The Lesser Bonapartes - Podcast review

I'm having a lot of fun listening to the back catalogue of a relatively new history podcast, The Lesser Bonapartes. While I listen to a lot of history podcasts, some of them are a fairly good cure for insomnia. This one is not. It's a free-wheeling, slightly shambolic, very funny look at history with the occasional use of naughty words.

Dan and Glen are history enthusiasts and it really tells. Their delivery belies the research they must have done prior to each episode as they fanboy their way through the narrative, or dump on the sources for giving us only a tantalising half-glimpse at the real story (I'm looking at you, Herodotus!). The despairing delivery of the tale of the Hellenic Successor States is hilarious as our hosts almost admit defeat in trying to work out what the f*ck was going on!

They seem to run the gamut from ancient through to early modern history. At the moment I'm listening to their take on the Siege of Vienna in 1683.

Pocast Review - Rex Factor!

Click image to visit the podcast's blog. Also links to Twitter, Facebook etc.

I haven't done a podcast review for a while as there haven't been any that I listen to that have been really all that relevant to the theme of this blog (and to be sure, some the history podcasts I've listened to are a little dry and take a bit of persevering with), but this one is is a cracker. Seeing as how I've recently listened to the George III episode I can legitimately include a review here!

The premise of the podcast is to review and rate all monarchs of England from Alfred the Great to Elizabeth II. The format is for the hosts, Graham Duke and Ali Hood, to discuss the the monarch's biography with Graham doing the heavy lifting in terms of research and narration, while Ali indulges in colourful wit and general light relief, interspersed with the occasional erudite comment. It's like pub conversation between two mates about their favourite kings. The fact that one's done the research stuff while the other relies on his general knowledge means that Ali asks Graham the questions, getting clarification on points, or chipping in with interesting facts or legends, while Graham answers and generally clears up fact from fiction by shooting down legends and popping mythical bubbles.

The real fun is the rating system they've devised to score each monarch using 5 separate categories:

• Battleyness – how good they are in battle and warfare
• Scandal – their notoriety and tendency towards naughtiness
• Subjectivity – how well and justly they ruled (i.e. would you want to be a subject?)
• Longevity – how long they ruled for
• Dynasty – how many legitimate, surviving children they had

Battleyness is my favourite, and the earlier Anglo-Saxon and Medieval kings scored quite highly in this category, personally leading armies into battle. Over the episodes, this criterion gradually morphs to battles fought during their reign by others, as fewer monarchs are involved in military campaigns the closer you get to modern times. Scandal is also another favourite as all the juicy stories of sex, murder and financial slipperiness are exposed. After each monarch is given a score, they are then judged by the presenters on whether or not they have  "...that certain something, that lasting legacy, the star quality that we call the Rex Factor." Completely subjective it may be, but both of the presenters justify why they do or don't award the prize, with only Edward the Peaceable causing controversy with the listeners, so far.

After all the monarchs are reviewed, there's going to be a play-off between all the Rex Factor winners to determine the ultimate monarch of England. Voting is under way, so listen to the podcast and vote for your favourite! I was happy that a Hanoverian got the Rex Factor in the person of William IV, but my money's on Charles II for the ultimate prize, especially with his Scandal score, his all-round genial raffish air and his fondness for a witty bon mot, not to mention bringing the kingdom back on an even keel after the chaos of the Civil War and Commonwealth

Highly recommended. I give it 4 out of 5 rosettes.

History of Rome podcast

Continuing my historical diversions, I've been listening to The History of Rome podcast and am finding it a fascinating tale ably related by the sometimes witty, but always informative and entertaining, Mike Duncan. He's taken on the ambitious task of relating the whole history from go-to-whoa; the founding of Rome in 700 and something BC (sorry; memory's not that great!), through to the fall of the Western Empire with the dethroning of Romulus Augustus in 476 AD. A mighty task I think you'll agree! He started the podcast in 2007 and has only just reached the end of the story earlier this month.

I'm currently listening to the podcasts covering the period after the Marian Wars and Sulla's death when it seems like Rome is pausing to catch its breath after all the mayhem of the previous years, but looks nervously to the future as such giants as Pompey, Crassus, Cicero and the man himself, Julius Caesar, all circle each other waiting to outdo the others in the attempt to win the prize of ultimate power over the rotting carcase of the Republic.

The parallels with other periods strike me as I listen to to this, not only of the chaos of the French Republic of the mid 1790s, but also of the Soviet Union after Lenin's death: high stakes games where the price of failure is death at the hands of your opponents and the last man standing with the greatest number of followers wins. From the perspective of 21st century western liberal-democratic comfort, I can look back with relief that current day politics is slightly more genteel (but only slightly!).Whatever happens in the future of modern politics, it's all been done before by the Romans!

Podcast review - Historyzine

Duke of Marlborough:
Big hair isn't restricted to '80s soft-metal bands!

Jim Mowatt's Historyzine podcast has kept me entertained and informed over the last couple of weeks with his combination of history podcast and book reviews, interviews, historical etymology lessons and his narrative history of the War of the Spanish Succession (WSS).

 I've really enjoyed this series with Jim's engaging Northern accent gently but enthusiastically, walking me through the intricacies of the WSS and the Duke of Marlborough's part in it all. While, not surprisingly, focusing a lot on Marlborough's role in the wars, Jim doesn't neglect the other theatres including Italy and Spain itself, which I knew next to nothing about. There were interesting similarities between this war and the Napoleonic Wars; both wars being an attempt on the part of the Allies to limit the power of a France led by an aggressive ruler determined to make France the dominant power in Europe. Both wars involved sending a British army to the Iberian Peninsula and both also involved a struggle for control of the sea. Both saw the emergence of a talented British general truly head and shoulders above the crowd in terms of tactical and strategic ability.

The differences are also clear, however. The Dutch were a major ally in the WSS and another able allied leader existed in the person of Eugene, Duke of Savoy. The Spanish campaign was more or less a sideshow when compared to the major allied efforts in the Low Countries and southern Germany. The war petered out due to political and military exhaustion on both sides, and while Wellington's name was made by his role in the Napoleonic Wars, Marlborough's was destroyed, despite his military brilliance. Likewise, Holland was ruined as a major power, bankrupted by the cost of the war and ending without the hoped for territorial gains in modern Belgium (or the Spanish Netherlands as it was known at the time), whereas Prussia came out of the war enhanced as a kingdom, set on the road to expansion for the following 2 centuries. Louis IV remained on the throne at the end of the war, unlike Napoleon, and the balance of power was restored, more or less, until the next time.

Jim's podcast reviews and little lessons on the origins of words and phrases at the start of each podcast irritated me to begin with as I was more interested in the main history narrative of the show, but over time I came to enjoy his reviews as it shows his passion for history and the medium of podcasting. His enthusiasm is infectious; I may well take up some of his suggested listening recommendations later. His little historical word of the day bit is a little bit of fluff; entertaining, but irrelevant really.

The biggest problem, though, is that after investing in the time listening to 19 episodes, and being thoroughly entertained and educated, the series abruptly ends with no more shows to wrap up the narrative of the WSS or indeed any explanations as to what has happened or when or if we can expect any more from Jim!

Podcast review - Dan Carlin's Hardcore History

I've been listening to Dan Carlin's take on the fall of the Roman Republic on the way to and from work over the last couple of weeks and found myself really enjoying his enthusiastic take on the story. When I say 'story', that's exactly what I mean as Dan is a story teller par excellence. He confesses he is a history 'fan' rather than a historian, and this definitely is evident in his delivery. His breathy 'gosh-darn!' delivery is a little off-putting to begin with, but once you get acclimatised to it, it's actually part of the fun.

He seems to focus mainly on World War II and the ancient world, along with the odd show where he answers questions he poses himself such as 'Does the toughness of peoples play any role in history?' He's not just some guy who rambles on about his favourite topic, but an ex-radio presenter and journalist who does his homework before each episode and also posts the references he's used on the website. He is even-handed when talking about historical theories, especially where the evidence is limited; always explaining the differing theories and explaining which he finds more credible and why. When compared to the Napoleon 101 podcast reviewed previously, this is a breath of fresh air! Dan is a fan of the history, rather than the personalities of history; he doesn't  twist the evidence to suit his own viewpoint.

Not really having an in depth knowledge of the history of the late Roman Republic period I found his take on the major issues, events and personalities of the period very educational and entertaining at the same time. His comparison to Marius as Charles Bronson and Sulla as Clint Eastwood facing off in some Hollywood action movie, while ludicrous, certainly painted a picture easily understood by a contemporary lay audience. His perky use of PC swear words made me smile and he even actually said '...going to heck in a handbasket...' rather than the usual Anglo-Saxon HELL (ooh, wash your mouth out with soap Monsieur Rosbif!).

His latest podcast, entitled Thor's Angels, dwells on the fall of the Roman Empire and the Germanic tribes that rose to power from the ashes of the Western Empire. Another fascinating take on a period of history I know only the basics of, explained in his own unique style using such modern cultural memes as Planet of the Apes and outlaw biker gangs to illustrate his points!

I find it very engaging. The programmes are a launching pad for further investigation of the issues he raised by tracking down the sources he used.

Gritting my teeth makes my jaw hurt

I've been slowly listening to the Napoleon 101 podcast and have reached episode 24 of the 50-something episodes that Cameron Reilly and J. David Markham have produced so far. I say slowly because I find I can't listen for any extended period without shouting at them (if I'm alone) or at least gritting my teeth (if I'm on the tram, say).

I like the fact that they are two enthusiasts who love to talk about their chosen subject like a couple of blokes in the pub would with lots of banter as well as telling the story of Napoleon's career in a linear style.

What I don't like, that sets my teeth on edge and causes bursts of shouting, is their complete bias to all things Napoleon. I don't understand why they have him on such a pedestal and are blind to all his faults, or have excuses for them when they do recognise fault. It's not unreasonable to admire a historical figure, but to do so so one one-sidedly makes me hot under the collar. The fact that they refer to the Peninsula campaign as 'the bad stuff' to be dealt with in an episode or two never to be referred to again ("do we have to talk about this?") made me wince; any historian worth their salt should be willing to examine a subject from all sides with the minimum of partisanship. I like revisionist histories because they usually come up with different ways of looking at old subjects, often using primary sources not before used, or at least digging deeper using existing sources. Reilly and Markham (but Reilly, especially) use cherry picked sources without a lot of analysis or context to support their contentions.

They also don't seem to put Napoleon's and his enemies' actions into historical context, looking at history from 200 years on and from modern sensibilities. St. Napoleon has no faults and everyone else, especially the British (boo-hiss!), just want to pull him down. No mention of how Revolutionary and especially Napoleonic France had turned the old established diplomatic and military world on its head and how this threatened the ruling houses of Europe immeasurably. No mention of the threats to entrenched national interests, such as domination over the Low Countries, domination of Germany, domination over Poland which threatened respectively British; Austrian and Prussian; and Russian and Prussian interests. Not to mention the horror of upsetting ruling thrones and replacing the crowns on his relatives' heads. This tidal wave of interference in political affairs throughout Europe was way above the limit of what the arch-conservative ruling houses of Europe could put up with. The fact that he was tolerated for so long, especially in the period between 1809-1812 was mainly because Napoleon had beaten all comers and had no enemies besides Britain. That didn't necessarily mean that all was sweetness and light and that everyone now loved Boney; the major powers were hedging their bets or biding their time, or any number of cliches, but mainly they didn't want to challenge French power, at least not until their own power had been regenerated. Notice how I am not putting value judgements on my argument, just stating the obvious?

They emphasise his codification of laws and his bringing liberty and justice to the areas he ruled, but they don't mention the crippling taxes or the burdensome conscription enforced on ally or conquered foe alike. The average European, whether he be Polish, Bavarian, Westphalian, Dutch, Italian etc., etc. probably didn't care too much who ruled, but certainly did care about steadily increasing taxes and requisitions as well as the distinct possiblity that he might be stuck in a uniform and given a musket and sent to the farthest extremities of Europe to fight in Napoleon's battles and suffer extreme deprivation, disease and possibly death.

They don't even cover the negative side to Napoleon's personality; the man who had to win so badly, he cheated at cards; the man who blamed Marshal Berthier when he (Napoleon) accidentally shot Marshal Massena in the face, blinding him in one eye, during a hunt; the man who could not compromise when offered peace by the Austrians in 1813.

So far the podcast hasn't covered any of this, or if it has, it has been excused with justifications for their own biases.

One of my favourite personalities of the period is the Duke of Wellington. I admire his military acumen; his eye for terrain; his diplomatic skill; the way didn't uselessly throw his mens' lives away; the way he carefully ensured his army's logitical support.

However, that doesn't blind me to his faults. He was a product of the British establishment and as such had no interest in political reform or meritocratic promotion in the army; he was an arch-Tory; he was dismissive of anyone not from his social class; he didn't give praise easily, but was quick to damn shortcomings; he remained aloof from his troops who admired him for his victories, while using their lives sparingly. There are probably more faults that don't spring to mind right now.

I just wish that the presenters were a bit more open to admitting their hero's faults and looking at history in the context of the time, not with a would-a, could-a, should-a revisionist yearning for a time that never was.

Episode 22 introduced me to another podcast called History According to Bob by Prof. Bob Packett who has a more eclectic historical show covering everything from Ancient Greece to the Cold War and everything in between. He has quite a few episodes on Napoleonics, too. I haven't yet listened to them so I can't offer an opinion, but will once I have.

Book Review - Corunna

I've just finished Corunna by Christopher Hibbert and while nowhere near as in depth a study of a campaign as Muir's Salamanca (see earlier entry), it still is a good read that quotes heavily from primary sources.

I knew Moore's little army had a hellish retreat from Salamanca to Corunna in the depths of winter, but I never realised the scale of the misery and how near to total breakdown the army was. Reading the narrative of the retreat left me reminded of the French retreat from Russia in 1812, but on a smaller scale: a large percentage of the army disintegrating into a starving, frozen rabble protected by a determined and disciplined rearguard; desperate soldiers looting the towns on the way of any form of sustenance and degenerating further into drunken mobs; the horrific plight of the women camp-followers.

The book also puts the campaign into the political context of the day which underscores how much war is a political activity and how generals need to be politicians, as well as military leaders. Unfortunately, because of his radical leanings, his humble background and his contempt for those who did not live up to his own high standards, he had a fair share of enemies at home who were quite ready to lay the blame for the failure of the campaign.

General Moore was roundly pilloried at the time by his officers and by the public at home for not doing more to help the Spanish. As this book shows, he was in put in an impossible position from the start. To begin with, it was made perfectly clear that he was not just in charge of a British army of 35,000 men, but THE British Army; there wasn't another force available if this one was destroyed. His orders were only to support the Spanish, not to engage the French on his own, but as the Spanish strategy was almost non-existent with no cooperation between jealous regional juntas, the Spanish armies were defeated one by one in piecemeal fashion: Moore had no-one to support. Extravagant promises of cooperation and forthcoming victories were just not realised, so Moore was left in an intolerable position.

However, he still did his best to assist Spain by drawing the French, who had been massively reinforced after Bailen and were led by Napoleon himself, away from the Spanish south by cutting across the French lines of communication. Moore was extremely lucky in that the French intelligence was surprisingly poor; Napoleon assumed that the British were on their way back to Portugal and had actually ordered his troops west rather than north-west before he realised his mistake. If the French had been less clueless, they could have caught the tiny British army and squashed it like a bug.

As it was, it turned out to be a race for the sea in the most appalling winter weather. The British were the harder marchers and also outfought the French every time the French vanguard caught the British rearguard. By the time the British turned at bay at Corunna, they had rekindled some self-pride by the constant black-eyes they'd handed out to the French, while the French were wary of their enemies, who, although resembling armed scarecrows, came at them furiously.

The 50th foot, which I have painted up in my collection, played a crucial part in the final battle. Led by Major Charles Napier, brother of the writer of the Peninsula War history, they charged the French at Elvina without orders and saved the 42nd foot who were at the point of being overwhelmed. Shortly after this, Moore was mortally wounded, and died later, knowing that his army had defeated the French and could safely embark on the transports for England.

Heroic stuff!

In a post-script, I'll mention a podcast I've discovered called Hardcore History by Dan Carlin. American readers will probably have heard of this already, but I've only just found it. He's not a trained historian, but he's definitely a history enthusiast (his breathy delivery can get a bit tiresome). His interest seems to lie in the ancient world and WW2 (so not a great deal to do with Napoleonics) but he also has a lot of interesting general historical themes to discuss. What I've listened to so far , I don't always agree with , but I like the way he makes me think about his arguments. He's not just plucking stuff out of the air; as you'll see, each episode has a bibliography of the books he used in researching the topic, so he's no slouch.

If I find any more interesting podcasts, I'll review them and link them to this blog.