Waterloo: Day of Battle

(Note - When I originally wrote this review in 2006 for a different edition of "Waterloo: Day of Battle", I had my doubts that anyone would ever stumble across it. However, several people did over the course of a couple of years. that page went inactive, so I am reposting my review here, at what appears to be an active page for an edition of the book.) I was browsing for a military history, and I grabbed this in a hasty trip to our local library. As I checked the copyright, I thought "great, a book that's almost 40 years old, I bet that'll be _really_ riveting." Silly me. When you think about it, a history written over a hundred and fifty years after a battle is about as contemporary as one written two hundred years after. All of the source documents are available to writer of both eras. It is really the skill or lack thereof of the author that will set such a work apart. Howarth states at the outset that it is perhaps egocentric to expect to add to the historical accounts of one of the most written-about battles in history. He instead aims for a soldier's eye view, pieced together from the personal correspondences of the participants. He also explicitly avoids setting all material from the sources in quotes, preferring to write the history accurately, but in a style more akin to a fictional account with an omniscient observer. Too say the least, I was skeptical. However, as the story unfolded, I came to appreciate the wisdom of this approach. Howarth cuts rapidly between scenes, and constant block quotes would grow tedious. As he has written this, it flows very well. A reader is left with vivid descriptions of the horror of early 19th century battle. The deprivations and pain that was routinely endured, the stoicism of soldiers, and the character of the officers all come through. My favorite anecdote: It was actually possible to see a cannonball approaching if it was fired directly at you, but it was considered "unmanly" to duck. On top of this, although he denied that it was his goal, Howarth does a fair job of explaining the tactics and blunders on the field that day. He captures the stakes at hand, the air of invincibility that attached to Napoleon, and above all what a near thing the final outcome was. Simply fascinating. In summary, I have my doubts that anyone will ever stumble across this review. However, if you would like a concise and readable summary of such a critical battle in the history of Western Civilization, I strongly recommend that you consider this.

I was browsing for a military history, and I grabbed this in a hasty trip to our local library. As I checked the copyright, I thought "great, a book that's almost 40 years old, I bet that'll be really riveting." Silly me. When you think about it, a history written over a hundred and fifty years after a battle is about as contemporary as one written two hundred years after. All of the source documents are available to writer of both eras. It is really the skill or lack thereof of the author that will set such a work apart. Howath states at the outset that it is perhaps egocentric to expect to add to the historical accounts of one of the most written-about battles in history. He instead aims for a soldier's eye view, pieced together from the personal correspondences of the participants. He also explicitly avoids setting all material from the sources in quotes, preferring to write the history accurately, but in a style more akin to a fictional account with an omniscient observer. Too say the least, I was skeptical. However, as the story unfolded, I came to appreciate the wisdom of this approach. Howarth cuts rapidly between scenes, and constant block quotes would grow tedious. As he has written this, it flows very well. A reader is left with vivid descriptions of the horror of early 19th century battle. The deprivations and pain that was routinely endured, the stoicism of soldiers, and the character of the officers all come through. My favorite anecdote: It was actually possible to see a cannonball approaching if it was fired directly at you, but it was considered "unmanly" to duck. On top of this, although he denied that it was his goal, Howarth does a fair job of explaining the tactics and blunders on the field that day. He captures the stakes at hand, the air of invincibility that attached to Napoleon, and above all what a near thing the final outcome was. Simply fascinating. In summary, I have my doubts that anyone will ever stumble across this review. However, if you would like a concise and readable summary of such a critical battle in the history of Western Civilization, I strongly recommend that you consider this.

This is a brilliant book. David Howarth captured the great story of what it was really like at one of the most important events of history. He is unbiased and fair. His characters draw and compel you through the story. It is a book that I could not put down. I highly recommend it to everyone.

A detailed, compassionate and very moving account of the battle of Waterloo in 1815. David Howarth based this book on a kaleidoscope of 18 eye-witness accounts which explains its freshness. Who could not be moved by the fate of the newlyweds, Sir William & Lady de Lancey? Or angered by the Prince of Orange for his arrogance and stupidity? And how is it possible not to be fascinated by Lord Uxbridge's gruesome operation to ampute his leg?It is a book as relevant today as it ever was for the question David Howarth posed in his introduction "what makes a man, who joins an army and puts on a more or less exotic kind of dress, behave on the word of command entirely unlike himself, but like a ferocious animal?"

I have read several accounts of the battle over the years, and have visited the battlefield itself. All have impressed me with a feeling of awe at the bravery of the combatants and a prickly feeling that if Napolean had been in better health, then things would have gone differently. This book brings a firsthand realism to the description of the battle, errors in judgement described shew that even Marshals, Princes and Emperors are all too fallible, but overall there is the impression of the inexorable military might of France grinding away with reckless bravery at a thinly and bravely held Allied line. Luck, bad luck and the Fog of War and choice of position all played a part. Many brave, and perhaps less than brave, men died and their suffering is clearly described in this book, but overall my impression remains that it was too close for comfort.