"He had his Waterloo..."
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 19th 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.
"An enemy should be outflanked, or enveloped, without separating one's own force."
"An enemy should be outflanked, or enveloped, without separating one's own force." Such "was a favourite military maxim of Napoleon's." Yet these "sensible rules of warfare were emphatically not adhered to by their author during Saturday, 17 and Sunday, 18 June 1815." Instead, Napoleon went straight at "the bottleneck before the Forest of Soignes," "adopt[ing] the frontal assault tactic at Waterloo." Including others as well, Andrew Roberts concludes that "the errors made by Napoleon and other French commanders during the Waterloo campaign were severe, indeed perhaps even decisive."
The end results: "Nearly 71,000 men were killed or wounded in the battle of Waterloo," going up to 120,300 if you add the results of battling the several days previous to this grand showdown 12 miles South of the gates of Brussels. "Nationally the breakdown over the entire 15-18 June period was roughly as follows: French casualties 67,500; Prussian 30,000; and Anglo-Allied 22,800." But the Battle of Waterloo had an even larger legacy, as well. The battle was "important because of the decisive and undeniable way that it finished off la Gloire, the French sense of military superiority that had been the central factor of European politics ever since Napoleon had taken over command of the Army of Italy in March 1796." Thus the 'long eighteenth century,' which began with Britain's Glorious Revolution, ended with a dramatic humiliation for Britain's rival. Waterloo consequently "heralded the true beginning of the modern British Empire." And "without la Gloire, France has had to live on her myths and with her ever-mounting roll of defeats, from Sedan to 1940 to Dien Bien Phu." Hence the character of the European Union of today. In an editorial entitled "The European Opportunity" (June 2007), the New York Sun lamented the fact that "Though superficially modeled on the United States, the European Union owes more to Napoleon than to Madison..." That's what the EU is, after all, an attempt by other means to bring about that which went down to failure at Waterloo: A united Europe with France at its helm. Even after the resounding refusal of the French people in 2005 to affirm the recently proposed European Constitution Paris refuses to take Non for an answer, and thus it is likely to be put forth in the latter half of the inaugural decade of the 21th century again; this time, most likely, without recourse to a referendum, so as to make sure it gets enacted. The Battle of Waterloo, one could whimsically argue---if it wasn't so undemocratically serious---has far too close a parallel to the film "Ground Hog Day," wherein the central character portrayed by Bill Murray rises each morning to find it is the same day over and over again, and thus gets to try all sorts of shenanigans until he is able to get things ordered just as he would like them to be. That's why Andrew Roberts terms Waterloo "The Battle for Modern Europe." The battle, of course was lost by France. All the details are herein provided by Mr. Roberts in this short book of <100 argued pages (with an unannotated bibliography that I really wish was annotated; hence my rating above) but that hasn't stopped the French from trying to effect a rearguard action ever since. (07Jun) Cheers
A summary of the battle that doomed the Emperor.
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.
Great Overview
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.
A competent brief of the battle
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.
