I finished the late Christopher Duffy's book on "the Battle of the Three Emperors" this morning, and went to see Napoleon this afternoon.
So, yeah, a little whiplash. I like Duffy's work, but as I'm more interested in the 18th-century period that first got me into gaming, this is the first time I've looked at his Napoleonics. It's very good. Short, like his other major "battle" book on Rossbach and Leuthen, but comprehensive. I read it because I knew nothing about Austerlitz - or really, anything Napoleonic other than the Peninsula and Waterloo, what with my anglophilia - and wanted a primer before the film.
I needn't have bothered, because the film makes a hash of Austerlitz (and Waterloo). Austerlitz was more interesting than I expected, because like Waterloo it seems to have been a "close-run thing." Both sides were attempting the same maneuvers, both sides had significant successes. I also learned a bit about the Russian junior commander Bagration (still dunno how to pronounce it) who gave his name to a Soviet operation in WWII.
The movie turns Austerlitz into a single trap (when as Duffy points out, most of the Russians and Austrians got away), while Waterloo is Ney's cavalry vs. the squares and that's about it. There are plenty of other inaccuracies, but in general the movie itself is ... okay. From the reviews I've read, historians are trashing the (two) battles and liking the love story; non-history buffs are liking the battles and trashing the love story. The French, understandably, hate the whole thing.
My view? The film isn't so much bad or good as superficial. It spends so little time on any one incident as to trivialize them. For that matter, I was expecting a 160-minute film to drag, but it went pretty swiftly in part because it didn't linger on "sections," jumping years at a time with little if any explanation. If you knew nothing about the period, you'd probably be badly confused. And if you read up on the actual characters and battles, you'd be more confused.
There is a good movie to be made out of the Josephine-Napoleon love story, but this isn't it. There's a good miniseries to be made out of following Napoleon's military career; again, this isn't it. Put them both together in under three hours, and... I don't think it's a disaster, but it's certainly not an "epic showcase" of a movie. It doesn't seem to make up its mind about its main character, probably because of the parallel military and romantic plots. Even the famous incidents don't come off well, with famous quotes like "whiff of grapeshot" and "wooden walls of England" seemingly left on the cutting-room floor even when they come up.
Another anniversary comes up this week, that of Leuthen, and I am trying to organize my assorted 18mm Wofuns so as to play it. Grenadiers and Curassiers are the "improved" version of the basic troops in the Junior General scenario I'm planning, and their numbers are limited in my army, so there may need to be some cosmetic proxying - that or hasty construction of yet more Paperboys! Below is my list of necessary units, to be noted as I collect each type:
Prussia (played by Prussia, Hesse and Britain) needs:
- 5 Cuirassiers (to be Paperboys)
- 4 Grenadiers (Yes)
- 6 Line Cavalry (Yes)
- 7 Line Infantry (Yes)
- 5 Guns (Yes)
- Six individual commanders (Paperboys)
Austria (played by Austria, France and Scotland) needs:
- 5 Cuirassiers (Paperboys)
- 4 Grenadiers (Yes)
- 5 Line Cavalry (Yes)
- 10 Line Infantry (Yes)
- 4 Guns (Yes)
- Six commanders (Paperboys)
 |
| "Austrians" thus far - units in fur caps (center) might stand in for grenadiers? |
 |
| "Prussians" thus far - mostly British. |
 |
| The "boxes" that make the false fronts are trickiest. |
Thanks for the reminder of both anniversaries. Looking forward to seeing how you set-up the Leuthen scenario. I was lucky enough once to run it along historical lines with my son, who had not read about the battle, with him in the role of Austrians, with similar, though less spectacular results. He waited for turn after turn, building up 'command points' ready to use when the Prussians appeared, and was caught out when I produced an extra 450mm of table on his left. Sneaky, but I wanted to see if it was possible to re-create, and he had beaten me several times, so I don't think there was any risk to his confidence.
ReplyDeleteHa! That's an interesting way of doing it. I hope he took it well.
DeleteYes, he was old enough to understand, and he had beaten me in several games so hi self-esteem was undiminished 😄.
DeleteFor what it's worth, I agree with you about the film in almost every respect - I didn't mind it, the historical inaccuracies didn't offend me, even though I recognised them with only about the same level of knowledge as yourself (except I know virtually nothing about the battle of Austerlitz!) but I probably would not bother trying to see it again, which is a shame. I am sure Ridley Scott knew very well what a fantasy he had made of the three main battles, so it begs the question, WHY did he do it that way?
ReplyDeleteIt's okay, I knew nothing about Austerlitz until the day before I saw the film! From what he's said, Ridley Scott seems to care more about the spectacle and fantasy - though even those didn't come off so well.
Delete