"Waterloo - The French Perspective - a mini review" Topic

Dear All,

For what its worth, my opinion on this work by Andrew W Field MBE which I have just finished.

Executive summary – some minor flaws, but definitely recommended for those interested in Waterloo!

This book first came to my attention when Tango linked to it on TMP, and I was in that quandary that many Waterloo buffs with extensive collections will share – is this worth getting, or is it just any old rubbish riding on the Bicentennial bandwagon.

Fortunately callsign Dibble posted a very comprehensive review:
TMP link
Whilst not exactly fulsome, it made me confident enough to order it.

The main reason, if I'm honest, is that the author is a serving British Army Officer with an impeccable previous history of interest in and research around the Napoleonic Wars. So no jonny-come-lately trying to turn a fast buck! And with sufficient military experience to not make those '20-20 hindsight' criticism of operational commanders that so irritate me from academic, armchair experts whose most stressful event that year was when they split their sherry in the Dean's office…

That is not to say that the author doesn't apply academic rigour to the primary and secondary sources he employs in his analysis:

…junior officers, with a far more narrow and localised view, based on their own postion in both the chain of command and on the battlefield, can convince themselves that a minor or even insignificatnt event can trigger a significant battlefield movement. p.249.

The book is divided into the now standard phases of the battle, and interweaves quotes from primary and secondary sources with a tactical account and analysis of the decisions and outcomes, and all of the big questions are addressed, the formation used by D'Erlon's Corps, why was all the cavalry committed unsupported, why was the start of the battle delayed, why did Lobau deploy where he did, etc…

Then these question are again addressed in the 'Tactical Notes' section, with much more analysis and discussion and a few 'what-ifs?'

I can find no fault with any of the author's reasoning and conclusions, and, pretty well read on the battle to date, I found this book definitely added to my knowledge and insight into the battle.

So how is the book flawed? Well, as we know the historiography of the battle is loaded with the view that, at best, an Anglo centric view of the battle has dominated; and, at worst, that the Duke of Wellington deliberately downplayed the Prussian role in victory.

As for the first canard, it is interesting that a book purporting to represent the French Perspective of the battle has to rely on so many English sources for primary sources! Reason being? The majority of primary sources were from English participants! So not necessarily any nationalistic plot going on here, well, not by 19th Century standards anyway! (Obviously neither the author nor myself classify 30 year old accounts by participants, flavoured by their own readings of other accounts as reliable primary sources.)

What is more of a touchpoint with me, since my hackles naturally rise when legendary heroes are attacked for deeds which the most basic research could demonstrably refute; is that the author has accepted, and perpetuated, the long running myth that Wellington somehow tried to do down Blucher and the Prussians for their key contribution to victory. Has he not read the Wellington's Waterloo Despatch!

I should not do justice to my own feelings, or to Marshal Blücher and the Prussian army, if I did not attribute the successful result of this arduous day to the cordial and timely assistance I received from them.

(BTW anyone who has the slightest doubt about the incredible significance of a Commander's immediate post battle despatch to the King in forming public opinion and the subsequent publically accepted history of the battle during this period without embedded journos should read Sam Will's 'In the Hour of Victory')

Despite this, well worth its place in Sparker's library, and his prequel on Quatre Bras the French Perspective is duly preordered!

Apologies for posting on the Modern Message board – can't blame the bug this time – finger trouble this end!

Could the authors please remove lest I get swamped by irate Cold War Warriors!

Great stuff, thanks for the review!

G'day, Sparker.

It's not Wellington's dispatch to which Hofschröer, Field and others are referring, even though that's been the lynchpin of the argument against the case for someone in Wellington's camp being a little free with history. It's the later actions by others in fiddling history and giving Wellington's reputation several thick coats of gloss plaint. At best Wellington ignored what they were doing, at worst Wellington instigated and encouraged their efforts. Whatever the reality, there's more than enough evidence to show that Wellington and his supporters bent the truth about a number of things. Saying so sparked the "controversy" that raged for the next 10 years.

The "controversy" came about because many people wouldn't accept Wellington was less than a perfect paladin, or that anyone would dare question the English-language mythology of Waterloo. The contoversy's protagonists made TMP's and NSF's Bricole Wars look like a minor disagreement in a Cistercian monastery.

Does looking at the history, rather than accepting the mythology, lessen Wellington's achievement at Waterloo? Not for anyone that knows the battle wasn't only fought by Englishmen, supported by a couple of Jocks, a few Micks and a bunch of blokes on white horses, who beat up on Nappie's ravening French hordes.

Does it detract from the man? I suppose it does. But who doesn't expect a successful commander to have the ambition and ruthlessness that makes him successful? I notice Wellington's more rabid supporters avoid discussing his performance as PM when talking of the man's character. Is the PM shows the same character traits that they argue the general never possessed?

Does it turn a caricature of a comic book super-hero back into a human being with both faults and virtues? Yes. And I prefer the man to the myth. Wellington was a man who did extraordinary things, not some super hero for whom the miraculous is mundane.

Cheers.

Dal.

Thanks Dal,

It's not Wellington's dispatch to which Hofschröer, Field and others are referring

Perhaps, but I still feel its dishonest to completely ignore the elephant in the room when attempting to portray him as being grudging in his acknowledgement of their contribution. The Hof makes but one reference to the Waterloo Despatch, in the footnotes, in another context entirely, despite selling his volumes around the contention that the Prussian contribution was somehow nixed by Wellington. He deliberately ignored 'Exhibit A'!

Wellington knew exactly how much import his dispatch would have, and he well knew that whatever he wrote would be gospel for his lifetime. Many other Commanders have carefully editied or slanted their post battle despatch to put themselves in a better light – Wellington told it as it was and gave full credit to the Prussian intervention, using the media that would have the most impact and the time when it would frame the story for contemporaries. So whatever passivity and impatience with subsequent accounts he may have shown is as nothing in the scales compared to his immeadiate and fulsome acknowledgement of the Prussian contribution.

Any attempt to demean or belittle his reputation by circumstantial arguments that he later connived or ignored at subsequent attempts to deprive the Prussians of recognition is nothing but petty quibbling. 'Tall Poppy Syndrome' as you Aussies call it!

(Of course this is separate from the unscrupulous behaviour of Siborne in his later years, which Wellington rightly distanced himself from.)

Any new book on Waterloo, needs to have a new perspective and maybe a revelation or two as the subject has been beaten to death by many.

Hofschröer, had an interesting perspective from the Prussian struggles to get to Waterloo and subsequent viscous battle for Plancenoit. His book Wellington's Smallest Victory: The Duke, the Model Maker, and the Secret of Waterloo" is and interesting read as well. It clearly shows that Wellington in later years did not want the Prussians to have more recognition.

Wellington was a good cautious general, he knew the strengths and weaknesses of his men and the enemy. He had never fought Napoleon directly before, and again was cautious, rightly so.
Fortunately Napoleon was not at his best, nor were his subordinates.

If this book is as you say from the French perspective Sparker, I'll pick it up and give it a read.

Thanks for the recommendation.

All very well and good Sparker but do you agree with his statement here

as we have already discovered, as victors the British were quite prepared to suffer bouts of amnesia when it suited them; particularly amongst the officers.

Paul :)

Of course this is separate from the unscrupulous behaviour of Siborne in his later years, which Wellington rightly distanced himself from.

What unscrupulous behaviour would that be? Removing the Prussians from his model in a vain attempt to please Wellington?

What unscrupulous behaviour would that be? Removing the Prussians from his model in a vain attempt to please Wellington?

No I wasn't referring to this ridiculously insignificant notion put up by Hofschorer in a desperate attempt to paint some sort of 'do down the Prussians' plot. Anyone with the merest understanding of Wellington's professional military status and eminence after Waterloo, and his scorn for military historians would find the notion that he would give more than a passing interest in how the troop dispositions were made on a scale model risible!

I was actually referring to the documented practice of Siborne of only publishing those letters from officers who subscribed to his fund, and even in some cases bolderising their testimony to put them into a better light compared to those who didn't subscribe. A dishonest and sad business by a man facing backruptcy.

I really cannot understand this obsession with claiming that the British, over and above 19thC nationalism, which equally affected the French and Prussians, somehow contrived to systematically downplay the Prussian contribution.

Can anyone present one single shred of evidence to prove this conspiracy? A letter between 2 officers suggesting that x or y shouldn't be mentioned as it revealed that fact that the Prussians turned up in the nick of time to save the day? Of course not! And all the sources around Wellington simpy attest to his disdain for historians and military history – he was wiser than he knew!

What we are left with is a perfectly natural bias in the English language sources to emphasise the role of English speaking units, particularly extolling the virtues of British units in this most xenophobic and nationalistic of centuries – no mystery, no conspiracy!

So why then this constant theme that the real real decisive contribution, gasp, shock, horror, was actually the Prussians?

Derr! – Wellington revealed this shocking idea on day 1 of the historiography!

So, once again for the record, the true shocking primary source from the horses mouth – hang onto your seats, sports fans:

I should not do justice to my own feelings, or to Marshal Blücher and the Prussian army, if I did not attribute the successful result of this arduous day to the cordial and timely assistance I received from them.

G'day, Sparker.

Let's not open that can of worms again (I'm sorry I posted my original reply now- I should have known what would happen). And no, I'm not running away because I can't argue the points, but because it's not worth the rancour it will cause on this board.

Cheers.

Dal.

PS, I thought you were an Aussie these days? Or are you just a latter day "10 bob tourist"? :-)

Thought that might stir things up a bit. And it did! Undoubtedly the Despatch was generous in its praise of the Prussian contribution (though ironically it was written before Wellington was in a position to have appreciated quite how much the Prussians really did contribute to the victory). But I'm not sure that that spirit of generosity was maintained in later years. I think there's a parallel to be drawn here with the way in which, over a period of time, Napoleon doctored his account of Marengo (there's a good essay on this re-working of history by David Chandler). Great men have their flaws and their vanities, like everyone else. But it shouldn't detract from our admiration of them to know that they (Wellington and Napoleon) could be jealous of their reputations and ruthless in protecting them.

Oh, and I feel sorry for poor old Siborne. Whatever else you may say about him, he was a fantastic map maker, researcher and model maker and never got the recognition he deserved. What would Waterloo studies be without him!

OK Dal mate, fair enough!

PS, I thought you were an Aussie these days? Or are you just a latter day "10 bob tourist"? :-)

Lol! I'd like to be, believe me – and I am a Permanent Resident – but I keep getting knocked back for citizenship for various bureaucratic reasons too pathetic to go into here – I'm not a crim or anything….

Don't worry, if I ever do get my application spelt right and all the boxes ticked in the right places, I will be shouting it from the rooftops! I'm allowed to take my next shot next year…

Oh, and I feel sorry for poor old Siborne. Whatever else you may say about him, he was a fantastic map maker, researcher and model maker and never got the recognition he deserved. What would Waterloo studies be without him!

Very true, and indeed a tragic figure. I think he just cared too deeply, he should never have sunk his own money into anything, or at least not then taken out loans for the project. Very sad.

I agree, it was very sad about Siborne.

G'Day Dal

It's good to see you are up and about.

Best Regards
Art

As next year is the 200th anniversary maybe we should have a rematch. French LeClerc's vs British Chally 2's and German Leopard 2's! If the allies win could send Francois Hollande into exile and restore Nicholas Sarkozy to the throne er presidency! :-) Sorry had to include something relevant to the modern board!

' ….And with sufficient military experience to not make those '20-20 hindsight' criticism of operational commanders that so irritate me from academic, armchair experts whose most stressful event that year was when they split their sherry in the Dean's office… '

Decent review and some fair assessments. The above comment does little to enhance your point, though you have advised it as a disclaimer that may only pertain to you.

The author's ability to withhold judgement is good practice and this ability does not stem from his service but his academic training. An author can provide a best case scenario for an engagement. It would be good history so long as the argument is clear and coherent. You may not agree but it does little to enhance your ideas by questioning the authority of another based upon clear prejudices. Explain why you think this is the case and open up a debate.

The experience gained from serving does little in enhancing the author's historiography, though it may add to the subjective analysis of chosen texts. Too much authority placed on such experience and too little placed on those with out.

Two people reviewing primary sources advising x should have moved to y but didn't because of z do not need to have served to provide justifiable interpretations.

If this view was held across all social sciences it would limit a number of fields.

-armchair academic.