And this all happens surprisingly early, both before, during and following on from his Italian campaigns, showing, as Chandler notes, a precociousness and audacity that would see Napoleon's star rapidly ascend. This first part of the story/trilogy is tremendously exciting, charting the improbable but seemingly inexorable rise of the young Napoleon. It has the colour and grandeur of Greco-Roman myth, which Napoleon would've liked and appreciated.
He then takes a Peninsular diversion, focussing mostly, in keeping with his title, on Napoleon's part in this theatre; from his 'ill considered decision to intervene in Spanish affairs', deputising to oft-incompetent subordinates, to his brief but effective personal intervention in the war itself, before returning to more central-European affairs, with the campaign against Austria in 1809.
For example, between the end of volume one, and the start of volume two, or roughly 1802-1805 . And, excepting the ongoing rumblings of the Peninsular, between 1809 and 1812 , when the narrative jumps from Wagram and the treaty Pressburg to the invasion of Russia. The latter debacle ends part two, and marks a foreboding and decisive end to the period of Napoleon's almost unassailable ascendency, and, in consequence, makes for a narrative that continues to be both gripping and dramatic.
This is factual history with excitement levels to eclipse all but the very best fiction. Indeed, history like this is better than practically all fiction, in my opinion. If someone made up a story like this, who would believe it? Napoleon returns from Elba with barely 1,000 men. And within days he's back in Paris - this whole story is the subject of the excellent 1815, The Return of Napoleon, by Paul Britten Austin - a whirlwind of activity, as he seeks peace whilst preparing for war. Encroyable!
Although Chandler is hardly a rank radical of the Jacobin variety, being in sober fact - as a professional military academic - far more likely to be on the conservative side of the spectrum, nevertheless, like Andrew Roberts in his turn (a more blatantly politically Conservative historian), one clearly senses the admiration, perhaps even the affection, Chandler has for his subject. And yet, again like Roberts, his excitement and awe don't cloud his judgement. We still get a balanced and critical view that gives both credit and finds fault where they are due.
 I've lost track of the number of times I've read authors describing the Napoleonic Wars as a foretaste of the World Wars of the 20th Century.
 Interestingly, Chandler gets around a commonly glossed over aspect of historical nomenclature here by calling his work 'The Campaigns of Napoleon'. The issue arises, I guess, because - strictly speaking, and despite Napoleon's involvement - the Wars of the 1st and 2nd Coalitions come under the heading of The Revolutionary Wars, whereas those of the following [x] coalitions are the Napoleonic Wars 'proper'.
 These volumes are concerned, as the title makes clear, with military history. But these large eras of peace throughout the areas of French dominance deserve more study, in my view. Not just to counter the persistent image of Boney as nowt more than a bloody warmonger, but simply because they're interesting in themselves. There has certainly been study made of the general unrest that bubbled away in and across Napoleonic Europe, such as Broer's excellent Napoleon's Oher War.