Customer Reviews

Waterloo: June 18, 1815: The Battle for Modern Europe (Making History)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

What other reviewers cite as a deficiency is what makes this book worth buying -- it is a short, easy-to-read summary of Waterloo. If you don't have the desire to read longer works or you just need a quick understanding of what happened that day, this is the book for you. It's up-to-date with current arguments and does an excellent job of summarizing the days' major events and phases. If you're a diehard Napoleonic Wars fan, or if you've read other books on Waterloo, you probably won't find much new here.

This book is an Anglophile summary of the named battle. It might be useful as an introduction, as it was intended, and I think Roberts' strength is in making the simultaneous actions of the campaign comprehensible.

There's much here that's good. The motives behind the main players are plausibly sketched. The book is a reasonable summary of the action of battle itself, especially describing the struggle of the British holding Hougoumont farm, and an interesting discussion of the cavalry charge by Ney. It is also a reasonable description of Napoleonic era tactics and scissor-paper-stone relationship between field artillery, cavalry, and infantry squares.

But I wonder why British military historians feel the need to generate such dire speculations on what would have happen had Napoleon's Guard's charge succeeded - they seem to think the inevitable next step would be Napoleon hanging the tricolor from Windsor Castle, and the French army parading down Pall Mall. This book is proof that the battle continues to be a touchstone, a source of myth and historical speculation. That its importance is overemphasized is perhaps a minor fault of a brief summary as this.

WATERLOO is one of the finer single-subject books I've ever read. A terse 122 page account of the battle which simultaneously triggered the golden age of the British Empire, the fall of Napoleon, and the end of the 19th century, it is the sort of book which can be read in a day or two, but which leaves a lasting impression on the reader's mind. It was worth every penny of the pittance I paid for it at Borders, where I discovered it in the discount bin - an undeserved fate for a work of this class, or a subject this important.

Now, I admit I know sod-all about the Napoleonic era, and oddly enough, I can't say this book much improved my knowledge, because author Andrew Roberts isn't interested in discussing much about the events which preceded the battle. It may be that he assumes the reader knows the history of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars; it may be he was simply trying to save space. It makes little difference. Roberts seems to feel the battle's inherent drama obviates the need for a lot of backstory, and he's bloody well right. In this corner (he seems to be saying) you have the Duke of Wellington, who was undefeated against the French even after years of fighting them in the brutal Peninsular Wars; in the opposite corner, the Emperor Napoleon, winner of seventy battles and undefeated against the British. Now, let's get it on and see who wins...

WATERLOO covers a lot of ground for such a short book, but its main emphasis is on reconstructing the battle in its particulars - the blood-and-guts realities of advancing in close-packed ranks under heavy fire, the confusion of a smoke-wreathed battlefield, the agony of hauling heavy guns through deep mud. In other words, it's more about what the battle was like for the privates, sergeants and captains than for the major-generals trying to direct it. And this is what makes the book so entertaining, and such a refreshing departure from most military literature: at no time does Roberts let the reader forget what a horrible, chaotic, error-ridden mess a battle is, particularly in the era before telegraph, radio or observation baloon. The Soviet military axiom, "Wars are not won by the most competent army; they are won by the least incompetent army" is more or less affirmed here, but the point is made without too much Monday-morning quarterbacking. Roberts understands the staggering burdens the generals of this era were saddled with, and emphasizes instead the enormous courage required of the participants.

No book is perfect, and WATERLOO has its brown spots. Roberts comes off as just a bit too partisan in favor of the British, and in his conclusion he finally succumbs to the temptation of telling the French (i.e. Napoleon) what they "should have done" in the battle, which is a bit of a conceit - no historian, however brilliant, can ever reconstruct in his own mind the chaos and uncertainty of a command headquarters in the midst of a great battle. But these are minor quibbles. When the book really sings - as it does when Roberts depicts the savage fighting between Marshal Ney's cavalry and the British infantry squares, certainly one of the epic duels in all of warfare, and one fought with equal gallantry and courage on both sides - it sings loud. Furthermore, he also does a fine job of explaining just why Waterloo was (and is) so important - how it put an end to the 127 year period known as the "long 18th century" and shaped the development of modern Europe to this very hour.

I have a rule of thumb: any time you know the outcome of a tale, but still get sweaty-palmed during the telling of it, you know the storyteller has done his job. In WATERLOO, Andrew Roberts spins an old and familiar yarn, but damn, does he spin it well.

Though it is short, there are a number of tantalizing insights in this book. Not all will agree with Roberts, but he has made a serious attempt to convey what happened.

This very brief little book does a fine job describing Waterloo in less than 150 pages. One might assume that such a short study would be insufficient. But the author does not waste any of his words and provides a fine, general description of the campaign and battle.

He even incorporates some of the recent research which tries to give more credit to Wellington's German and Allied troops. The Prussian contribution is given major consideration and is shown that their intervention was decisive. As the author points out, The Iron Duke would not have made his stand at Mont St. Jean if he had not been assured of Prussian assistence.

A very interesting point is made about the French massed cavalry attacks allegedly launched by Ney, and long a controversy about this battle. Here the author quotes some recent information that states that the French Grenadiers-a-Cheval and other Guards cavalry may have been responsible for the attacks. Over zealous adjustments by the French cavalry created a massed charge quite out of Nappy's or Ney's control. An interesting point, and worth considering.

While there are certainly mored detailed studies of the famous battle out there, I give this work 5 stars because it serves as an excellent intro to the subject. If this were the only book to read about the wars of this period, it would provide the novice reader a good basic understanding. WATERLOO succeeds as a fine, general read of the famous battle, and rewards even the well versed reader on the subject. Recommeded.

Recommended as an intro to the subject; Waterloo buffs will probably want more detail. Roberts tells the story, but also adds nice detail (e.g., the damage cannonballs could do). The books touches upon all the mistakes, but Roberts cautions us against using 20/20 hindsight. If you only have time for one quick read on the subject...

I liked this short concise history of the Battle of Waterloo. Some people may gripe about the shortness of this account, but it does a summary job of this famous battle. Roberts dispels the notion that if Napolean had won this battle, he would have continued to rule France. More likely, he would have been defeated by other armies converging on France. Napolean was a gambler by nature, and it shows in the summary history of this battle. He commited the Guard too late, and divided his troops too soon. He lost the battle because of this, and also because of Wellington and his troops.

This is a nice easy to read history of the battle. Roberts summarizes the five stages of the battle in easy to read formats. A nice read.

In "Waterloo: June 18, 1815: The Battle for Modern Europe," Andrew Roberts manages to summarize a complex battle, some of whose aspects are still controversial, in just 122 pages plus three worthwhile appendices. Roberts writes in clear, easy to understand prose, surveying the battle from the strategic to the tactical levels. He includes a number of well-chosen vignettes at the individual level to provide a sense of scale of the battle, as well as necessary explanation on the equipment and organizations of the participating armies.

Roberts quickly touches a number of the academic controversies about the battle. Among others, these include the status of Napoleon's health during the Waterloo Campaign, the extent of Wellington's surprise at the French crossing of the border, the placement of allied troops at Hal to block a possible French flanking manuever on the Mont St. Jean position, and the cooperation between Wellington and Blucher. In each case, he deftly mentions the nature of the controversy, offers a brief opinion, and moves on. Serious students of Waterloo may find this approach overly simplified, but it should suffice for the average reader. Roberts does go to some effort to mention the the contributions of all members of the allied coalition that fought at Waterloo, including Belgian and Dutch units that are often neglected.

The treatment of the course of the battle of Waterloo follows a commonly used breakdown of the combat into five phases. Roberts' real gift is his ability to present the story of Waterloo in a manner that covers the significant details but can be followed by the average reader. Of necessity, Roberts has simplified a great deal of information to achieve the short format; this work is focused on the battle rather than the larger campaign of the hundred days. He includes a nice bibliography for those readers seeking more detail. There is also a nice selection of maps and photos to orient the reader.

This book is highly recommended for the casual reader seeking a managable and enjoyable summary of the Battle of Waterloo.

This is a very short, approachable, book on Waterloo: it clocks in at less than 100 pages of text, with a bunch of pictures and appendices taking up the page count. Despite that, it's the perfect introduction to that battle: not the Peninsula war before it, not the Napoleonic wars generally, or anything else. What it aims to do, it does, and quite superbly.

The subtitle and thesis of the book is that of Napoleon's "last gamble". It appears that Waterloo was in some ways uncharacteristic for the Emporer, but its also clear that he brought these problems on himself with a series of risks which ultimately failed to pay off. Even with this, it is clear how much this was "a damned close run thing" and the tragedy of a battle won, from the Anglo-Allied perspective.

Roberts runs through the battlefield itself, the weather, and the oncoming Prussians to set the scene and show the action beautifully. There are extracts from letters and statements by soldiers, as well as some discussion of various myths, rumours and theories surrounding Waterloo. I assume there are more complete studies of Waterloo out there, but this is an excellent addition to them.

This is not my favourite account of the battle of Waterloo, and Roberts nails his colours to the mast early on by acknowledging Peter Hofshroer (a revisionist of the first order) in his introduction.

I don't know that this account really added anything more to the discussions on waterloo. There are only so many sources of the battle and it is always a matter of reinterpreting what is said to be mistinterpreted in the first place.

The main problem is that, it seems, because the allied forces won the battle and therefore wrote the final account (including it seems naming it) this must mean that there needs to be a reinterpretation of how it has been written. I don't necessarily agree with this premise in the first place, so maybe I am not the best person to read revisionist accounts with an open mind. However I definitely don't believe that this account does revisionism any justice. For a short book it seems to have a number of unforgiveable errors in it.

I think for an original account DAvid Howarth';s book, Waterloo, day of battle is an excellent and very personal account of the event. I know that John Keegan argued in his book 'Face of Battle' that while Howarth's book gives the best personal account of the battle there was still room for another account of the movements etc, I don't believe Robert's book really adds to the body of work available - either on the personal or the military.

The advantage is that it is a short and punchy book, you can read it in an afternoon without too much effort.