When reading a history book the author's view of history is superimposed on the events. Of course, we could go further and start talking about various schools of thought on what history actually is in the first place, but that would likely end up in a lot of useless mental masturbation that separates academia from the real world, where results matter.

If any one of those books were read in isolation, just as if any biography is read without reference to another biography, the author's opinions probably go unquestioned a bit more. Wawro's Franco-Prussian War had made several claims about the Prussians' organization and their guns, when in fact the French guns were better by 1870 (certainly, the Prussian rifles beat the Austrians in 1866). The organization was certainly part of the reason the Prussians crushed the French - they held their ground under withering fire that decimated their ranks in a matter of seconds - but the real advantage was that Prussian massed artillery was able to pin down French units and allow the Prussian infantry, decimated or not, to get in close enough where their precision fire and organization would win the day. This negated the French rifles' advantages at long distances.

Ultimately, it sounds as though this biography is a failure because it so focuses on Napoleon that it doesn't provide a proper context for what was happening in the world, which is vitally important in biographies of this sort. An excellent example of a biography that provides context is Massie's Peter the Great, which is quite possibly the best biography ever written of anyone and by anyone.