The Battle of Waterloo by Jeremy Black

The Battle of Waterloo Reviews

• 
  Jill Hutchinson

  Immediately after the Battle of Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington was quoted as saying, "By God, I don't think it would have done if I had not been there". And he was right......his presence on the battlefield endeared him to his troops who would have done anything for him. Waterloo was the last major battle in Europe to be personally directed by one the commanders from front line positions. But Waterloo was more than just Wellington.....it was the last gasp for Napoleon who could not seem to adjust his tactics to fit the situation....he pursued glory and rapid decisive results and attacking and defeating Wellington seemed to be his only objective. He did not take into consideration Field Marshal Blucher and his Prussian troops who were forcing him into a defensive position. It was a weakness that helped to defeat him.
  
  This is a rather dense book and I have one really major gripe. When an author writes about a battle in detail, it should be accompanied by maps to help the reader see the battlefield and the troop movements. There are no maps in this book which makes it very slow going. The author also assumes that the reader already has some knowledge of the battle (luckily I did) and mentions various people/places/things without any explanation which is a hindrance to one who is reading about Waterloo for the first time. Those issues, which I see as faults, cause me to give this book a little lower rating than others may.
  
  
• 
  Betsy

  3.5 stars
  
  Waterloo! A small battlefield in Belgium that had a big impact on European history. Sounds simple, doesn't it? But like the battles of Antietam and Gettysburg in the American Civil War, it had ramifications into the future that would affect many more than the three armies that fought it out that June day. Like Antietam the actual battle was bloody, incredibly bloody. Like Gettysburg, the campaign involved three days of fighting, but it is that last day that has grown in history. And all because of one man's desire for glory.
  
  This book provides a basic look at the lead-up, the campaign, and the aftermath. It has no maps. The names are known, their actions are detailed, and there is no suspense about the results. If you are unfamiliar with what happened, this book will tell you. There are even chapters about how France dealt with defeat, frankly not always a pretty picture since war is not just about bravery and glory. Napoleon's reign definitely brought France her share of the latter, but in the end his legacy ended on a small, rocky island in the south Atlantic.
• 
  Richard Thomas

  A good stimulating but brief analysis of the Battle of Waterloo. Jeremy Black places the battle in the context of European history so its importance can been seen. Equally, he reviews the conduct of the battle by Napoleon and Wellington (principally) as a military historian so its place at a pivot between the old means of war and the changes resulting from Napoleon's miltary tactics and strategy can be understood.
• 
  Michael Webb

  The reviews are right. A little dry, and too pro British.
• 
  Dave

  I'm a history buff, and enjoy particularly the napoleonic era, but this book was way way way too dry for me. I lost interest about 2/3rds of the way through. It was interesting while it was discussing the events leading up to the battle, but managed to dilute what should have been an interesting, colourful narrative description of the events, it descended into something akin to an Action Thriller novel written by an accountant. (no offence to accountants)
• 
  Isaiah Pierce

  
  Jeremy BlackThe name Waterloo has become synonymous with final, crushing defeat. Now this legendary battle is re-created in a groundbreaking book by an British military historian making his major American debut. Revealing how and why Napoleon fell in Belgium in June 1815, The Battle of Waterloo clears away the fog that has, over time, obscured the truth.
  
  With fresh details , Jeremy Black places Waterloo within the context of the warfare of the period, showing that Napoleon’s modern army was beaten by Britain and Prussia with techniques as old as those of antiquity, including close-quarter combat. Here are the fateful early stages, from Napoleon’s strategy of surprise attack—perhaps spoiled by the defection of one of his own commanders—to his younger brother’s wasteful efforts assaulting the farm called Hougoumont. And here is the endgame, including Commander Michel Ney’s botched cavalry charge against the Anglo-Dutch line and the solid British resistance against a series of French cavalry strikes, with Napoleon “repeating defeat and reinforcing failure.”
  
  More than a masterly guide to an armed conflict, The Battle of Waterloo is a brilliant portrait of the men who fought it: Napoleon, the bold emperor who had bullied other rulers and worn down his own army with too many wars, and the steadfast Duke of Wellington, who used superior firepower and a flexible generalship in his march to victory.I would highly reccommend this book to anyone that likes adventures and action!!
  
  
• 
  Steven Peterson

  A nice telling of the story of Waterloo. Here, Napoleon, after returning from exile, scratches together an army, led by some of his old generals (such as Ney), in order to return to power.
  
  A massive coalition responds by creating a large set of forces--England, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, numbering hundreds of thousands of troops. Of most immediate concern to Napoleon was the two armies converging in Belgium--Blucher's Prussian host and Wellington's mixed force (dominated by English, but including Germans and others).
  
  Napoleon tried to defeat the two armies in detail. The end result was Waterloo, where he slugged it out with Wellington's forces. It was not one of Napoleon's masterwork battles. He was detached and showed little of his flair from the Austerlitz era.
  
  The book does a nice job detailing the battle in a rather thin volume (about 200 pages). The book claims to have a somewhat different take on the key point of the battle. I will leave that for others to decide. There is a discussion of the aftereffects of the battle and its continuing fascination for many over time. The book cries out for maps of the campaign--but does not contain a single one. All in all, a good solid volume on the subject.
  
• 
  John Darsey

  unbelievably boring... couldn't finish it. I wanted an explanation of why the battle was important, the circumstances leading up to it, and the results after. The author tells of unrelated battles and wars ranging from the early 1700s to WWI. Just give me a context and tell the friggin story!
• 
  Tom

  A good overview of the battle and military context. I would rate it higher, but the book has no maps.Maps are needed when discussing any battle.
• 
  Ross

  might be the worst book i've ever read. If not, it's extremely close. Abysmal.
• 
  Mark

  Napoleon wasn't a honey-cake, but a jerk-off and little Mussolini, and Wellington had a beef with him.
• 
  Jan

  On one hand copious instances of brilliant summary and analysis and on the other hand a dire need for restraint and focused editing, slightly puerile in its ned to show of encyclopedic knowledge
• 
  Len Roberto

  could not get into this, no maps, no terrain, no context...
• 
  William Mcausland

  I really enjoyed this book, and Mr. Black's writing style, and actually learned things about the battle and Napoleonic era warfare that I either didn't know before, or hadn't considered. Maps would have been a great edition, but those are already prevalent on the web and in other materials in my historical collection.
  
  I found the book to be a great summer read. Also, the book is physically robust, being a hardcover, and is of a compact size at 5.5 x 8 inches. Great to carry to the beach or holding in one hand while hoisting a glass of scotch in the other.
• 
  Ian

  A good solid account of the Battle of Waterloo, situating in its historical context and then looking beyond at its legacy. Instead of just looking at the battle itself, or even the campaign, it presents it as a continuation of earlier events in Europe since the French Revolution and rise of Napoleon, in particular the desperate battles of 1813 & 1814. As always with Napoleonic War books there is an involved discussion of the merits of columns v. linear formations.
• 
  Angus

  .