<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Fiction
Review: Check the source material...He quotes books of his own he hasn't written yet...boxes in archives that don't exist, etc. Anyone who takes this book seriously doesn't know much about Napoleonic history and anyone who buys it is wating their money.
Rating: 
Summary: Great read.
Review: David Hamilton-Williams's much maligned account of perhaps history's most written about battle, suffers (in my view) not only from its dubious supporting research, but from an even shakier technique. Simply put, if one intends to challenge the existing views and hitherto carved-in-stone assumptions of the great battle, one must be prepared to defend at length those points of disagreement. In this the author fails badly, and thus robs his effort of any life it may have had even after being picked apart by those rightfully skeptical of his research skills. Mr. Williams presents his thesis as if he was the first author to have ever written on the subject. His crime is not his numerous diversions off the beaten path of established historical tradition, but rather his failure to let the reader know when he has done so. According to Mr. D H-W,: Marshal Ney had a great day at Quatre Bras, and would have won the day at Mont St. Jean if only Napoleon had let him have that horse artillery!; Napoleon was not at all surprised by the appearance of half the Prussian army, if fact he had prepared for it by deploying advanced units to alert him to Blucher's expected attack; the tragic false-reporting of Grouchy's arrival was not Napoleon's fault; Wellington spent most of the battle under the shade of an elm tree, while Napoleon was everywhere seeing everything and sending a steady stream of orders to his front line commanders. These, and many more like them, are indeed "New Perspectives," which demand an explanation. To have slipped them into the narrative without so much as a parenthetical comment not only weakens the author's treatise, but serves poorly the new student who may not recognize such assertions for the controversial bombshells they are. Nevertheless, Mr. Williams has succeeded in writing a useful overview of the famous campaign. I therefore recommend it, but, beware the bombshells.
Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Account
Review: Even though the author's credibility is being questioned, his account of the battle should not be as easily ignored. One should always remember that historical "facts" are always tainted by those who write them. After all, it is usually the victor who writes of the battles and campaigns, and there always seems to be a political motivation in "sprucing" up of the truth. I would suggest to anybody wishing to purchase the book to use one's best judgement. To truly be able to judge an author's work, one must remain open to all possible ideas and points of view. In the case of this book I would take it for what it is, and then proceed to further study the conflict, and then draw a conclusion. I would not recommend a complete dismissal of this title. I just strongly suggest that the reader remember that to all points there is a counter, and not everybody will share the same opinion on any topic. The book is worth reading, because it causes people to think, and opens discussion about an issue that may never be resolved to anybody's satisfaction.
Rating:
Summary: New Perspectives Indeed - An Invaluable Account of Waterloo
Review: Having read everything I can on the Waterloo battle I still find this book to be absolutely essential. I've read the critics who fault the author on many levels but I must say that he answers several questions that literally no other author has thus far addressed.
1) Why did Picton die crying, "Rally the Highlanders?" Were not the British lines indestructable?
2) How did a few companies of British Guards hold Hougamont against most of a French corps? After all, didn't the German and Nassau troops flee in terror? (see Jac Weller et al)
3) Why did the French Army fall apart and flee for their lives when the Middle Guard was repulsed, yet most could not see farther than twenty feet on the smoke filled battle field? Could it have had something to do with Ziethen's advance, ignored even in the otherwise excellent 'Waterloo Companion'?
4) Did Napoleon really lie about Grouchy's arrival - or did the attack by the Prussians on the Nassau forces on Wellington's left make him think Grouchy truly had arrived?
Until at least one other author addresses these questions I submit that Hamilton Williams is the man to read. Not to mention the fact that his commentary reads like an adventure story and his account of the battle is quite simply the best so far written by anyone.
The attacks on H-W by Peter Hofshroyer should also be taken with a large grain of salt. I was shocked by that until I realized htat H-W stole a march on him by getting to print first with what was certainly the first English language account of the battle to give proper credit to the Dutch Belgians, Prussians and various Germans.
This book belongs in any serious military history collection and truly does offer a "new perspective".
Rating: 
Summary: Justly Discredited or mere character assassination?
Review: I purchased this book precisely because it is one one of the few volumes still in print with anything close to full coverage of the Waterloo campaign, and with more or less the least amount of identity politics. Despite all the author's plugging of his own books-to-come and his claims, which are a good deal too much for the dust jacket and all, the book collapses on simply being a reasonably accurate accurate account of (mostly) the battles of Quatre-Bras and Waterloo (among the French, British, and Dutch/German/Belgian allies). There simply isn't anything terribly new or controversial in his book and I disagree with Peter Hofschroer's remark about its content being thrown in doubt, all other issues with him notwithstanding. The content is too derivative, too close to common knowledge for that to be the case. The interested reader is challenged to find another volume with the same amount of coverage of the Battle of Quatre-Bras, for example. The author, it appears in parts of the book, does not attempt as much coverage of those areas with which were not evidently well researched (The Prussian contibution, perhaps thus some of Mr Hofschroer's vitriolics). The author does indeed venture to make make his opinions and interpretations, some of which the reader has to take with a grain of salt, but that is his authorial prerogative. We see that Mr Hofschroer clearly enjoys his privilege as well. The author's account is, overall and despite the criticism, surprisingly balanced. The writing is usually good and entertaining. Hamilton-Williams account is by no means a "fiction." I still find his attempts a good deal more useful in guiding me a little closer to the truth than the massive omissions so common in other volumes which purport to cover the Waterloo campaign. Personally I am tired of hearing all the petty squabbling among
historians, amateur and some (huh-hum) professional, over who really won Waterloo, and worse yet the endless bickering among pedantic source hunters. When the reader who has access to enough of the excellent volumes and materials on the subject becomes fairly expert enough, he or she can cross check the common stories, narratives, or sources of quotes, most often without having to be a source hunter. There is criticism, even polemics, and then there is character
assassination. I have yet to find a reasonable published account
which proves D. H-W deliberately falsified his account anywhere of the Waterloo campaign, or deliberately falsified his sources. I will wait to hear the author defend himself first before I pass judgement. Moreover, take with more than just a grain of salt the many
unprofessional reviews made by one "Michael La Vean" on this and
David Hamilton-Williams other page. They smack of cheap personal
vendetta and not anything resembling reasonable criticism. One
wonders if they were to research Mr La Vean's own claims (if that is his real name) as to his identity and credentials what would turn up, if anything. I do not believe that a fellow of the International Napoleonic society would engage in such juvenile ranting as he has done on this site, making such serious and unsupported claims of his own. Furthermore, his methods are of such a common variety internet persona that he almost seems as if to materialize again and again in the guise of a reader from West Point, or from Moscow, London, Brussels, or who knows what other place names with any relevence to
matters of Napoleonic military history.
Rating:
Summary: A Scholarly and Catholic Work
Review: Mr. Hamilton Williams analyzes the entire hundred days campaign in a catholic and imperious manner. What is most striking about his work are the many levels at which it can be read. At the most rudimentary level, the book provides an elegantly written and clearly presented account of the factual events of the hundred days campaign. Woven in to this factual narrative are nuggets of analysis. Mr. Hamilton-Williams draws unorthodox yet reasonable conclusions about the hundred days campaign. One of the more controversial arguments the book posits suggests that Waterloo was lost due to the incompetence of Napoleon Bonaparte's subordenates, and not the failures of Napoleon himself. And this suggestion does not lack merit. When he returned from Elba, Napoleon was faced with grave disadvantages; some self wrought and others unavoidable. Most dicisive (argues Hamilton-Williams) was the loss of Marshal Berthier, Bonaparte's long time (nearly 20 year's) Chief of Staff. Without Berthier's gift of clear translation of the often garbled and confusing verbal orders of Bonaparte, the cogs of the French military machine began to fall apart, and grave miscommunications occured, miscommunications that led to the downfall of Bonaparte at Waterloo. The other disadvantage worthy of recap was the loss of Marshal Murat, Bonaparte's brilliant cavalry captain. It was his absence, an absence caused by Bonaparte, that resulted in the dismal failure of Marshal Ney's cavalry charge at Waterloo, and the consequent failure of Napoleon Bonaparte at that battle. All of this is fully and more elegantly explained in Mr. Hamiliton-Williams penetrating and scholarly work. In short, Mr. Hamilton-Williams has provided in <I>Waterloo: New Perspectives</I> an historical gem, that should be read by all scholars of the Napoleonic era.
<< 1 >>
| 
