From Amazon:

"Elting certainly knows a lot about Napoleon's armies, but this work is far from flawless. The author can tell you what a certain corporal's function and pay was, but he mis-states facts concerning some battles and regiments. While many readers may think that this book is the best on the subject of Napoleon's armies, it cannot come close to Alain Pigeard's masterful work, L'Armee Napoleonienne 1804-1815."

"Colonel Elting is one of the most knowledgable authors in the business, and has a knack of telling a good story. However, there are existing errors about certain battles. For one, Elting claims that Baraguey-d'Hilliers division of dismounted dragoons arrived in time to save Dupont's infantry at the battle at Haslach on 11 October 1805 when there is overwhelming evidence that Baraquey's command never showed up. Also, some of his claims about units are questionable. For one, his claim that the 11th Legere was an outright failure after it was formed in 1811 is highly questionable. Clearly that statement could only POSSIBLY apply to 1812, when the regiment's combat performance suffered due to the quality of the 3rd and 4th battalions, but no one in the French army would have claimed that the 11th Legere did not perform well in 1813, or anything less than magnificently at Ligny in 1815.What's more, Elting criticizes other authors when they reference Thiebault's memoirs, even when a selected incident from those memoirs have corroborating witnesses or evidence, yet Elting uses Thiebault as source material for this work. Clearly, Elting's strengths are the politics within the army, the clashing personalities and the minor details of the interworkings of the army, rather than how the army performed under fire and the combat details concerning the battles. It should be utilized accordingly."

I have no intention to put oil on the fire and my intention is not to attack anyone. I believe there is not one book without flaws and everyone makes mistakes. Undoubtedly, there are many in my own books. Data about history is never complete, every (primary) source is written for a purpose and with an intention. Even archival material has its errors and is written for a purpose. And in many cases this was not the truth. Isn't it so that if we have to believe Ney's report about Dennewitz, he lost because the Saxons deserted, leaving a massive gap in his line?

Authors have work trough loads of biased material, trying to find out what really happened without having been present her-/himself, to fill in gaps based on their interpretation of the material. And as everyone has its own perspective, opinions will differ. One of the aspects making history never ending and interesting as well.

Have a nice weekend!
Geert