"Mark Adkin's "The Waterloo Companion"" Topic

Recently I suggested to my local library that they buy "The Waterloo Companion" by Mark Adkin. I had seen this book for
sale in my bookshop at a price that I could never afford myself, so thought 'nothing ventured, nothing gained' by suggesting the library buy it. Much to my surprise, they have bought the book, and now I am its first borrower.

And what a book it is! Huge in size and content! Mark Adkin gives us an incredibly detailed look at the battle. But even if you're not particularly interested in Waterloo itself, much of what he writes is applicable to the whole Napoleonic period (and especially so if you arei nterested in French, British or Prussians).

One of the high-points of the book from my perspective are the many diagrams of how units were arranged in various formations. These are detailed right down to all the individual officers' names. There are different diagrams for the main players in the battle, and all the various formations are shown. He also describes how the troops
changed from one formation to another. I also found his lists of the pros and cons of various formations fascinating.

I usually find OOBs the driest of military subjects, but Adkin even manages to bring these to life. And, boy, are they detailed!

I am only halfway through the book at the moment, so the very interesting-looking section on the myths of Waterloo still lies ahead of me - I especially want to see how he deals with the reputation of my Dutch ancestors!

The book is lavishly illustrated, It includes a section of colour plates of the uniforms worn at Waterloo. There are also lots of photographs of the battlefield and many easy to follow maps.

In fact, I am so impressed with this book that I might yet buy it for myself, even at the huge price being asked for it. I try and rationalise this by telling myself the price is only the equivalent of three or four new Ospreys anyway!

This book is what we gamers dream of....for the detail! Arteis, pay close attention to what he says about the Dutch-Belgians and Nassau troops! We are about to release them in 15mm!

A really great reference book.....a MUST for all Napoleonics gamers interested in Waterloo!

Best,
Tom Dye
GFI

Yes I have this book and it is just fantastic.

Great, great book. Especially the perspective photos. There are some errors in it and a knowledgeable reader e-mailed his critique to me. I was surprised about some of these inaccuracies. However, I still highly value the book and use it in conjunction with other Waterloo books. It's just beautiful to thumb through. Only wish it had more colour uniform plates, but isn't that the way?

I've been praying and hoping for a second book on Ligny/QB/Wavre. Doubt it will ever come about though.

Rob Hamper, as an owner of the book, I was curious if you could give us a short list of the errors? I'm terribly interested iwhere the resaerch was at fault...thanks

R.

I'm always curious about these "errors."

One of the things that intrigues me about history is that writing after the fact requires making sense of contradictory sources. (Muir's book on Salamanca is worth reading, just for his notes on how he approached this problem).

But in reviews we often read that an author got something wrong, and would have got it right had he read X. But that assumes X is right, which may just be the reviewer's opinion.

Not to say flat-out factual errors/typos don't happen, and it is simply not possible to double check every fact, but I'm often at a loss on how to evaluate these things when I'm not qualified to do so (and credible reviews of Napoleonic books are hard to track down).

I just heard a rumour that the next book he is working on concerns Traflagar.

Oh, you evil, evil man. Made me go look the book up -- $37.77 at Amazon.

I'll check my e-mails and see if I still have a copy. Mind you, I've never checked to verify the errors the writer stated. Could be just a difference of sources.

ADkins' work is excellent and as a reference work on the battle it is one of the best I have seen.

Any historic work has errors in it-or they could be disagreements. Some is the result of sloppy or inadequate research; some the result of bias. Also, some is the result of a differing of opinions.

Reviews in themselves can or cannot be helpful. I have seen excellent reviews of lousy books and vice versa. It just depends on who you read and choose to believe.

You all want to cry? I found two copies at the Barnes & Noble in Easton Mall at Columbus, sitting on the discount shelf, for $14.99. Two copies! I snatched one. I brought a friend back the very next day, and the other one was long gone.

Boo hoo, Westphalia!!!! I'm so crying ... I want this book!

Incidentally, Bargain inventory at B&N is usually the same from store to store so if you have a B&N it'd be worth checking out.

I actually bought my copy at a book clearance store on Baker St in London for a similar price over 2 years ago! I couldn't believe my fortune and still don't ... that book is terrific!

Guys,
agree this book is great - I was fortunate enough to get a copy for nothing (in order to review it), but then had it stolen by a member of the public when puting on a Waterloo game :-(
EC

Its a lovely well presented book with lots of good diagrams.

As an Order Of Battle fan, it is the only one I have seen that goes down to battalion level for the French.

Scott Bowden was the best for me up until Mark's book.
But as others have said, it is a shame that it does not cover Quatre Bras, Ligny and that oft forgotten battle – Wavre.

I've changed my above stated opinion on The Waterloo Companion of November 2004 based on the research I have done on artillery of the period over the past 13 years.

I would hesitate using The Waterloo Companion to reference anything on the French artillery arm. Primary references are best, but there are also excellent secondary references available. Adkins has only one artillery reference listed in his bibliography, one of General Hughes three books.

Some of the errors in Adkins' Waterloo Companion regarding artillery:

The most telling error is the French Grand Battery diagram on the map on page 298.

The gun companies would only have one ammunition caisson per gun in the company/battery position. The remaining caissons would either be with the parc or employed shuttling ammunition forward to replace an empty caisson.

At the top of the second column on page 296 the number of ammunition caisson allotted to the pieces is wrong. 6-pounders would have three assigned and 12-pounders and howitzers would have five each.

In the second to the last paragraph at the bottom of the first column it reads, in part, that 'Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any gun ran out of ammunition' referring to the French artillery. There is at least one documented French artillery company that did run out of ammunition at the end of the battle. It was a Guard foot artillery company and they stood by their pieces with lighted portfires after running out of ammunition to bluff the British cavalry pursuit to halt, albeit only momentarily.

In the second column on page 288 at the bottom, it reads (regarding the French artillery train companies) that they 'did not have any officers at this level' (meaning with the companies attached to the artillery companies. That is incorrect. The train company commander was a lieutenant at this level and he was subordinate to the artillery company commander.

The diagram on page 289 shows that 7 infantrymen were detailed to serve the piece if necessary. I have not found this to have been the practice, though it was in the manuals of the period. Coignet notes that at Essling and Wagram Old Guard infantrymen were asked to man or reinforce French artillery units that had taken heavy casualties. But this was to man the guns because the gunners were dead or wounded, not as a usual practice.

One of the problems is that there is only one artillery reference in the bibliography, and no artillery manuals of the period are listed.

There are also what I would consider dubious references listed in the bibliography, particularly Keegan's Face of Battle, Nosworthy's Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies, Bourrienne's Memoirs of Napoleon, Hamilton-Williams Waterloo-New Perspectives.

Although I have often seen messages complaining that there are errors, I think this is the first time I have actually seen any spelt out. Thanks indeed

I am just as guilty as I "know" I spotted a few minor issues and once said so…but can I now find them?

In the second to the last paragraph at the bottom of the first column it reads, in part, that 'Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any gun ran out of ammunition' referring to the French artillery. There is at least one documented French artillery company that did run out of ammunition at the end of the battle. It was a Guard foot artillery company and they stood by their pieces with lighted portfires after running out of ammunition to bluff the British cavalry pursuit to halt, albeit only momentarily.

So where does Adkin say that 'none' ran out of ammunition? He states that it was "highly unlikely".
Some guns may well have used up all their ammo at the gun-line but it still doesn't mean that ammunition wasn't available. And a few guns being unable to fire because they had no shot to hand hardly constitutes the whole of the rest of the French artillery.

The diagram on page 289 shows that 7 infantrymen were detailed to serve the piece if necessary. I have not found this to have been the practice, though it was in the manuals of the period. Coignet notes that at Essling and Wagram Old Guard infantrymen were asked to man or reinforce French artillery units that had taken heavy casualties. But this was to man the guns because the gunners were dead or wounded, not as a usual practice.

Having an officer in the guard train companies may be correct for April 1815, but by June (at least in the line artillery train) it was:

1 sergeant major. 4 sergeants. 1 furier. 4 corporal
2 trumpeters. 24 drivers of 1st Class. 60 drivers of 2nd Class. plus 2 blacksmiths and 2 harness makers.

link

And who's to know if the 12pdr crews (and others) weren't assisted with getting their guns into position by infantry? After all, we know that the ground was waterlogged and the mud cloying.

Can anybody point me to the caisson allocation for June 1815? Can anyone please point me to evidence of exactly where the caissons were on the day

Paul :)

Ok Napoleon's Carriage, well the one captured at Genappe was dark blue, not the green "one" (as you might imagine for an Empereur, he did have a few spares as well) usually associated with him. p419……

minor issue though. Fantastic book