Bowden´s book is doubtless valuable, especially the massive "états". Nevertheless I was not content when reading it, since the book is in some sense biased (pro-French). This is probably not by partiality rather by the fact that Bowden evaluated nearly exclusively French (Thiers!) and English (Petre, Esposito) secondary works, no Prussian, Russian and nearly no Austrian source. WRT the primary (printed) sources: Only French...

Some examples?
* p. 75: "the Allied armies fielded superior numbers in the [spring campaign's] theater of war" -> in fact N. was numerically superior, especially at Lützen and Bautzen
* p. 92 "May 9t ... Napoleon's advancing troops captured intact the Allied pontoon bridge at Dresden" -> ?? I really don´t know where this can be found...
* p. 107: "virtually every single engagement of the spring campaign was won by Napoloen´s young troops" -> Lüneburg?, Möckern near Magdeburg?, Luckau?, Siege of Spandau?, Wahnfried?, Halberstadt (Streifkorps actions)?, Königswartha?, Hainau?
* p. 139, beginning of the autumn campaign, "the numerical advantage to the coalition forces by a ratio of three to two" -> Napoleon's field army ca. 442.000 men (90.000 sick included), acc. to Bowden, p. 136, even 473.277 men : field army of the Allies ca. 512.000 men
* French propaganda is repeated again and again, for example p. 141, combat at Goldberg: "six [dead] Russians for one French" (after Lauriston)
* p. 152f: inexact composition of Vandamme´s forces at Kulm
* p. 161: Davout back to Hamburg at the beginning of September -> in fact Davout (commanding the XIII., not the I. corps!) was near Zarrentin / Schaalsee
* etc. etc.

Best regards, Thomas