"The Lie at the Heart of Waterloo By Nigel Sale" Topic

Anybody heard about or read this: The Lie at the Heart of Waterloo By Nigel Sale

link

I know it's on 'pre-order', so may not officially be out yet, but sometimes review copies circulate (I know, as I've rad a few!)

In the manner of Armand's info posts, here's some blurb (taken form the above linked page):

'Waterloo has, perhaps, a greater claim to have left its mark on Europe than any single battle before it, yet, even after two hundred years, there is confusion about how the battle ended. Readers will believe they know perfectly well how Wellington gave the order to the men of the First Foot Guards and they finished the business; but they will find themselves mistaken ‒ and intrigued. The Lie at the Heart of Waterloo is not the customary eulogy but a critical analysis of the carefully engineered misinformation that has often totally misled historians and students of military history for so long. The author uses quotations from eyewitnesses – not only those published shortly after the battle but also the most modern academic work – to tell the true story. The truth is as complicated and dramatic as anyone could desire. There is also an answer to the inevitable question: why has this knowledge been hidden for so long? The process of unravelling the mystery brings to life the horrifying reality of battle for the soldiers in Napoleonic warfare. There is also a whiff of suicide and blackmail, and senior officers' reputations are not sacrosanct. This history shines a light on the confusion and challenges long-standing assumptions. It is supported by a sequence of specially produced full-colour maps.

No. But I have read enough about Waterloo for a lifetime. Don't need to saturate my brain with more rehash.

To answer my own inquiry, sort of, I found this:

link

It's funny how Waterloo continues to provoke debate and controversy!

I have to say I very much enjoyed reading Peter Hofschröer's book Wellington's Smallest Victory. In addition to documenting the travails of Capt. Siborne, Hofschröer has also blown the trumpet for the part played by Germans at Waterloo, esp. Prussia, his book on the subject expressing this German authors views very succinctly: '1815, The Waterloo Campaign – The German Victory'.

If 'The Lie At The Heart of Waterloo' is a book length expatiation on the same theme as his short essay, as linked to above, then author Nigel Sale appears to be making the case that the 52nd Regt won Waterloo, and that Wellington hushed this up in order to retain the glory for himself. It's interesting to note that, just as the man who argues that Germans won Waterloo is German, so Mr Sale, the man who claims the 52nd Regt won the battle, is himself a former member of the 52nd Regt!

All this 'controversial' speculation brings to mind that ol' chestnut, 'the first casualty of war is truth'! Please note, I am not taking a position on these issues myself, other than 'interested observer'.

If this is some sensational news about the last half hour of the Battle of Waterloo, as suggested by the subtitle, I do wonder what will emerge that is new. Will we hear that;

The Foot Guards did not stop Napoleon's final assault single handed.

They certainly did not face Grenadiers of La Garde

Nosey never did say "Up Guards and at them" nor comment on Uxbridge's leg as suggested.

Cambronne probably said nothing at all.

The Prussians were jolly cross with French prisoners.

The ridge was higher, back then?

I would love to be proved wrong but I do fear we will see an awful lot of traditional, oft repeated, stuff rehashed for next year.

My message above coincided with your further info on this and all my worst predictions are confirmed.

This dark secret is indeed nothing more than that the 52nd flank attack was at least as important as the Guard's, in stopping the final assault and that DoW failed to acknowledge that, for various nefarious reasons. Are either of these suggestions novel, shocking, complicated or dramatic?

The artillery also claimed faint praise, the Dutch Belgian contribution is understated (esp at Quatre Bras), the Prussians were stripped from Siborne's model to downplay their role. This is all old hat………….

"This is all old hat……….."

Indeed, but Bandwagons don't get much bigger than Waterloo 2015 so you can be pretty sure that every hack with a half baked theory will be jumping aboard to cash in.

the man who argues that Germans won Waterloo is German

Actually, I believe he's British – if you're referring to Mr Hofschroer

all this tme I was led to believe the Battle of Waterloo was won by the Allies in a combined effort of many units from different countries and two main armies.Now it appears that the wholme battle was won by a single unit of British lights…
Well I'll just sell off my collection of Brits (including the guards) Dutch, Nassau etc and of course the Prussians as they did not really matter at all. I'll just retain my 30 figure batallion of the 52, make them AA+ super elite class and win all the battles, gone are my transport problems..:)

Waterloo is to the Napoleonic wars as Normandy is to the Second World War.

A vast conflict, stretching over continents, and all the Brits/Americans ever seem to concentrate on is one battle, admittedly important, but just a sliver of the wide variety of conflict. Yet it's almost all we ever read about…

Oh Christ, not this again – the "52nd vs The Guards" debate is possibly one of the most tedious wastes of time for even the most diehard Waterloo buff. It was actually done to death in the 1830s – indignant letters to the Times insisting one regiment and not another should get the glory. Even the majority of officers at the time clearly didn't want to get involved in such a fools' errand – and yet, bizarrely, some people seem to still think it's a hot topic.

The Duke seems to have spent the last 30 years of his life lying about what others did at Waterloo if you want to believe everybody.
He told almost as any lies as there are people who shot Kennedy.
And every single breathless new book just rehashes the same 200 year old arguments.

The truth is out there somewhere….

I'm always leery of books/articles that are entitles with "The Truth of…" or "The Real Truth Behind…" or anything along those lines.

It reminds me…do you know how you know a war story isn't true? It begins with, "This is no ."

Gee, another history book which claims to break some long standing myths. I can't wait.

It isn't written by John Mosier by any chance?

Do you mean to tell me Napoleon actually won?

Is this a reprint of Sales book: Wellingtons Secret pub 2005 by Alden group ??

@ Ligniere: you might well be right, he may be British. But I suspect, from his name, the subjects and arguments of several books he's written, and his other activities in relation to Austria and Germany (is it the same Peter Hofschöer who's blogging/tweeting a lot about police corruption and 'Grandma B'?), that there's a link of some kind that's relevant to one general point I was alluding to, which is that some writers' arguments might be unduly influenced by personal history.

@parrskool: I've no idea, it might well be a rehash of an earlier book, if it's the same author. I looked for other books by Nigel Sale, and they were -assuming the two Nigel Sales I found on Amazon UK were the same guy (and I don't know that they are) – mostly about National Trust properties in East Anglia! Which place, incidentally, is both where I'm from and currently residing. Judging by the tone of the piece of his linked to in my second post (above), I might prefer to read this:

link

In response to the general tone of replies to this thread, I would say that obviously most responders appear to know a lot more about Waterloo than me (and many sound more jaded, in terms of some of that reading, than I feel). I have no special interest in this Sale book, by the way, I was just intrigued, as I'd never heard of it before.

I had the Airfix Waterloo set as a kid, and read one book about it when I was about 13. Then, after returning to wargaming a few years ago, after a 20 year break (madness!*) – or rather figure collecting at present (as I've not actually gamed as such, yet) – I read Barbero's very exciting account of it, The Battle.

Then, because of my abiding interest in dioramas in general, and Waterloo dioramas especially, I visited both Siborne models, and read both Hofschröer's book, Wellington's Smallest Victory (which I really enjoyed), and, more recently, malcolm Balen's 'A Model Victory' (which was okay). I also bought the Cambridge University Press print on demand two-volume set of Siborne's Waterloo history, but haven't read that yet.

Due to my childhood start in wargaming being based in part on the Airfix Waterloo set, the battle has a special nostalgic place in my life. As a result of this, my wife and I recently went to the battlefield a few weeks ago, which was fun.

As regards the 'controversies', I think it's part of the fun of exploring the subject, and enjoy hearing different views, as long as they are articulately written and persuasively argued, with good use of supporting evidence. The second of my posts above, where I link to a longer Nigel Sales extract don't augur too well for his thesis. But it's interesting, to me at least, to learn about such things.

Seb

* meaning I was mad to have stopped… or was I mad to have returned?

Sebastian, you wrote:
'As regards the 'controversies', I think it's part of the fun of exploring the subject, and enjoy hearing different views, as long as they are articulately written and persuasively argued, with good use of supporting evidence.'

I agree, and that's why I have quite a collection of books about Waterloo – which my wife can't understand: 'Why do you need more than one book on a battle?'

Geez! What a discovery! No doubt it would change the history of Waterloo… What I am saying! Of the Napoleonic Wars!!

Sarcasm mode off.

Well, I've been studying the Napoleonic Wars – and Waterloo – since about 1964. Basically I thought what on earth do we need with another Waterloo book? But, I just finished "Waterloo – The French Perspective" by Andrew W, Field. He uses hitherto unpublished French letters and diaries to tell the story of the battle. Without doubt one of the best books I've ever read. For some truly fresh material I highly recommend this book!!

Regards to all,

John

Sebastian, if you have an interest in Waterloo you MUST get Mark Adkin's Waterloo Companion – it's a monster compendium packed full of detail (and even looks at some of the controversies you mention)
link
It's a bit dear but worth every penny (which can hardly be said of all the Waterloo re-hashes published every year).
(And no, I have no connection/vested interest – in fact I hate Adkin as when this book came out it made all my plans to write something definitive utterly redundant! :))

The best book I've read with regards to new material was Quatre Bras by Mike Robinson link
though of course this is about 16th June rather than Waterloo itself.

Stoneman, I've been meaning to get "The French perspective" for a while so thanks for your endorsement – that settles it, now number one on the Christmas list!

Many thanks for starting this topic Seb.

Like you ,I started with the Airfix plastics, and I have been hooked on the battle ever since, though with an interval when work took over a bit.

I do like to read new books on the topic – but there are so many that I need to be selective. This book looks like a waste of time.

Field's book on Waterloo is excellent – he brings in new evidence (to me anyway), which throws new light on things. I don't think he gets it right all the time, but he feels pretty sound overall. Incidentally he gets the whole 52nd vs Guards business in the right perspective. I've just started his book on Quatre Bras – a battle I am also very drawn into – it's much easier to refight on the tabletop after all.

I like Mike Robinson's book on QB, but he emphasises the drama, where I prefer something a bit more analytical, which would in turn need to be more two sided.

Adkin is a wonderful resource, though you shouldn't take anything as gospel!

This is actually getting increasingly interesting, as we drift off topic! We are all agreeing that there is going to be lot of publication lacking novelty…..that is hardly surprising.

What new sources can you possibly find after 200 years?

The answer of course is;

The Dutch Belgian viewpoint. TMP link

Plus……..The German records that were never translated ( surprising how few wrote of their personal experiences, as opposed to military reports ) . I always thought Herr Hofsch was German!

Plus Glover's 5 volumes of the Archive…….

Plus Franklin's Correspondence 3 volumes….

Field's French view is a great read too.

Robinson on QB tends to concentrate on the Allied side of it but is, again, different and excellent for it.

Adkin. I do tend to take as Gospel and have asked this before here, without a reply. Can anyone quote me an error, with page as reference, in Adkin? I'll exclude the cuirass with the hole in it, which is a carabinier's and the white overalls on the Guardsman………. Let's hear from you! ( or is it worth starting a whole new topic? )

@ tuscaloosa: I agree wholeheartedly with you.

Although I still have a soft spot for Waterloo, due to my childhood experiences – which also included reading about Charles Ewart's capture of an Eagle in (where better?) an old Eagle Annual – since returning to the hobby my main areas of interest have been, in descending order of obsessiveness: Russia 1812 (I think I have about 30-35 books on that campaign), France v Austria, 1809 (about 7 or 8 books), and finally Waterloo, in joint third place, along with Boney's aborted invasion of England, on which topics I might have 3 or 4 books apiece (actually, I suppose Waterloo edges it, since I bought those Siborne tomes).

Thanks also to all those who've posted reading recommendations. I like the sound of all of them!

Kudos to the 52nd for sweeping away the final attack but Colborne could not have achieved so much had not Halkett advanced a Hanoverian battalion to cover his exposed outer (right) flank. Then there is the advance of Vivian and Vandeleur's light cavalry soon after. Then again the Guards and the Dutch-Belgians halted the advance before (or maybe as) Colborne could make his change of front.

Every part of the allied army (with one or two exceptions) deserve credit for the victory. Perhaps the 27th were the real heroes, static in square most of the day under fire from the French artillery.

If I remember Hofschroer is English and his real name is different and Hoffschoer is his pen name.

@Edwulf: are you sure you're not thinking of Digby Smith, AKA Otto Von Pivka? I don't know for certain, but I believe Hofschröer is the name that PH not only writes under, but has worked as an academic under, in both the UK and Germany and/or Austria. So I suspect it is his real name. There's also a PH online who looks like the same guy who wrote the Napoleonic history books, who's involved in some long running farrago over an old lady (possibly a relative). All a bit weird and mysterious!

Seb,
The GrandmaB Peter is the same Peter that writes the history books.
He's British but, to the best of my knowledge, has worked and lived mainly in Europe.

@ deadhead

the white overalls on the Guardsman

As in, British Foot Guardsman? IIRC there are two primary sources for that – a surviving equipment issue record and a Denis Dighton painting.

@ Sebastian

some long running farrago over an old lady

Apparently he thinks the police conspired with his brother to steal his mother's house. Assuming it is the same guy, it puts his other work in a different light, shall we say.

Errors or suspect items in Adkin:

French OB Bachelu's Div, 2nd Legere not 3rd Ligne. Jermone's Div – other way round.

Grand Battery. According to Field most likely started battle on Belle Alliance ridge, though elements may have advanced forward later.

French 6in howitzer illustration. This looks like replaced "Gribeauval" 6in howitzer, when my understanding is Guard used version based on Prussian 10pdr, which had bigger barrel.

Hougoumont. Suggests that both Foy's brigades attacked, rather than one (Field my source again) – 2nd brigade joined Bachelu's attack on main line.

Not entirely sure he has woods, buildings etc right for Plancenoit and approach – though I want to do more research on that.

But, it has to be said, pretty good overall and it's where I go to first for information.

I think I remember the only real mistake that Adkins' book has is the French artillery (the grand battery) on the intermediate ridge between the two lines, in contrast to the French reports. He has these really pretty diagrams of the batteries, how they looked all set up. There may have been some French artillery that moved up later in the battle to that ridge but not initially. (The three 12pdr batteries by the chaussee did move up during d'Erlon's advance.)

Strikes me this is too important to be lost in a discussion which I admit is hijacking another topic. May I use the above three in another topic on Adkin's errors? I'll cite authors obviously. The white overalls on Foot Guards we have covered in last 12 months and dismissed as an error for Waterloo.

Good idea deadhead

I may just try it. Been wondering for ages

Aha! Maybe it WAS Digby Smith/Otto Von Pivka who uses the pen name.

Peter H though I'm sure is still English. Though he lived in Germany for a while I think.