The Illustrious Dead: The Terrifying Story of How Typhus Killed Napoleon's Greatest Army Paperback – June 1, 2010

"The Illustrious Dead", by Stephen Talty is sub-titled "the terrifying story of how typhus killed Napoleon's greatest army. That is pure hyperbole, presumably dreamt up to sell more books.The book does not need such sensationalist flourishes. Talty writes well. That, plus the epic nature of Napoleon's 1812 Russian Campaign, is sufficient to ensure the book would sell well.Until quite recent times, disease has always been a bigger cause of military casualties than actual battle.Most accounts of military campaigns focus on the politics, strategies and personalities involved. Logistics and other factors are mentioned where they played a decisive role. Illness and disease are rarely given the prominence they deserve.Talty's book is a welcome account of just how important disease has been in military campaigns. He also briefly describes how typhus spread even further once infected troops returned home.Napoleon entered Russia with 440,000 frontline troops. Four months later, he had only 75,000 left. Perhaps 200,000 of the losses were due to disease, primarily typhus. The extent of the losses caused doctors of the day to remark upon it.It is a pity that Minard's famous chart of Napoleon's Russian Campaign ([...]) was not included in the book. His chart is the best depiction one can find of the horrendous losses incurred on that campaign. It would have made an excellent cover illustration.Had the losses been less, perhaps Napoleon would have been bolder in using his troops in battle, especially at Borodino, where he has been criticised for not committing his reserves to battle at decisive moments.The battle of Borodino is described reasonably well for the general reader, but particularly harrowing is the following chapter on "The Hospital." The book is worth reading for this chapter alone. As a description of battlefield "medicine" it is one of the better accounts I have read. This shows Talty's writing at its best.It is pointless to speculate on the "what ifs" of history, but Talty gives a plausible account of what may have been the result of a French victory in Russia. It is un-necessary padding, in my opinion.Modern readers can't readily appreciate the physical impact of the immense distances soldiers marched in the days before mechanisation. Napoleon's army marched truly epic distances during the campaign. On occasion they had to undertake forced marches to achieve tactical surprise. This mobility was one of the features on Napoleon's armies. But long, gruelling marches with poor food and shelter make the impact of disease.I would have liked a better account of Russian strategy and tactics after Borodino. These aspects are treated very cursorily. Talty focuses more on the personal foibles of Katuzov, the Russian commander. This may have distracted the reader from the main tale, so I can understand the omission.There are some maps illustrating the major battles in Russia, but they are impressionistic only and will disappoint readers who are interested in the tactical details of the battles. It would have been useful to have one overall map of the whole theatre of operations so readers could quickly locate place names.One minor quibble is the amount of repetition throughout the book. "The Belgian doctor J L R de Kerckhove" is mentioned a number of times in the text. Why not simply refer to "Dr de Kerchove" after the first reference? A lengthy description of the progress and symptoms of typhus in its victims is given twice. This is sloppy editing."The Illustrious Dead" is a welcome book. It was high time someone wrote a good account of how disease wasted Napoleon's army and probably indirectly influenced his tactics at crucial times.

As soon as I saw this book I wanted to read it. I read War and Peace way back as a teenager, and fell in love with the story. A good part of that story is based on Napoleon's attempt to attack Moscow and then his retreat. I teach pathophysiology in college, so I'm always on the look out for good infectious disease stories, and this more than fit. You can never underestimate the stupidity of men when they have dreams of glory and especially to expand an empire. Napoleon should have quit while he was ahead. Instead of being happy with most of Europe, he wanted to try farther afield. Even more than today, he should have kept his eye not on Russia, but on disease passed by lice and mites and ticks, and bad water and bad food too. This book may seem a bit slow at first, but it catches fire after a while.We are currently seeing the same thing again. Hitler also tried to go to Russia, and again the weather and Typhus botched his plans. We know Typhus exists in places where people cannot keep clean. Many think that typhus is a disease from the past, but there was a huge outbreak among the homeless in Lost Angeles last year. No matter how many times we have to remind people, infectious disease can make a fool out of your plans. Napoleon learned this the hard way...

I am an avid reader of medical history books, especially the history of diseases. This was not my favorite for a few reasons.First, this book is more or less a story of Napoleon's attempt to invade Russia. The typhus story is a consistent theme, but it frankly is not the main story. Now, in fairness, I don't think you can adequately explain how typhus was able to ravage the Grand Armee so easily unless you provide context, so in that regard, the Russian invasion narrative was necessary to some degree. That being said, I felt as though the subtitle ("How Typhus Killed Napoleon's Greatest Army") is misleading because it implies that the book's central focus is typhus when it really wasn't.Second, I like wartime histories, but some of the battle scenes in this book were exceptionally drawn-out and boring, especially if you are going into it looking for a medical drama. If you are looking for details about Napoleon's invasion of Russia, this is probably your book, but it is still kind of dry. The subject matter itself is actually very dramatic (typhus is a horrible way to die, and the details of the army's brutal march, occupation of Moscow, creation of battlefield hospitals, etc, are actually pretty interesting), but the writing makes an otherwise interesting subject matter seem like a slog.The description of the inadequate makeshift hospitals was probably the best (worst?) part of this book because of the fact that medical knowledge at the time is so far removed from what we know today, and the battlefield hospitals were grossly unprepared for the number of battlefield and typhus casualties. If you are at all squeamish, I do not recommend reading these sections.Overall, I give this book three stars because it contained good information, but it is not really a book about typhus, and it is somewhat boring as historical nonfiction goes.

It took a few weeks to arribe but my Dad is very happy with the present

fascinating insite to the campaigne of 1812, possibly the closes story of what happened you can get-TB