"Definitive book on Waterloo" Topic

I just bought Bernard Cornwell's Waterloo and will start reading it once an Isandlwana book purchased at the same time is finished. I have read The Battle by Alessandro Barbero and David Chandler's Waterloo the 100 days. Reviews of Cornwell's book on Amazon claim it is the definitive Waterloo book.
If it is not, which book on the battle is?

IMHO, Alessandro's is probably the most definitive. I doubt you will ever find one that can be called THE definitive book, however. There are too many varying opinions on even some of the simplest ideas. How important was the arrival of the Prussians? You ask a Prussian and they would tell you they saved the British from defeat. The Brits, on the other hand, include the Prussians as an afterthought. It's been argued by some Francophiles that the French actually won Waterloo. Cornwell is a great author and his Waterloo book is very readable, but it is also very biased towards the British view of things. Allesandro seems much more even-handed and is also very readable as well.

The closest you are going to get to definitive is Barbero's book.

But then the only people who believe that a book can be definitive are people writing advertising blurb.

Wellington; The years of the Sword

Mark Adkin's Waterloo companion takes some beating.

Barbero's book is excellent. Definitive is a dangerous word to use when describing books, especially about an action that so much has been written, such as Waterloo.

However, there are books that are better, such as the older studies by Houssaye, Ropes, and Siborne (the campaign history, not the letters).

Andrew Fields two books on the campaign, covering Quatre Bras and Waterloo are also excellent.

I haven't read Cornwell's and probably won't. He's a novelist and too prone to promote the British view of the action.

It's been argued by some Francophiles that the French actually won Waterloo.

Who?

I won't read Cornwell's. Having tried to read his novels, I'm very doubtful of his ability to write History.
As has already been said, there is no definitive history of Waterloo.

Another vote for Barbero as the primary source supplemented by Adkins excellent maps.

Barbero is a secondary source and the maps in the Esposito/Elting Atlas are much superior to those in Adkins' work.

Adkins' work is a coffee table book with too many errors, especially regarding artillery.

What mistakes has Adkins made on 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.

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.

He does list John Elting's excellent and reliable Swords Around A Throne which as an excellent chapter on the French artillery arm, another on weapons, as well as one on tactics. Apparently, the author didn't pay too much attention to it.

I don't believe that this volume is reliable enough to be used as a reference in any serious study of the battle.

Actually, the positioning of the French artillery in Adkin's book seems entirely wrong if you read Barbero's book. One of them is very very wrong.

And out of the two, the analysis that Barbero does about the positioning of the grand battery looks a lot more solid.

Adkin includes a lot of heroics and romantic views on the battle in line with some of the folklore that took a life of its own to become eventually "truths". There is simply better material out there, authors who cross referenced many difference sources to draw a picture that seem a bit more accurate and a lot less "naive".

The sad part is that a lot of work was put in this book, but reading Adkin has become painful.

There hasn't been a definitive book out on the subject. Barbero's tome is good, but he like all the rest tries to put his/their identity on the telling of a battle that has been written about more than any other and that only lasted for about 8 hours, shrouded in smoke and ended in total darkness. Almost all the authors are guilty of cutting up eyewitness quotes to fit into their interpretation on what happened. I say that the best way to understand what happened on the day is to read what eyewitnesses said of a certain moment during the battle and 'if other accounts generally concur, go with that. I would discard hearsay quotes and author opinions, as they just cloud the telling.

What has to be remembered is that we have far more evidence of what happened than what most of those authors mentioned above had, so if any are read, they should be cross checked with what we know today.

Authors who have edited accounts in full, such as Herbert Siborne‘s Waterloo letters, Gareth Glover‘s Waterloo Archives, individual accounts and Unpublished Letters, and John Franklin's Waterloo Correspondence, are a must.
Contrary to those who can't stand Adkin's tome, It's the best overview of the battlefield, the OOB etc to date, and goes far more than any other book to outline what happened throughout the day.

As for the French artillery and ammo park. Anyone got any solid information of how it set up before the battle? Is there any evidence to show whether French infantrymen did or didn't help in man handling the artillery through cloying mud and into position?

If any author(s) should be read, they should read Erwin Muilwijk's Standing Firm at Waterloo and Paul Dawson's tomes Pas de Charge and Charge the guns.

We have had heated discussions on this site over episodes that occurred ‘or didn't' during the battle and campaign where lots of first hand quotes have been brought forward to disclaim some of the oft held interpretations of what happened.

Paul :)

So main Conclusion is THE definite book on Waterloo is an illusion, it wil never be written, just read as much as you can and compare to form your own image of the battle.

Conclusion is THE definite book on Waterloo is an illusion

Pretty sure you just nailed in Marcel! Different people will always give different weight to different pieces of evidence. To be honest I was surprised how much support Barbero mustered, but per Brechtel, I need to review Espositos' maps versus Adkins.

When I get the chance, of course!

I am not sure he actually meant definitive in the sense that you guys are taking it…
For someone that is not a professional caisson counter, Barbero is probably the best bet. Clearly Adkins has a lot to recommend it despite some errors, since it really is the only book of that type and it supplements the others quite well.
I think the lesson you learned here more than anything is never mention Cornwell or use a superlative on this board.
; )

How many meanings of 'definitive' are there?

My understanding of the meaning of the word leads me to support Marcel's opinion….

Agree.

I would imagine no one actually believes there is a definitive history of anything for such a topic. I took it to mean the more colloquial "if there is 1 book to have ", which one would it be. I am not usually in the habit of defending people that are imprecise, but the phrasing of this question almost made me think you guys were being trolled. Clearly he is not an historian and clearly some of you are. You answered him as if he were getting ready to do serious research, whereas I find most people doing serious research are not asking for 1 book recommendation on a subject. I didn't look at just the word, I made an inference from the sentence. Marcel chose to be pedantic, I (and others) chose to be practical and help the person out with a caveat.

Read as many books on it as you can, they all give slightly different perspectives adn you make up your own mind. I ve read Cornwalls book and its ok, its a history book and not his Sharpe novel.

I ll add Waterloo by Tim Clayton and second Atkins and Barbero as my personal favourites for capturing the day. The last two are very good on Waterloo but dont look at the wider campaign which is pretty crucial in understanding the day.

Enjoy – its really the classic campaign and battle

Haitiansoldier

There's always Waterloo-the Truth at Last by Paul Dawson, due out this September. LOL

To be serious, I doubt there will ever be a definitive account of Waterloo or any other action or campaign for that matter. Titles offered (and those yet to appear) are just the interpretation of material by the particular author/historian. And such material can be viewed and interpreted differently by different authors/historians.

And I have yet to come across a book that has not contained errors or material and viewpoints that have not been questioned and challenged. But as others have mentioned, it is always best to read as many accounts as possible, rather than rely on one so called 'truth' or 'definitive' title.

Agree.

Books with the words 'Truth' and 'Lie' in the title tend to put me off of them.

Brechtel198

Same here but I guess you have to read them in order to see what their 'truth' or 'lie' is and look at whatever 'new' evidence etc they have suddenly discovered to support their views. And I suppose every bit helps in the overall understanding of historical events.

Mind you, it would be great if there were single titles in existence that really did offer 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth' because it would certainly save us a lot of time and money reading/researching. LOL.

Isn't that the 'truth.' ;-)

I too am looking for the one book to read. I've read a number. Just started Cornwell's book with some hope (as I like his ACW and Saxon fiction). 3 Chapters in I am not as hopeful. He repeats virtually the same sentence over and over. I'm told three times in the span of a few pages about the Nassau ammo issue. Told a number of time (I lost) count the same thing about the QB crossroads, over and over the same thing about Wellington at the Ball. I was listening while on a 2 hour road trip and came away thus far as it is really written for an extremely casual reader. For that purpose it may be good, and I will continue to wade through it.

Any opinions of Clayton's book? I just stumbled upon it on Amazon and it has high reviews there and elsewhere on the web and mainstream reviews.

I've read the Clayton book twice. He goes into great detail on the battles at Ligny and Quatre Bras as well as Waterloo. A very good, informative read jmo. My first Waterloo book was Howarth's Waterloo: A Near Run Thing which was later published as Waterloo: Day of Battle and I've read a few since then. Really enjoyed Clayton's account of the battle.

Started Fields Waterloo book yesterday. About 1/3 done. Like it a lot.

DukeWacoan

I'll second Clayton's book, although I'm not sure it is the 'definitive' one or it contains the whole 'truth'. LOL

But definitely well written and very enjoyable to read.

I finished Cornwell's book and really enjoyed it. I think it ranks #1 in the Waterloo books I have read. The second best would be The Battle, the third best Waterloo 1815 by Barnes, and Clayton's Waterloo would be fourth.
Never read enough on this battle. I have been interested in it ever since I read Les Miserables many years ago.

Based on the above recommendations, I ordered Clayton's Waterloo volume and it came today. I've looked at the engagement at Genappes on 17 June and Clayton made the comments that the leading squadron of the British 7th Hussars was routed by the French lancers and the nearest squadron of the Life Guards also fled before the French. Seeing that, the rest of the 7th Hussars fled, despite being ordered to stand by Lord Uxbridge.

Not only the 7th Hussars but the 23d Light Dragoons were also routed, but the situation was stabilized by a half-squadron of Life Guards which charged and broke the lancers.

So, it looks like the honors were about even.