"Waterloo: The Defeat of Napoleon's Imperial Guard" Topic

"This is the most detailed account of the 2nd Division at Waterloo ever published. It is based on the papers of its commander Sir Henry Clinton and it reveals for the first time the previously unrecognised vital role this division made in the defeat of Napoleon. They Swept the Field Clear explains how the division was placed ahead of the main allied squares thus impeding the charges of the French cavalry, and how the 2nd Division supported the defence of Hougoumont, considered by the Duke of Wellington as the key to his victory on 18 June 1815. Perhaps the most significant aspect of this book is the description of the defeat of Napoleon's Imperial Guard. Just who and how the incomparable Guard was stopped and the driven from the battlefield is explained in detail. Once and for all, this 200-year controversy is finally resolved."

link

Main page
link

Have anyone read this book?… is the answer is yes… comments please?

Thanks in advance for your guidance.

Amicalement
Armand

Hmmm … thats a big call by whoever wrote the blurb …

" … this 200 year controversy is finally resolved …. "

Doesn't sound like anyone with any experience with military history would've written such a comment.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Its worth reading the reviews for this book on Amazon(.co.uk); gives you a better feel for what the book covers. Some got quite heated! Never believe the 'blurb'!

This book was published four years ago and it has been much discussed here. It has one of the less daft subtitles of all the literature that appeared at the time….and there were some shockers.

It is the old story, that one unit on that ridge made all the difference. That is insane, esp from a professional historian. We have heard that it was the KDG in one book, it was the 52nd single handed in another, it was the Netherlands gents in the days before (actually that is worth rethinking), it was Soult's treachery……2015 produced some good books, which were ruined by the publishers' urge to sell.

Well done Tango for raising this from the dead. It is All Souls' Night here (also known as Halloween), but everyone forgets its Christian origins.

I've read it and gave it 4 stars and a few words. It's not a bad book and is well worth having in my library.

I have read many, many accounts which ascribe the victory to this or that regiment and almost as many authors who blame this or that commander for losing the day so I approach these titles for the information they give and not the conclusion of the winning or losing of the battle Thus my appreciation of the likes of Paul Dawson's Au Pas de Charge tome whose information that it holds within I have used on this site in the past.

The Allies won the battle, the French were soundly beaten. Napoleon was treated to an absolute trouncing…end of!

it is a good book – read it.

Von W is right. It is well worth reading, but only if you are new to all this, as it is very well written and authoritative, even if totally lacking in any novelty.

My only complaint then is that it adds nothing new to the 150 year plus controversies…and again that daft sub-title. As Dibble says, everyone claims the credit for the victory. First, the Guards of course, whether at Hgmt or the ridge at the end. Then the 52nd single handed, then The Kings Dragoon Guards (in the daftest subtitled book of all)..Oh hang on what about the few hundred in LHS who saved the day (another daft book title)?

Although Waterloo is my favorite Napoleonic battle and one of my most beloved battles in history, it seems there is just a little too much written on it. Surely for a battle that only lasted several hours all that could possibly have been written/said in 204 years has by now? And it's frankly a travesty that there are no definitive (at least in English) books on Jena, Aspern-Essling, or Wagram. All were huge and bloody battles that deserve the full treatment.