is quite long, however, so be ready for an extended read (as well as the weight, as the hardcover is quite heavy).

All in all, Rites of Peace is an extraordinary examination of the end of the Napoleonic Wars and their aftermath. While it does get slow at times, the amount of detail and the vivid pictures that Zamoyski paints are well worth the effort. Combined with Moscow 1812, Adam Zamoyski has created quite a treat for the history reader.

David Roy

moving, 19 Sep 2008
An amazing book, i always wanted to know about the Russian revolution and its cause and effects, Mr Figes not only delivers but makes all the key people involved come alive, i really felt for the peasant farmer trying to reform the agriculture of his village for the greater good.
The title is the most accurate and precise i have known for a book.

An unscrupulous depiction of bolsheviks as cold-blooded despots., 10 Oct 2007
One small example of the problems with Figes' book, small but typical : on pages 631-632 we are treated with the horrendous shooting of Bim-Bom, the clown who dared mock the bolsheviks, at the hands of the Cheka bursting onto the circus in the middle of the comedian's act.

Except that a small amount of research would have made Figes aware that Bim-Bom was not a single clown but a duet, and that no such assassination took place : on the contrary the founder of this famous duet ("Bim" real name Ivan Semenovich Radunskim) died in 1955 after a long career.

But hey ! Why let facts get in the way of a good scene ?


Comprehensive and engaging, 27 Jul 2007
Orlando Figes has produced the definitive account of the events that facilitated the October Revolution of 1917, with significant emphasis placed on the characters who brought it about. He writes with a storytelling style that invites both seasoned historians and novices to the field to truly grasp the scope of this immensely significant and compelling period of history. The emphasis placed on the individual in history is, I think, necessary when it comes to this subject. Without the cunning designs of Lenin, propped up by the rhetoric of Trotsky and with the inability of Kerensky and the Socialist Revolutionaries to recognise the turn of the tide in favour of the Bolsheviks, they were totally incapable of stemming the tide of Socialist Revolution. The post-revisionist concept of the influence of the people in bringing about their own tragedy is brilliantly stated by the master historian, without ever losing sight of the significance of key figures in stimulating revolution.

Detailed and Thorough, Though Annecdotal, 15 Jul 2007
Firstly, I would like to say that this book is an incredible book. It is unlike any book I have read on this or any other historical subject. Figes' prose flows through the book smoothly and enjoyably.

However, this does create some problems within the book. I found that at points throughout the book Figes' prose became too anecdotal; reducing rather horrific actions and events into little more than footnotes within the story. This is not to say that Figes does not tackle the violence and often unspeakable brutality of this period without tact and sensitivity. I think Figes deals with the Russian Revolution and all of the problems it created socially rather well. I believe he captures the essence of the revolution that say, Robert Service could not. Many historians produce accounts of the revolution that paint the revolution as an "Inevitability". This however creates the illusion that the Bolsheviks "Steamrollered" Russia without much hassle. Figes is able to transcend this rather simplified view, painting a very human picture of the leaders of this "People's Revolution" and their roles within this tragedy.

Figes' use of characters within the book creates a drama of epic proportions-hitting home the social uphealval of the time. His particular use of Semenov's story with his battles with the Village hierachy and the meteoric rise of peasant commisars like Os'Kin as well as the linchpin-like Gorky and his role within every aspect of the revolution and his eventual disillusionment with the revolution he had a hand in creating, makes for a tragic and typically desperate Russian Epic.

I will agree with other reviews in that the period after the Civil War is rather rushed compared to the detail in the rest of the book. This rather disappoints and leaves a rather sour taste after such a fantastic book. I think that this as well as Figes' rather flippant style sometimes is the one thing keeping this book from five stars.

This book is an amazing book. Of that that there is no doubt. A must-read for those interested in the Russian Revolution. It succeeds where other books fail; in its concentration of social issues rather than focusing purely on the policital issues/stories.

Masterful and detailed, 18 Dec 2006
Surely this must be the definitive account of the Russian Revolution's origins and course of events. A deserved prize-winner.


Educates and enlightens while it entertains., 09 Jun 2008
This is the first of Antonia Fraser's historical biographies that I have read and on the strength of it I have already bought her biography on Henry the Eighth and his six wives and I intend to buy more. I absolutely adored the way this book was written, she sets the scene in such a realistic way that you can almost hear the baying of the angry mobs and smell the stench of the prison where Marie spends the last of her days.

Some historical biographies get too bogged down in historical data, quoting endless facts, dates and figures until you feel your brain can hold no more. This is the perfect biography in that it gives you the important information you need in order to understand the causes and effects of the revolution, yet the book never forgets the main subject which is Marie A herself. This book charts her course from a naïve, slightly uneducated child, pawn in her mother's imperial game into the most hated woman in all of France. This book succeeds in cutting through the gossip and anecdotes of the time, which haunt Marie A to this day, and gives her a human face. Yes she was flawed, but in this account we find some of the reasons behind her faults and ultimately come to see her as misguided rather than a bad person.

If this book has a flaw, it is that Antonia Fraser is maybe TOO sympathetic to Marie, in parts of the book you nearly feel like she is making excuses for all of Marie's bad behaviour rather than admitting when she was at fault. However this is the only flaw I could find in this book. Her descriptions of life at Versailles are truly stunning. I particularly enjoyed her description of the pomp and ceremony involved just in getting Marie dressed every morning! Overall, if you want a historical biography with flowing prose and true heart, then you will not find better than this one. I for one came away from the book with a new understanding of probably the most misunderstood woman in history.


Antonia Fraser dispels the myths, 23 Jan 2008
A highly recommended book. Superb research, if a little one sided but still a very engaging book that takes in the queen's entire journey. The pace is slow to start but still captivating from chapter one. As a historical book, it sticks to the facts for the most part although with the supposed affair with the Swede Fersen, there is no proper evidence and the author seems to really wish it happened just as if it would make up for all the sadness in the queen's life. As a story it is quite magnificent. What a life! And it captures that dignity to the very end. The only criticism is the real causes of the revolution are not put into proper context here to show that she died because of what she represented in the French people's eyes. Nevertheless, Marie Antoinette is redeemed in my eyes.

Excellent read - a little one sided., 17 Oct 2007
I've recently become interested in this period in history and found this book very enjoyable. It was an excellent read, and although a "heavy" book I had no trouble getting through it. It tells a lovely story from Antoinette's point of view and I was left with a distinct dislike for the revolution. However, having read other texts, this book could leave you with a biased viewpoint as Antonia Fraser fails to explain the problems in France that led to the Revolution. Although I enjoyed the book I was left with a slightly bitter taste in my mouth that made me feel I hadn't got the full picture. Enjoy the book but make sure you read the whole story some where else.

A convert, 13 May 2005
Less than a year ago I wrote a review of this book, giving it 3*. A lot of what I said then still carries weight - I'm not convinced of the whole Fersen aspect of things, etc. However, upon reading this book more thoroughly I confess that I have been converted by the author's talent as a writer and the sympathy she evokes for Mare-Antoinette's fate. Without doubt, this is the finest biography of Marie-Antoinette currently in print.

Perhaps not quite the definitive biography, 03 Jul 2004
I don't think it's particularly fair to label this book (as one Amazon reviewer has done) as "a royalist's view" of French history - although, interestingly, in terms of Marie-Antoinette's life, royalists have traditionally gotten it more right than others. I'd also completely reject the notion that this is "definitive" and/or "overly preferential to its subject."

This book's plus points are the wealth of detail Antonia Fraser presents about court etiquette at Versailles; the way in which minor characters, like the Queen's maid Rosalie Lamorliere, are brought to life, and its excellent epilogue which explores Marie-Antoinette's place in history and the tragedy behind this most public of royal lives.

However, at times Antonia Fraser seems to be almost tripping over herself to be PC and unbiased. We're so used to hearing detrimental things about Marie-Antoinette that any biographer who goes complete the grain will inevitably be accused of "whitewashing." But the truth is that the real Marie-Antoinette bears almost no resemblance to the Marie-Antoinette of popular imagination, so why did Antonia Fraser's "defence" of this queen seem convoluted and riddled with qualifiers? More accurate portraits of Marie-Antoinette's character and her role as queen have been presented in two modern studies - "The Lost King of France" by Deborah Cadbury and "The Fall of the French Monarchy" by Dr. Munro Price.

Antonia Fraser also fails to fully explain Marie-Antoinette's enormous political influence after 1789, something properly highlighted in Price's book. It's also true that the book at times fails to convey the full gritty reality of 18th-century life, which perhaps would have been useful in explaining why Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette were determined to uphold such high moral standards (thus partially alienating them from certain circles of the aristocracy) after the debauched decadence of Louis XV's reign.

And as for Marie-Antoinette's "affair" with Count Fersen, Antonia Fraser's assertion that the two enjoyed a couvert affair is based more upon wishful thinking than a balanced assessment of the facts. Marie-Antoinette's position made adultery impossible, it could never have been kept a secret, and her up-bringing and personality both conspired to make it fundamentally unlikely that she would commit adultery with anyone. Their relationship was one of the many Marie-Antoinette found safety in - romantic, artificial, non-sexual gallantry.

This biography is an enjoyable one, and Antonia Fraser has done a good job in partially resurrecting Marie-Antoinette from the "rubbish bin of history" but there's still a long way to go before this unlucky queen's "definitive biography" is written.

collection of myths and prejuces , 17 Jun 2008
The book is an exellent example of manipulation of history made by somebody with a strong ideological background. The only goal of Zamoyski is to show that Russia and Russians have nothing to do with the defeat of Napoleon and this defeat was ceased by anything else - bad weather, illness of Napoleon or maybe little green alliens. The plan of the campaine desined by Barklay de Tolly and followed by Kutuzov is not mentioned at all. Kutuzov is shown as a stupid and lazy idiot (this is an example of manipulation again - he is characterised in the book by exepts from letters of his rivals and enemies only).
Another problem is a discription of brutality of the war. From the book it is completely impossible to understand why russians flew from Moscow in the view of Frensh army. Just a hint: every russian town on the road from Smolensk to Moscow was burnt to ashes. Author ignores any notes about mass executions of russian PoWs (de Segur, Memoires, polish regiment killed all russian PoWs they had to escort).
As well sometimes I had an impression that Napoleon's army consisted mostly from polish regiments with a few italian ones.
The book is written with the great hate to Russia and Russians and has nothing to do with the history.

This is the most fantastic book, 26 Mar 2008
This is the most fantastic book. I was riveted from start to finish. It conjours the beauty of 18th century war with all its posing finery while defly describing the horrifying fate of its victims and it's perpetrators. Zamoyski's style is simple and unadourned. He lets the story write itself but what a story it is and how beautifuly the atmosphere of the occassion is caught. The arrogance and mercurial inteligence of Napoleon is brilliantly portrayed. It is almost as if you are actualy beside him as he is delivering one of his monologues while striding across the snow to his departing carriage.

I'd give it six stars if I could, 24 Dec 2007
Outstanding book. Extremely informative, very readable indeed. I couldn't put it down and read it with the enthusiasm of an adolescent reading a Playboy. The narrative was very interesting, battle tactics were easy to follow (maps in the right places)and you don't lose the thread of who is who (which I, not being an expert historian, tend to do with some history books). I'm sorry I can only give it five stars. If you have a passing interest in this piece of history but worry about whether you can really invest time and energy in a book of this size, put your worries aside and go for it, you won't regret it.


Excellent!, 02 Nov 2007
Whilst it gets off to a slow start, this book is well worth a chapter or two's perseverance. It combines a clear, detailed overview with personal accounts of the campaign and reads like a novel: perfect for those of us who are reading about it for the first time.

Buy it.



Stunning, a triumph, 30 Oct 2007
I'm really not sure if I can do this book enough justice in the space of a tiny review. Before reading it I was, like many others perhaps, very much aware that Napoleon's march on Moscow was a turning point in his career and in European history, but apart from that, well... largely ignorant. Reading Zamoyski's book changed all that, and the only regret I have is not having read it earlier.

"1812" is a stunning history book! The 25 chapters are 'bite-size', just the right size to read at least one chapter each evening before going to bed (or two, or three... I found it very hard to put this book down), and in them Zamoyski gives a fascinating account of the entire campaign (beginning with the reasons why, and ending with the aftermath). In doing so he strikes a perfect balance between on the one hand a crystal-clear analysis of the broader political/military scene and motivations of the principal actors, and on the other hand lots of small but telling anecdotes.

One of the things that struck me most is how (as Zamoyski clearly demonstrates) few of the events were the result of intelligent, strategic decisions taken with clear goals in mind, but rather how one thing led to another and decisions were often reduced to the choice between the lesser of two evils. It's astonishing really, and all the more so if you come to realize the enormous cost in human misery and lives resulting from these decisions.

Zamoyski includes literally hundreds of extracts of private correspondence, notes, diaries, etc. from Napoleon and Tsar Alexander themselves down to foot soldiers, which don't detract from the main story but always succeed very well in illustrating the point Zamoyski is trying to make. I'm sure most of us are aware Napoleon's Grande Armée didn't have a field day in this campaign, but just how horrific it actually was is perhaps never better said than in the (often very moving) words of the actual participants. Last but not least the book contains 23 simple but clear maps, and is written in impeccable English.

This is a real feast from cover to cover!

"L'Elephant, C'est Un Question Polonaise", 11 Oct 2008
We were overdue for a readable history of this period, and Zamowski (bar the odd quibble) has done a creditable job.

In particular, he brings out well the crucial importance of the Hundred Days, not for what might have happened - Napoleon's prospects were never very bright - but for what did, in giving the victors a badly needed cold shower. In the Summer of 1814 - barely three months after Napoleon's despatch to Elba - disputes over Saxony and Poland had brought them to the brink of war - with Britain and Austria ready to ally with France against their fellows. With Napoleon's defeat, all thought themselves "home and dry" and free to quarrel among themselves. The Deus ex machina - or "Diabolus ex Elba"? - delivered the mother of all wakeup calls, ramming home how fragile their victory still was, and concentrating their minds in a Johnsonian sense.

And not just temporarily. The Holy Alliance, formed to preserve their victory, would endure for decades. Britain dropped out early - being an offshore island she could afford to - as did France after 1830, but not until the Crimean War did its core - Austria, Russia, Prussia - fall apart, and it was a further decade (1866) before one of those three actually fought another. Even that war - the work of another "wild card" of even lower probability than Napoleon - remained a unique "exception that proved the rule" until 1914. For Bismarck, having got what he wanted, promptly formed a "Dreikaiserbund" which was essentially the Holy Alliance by another name. All this was Napoleon's work, and specifically the result of his return in 1815. His admirers often speak of how he would have "united Europe" had he won, overlooking the degree to which he did unite a much of it for a remarkably long time. It recalls the old "united Ireland" joke that the Irish can unite only under British rule - because that unites them against the Brits. Napoleon did a similar job of uniting Europeans against himself.

Some nitpicks. Zamowski seems to take Napoleon's 1815 embrace of constitutional government seriously, though a plainer case of "The Devil was sick, the Devil a monk would be" is surely hard to find. And the last chapter spoils it somewhat, with his grumbles about the settlement often sounding plaintive and almost childish. He speaks of "Siberian chain gangs" as if these weren't a normal part of Russian history, or could have been made less common by some change in the Vienna settlement. More generally, complaining about their disregard of nationalism, he talks as if the peacemakers had a "tabula rasa", to draw on as they pleased, after himself spending the earlier and better parts of this work showing they didn't. Take Poland. The Tsar had it and was set on keeping it. Condemning the 1815 arrangements leaves only two alternatives, to close with the Tsar over the Poland/Saxony deal - little change, just slightly more Poles in Russia and less in Prussia - or else return to the carve-up of 1795, which from a "national" viewpoint is even worse. Which does he prefer? Ditto (pretty much) for Germany and Italy. The Kings of Sicily and Sardinia, however "imbecilic", were on the winning side, so could hardly be dispossessed, and if the Tsar kept Poland, Austria and Prussia could only be compensated westwards, ie in Italy and north Germany respectively. South Germany wasn't available, as its rulers had deserted Napoleon in good time, so were also in the winning camp. In short, most of the continent was already "spoken for".

Zamowski grumbles about the arbitrary transfer of "souls" between rulers, as undermining traditional loyalties. But given how much of that Napoleon had done, especially in Germany, it wasn't easily avoidable. Bar Venice and Genoa, extinguished nearly two decades before and not restored, the worst examples were Norway and Saxony, but those who stick too long to the losing side have always risked loss of territory. And given the straggling and quite un-ethnographic borders of Napoleon's France in 1812, the total number of people under foreign rule may have actually gone down.

One can't help feeling Zamowski is just miffed that his own country didn't fare better. It recalls the international school which set an essay on elephants and got -

Englishman - how to hunt an elephant
American - economic importance of the elephant
Frenchman - sex life of the elephant.
German - military importance of the elephant
Pole - the elephant and the Polish question.

Yet, at the risk of blasphemy, did even Poland do so badly? My impression is that through the 18C her "independence" was a joke, and that from the Northern War to the Seven Years, she was routinely trampled over and plundered by foreign armies in pursuing their own conflicts. Was this better for her people than the nasty but brief ordeals of 1830-1 and 1863-4?

Zamowski is rather sniffy about the "century of peace" after 1815. Perhaps, as a Pole, it matters less to him, but the wars between Britain and France, since 1689 (1066?) had been events as regular as the World Cup (and British victories celebrated like Olympic golds) were certainly ended. There was still a rebellion or three, but even counting these, the two biggest - China's Taiping Rebellion and America's Civil War - were in areas not covered by the settlement. Europe got off light. And were the 1830 Poilish and Belgian revolts really "major wars"?

As even Zamowski acknowledges, the peacemakers had an enormous task, and it is far from clear that different decisions would have caused fewer long-term problems. As King Albert of the Belgians told a critic of the Versailles Treaty. "They did what they could". Perhaps an even fairer comment on the 1815 than the 1919 settlement.

Still, with all its faults, an excellent book. Enjoy it.



An excellent read, 21 Jul 2008
At a time when most history seems to consist of unconnected trivia suitable only for pub quizzes, it's a relief to find a book by an author who sees history as a process. The book is a study of the Congress of Vienna at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The Congress was one of the most important gatherings of the 19th century, and it set the tone for 'big power' politics for the next hundred years. The way in which it carved up Europe between the victors and losers without consideration for the wishes of the populations also set the parameters for the two World Wars in the 20th century.

But Zamoyski doesn't just deal with the 'dry' politics - he also deals with the social event that was also the Congress of Vienna. Judging from his description and the quotes from reports in the archives of the Austrian police, many of the main participants spent far more time with their assorted mistresses than trying to sort out the problems caused by the Napoleonic wars.

Even before I read this book I always thought that Talleyrand was the consummate politician of the 19th Century. Having read what he achieved in defending France's interests at the congress, I now appreciate just how brilliant he was. No wonder that when he eventually died, most of the people at his funeral were there to make sure he really was dead, with no chance of coming back!

An excellent read.


A most magnificent book, 27 Apr 2008
I would agree with both the other reviewers here that The Rites of Peace is a most magnificent book. Adam Zamoyski has again written a master piece. He notes in his introduction that there isn't a lot of information published on `The Congress of Vienna'. In future one needs only to read Zamoyski's book.

Zamoyski starts his tale right after Napoleon's disastrous Russia campaign. If you need any background information on this, you should perhaps read Zamoyski's `1812', which covers this campaign quite thoroughly. In fact, 1812 could be regarded as the prequel to `Rites of Peace'.

The lack of loyalty displayed amongst the leading politicians of the day by taking service with one country after the other didn't really surprise me because you can read that right through the history of the time. But thank God it doesn't happen today because otherwise George W. Bush could conceivably be the next Prime Minister in Britain.

The Peacemakers are a rather screwy bunch. Principally, these are Austria, Russia, Prussia and England and France after Napoleon is retired to Elba. The only thing they do all day is to work out how best to take advantage of the other Peacemakers and at the same time hang onto or gain as much new Territory as possible. It struck me as a good joke in a way that the central issue of the Congress of Vienna turns out to be the Kingdom of Saxony and that of Poland.

It doesn't surprise me that the Peacemakers threatened to go to war against each other more than once. With Napoleon gone, there is no common cause. It also didn't surprise me that the Congress of Vienna went on for so long. The constant maneuvering cannot be done quickly. Besides, the whole event struck me as one gigantic orgy. It would appear that never has so much sex been performed by so many people in one place.

What made me laugh was how quickly the Congress of Vienna was over once Napoleon left Elba to conduct his 100 days in power. Amongst the statesmen assembled in Vienna, both Lord Castlereagh and Metternich and probably Talleyrand struck me as the most capable and both Tsar Alexander and Frederick William III of Prussia as a complete waste of space.

At the end of his book, Zamoyski notes that the Congress of Vienna re-shaped Europe and that the effects of this `New Order' could be felt right into the early part of the 20th century. I would wager that some of these could still be felt today.


A magnificent achievement, 07 Mar 2008
Adam Zamoyski says in his introduction (p.xiv) that the literature on the subject is scanty, elusive and one-sided. Noone can say this after having read this magnificent, scholarly and entertainingly written book. 570 pages on essentially three years of diplomacy could have been stodgy, but the writing is extremely lucid, and the minutiae of day-by-day negotiations (sometimes, as over the Saxon question, very repetitive, and just occasionally, as over Swiss affairs, also a little tedious) are seamlessly interspersed with vivid accounts of the personalities involved, of their moods and of the hedonistic and frivolous ways in which they spent their time between negotiations (much of the latter information culled from the reports of Metternich's secret surveillance teams).

Fascinating details include:

1. The ease with which politicians in those days were able to move from employment by one court to employment by another: von Stein from the Prussian to the Russian Court; Hardenberg from the Hanoverian to the Prussian Court (and in office there during Prussia's annexation of Hanover); Gentz from being a civil servant in Berlin to being an agent of the British government and then to taking service in Austria.

2. The intense suspicion between all of Napoleon's opponents. Each constantly feared that others might come to terms with Napoleon at their expense: after all, there had been a long history before Napoleon's invasion of Russia when countries had made just such deals with Napoleon, whose victories had made it possible over and over again for him to play one of his enemies off against another. Even within delegations there were animosities: initially Britain was represented at negotiations by no fewer than three envoys who so obviously detested each other that they were simply ignored by the other diplomats. The English, not well versed in continental politics, were universally considered gauche in manner and women's dress; but eventually Castlereagh took over, and after a while he became one of the key players, and one of the more sensible ones at that.

At one time the allies nearly went to war with each other - but the extraordinary thing is that while the threat of war hung over the Congress, the rival delegates met at balls and other spectacular entertainments every evening.

3. The open and promiscuous randiness of the principals is truly astonishing, as is the readiness of aristocratic and royal ladies to move from bed to bed. So many statesmen had affaires during the Congress: Metternich, who, while he had been ambassador at Napoleon's court, had slept with two of Napoleon's sisters, now fell in love with the Princess of Sagan and wrote her letters as remarkable for their love-struck clichés as for his measureless conceit; Humboldt sought out fat lower-class girls; women threw themselves at the ever-willing Alexander I. There are marvellous chapters (esp. 18, 19 and 21) on what life was like during the Congress of Vienna, how kings away from their courts let their hair down, and how the aura of majesty was dispelled.

4. The immature and headstrong nature of Alexander, who, confident of his huge military might, frequently took unilateral action to the dismay of the other powers. The confidence and skill of Talleyrand. The shameless greediness of Prussia, which exceeded the considerable greed of the other participants.

5. A great deal hung on the moods and personal characters of the principal characters, and this account is certainly a challenge to the structuralist view of history. A powerful final chapter shows how these individuals, backward rather than forward looking, managed to clamp a reactionary settlement on the continent that, so far from producing a stable Europe for a hundred years (a view that Henry Kissinger propounded in the 1950s and 1960s), would create during that time many rebellions, civil and international wars with a heavy cost in human lives.



A social occasion to end all social occasions, 04 Feb 2008
Adam Zamoyski is rapidly becoming one of my favorite Napoleonic era historians. His Moscow 1812 was brilliant, well-researched, and extremely detailed. Now, Zamoyski has added to the previous book with his latest, Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon & the Congress of Vienna. Beginning almost immediately after Napoleon's final withdrawal from Russia, this book tells the story of the aftermath and the end of the Napoleonic wars. Zamoyski's rich detail is included, unfortunately almost too a fault. While the book is definitely interesting, it gets bogged down to the point where it's extremely slow reading for most casual readers.

Once again, Zamoyski doesn't dwell on the military details of battles, though he certainly doesn't gloss over them, either. Readers wishing for in-depth examinations of the battles of Liepzig or Waterloo will be left wanting. Instead, Rites of Peace covers how these battles affected the greater societal whole in