Most Helpful Customer Reviews
25 of 30 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
New Perspectives Indeed - An Invaluable Account of Waterloo, December 25, 2003
This review is from: Waterloo: New Perspectives: The Great Battle Reappraised (Paperback)
Having read everything I can on the Waterloo battle I still find this book to be absolutely essential. I've read the critics who fault the author on many levels but I must say that he answers several questions that literally no other author has thus far addressed. 1) Why did Picton die crying, "Rally the Highlanders?" Were not the British lines indestructable? 2) How did a few companies of British Guards hold Hougamont against most of a French corps? After all, didn't the German and Nassau troops flee in terror? (see Jac Weller et al) 3) Why did the French Army fall apart and flee for their lives when the Middle Guard was repulsed, yet most could not see farther than twenty feet on the smoke filled battle field? Could it have had something to do with Ziethen's advance, ignored even in the otherwise excellent 'Waterloo Companion'? 4) Did Napoleon really lie about Grouchy's arrival - or did the attack by the Prussians on the Nassau forces on Wellington's left make him think Grouchy truly had arrived? Until at least one other author addresses these questions I submit that Hamilton Williams is the man to read. Not to mention the fact that his commentary reads like an adventure story and his account of the battle is quite simply the best so far written by anyone. The attacks on H-W by Peter Hofshroyer should also be taken with a large grain of salt. I was shocked by that until I realized htat H-W stole a march on him by getting to print first with what was certainly the first English language account of the battle to give proper credit to the Dutch Belgians, Prussians and various Germans. This book belongs in any serious military history collection and truly does offer a "new perspective".
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
20 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Authors Comment, April 10, 2008
This review is from: Waterloo: New Perspectives: The Great Battle Reappraised (Paperback)
I am the author. I wish to answer the sustained attacks on my books over the last fifteen years by Micheal Le Vean et als. This man and his friends have spent years attacking my books and defaming me, they do so because I would not take part in and opposed their undemocratic coup d'etat to oust Robert Snibbe as president of the Napoleonic Society of America in 1994. Le Vean evens quotes the late Col. Elting to discredit me putting words into his mouth, which cannot now be disputed. Their friend and colleague Peter Hofshroer and his `partner' David Hollins also try to denigrate my work, in Hofshroer's case my book came out first and stole his thunder vis a vis the Prussians , Dutch-Belgian and Germans true role in the Campaign.I have been severely disabled for the last thirty years due to a spinal injury and now a severe heart and lung condition from being housebound and it's been too traumatic for me to counter their lies until now. I cannot, however, continue to accept this venomous spite from these persons without answering them as it's embarrassing to my family. Many people have faulted my sources, (quite rightly) and I have been too unwell to answer but I do so now.
I was approached by Arms and Armour press in 1991 on the recommendation of two historians that I had corresponded with for many years. I was commissioned to write a book about the fall of Napoleon and Waterloo. This I did. However, in 1993, seven weeks before my manuscript was due to be handed in, I had a panicked editor on my doorstep who said that he needed a book on Waterloo and to scrap "the politics"! Being a first time author I was coerced in to starting my manuscript again from scratch, either that or they said they would not publish it. In six weeks I wrote New Perspectives from start to finish, culling it from the original work; Writing, assembling photographs and maps and proof reading this "new work in just six weeks was huge undertaking and one I have never been happy with. It meant that many of my citations were either copied wrongly or numbered incorrectly. I was not even allowed a bibliography on the grounds of cost so I tried to cite as many works in the footnotes as possible. The bibliography appeared in my other book "The Fall of Napoleon" published a few weeks later. This was the first part of my original book, the second part (unpublished) was the machinations leading to Napoleon's return from Elba and King Murat's campaign against Austria in 1815; Waterloo and St.Helena (unpublished) being the last part. Thirty years work cut up and badly produced. Such is the power of the publisher. I also cringed at what the PR said on the jacket, but there again I had no say. Having been disabled for over three decades, I have spent my enforced isolation in researching Napoleonic archives(cited in "The Fall of Napoleon") and obtaining international accounts of the period, mainly by correspondence. Due to my injuries, I have been able to devote all my time to studying rather than being a `part-time' author/researcher with a full-time occupation. After a most vitriolic personal attack by the above named critics, I suffered a severe heart attack in 1994 and withdrew from writing anymore books as I am not well enough to fight back against such personal vindictiveness that follows a publication and the game did not seem to be worth the candle. I also did not feel like answering their personal libels and slanders as to my private life as this is an old trick to make me look guilty by having perpetually to justify myself and therefore look at fault by doing so. Finally, as to my veracity, I was made a Fellow of the International Napoleon Society in 1996 and I was awarded its highest award The Legion of Merit in 2001, for my lifetime services to Napoleonic history. If anyone is in doubt as to the veracity of this, they need only contact the INS or go to their website www.napoleonicsociety.com/english/officers.htm. May I take this opportunity to thank all those readers who have judged my books on their merit and have not been swayed by all the venom generated against me.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
20 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Justly Discredited or mere character assassination?, March 12, 2004
By A Customer
This review is from: Waterloo: New Perspectives: The Great Battle Reappraised (Paperback)
I purchased this book precisely because it is one one of the few volumes still in print with anything close to full coverage of the Waterloo campaign, and with more or less the least amount of identity politics. Despite all the author's plugging of his own books-to-come and his claims, which are a good deal too much for the dust jacket and all, the book collapses on simply being a reasonably accurate accurate account of (mostly) the battles of Quatre-Bras and Waterloo (among the French, British, and Dutch/German/Belgian allies). There simply isn't anything terribly new or controversial in his book and I disagree with Peter Hofschroer's remark about its content being thrown in doubt, all other issues with him notwithstanding. The content is still too derivative, too close to previous works and experience (the Siborne, for example) for that to be the case. The interested reader is challenged to find another volume with the same amount of coverage of the Battle of Quatre-Bras, for example. The author, it appears in parts of the book, does not attempt as much coverage of those areas with which were not evidently well researched (The Prussian contibution, perhaps thus some of Mr Hofschroer's vitriolics). The author does indeed venture to make make his opinions and interpretations, some of which the reader has to take with a grain of salt, but that is his authorial prerogative. We see that Mr Hofschroer clearly enjoys his privilege as well. The author's account is, overall and despite the criticism, surprisingly balanced. The writing is usually good and entertaining. Hamilton-Williams account is by no means a "fiction." I still find his attempts a good deal more useful in guiding me a little closer to the truth than the massive omissions so common in other volumes still in print which purport to cover the Waterloo campaign. Personally I am tired of hearing all the petty squabbling among historians, amateur and some (huh-hum) professional, over who really won Waterloo, and worse yet the endless bickering among pedantic source hunters. When the reader who has access to enough of the excellent volumes and materials on the subject becomes fairly expert enough, he or she can cross check the common stories, narratives, or sources of quotes, most often without having to be a source hunter. There is criticism, even polemics, and then there is character assassination. I have yet to find a reasonable published account which proves D. H-W deliberately falsified his written account anywhere of the Waterloo campaign. I will wait to hear the author defend himself first before I pass judgement. Moreover, take with more than just a grain of salt the many unprofessional reviews made by one "Michael La Vean" on this and David Hamilton-Williams other page. They smack of cheap personal vendetta and not anything resembling reasonable criticism. One wonders if they were to research Mr La Vean's own claims (if that is his real name) as to his identity and credentials what would turn up, if anything. I do not believe that a fellow of the International Napoleonic society would engage in ceaseless juvenile ranting as he has done on this site, making such serious and unsupported claims of his own. Furthermore, his methods are of such a common variety internet persona that he almost seems as if to materialize again and again in the guise of a reader from West Point, or from Moscow, London, Brussels, or who knows what other place names with any relevence to matters of Napoleonic military history.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
