Waterloo: June 18, 1815: The Battle For Modern Europe by Andrew Roberts

Waterloo: June 18, 1815: The Battle For Modern Europe Reviews

• 
  Gary Inbinder

  Just because you have been beaten by Wellington,’ he told them, ‘you think he’s a good general. But I tell you that Wellington is a bad general and the English are bad troops.’ The whole business would be, he assured them, ‘l’affaire d’un déjeuner’ (a picnic).
  Napoleon to his senior commanders the morning of the battle of Waterloo
  
  ‘a damned nice thing – the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life’.
  The Duke of Wellington describing his victory at Waterloo
  
  Roberts has written a compelling narrative of one of the most consequential battles in the history of Western Civilization. His description of the campaign and battle is engaging, detailed and interspersed with excerpts from the memoirs and letters of men who fought on both sides, from the commanders down to the private soldiers. These excerpts from personal histories lend immediacy and authenticity to the narrative. Roberts’ conclusion is an after-action report supported by facts and evidence developed from two centuries of examination of the battle. In his analysis, the author sticks to the known facts and his own observations, cutting through the fog of inaccuracies, distortions and propaganda promulgated over the centuries by advocates on both sides.
  
  In a chess game, each side can make questionable moves or blunders that the other side may or may not take advantage of. In the final analysis, while Wellington wasn’t perfect—no general, or human being for that matter, ever is—most of the questionable moves were made by Napoleon. Moreover, for Napoleon to blame his Marshals for his own mistakes, which he did, was like a chess master blaming the pieces for failing to extricate themselves from the bad positions in which he had placed them. Nevertheless, Napoleon’s errors should not exculpate his Marshals who, at critical moments in the battle, did not serve either their commander, or those under their command, well.
  But armchair generals shouldn’t be too critical, either. Hindsight is twenty-twenty and Roberts is careful to point out how both sides in an early 19th century battle faced considerable “fog of war” obstacles, especially when it came to communications, logistics, unfavorable weather, observation of the enemy and terrain, intelligence gathering and coordination of command.
  
  We should not leave the battlefield without reflecting on the terrible cost in lives.
  “Nearly 71,000 men were killed or wounded in the battle of Waterloo and its immediate aftermath, to which horrific toll must be added 2,600 casualties in frontier clashes on 15 June, the 32,500 at Ligny, 8,800 at Quatre Bras, 400 on the retreat from Quatre Bras and 5,000 at Wavre – making a total of 120,300.”
  Definitely not Napoleon’s ‘l’affaire d’un déjeuner’.
  
  Roberts concludes with observations concerning Waterloo’s aftermath, including, but not limited to, the 19th century rise of the British Empire and the relative decline of France. He also mentions the rise of the United States once freed from its perilous embroilment in the European conflict. Among other things, the U.S. was free to explore, settle and develop the vast territory it had purchased from France in 1804, which marked the beginnings of a continental superpower.
  
  This edition includes relevant maps and very useful information contained in letters (Appendices I, II, and III), notes and bibliography.
  
• 
  Betsy

  This is a short but entertaining book about Waterloo. Maps are nonexistent, but fortumately, it is easy to understand anyway. The final chapter gives a succinct appraisal of what Napoleon and Wellington/Blucher did wrong during the campaign. For the Allied cause, more things were done right, which made the difference.
  
  Even though I have read many books about the great battle, I enjoyed this book. It would be a good start for someone just beginning to read about the heady days of June, 1815.
• 
  Erleyne

  De geschiedenis als avontuur van 'grote mannen'
  
  Na mijn bezoek aan de Leeuw van Waterloo ter nagedachtenis van de slag, wilde ik altijd al eens wat meer weten over de slag zelf. Helaas past mijn interesse en manier van geschiedenis beleven niet helemaal bij de stijl van de auteur van deze - relatief korte - schets.
  
  Het geeft een overzicht van de slag aan de hand van alle onderdelen uit de verschillende legers (waar naast Fransen, Engelsen en Nederlanders ook de Pruisen een grote rol speelden tot mijn lichte verbazing). Geschiedenis zoals ik het jaren geleden volgde in het vak 'militaire geschiedenis'. Met de nadruk op de genialiteit (of blunders) van de legerleiding. En verbazingwekkend weinig aandacht voor de niet-rationele kant van het leven.
  
  Natuurlijk, Roberts beschrijft de verschrikkingen van de stormachtige nacht voor de slag en de invloed die het had op het moraal van de voetsoldaten. Natuurlijk beschrijft hij hier en daar iets over de onderlinge verhoudingen tussen de generaals. En de invloed van trots en (zelf) vertrouwen bij het voeren van zo'n slag. Maar nergens komt hij verder dan dat.
  
  Voor wie een relatief eenvoudig overzicht wil van wat er in de slag gebeurde, wie er betrokken was en hoe de militaire beslissingen genomen zijn, een prima boekje. Voor wie geschiedenis vanuit een moderner en holistische oogpunt wil onderzoeken, beleven en begrijpen, een teleurstelling.
• 
  Paul

  The battle at Waterloo marked the final end of Napoleon’s reign in France and, according to Andrew Roberts, the logical end of the eighteenth century. Wellington’s victory effectively signaled the end of France as a first-rank military power and the beginning of England’s imperial rise.
  
  Roberts sets three goals for himself in this little volume: to explain the importance of the battle by setting it in its historical context, to narrate the action in and around the battle, and to survey some of the larger historiographic questions posed by the battle’s participants and researchers.
  
  Setting the battle in its context is a tricky task. How much eighteenth-century political and military history needs to be retold for the average intended reader? Given the small size of his work, his outline of the political context is respectable; the salient facts are all presented. It seems to me, however, that the volume would benefit from a few extra pages outlining military tactics, weapons, and terminology. Roberts uses terminology likely to be unfamiliar to the average reader: chasseurs, heavy and light cavalry, grenadier. A brief explanation would have been helpful to me! On the other hand, Roberts does a great job explaining the military square and some of the complexities of getting infantry, cavalry, and artillery to work together. He also provides helpful reminders about the state of communications, the speed of travel, and some of the difficulties the British commands experienced trying to communicate with their Prussian allies.
  
  Roberts’ battle narratives are quite thrilling. Following previous accounts, he divides the battle into five phases, each of which is well distinguished from the others. He provides a nice mix of first-hand memories from the soldiers themselves with his own narrative. He describes in brief but essential detail the topography of the battlefield, the few crucial buildings involved, the mud resulting from the torrents of June 17, and the corn that impeded travel and provided hiding spots. There are inevitably a lot names—people, places, military divisions—but Roberts’ narrative seems to handle them all with a certain ease.
  
  Concerning the historiographic questions, Roberts seems fairly objective when there are well supported arguments on either side of a question. I’m not well versed in the literature, but I got the impression that he tended to take the British side in those cases where the French and British historiographies are at odds. Nonetheless, I got some inkling of the open or divisive questions concerning Waterloo.
  
  Finally, I think the editors could have done a better job providing maps appropriate to the text. Roberts makes repeated mention of some places like Mons that do not show up on either of the included maps. At the same time, the appendices include a few letters by Wellington and others that provide interesting first-hand accounts of the day.
  
  In all, this is well paced and easy-to-read account of a crucial turning point in European history.
• 
  Martinxo

  Good overview of a BIG battle.
• 
  Miles Smith

  This is a very good short narrative of the battle of Waterloo; Ive given it three starts but this isn't censorious. Its not long enough or comprehensive to be four or five stars but it does a great job of giving a basic summary of the day's happenings. Roberts does an excellent job giving details without getting too far into the weeds of military specialization.
• 
  Zack

  Roberts' book offers much to satisfy the heart of an Anglophile. He seeks to dispatch the notion that the battle was lost by a decrepit Napoleon, opting for the interpretation that Waterloo was Wellington's victory above all else. Like his other biographical approaches, Roberts meets with success despite some unabashedly flippant castigation of Britain's foes. Waterloo is the classic story we have come to know so well, but it also entertains some hints of revisionism that make it an important contribution to the battle's historiography.
• 
  Sebastian Palmer

  This slim volume on one history's most famous battles is part of Harper Perennial's ‘Making History Series’, written by author, historian, and occasional battlefield guide, Andrew Roberts. I enjoyed Roberts' rather grand ‘Napoleon The Great’ a lot - and there was quite a lot of it to enjoy! It's good to see that he delivers equally well at a humbler scale.
  
  Waterloo, Napoleon's Last Gamble, is certainly a real pleasure to read, being as clear, concise, and yet as comprehensive as one might reasonably hope for, in a book this small that deals with an event of such large import.
  
  After a brief introduction that neatly encapsulates both the enduring historical significance of Waterloo - frequently described, in a view Roberts himself embraces, as the end of 'the long eighteenth century' - and it's equally enduring fascination, Roberts then sets out the more specific context of the Waterloo campaign.
  
  For the battle itself Roberts adopts the chronological 'five phase' structure, as favoured by a number of other authors on this potentially confusing topic. And I have to say that this really does help simplify the battle, and make comprehension of it that much easier.
  
  Whilst many other things frequently occur within these five phases, each has a defining central event: phase one sees the French attack the forward position at Hougoumont; phase two finds D'Erlon's massed infantry attacking the Anglo-Allied centre; by phase three much is happening across the whole battlefield, but the central event is the series of massed French cavalry charges.
  
  Phase four has two major facets: the French finally take La Haye Sainte, bringing artillery to bear on Wellington's tattered centre; but Napoleon's good fortune there is swiftly nullified elsewhere, by Prussians arriving in ever greater numbers on his right flank, taking Plancenoit.
  
  The fifth and final phase really sums up Roberts subtitle, as Napoleon makes a last throw of Fortune's dice, sending in the Guard. But the 'invincibles' are defeated, after which the French crumble and are thoroughly routed, harried by the combined Anglo-Allied and Prussian forces.
  
  Throughout all these phases the action is covered with an eye for both the big picture and the little details, making for a compelling read. The whole is then finished off with a pithy conclusion. Numerous controversies are addressed, some dismissed, others remaining open to debate. And the whole is thoroughly enjoyable and satisfying.
  
  If one were being the harshest of critics, like Hazel Mills in her 2005 review of this book for the Guardian, one might easily argue that this little book verges on the redundant, simply recycling material that's already out there.
  
  Indeed, I felt this was also largely true, despite his undoubted efforts to restore some lustre to the sometimes tarnished English view of Napoleon, and despite all the stuff about access to and use of a new edition of Napoleon's correspondence, chiefly for his ‘Napoleon The Great’ work.
  
  In this book on Waterloo Roberts includes one previously unpublished letter - 'in the possession of the author' - by a Major Robert Dicks (who fought at Waterloo in the 42nd Royal Highland Regt, aka the Black Watch), as Appendix I of three appendices.
  
  Written before the battle, it's more about the Duchess of Richmond's Ball (and Dicks' own career prospects) than the forthcoming battle, and seems to me of only very marginal historical interest. Still, if I had such a letter I'd be excited and keen to share it with the world!
  
  But, unlike the following Appendix II, 'Captain Fortuné de Brack's Letter of 1835', Dicks' missive contains no great revelations. De Brack's letter, which has appeared in print a few times before, is reproduced (as is Appendix III, Wellington's Waterloo Dispatch) in an edited form, and pertains to the battle itself, and phase three - the massed French cavalry charges - in particular.
  
  In it, this relatively lowly lancer officer appears to suggest that his own impetuosity might have triggered the cavalry attacks: his loudly articulated belief that the English were already doomed to lose, combined with a desire amongst his unit to move forward slightly, he claims, got amplified as the line shuffled forwards; what started as simply dressing the line grew into a swell that eventually burst, as the eager cavalry felt their moment had arrived.
  
  As intriguing as this is, it's not news anymore. But personally none of this bothers me, as I don't feel that a book on this topic necessarily requires new insights or arguments to justify its existence. What this undoubtedly is is a concise and exciting account, another voice - and an erudite and eloquent one at that - in the ongoing literary conversation on this climactic epoch-ending and epoch-making battle.
  
  I thoroughly enjoyed it, and suspect that all but the most fussy of Napoleonic buffs (and admittedly there are plenty of those!) will love it to.
• 
  Paul Mamani

  A deceptively slender, richly nuanced overview of the battle that, suggests British historian Roberts (Napoleon and Wellington, 2002, etc.), marks the beginning of the modern era.
  
  Though it took place well into the 19th century, Waterloo “was nonetheless an eighteenth-century phenomenon,” Roberts writes—and not only in its deployment of brilliantly outfitted men in straight, easy-to-mow-down lines across wide fields of fire. It was resolutely modern, though, in its scale: Waterloo involved perhaps half a million soldiers distributed among the armies of France, England, Prussia, and lesser principalities and territories, and Napoleon Bonaparte seems to have nursed a born revolutionist’s hope that victory against his enemies would inspire the Belgians to rise against the Dutch, the French to resume control of Europe, and the Tory government of England to collapse. A reasonable desire, perhaps, but in attempting to realize it Napoleon made some curious and even “strategically inept” errors that betrayed some of his carefully pronounced principles, dividing his forces and allowing the enemy to gain control of the high ground; “the topography across which Wellington had chosen to receive Napoleon’s attacks could hardly have been better suited for infantry” against advancing artillery, cavalry, and ground forces, Roberts notes. Wellington made a few miscalculations himself. But, like Napoleon, and far from placing himself at a safe distance as some historians have maintained, Wellington was everywhere at once, keeping careful control over his side of the battle. The battle, Roberts insists, was never a foregone conclusion, and it could have turned decisively for Napoleon at many points; even in failure, had he withdrawn just a bit earlier, Napoleon might have saved some of his army and with it resisted an invasion of France itself. But he didn’t, and the carnage was fearful: taken together with satellite battles and skirmishes, Waterloo cost the lives of 120,300 men, a staggering figure that only raised the bar for subsequent slaughters.
  
  A vivid, thoughtful, and blessedly concise account of one of history’s signal events.
• 
  Mary Pat

  Short & focused -- really digs into the details of the tactics & strategies at Waterloo, without spending too much time on background. It's nice to have something like this, where you can look at a well-defined event, knowing that some aspects will never be settled. I basically knew nothing about the battle other than Napoleon lost and that people disputed what, exactly, went wrong for Napoleon. The author does touch on these disputes, quotes original documents (noting that participants would not be clear on actions, either), and gives one a feel for the chronology of the day. There is a very helpful map showing the 5 phases being described, and I often went back to that map for references. The other pictures were interesting, but not as helpful for understanding.
• 
  Kim

  En stark 3:a! Intressant sammanfattning om slaget vid Waterloo. Det roligaste var att läsa delar av brev från de som var närvarande vid slaget. Det som drar ner mest är alla de uppräkningar av soldater, hästar och kanoner varje regemente och bataljon hade. Säkert många som finner det väldigt intressant men tycker man hade kunnat skippa sådan detaljrikedom då boken redan är väldigt kort. Roberts håller ändå ett bra tempo och tror aldrig jag kände att boken blev tråkig förutom vid dessa uppräkningar.
• 
  Daniel Kukwa

  Reading military battle history, no matter how clear it might be, tends to make me go cross-eyed from all the shifting details. Even in this concise little volume, I suffered the same effect...so I admire anyone who can take relaxing pleasure from such writing. That said, it's certainly an effective little one-stop-shop for information on the Battle of Waterloo. I can easily admire it as a research tool.
• 
  Mark Blane

  Roberts dives into Waterloo and gives a fair and balanced interpretation of the forced errors, on both sides, that led to the ultimate result of this most famous battle. Roberts quotes Wellington and Bonaparte from time-to-time and plunges in summaries from memoirs of those who experienced the battle.
  
  Although a relatively quick read at 137 pages, the reader will get an insightful overview of the entire battle and what went wrong, and of course, what went right.
• 
  Jade

  This was informative, if a bit technical-heavy. I learned more about Waterloo than I'd known before (considering most of my knowledge depended heavily upon ABBA). It was a quick read, and if nothing else, left me wanting to dive into other books to get more detail beyond the play-by-play of each step of the attacks.
• 
  Nick Pengelley

  A refreshing look at a familiar subject, replete with interesting anecdotes. Also, I'd not heard the theory that the mass French cavalry charges at the British squares were instigated by accident - interesting, and totally believable.
• 
  Anthony Taylor

  Small and concise but still has points to offer on the famous battle. Enables you understand the headlines and should be read by anyone interested in the subject matter. Well written as usual by Roberts.
• 
  Doug

  Nice quick introduction. I haven't read much about the Napoleonic Wars, except all the Bernard Cornwell books.
• 
  Michael Romo

  Simply put, this is the most concise and well written book about a major battle that I have ever read. If you know nothing about this battle and are curious then I highly recommend this book for you.
• 
  Ryan

  I didn’t have any real understanding of the battle of Waterloo but this short book breaks down the battle into five stages. I found it illuminating but at times drowning in the names of officers.
• 
  Simon

  A short and detailed account of the battle of Waterloo .
  
  
• 
  Bernd Cotman

  Funny to see how Roberts used to be a critic of the emperor but has in recent times become his number 1 fan. The book is fine, a bit boring tho. I guess I just like biographies better. :))
• 
  Bogdan

  Cu 205 de ani în urmă, într-o duminică de iunie s-a scris soarta Europei, discutabil și a lumii, pe o câmpie din Belgia, în apropierea unui orășel pe nume Waterloo. Acolo, ducele de Wellington, aflat la comanda unei armate neomogene s-a decis să-l înfrunte pe Căpcăunul Europei, pe Micuțul Caporal, pe Împăratul Napoleon Bonaparte, geniul militar care ieșise învingător din peste 60 de bătălii. Bătălia care a urmat și care a ținut mai toată ziua de 18 a intrat în analele istoriei ca una dintre cele mai faimoase încleștări armate, unii numind-o și încheierea secolului 17.
  Cartea istoricului englez nu este foarte stufoasă, dar compensează aceasta prezentând informațiile într-un fel foarte succint, focusat și clar. Și chiar dacă lipsa ilustrațiilor și a hărților detaliate poate fi considerată un minus, stilul prietenos și semi-didactic folosit de autor crează o experiență literară pe cât de plăcută pe atât de informativă. Pe lângă prezentarea în detaliu a fiecărei etape a bătăliei, precum și a celor două din zilele anterioare care au condus la ea (evident, mult mai multa lume a auzit de Waterloo decât de Ligny sau de Quatre-Bras) istoricul englez scoate în evidență și greșelile săvârșite de fiecare tabără în parte. Deci, fiind vorba de un subiect inepuizabil pe baza căruia deja s-au vărsat oceane de cerneală, automat va fi și extrem de controversat, bătălia de la Waterloo născând și perpetuând mituri, iluzii naționaliste și atitudini revizioniste - toate acestea sunt însă trecute în revistă și tratate cu condescență de către Andrew Roberts, un scriitor și istoric excelent.
• 
  John-Paul

  Probably the shortest book I've read all year, this well-researched and enlightening little work is an excellent primer to one of the most pivotal battles the world has ever seen. At first I thought Roberts' assertion that Waterloo was such a battle, that it signaled the end of the "long" 18th Century and ushered in the new 19th Century was more than a bit hyperbolic. But, after reading this book and understand what this battle meant for all of Europe (and the world, for that matter), it appears to be a perfectly valid statement.
  
  One of the things I love about this author (besides his inclusion of battle maps and visuals) is that his works ooze scholarship and credulity. He simply knows what he's talking about but he delivers it without pomp and pedantry. In this work, he sets up the Battle of Waterloo in the tradition that it could be broken down into four phases, and I can say that to this day, it absolutely works as an easy-to-understand technique for comprehending the decisions made. Roberts deals with both the Coalition and French sides in an even and unbiased manner and examines both their successes and missteps. Clearly, Napoleon had more of the latter and Wellington more of the former, but there were dim and clear moments for both sides throughout the battle. It appears that the French emperor had clearly run out of luck but also no longer had the support staff he once had (one has to wonder what would have been the result had Berthier had still been Chief of Staff and Davout been in the field instead of back in Paris) but ultimately, he had to make due with what he had. In Wellington he found an adversary who was a tactical genius defensively (as evidenced by the Peninsular War years prior) and one who was not going to underestimate the ever-resourceful Napoleon (something the Emperor had relied on for victory for years).
  
  The book was a quick but enlightening read and now the perfect follow-up (as Roberts himself suggests) would be to hop a plane and tour the battlefield itself!
• 
  Jaime

  If you are a history buff and student of military strategy this is definitely a book for you. The author presents the decisive battle as a long chess game between two military geniuses: Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington. Aside of the grandeur and battle between the Anglo Allies and the French Arme', the author examines the psyche of Napoleon, and Wellington, The author peels away and reveals the two men's weaknesses and errors during this battle. Their relationships with their various commanders and allies: Blucher, Ney, Uxbridge, Pitcon, Grouchy and Soult are also given their importance in a well told narrative. The author also includes letters and reports from the battlefield Overall, this is a brief but comprehensive record of the Battle of Waterloo which should be read by any student of the battlefield.