Waterloo

Rating:
Summary: A good read but nothing like the real thing
Review: Let me start by saying I enjoyed reading this book thoroughly. As a work of fiction, it is first rate. But that is all it is. Like the reader from Norfolk, VA, I was a little disturbed about certain claims this author made about how particular aspects and the campaign and battle were handled. If these claims - particularly the way British author Cornwell does what his countrymen are often too keen to do, that is to blame foreigners for all their own mistakes - were presented as pure fiction, that would not be a problem. However, Cornwell claims to have done serious historical research, relying on Weller as his main source. Oh dear!

Rating:
Summary: Corwell is triumphant!
Review: Like Wellington, this book is a winner. More dash than usual, the culmination of the battle will take your breath away and you'll feel as spent as the thin red line, but Cornwell is triumphant.

Rating:
Summary: Super account of Napoleonic era warfare
Review: My interest in war novels was sparked by reading the WWII saga, The Triumph and the Glory, which opened up my eyes to the epic drama, incomparable pathos, and darkly fascinating topic of human conflict. The Sharpe books have quickly become favorites of mine, Cornwell is a genious for recreating long ago times with vivid language and superior research. "Waterloo" isn't the best of the bunch but it's in the top two or three. Read them all, I plan to.

Rating:
Summary: Great battle / Great book
Review: Nobody handles battle scenes better than Bernard Cornwell. His treatment of the Battle of Waterloo does justice to its significance as the final confrontation between the French under Napoleon and the alied European powers. Those who have not read all the other Richard Sharpe books might not appreciate the story's context so well, but anyone picking up the book with no prior experience of Sharpe could still derive immense pleasure from the complex action - the reversals of fortune in the continuous give and take between two huge opposing armies.

Something that I did miss was a fuller rounding out of the story of Richard Sharpe himself. Having set up the Battle of Waterloo to be both a confrontation between European powers and between Sharpe and his estranged wife's lover, I was hoping for Sharpe to bring that chapter to a close rather than other forces intervening to do the job for him. Just not as much fun as having him wield the sord.

And what about the money?

Rating:
Summary: *sigh* oh well, thank God it's just fiction....
Review: Oh well, being Dutch doesn't help in reviewing this book, I know, so I would like to state in advance that I'm not trying Bernard Cornwell down as a writer, he's doing a good job on some of his Arthurian novels. And neither am I being overly patriotic, I hope. It's just that reading Sharpe's Waterloo made my skin crawl. I know that many of the readers and reviewers here take the book for what it is: pure fiction. And so they should. Sharpe wounding the Prince of Orange, interfering himself while the South Essex tries to form square, the Dutch never ever standing, running away whenever they see a single Frenchman, Sharpe saving both Hougoumont and La Haye Sainte and repelling the Old Guard on his own....no, I can't go on Mother, you must save me !

Being a reenactor myself, both Dutch and British, I enjoyed some of action in the Sharpe books, impossible as some of it was. Most of it was also impossible enough to show to the audience that it was fiction, and no more. In this book Cornwell draws the line between fact and fiction a little less sharp, adding, like another commentator already said, that he'd made use of several non-fiction sources on the matter. For me, selling this item as only part fiction does not go well with me. It smears the Dutch and the Belgians in a way they do not deserve. As this is not a historical forum, I'll not press on the matter here any further, suffice to say the historical inaccuracy finally turned out the light for me. I'll not discourage anyone from reading it, but please, see it as it is. Fiction, and not the best at that ( Hornblower covers the same period, and is far more readable ).

Rating:
Summary: Sharpe series kicks ..
Review: Quick word about this and all the other Sharpe books They are fantastic!After all, its true that these stories are pure fiction, but they are HISTORICAL fiction.

The Prince of Orange, is the prince of the Nederlands (i.e. Holland), not Belgium. Belgium did not exist as an independent country untill 1850. the region is commonly known as Flanders, a province which kept changing hands in the many wars. At the time, It was under control of the Dutch, but had their own uniforms seperate from the Price of Orange's other troops.

If you go to Waterloo today, the Lion Hill is said to mark the place where the Price was killed, and the Lion statue was cast from melted down cannons used during the battle. It faces France as a warning.

The history lesson ends here. :)

Rating:
Summary: Amazingly Intense Battle Sequence
Review: The most straight forward of the Sharpe's series, and by far the longest and most intense battle narrative I have ever read. I can't speak to it's historical accuracy (it being almost 30 years since my last Military History course), but the action is so well described and so vivid that I absolutely could not put the book down once the final days battle began. Of course it is far fetched to expect one soldier to have been present at so many of the battle's key points, but as a literary device to describe a major battle it is a definite triumph.

Rating:
Summary: Waterloo
Review: This book was great fun and also educational. I do not give five stars simply because it is not in the same literary category as say a Patrick O'Brien novel. Easier to read though.

I am bewildered by some of the criticism. Obviously Sharpe is a fictional character and only a very confused reader would be led astray by his over achievement on the battlefield. Sharpe is simply the readers tour guide. You don't get the same critism from readers in the other books which indicate that national pride is causing this shallow criticism.

For French Historians to attempt to lessen the scope of Napoleans defeat is easily shown up by the fact that the French were subsequently routed and then surrendered. End of Napolean exiled (again) and end of story.

As for the Germans. Did they arrive very late or not. The answers to these basic questions lie in the simple facts. If they were there at the start , and if they shared the leadership responsibilities then they could claim equal credit. But they weren't- so they can't.

Also Look at the casualties - 40,000 French 15,000 British, Belgium and Dutch and 7000 Germans. Look at the dispatches by Wellington and Napolean immediately after the battle. Wellington's dispatch is modest, brief, understated and credible. Napoleans has a somewhat more colourful, exagerated, self righteous and perhaps understandably self serving tone.

There are colourful criticisms of the Dutch and Belgiums - but there were also numerous insightful observations on the imperfections of the British Army. The landed gentry officer class are endlessly mocked.

Wellington was an extraordinarily successful military leader. He was also somewhat more concerned about casualties than Napolean. Napolean was the problem.

Of course Wellington deserves the credit for the victory at Waterloo. Victory may not have happened with out the Late arrival of the Germans - but Wellington made a wise choice for the Battleground and then held his position against the constant withering attacks by a brilliant and perhaps desparate Emperor. Without heroism and bravery Napoleans tactics would once again have achieved an easy victory with Napolean getting the Glory (piles or no piles) This was the meat of the battle. It was Wellingtons Battle. As the author says - to suggest otherwise is mad. Also it was not all luck since Wellington had a long track record of beating the odds. If you are intelligent and brave enough then you will make your own luck.

Sharpe was not there, therefore we can all figure out that the Prince was not assailed as described- but who can't figure that out. But it was a nice liteary detour.

Great book, and if it encourages one to learn more then so much the better.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant Work of Fiction
Review: Whilst reading this book I tried desperately to keep in mind that this was fiction and that it was for entertainment - although my own opinions of the battle, often contrary to the author's, continued to creep up on me.
Enjoyed simply as a work of fiction is book is damn good - one of the best novels of the Napoleonic period (most other novel's cocnentrate on the war at sea which was minor and largely over - at least in the seas around Europe - by 1805). I highly recommend this not just to those who have an interest in the time, but simply to any reader who wants a brilliant action novel.
As for my disagreements with the author's potrayal of the battle - well Waterloo is probably the most controversial battle in history and it would be impossible to get everyone to agree. The author gives the typical English opinion of the battle - that is Wellington's brilliance won the battle. No doubt Wellington was one of the greatest generals of the age along with Davout, Suvorov and of course Napoleon. Waterloo however was not his greatest battle. To attribute the battle's outcome to Napoleon's or his Marshals' failures, to Wellington's skill or to the Prussians' arrival is folly. It was a mixture of all of these factors. Wellington would have been defeated without the Prussians arriving. Had Wellington not been the skilled general he was the Prussians would have arrived to find the Anglo-Dutch army already defeated and would have in turn been defeated. Had Napoleon not been so inatttentive he would have performed just as he had in all of his brilliant battles and against Napoleon at his best even Wellington would have lost. Had Ney not been so impetuous or had Grouhcy not been so overcautious the battle would have gone against the Allies. It was all these things that led to the outcome.
Oh and I believe one reviewer said that Waterloo was the largest battle of the age - there were plenty of larger battles in 1812 and 1813 as well as some earlier. Leipzig was by far the largest - similar in size to some of WWI and II's large battles.