Thank you Kevin,

I accept that you did not make any assessment of "Imperial Glory". You did however offer a quote in support of your argument which suggests to me, at least, that you consider the commentary within the book to be both relevant and stand up to scrutiny.

From Imperial Glory: The Bulletins of Napoleon's Grande Armee, 1805-1814, 1:

'All governments and all leaders use a variety of methods to ensure that the public is aware of their political or military successes. Those exploits that are successful seldom need great embellishment, though they often get it. Those that are less successful often are magically transformed into something more positive than reality would indicate. We call this effort to promote the activities of a government or of a leader 'propaganda'...

We might add, those that are disastrous might also be left out altogether. I accept that it could be argued that the majority of the engagements in the peninsular, where the Emperor and the grande armée were not present, might be reasonable justification for their omission. On the other hand, it could also be argued that these minor engagements have no place in a work entitled Imperial Glory.

Best wishes
A