<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: British Feel-Good book
Review: Jac Weller gives an evenhanded account of the great battle of Waterloo, particularly in his assessment of the non-British units under Wellington's command. Also specifically noted are the contributions of the Prussians under Blucher and their long arduous day just to get to the battlefield. The German and Dutch troops fighting alongside the British are given their due and there is much detail to substantiate their worthiness. The author never claims that either Wellington or Blucher were superior than Napoleon on the battlefield, but he clearly points out that both of them outshined the Emperor on June 18, 1815. Weller also states Napoleon's view of what happened on that date; he blamed others such as Ney and Soult, but never himself. The author is quick to note that Napoleon's own brother, Jerome, was mystified by his absence during crucial times of the battle. The debate will go on, but Weller makes the case that Napoleon's actions during the battle and his underestimation of the opposition were the leading factors in his demise.
Rating: 
Summary: An account of Waterloo for the Wellington fan
Review: Jac Weller's "Wellington at Waterloo" is the third volume of a trilogy covering Wellington's military experiences in the Napoleonic era. It is best read as part of that trilogy. Weller writes in clear, easy to understand, and usually entertaining prose. He has an excellent grasp of the importance of terrain, and writes better than most about the details of tactics and weapons. His understanding of Wellington enables him to provide a narrative of the conduct of the Battle of Waterloo from Wellington's changing perspective as commander over time. This perspective allows Weller to impose order on the chaos of the battlefield for the general reader. Be warned that Weller was an unabashed fan of Wellington and wastes very little ink on the various academic controversies about the battle. Diehard fans of the military genius of Napoleon should seek elsewhere. Weller breaks no new ground with this book; his interpretation follows standard lines. Those looking for an entertaining and understandable narrative of the battlefield should find this a good read.
Rating: 
Summary: Waterloo Mythology
Review: One appreciates Weller's enthusiasm and readable style. However, he is a Wellington apologist and an anglophile. As such the reader needs to take his work with a large pinch of salt. Rather than a careful presentation of documented fact, we instead get a repetition of the anglophone mythology of this campaign. This book is not serious history, rather something nearer fiction, as are most British works on the subject. One refreshing exception to that is Hofschroer's two volumes on 1815.
Rating: 
Summary: The truth will anoy Napoleon appologists
Review: Replying to the other 'reviews', none of which show signs that the author read the book:It is no suprise to find that appologists for Napoleon are still arround. After all he is still taught as a hero in French schools rather than as the bloodthirsty tyrant he really was. Napoleon was the Saddam Hussein of his age, starting a series of unnecessary and ultimately fruitless campaigns which he ultimately lost. The battle of Waterloo was only fought because Napoleon decided to invade Belgium. Jac Weller is quite right to point out that Napoleon lost to Wellington. In fact Wellington beat Napoleon twice, first in the Penisular campaign when he whipped Napoleon's generals, then at Waterloo he beat the man himself.
Rating:
Summary: Well researched, well written
Review: There have been many outstanding books written about the Battle of Waterloo and the Duke of Wellington. The strength of Weller's book is that he synthesizes all of these sources into a very readable narrative of Wellington's actions in Waterloo.
The book focuses mostly on Wellington. It has some excellent chapters on what led up to the battle, the organization of the armies, and most importantly battlefield tactics and strategy. He then spends several chapters (maybe half the book) on the battles of Quatre Bras and Waterloo. He also has a chapter dedicated to raising and either debunking or supporting criticisms that other historians have raised about the performance of the British, Prussian, and French armies.
Jac Weller was clearly passionate about Wellington. He spent many days walking over the battlefields to put his research into better perspective. He included many maps and pictures, though the pictures are grainy black and whites that probably date for the 60s. I've been to Waterloo several times since the early 90s, and I'd expect that Weller would find the area significantly changed from when he wrote this book. His last chapter is basically his recommendation for a walking tour of the battlefields. My guess is that most of what he recommends can't be followed today.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Bernard Cornwell has written many books about the British Army of this time period in his Sharpe series. Quoting from his website, "[t]here are plenty of good books on Wellington's battles and campaigns, but these three [includes Weller's books on Peninsular War and India], I think, belong on the shelf of anyone who takes a serious interest in the Napoleonic wars." I agree.
Rating: 
Summary: Detailed view from unique perspective
Review: This book is neither an attempt at comprehensive coverage of the campaign leading to Waterloo nor meant as an exhaustive study of the battle itself. If one wishes to study either the campaign or the battle more broadly, or more fully, other works by other authors will better serve. But criticism of Mr. Weller's book for its narrow focus on the battle from Wellington's viewpoint would at best be a misreading of the author's intent, since as Bob Burnham's cogent review points out, Mr. Weller wrote this book primarily to give readers an understanding of Wellington's probable view of the battle as the Iron Duke experienced it on foot and horseback, in real time, under field conditions, in 1815 (...).In my opinion Mr. Weller not only largely succeeds in achieving that very specific and limited goal, but also gives a singularly edifying and pleasurable opportunity to learn details of the terrain and buildings of the battlefield as they were when it was fought, and to view the site and structures as extant in the late 1950's and early 1960's. I found descriptions of the battlefield's key elements by Mr. Weller, and the ground-level and airborne photos in his book, greatly informed my visit to Waterloo in 1971, and enhanced my ability to grasp the references made to these same features by other authors.
In conclusion, do not buy this book as either your introduction to the history of the battle or as a definitive and bias-free reference to the whole of the campaign. But do buy this book if you wish a very unique assist unavailable from any other work I'm familiar with per visualizing the "where" and "what" of the battlefield in 1815, and thereby improving your ability to judge for yourself regarding the when and why postulated by other authors for choices made by the various commanders, or the physical events of the battle falling out as they did.
Rating:
Summary: Wellington gets his due
Review: We are too often blinded by the supposed "brilliance" of Napoleon, but at Waterloo his shortcomings were finally exposed. This book sets out to give an even-handed account of the battle, and presents both commanders in a realistic light. As an avid student of the era, I have long found it strange how Wellington, outnumbered as he was, could win the battle of Waterloo, and yet still "come in second" to Napoleon, whom he so clearly bested. This worthy book demonstrates that Wellington and Napoleon may have been equal in talent in most departments, but in two areas, the Iron Duke had a clear advantage: he could see "the other side of the hill", and he was always present on a battlefield where he was most needed, at the precise moment he was most needed. For the apologists for Napoleon, this book will make hard reading. For once an author is not blinded by the light of the late Emperor's posthumous PR machine, and assesses his military talents objectively and coldly, a task long overdue. Buy this book.
Rating:
Summary: Wellington gets his due
Review: We are too often blinded by the supposed "brilliance" of Napoleon, but at Waterloo his shortcomings were finally exposed. This book sets out to give an even-handed account of the battle, and presents both commanders in a realistic light. As an avid student of the era, I have long found it strange how Wellington, outnumbered as he was, could win the battle of Waterloo, and yet still "come in second" to Napoleon, whom he so clearly bested. This worthy book demonstrates that Wellington and Napoleon may have been equal in talent in most departments, but in two areas, the Iron Duke had a clear advantage: he could see "the other side of the hill", and he was always present on a battlefield where he was most needed, at the precise moment he was most needed. For the apologists for Napoleon, this book will make hard reading. For once an author is not blinded by the light of the late Emperor's posthumous PR machine, and assesses his military talents objectively and coldly, a task long overdue. Buy this book.
<< 1 >>
|
