Gareth Glover has written an extraordinarily thorough and interesting history of Napoleon Bonaparte in Napoleon in 100 Objects.

But it's the wrong title.

The "100 Objects" books I've read in the past have examined 100 artifacts from a particular place or period in history and explained their connection to the person, place or time under discussion. Each relic is photographed and explained in brief detail, all of which adds up in the course of the book to a fairly thorough understanding of the topic.

Glover knows his subject in and out, and his examination of Napoleon's life and deeds appears flawless. (Certainly, his library of previous books on Napoleon proves his utter mastery of the topic.) But he only sometimes ties the objects pictured in the book to the history he's exploring.

The problem becomes apparent very quickly. The first "item" in the book is Casa Buonaparte, the house in Ajaccio where Napoleon was born in 1769. Glover provides some incredible details about the family and his childhood there, but tells us nothing about the house itself. What is it like inside? Does it look today like it did then? Is it open to tourists?

The second item in the book is a bust of Madame Mere, Napoleon's mother. Again, Glover tells us a lot about her in two pages, but nothing about the bust. What artist created it? Where can it be seen today? The third item is a statue of Pasquale di Paoli, whose life was of great import to Napoleon, but Glover never says where the statue is located. Further along is an interesting photograph of an Arabic sabre Napoleon used on his Egyptian campaign, but in four pages of text about the campaign, Glover never mentions the sword. Where did it come from? Why did he use it instead of the sword he doubtlessly carried from Europe? Did he take it home with him, and is it in France or Egypt now? Readers have no clue.

Much of the book is like that. Great information, well researched and presented, but little to nothing about the objects for which the book is titled and around which it's organized.

So, I find myself at a loss. Do I applaud Glover's incredible scholarship or do I fault him for veering away from the book's primary purpose as described in its title?

Well, ultimately, I enjoyed reading Glover's book because it's a fascinating collection of little-known biographical information and trivia surrounding Napoleon's life. There's a wealth of information here, and since it's a topic of interest to me, I was engrossed in the narrative.

Still, some context for the items pictured in the book would have been nice ... or else a different title on the book, to alter readers' expectations.