Waterloo: June 18, 1815: The Battle for Modern Europe

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

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

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.

I always "kind of" knew about the Battle of Waterloo; or at least thought I did. This book was short (only a few hours reading -- I wished there was more) but had an amazing amount of information and anecdotes presented in an informative and fun to read style. Finally I was able to feel like I really understood the pieces and the overall context of a battle that was probably the most important of the 19th century.