Wellington at Waterloo

I read this book 30 years ago when I was in college. Later, when I was fortunate enough to tour the Waterloo battlefield, this book helped me understand where and how the major events of the battle took place. As it's title indicates, this book revolves around Wellington. Weller describes the battle as if it were a chess game. Napoleon made a move; Wellington made an even better counter-move. If the Anglo-Allies made any mistakes it was because the Prince of Orange issued some moronic order. In a general way this may not have been too far from the truth. Of course, any battle involving nearly 200,000 men trying to kill one another is much more chaotic than that. This criticism aside, this is an excellent book by a careful historian. Certainly, explaining the battle from Wellington's point of view is useful since all the average private soldier usually saw during the battle was the shako of the man in front of him. Weller carefully explains each stage of the battle, including the French "tirailleurade," which is not often noted in other accounts of the battle and which came perilously close to breaking the Anglo-Allied line. I highly recommend this oldie-but-goodie for anyone interested in Napoleonic military history.

There have been many outstanding books written about the Battle of Waterloo and the Duke of Wellington. The strength of Weller's book is that he synthesizes all of these sources into a very readable narrative of Wellington's actions in Waterloo. The book focuses mostly on Wellington. It has some excellent chapters on what led up to the battle, the organization of the armies, and most importantly battlefield tactics and strategy. He then spends several chapters (maybe half the book) on the battles of Quatre Bras and Waterloo. He also has a chapter dedicated to raising and either debunking or supporting criticisms that other historians have raised about the performance of the British, Prussian, and French armies. Jac Weller was clearly passionate about Wellington. He spent many days walking over the battlefields to put his research into better perspective. He included many maps and pictures, though the pictures are grainy black and whites that probably date for the 60s. I've been to Waterloo several times since the early 90s, and I'd expect that Weller would find the area significantly changed from when he wrote this book. His last chapter is basically his recommendation for a walking tour of the battlefields. My guess is that most of what he recommends can't be followed today. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Bernard Cornwell has written many books about the British Army of this time period in his Sharpe series. Quoting from his website, "[t]here are plenty of good books on Wellington's battles and campaigns, but these three [includes Weller's books on Peninsular War and India], I think, belong on the shelf of anyone who takes a serious interest in the Napoleonic wars." I agree.

We are too often blinded by the supposed "brilliance" of Napoleon, but at Waterloo his shortcomings were finally exposed. This book sets out to give an even-handed account of the battle, and presents both commanders in a realistic light. As an avid student of the era, I have long found it strange how Wellington, outnumbered as he was, could win the battle of Waterloo, and yet still "come in second" to Napoleon, whom he so clearly bested.This worthy book demonstrates that Wellington and Napoleon may have been equal in talent in most departments, but in two areas, the Iron Duke had a clear advantage: he could see "the other side of the hill", and he was always present on a battlefield where he was most needed, at the precise moment he was most needed.For the apologists for Napoleon, this book will make hard reading. For once an author is not blinded by the light of the late Emperor's posthumous PR machine, and assesses his military talents objectively and coldly, a task long overdue.Buy this book.

Jac Weller gives an evenhanded account of the great battle of Waterloo, particularly in his assessment of the non-British units under Wellington's command. Also specifically noted are the contributions of the Prussians under Blucher and their long arduous day just to get to the battlefield. The German and Dutch troops fighting alongside the British are given their due and there is much detail to substantiate their worthiness. The author never claims that either Wellington or Blucher were superior than Napoleon on the battlefield, but he clearly points out that both of them outshined the Emperor on June 18, 1815. Weller also states Napoleon's view of what happened on that date; he blamed others such as Ney and Soult, but never himself. The author is quick to note that Napoleon's own brother, Jerome, was mystified by his absence during crucial times of the battle. The debate will go on, but Weller makes the case that Napoleon's actions during the battle and his underestimation of the opposition were the leading factors in his demise.

Having read many books on Wellington and the Battle of Waterloo, I find this to be one of the best. A further indication of its quality and value to students of the campaign is the fact that Bernard Cornwell, author of the Sharpe novels, listed this as one of his primary sources.