It notes they lost the American War of Independence but so-dont-blink-an-interview-with-philip-h-anselmo 'learned to adapt (and) hadn't lost their ability to fight', one of many general and sweeping judgements. It claims the British were the finest, despite their tendency to loot and so-dont-blink-an-interview-with-philip-h-anselmo pillage, but offers no real evidence to back up that assertion. I think it gives undue weigh and words to the life and career of Napoleon, given the subject of the book is the British solider, not so-dont-blink-an-interview-with-philip-h-anselmo French!. These don't really offer anything more than so-dont-blink-an-interview-with-philip-h-anselmo context to the thrust of the book.
so-dont-blink-an-interview-with-philip-h-anselmo Napoleon's rise and the French Revolution take up a substantial segment, despite being very heavily covered elsewhere. It also details the biography of military rivals, perhaps as a counterpoint: so-dont-blink-an-interview-with-philip-h-anselmo particularly Washington and Napoleon. It details Wellington's early life and Political career, which aren't hugely relevant to the prowess of so-dont-blink-an-interview-with-philip-h-anselmo the lowly infantryman under him. so-dont-blink-an-interview-with-philip-h-anselmo It also takes huge tangents to offer context.