Waterloo: The History of Four Days, Three Armies, and Three Battles

The legacy of Napoleon's loss at Waterloo is generally attributed to the superior strategy and leadership of the English commander, the Duke of Wellington. There is no doubt that the Duke, victorious in the Peninsular wars (in Spain), was a brilliant military strategist, but from my perspective he won at Waterloo primarily because he was not fighting Napoleon in his prime. Napoleon had amassed brilliant tactical victories in the early 1800's (e.g. Austerlitz, etc) defeating other allied (English, Prussian, Austrian, etc.) coalition armies - and was often outmanned. Napoleon was in his early 30's and actively guided his troops on horseback. At Waterloo, Napoleon was an aging 46 year old (he died at 51), overweight and suffering health issues. While he did play a principal role in planning and preparing for Waterloo, he left the actual conduct of the battle to his Generals, who almost without exception made grave strategic and tactical errors - which Napoleon allowed to happen, and which likely gave the victory to Wellington. The mistakes made by Napoleon were numerous: allowing Wellington to dictate the field of engagement at Waterloo by gaining the high ground, failing to immediately attack Wellington's forces when they ware still gathering their army at Waterloo and in a weak position, sending confusing orders to French General Grouchy which caused him to take his 33,000 troops 12 miles north of Waterloo, effectively eliminating them from the main battle, and further failing to call them back in a timely manner, and allowing General Ney to mount an ill-advised cavalry charge directly into Wellington's entrenched forces which decimated the French cavalry. All of this occurred with full visibility and knowledge of Napoleon, yet he failed to take any timely action to recall or correct these tactical mistakes. Wellington was no doubt a formidable foe, and his troops were well-trained and fought with discipline, but even with all of the French tactical mistakes Napoleon would likely have won but for the last minute arrival of the Prussian troops to reinforce the English army, which had suffered significant losses. Perhaps Napoleon thought himself and his army invincible. When I attended the Air Force War College we spent a great deal of time studying the Napoleonic wars, and also the writings of the Prussian office Carl Von Clausewitz in his seminal book on war, "Vom Kriege" ("On War"). Even a younger Napoleon would have had a difficult battle - Wellington was undefeated in battle and a superb defensive strategist. The book is thorough, and more than anything shows how brutal battles were in this period. Musket accuracy was best at close range, about 30-60 yards ("don't fire until you see the white's of their eyes!"), and the discipline to hold your fire when facing a cavalry charge with hundreds of riders would have been terribly frightening, but the English had been well-trained, and their tactics of forming squares to fight cavalry charges, then reforming into "lines" to counter infantry attacks was brilliantly effective, but Napoleon's superior cannon batteries and howitzers inflicted serious damage and death to huge numbers of the English forces. In the end it came down to the discipline and resilience of the British forces, the calm and strategic leadership of Wellington, the mistakes and delayed decisions by Napoleon, the strategic errors of his generals (and Napoleon's failure to quickly countermand them), and ultimately the arrival of the Prussian reinforcements that spelled defeat for Napoleon. If you're interested in Military history, this is a must read book.

As someone who does not know much of Wellington, Napoleon, or Europe in the 1800s, "Waterloo" was a complete introduction to me of one of the greatest battles of all time. And Bernard Cornwell's account is magnificent.This book was enjoyable to read. It flowed well from beginning to end. Descriptions of the battle were detailed, colorful, and gory (it is war, what do you expect?). Cornwell captures the readers imagination. He also includes many quotations and first person accounts--giving a true sense of what it was like to be there. Brilliant paintings and maps fill the pages giving the reader much to visualize the battle as it is laid out before him (this was a hard copy). I find it difficult to visualize battle movements when solely based on textual descriptions, so the detailed and vibrant maps vastly contributed to my reading experience.What I appreciate most of Cornwell may not even be his story telling prose--but how accessible his information is. The most clueless Waterloo amateur (like myself) will not be left in the dark long. Cornwell's writing will bring anyone up to speed on the basics of Napoleonic warfare: What is a column? What is a square? What is a line? And what are the advantages of each formation? Why would people march in massive columns in the open and willingly shoot each other? He describes what affect the musket, the cannon, and the horse had on 1800s tactics. He spends much paper discussing the leaders: Wellington, Napoleon, Blucher, Ney. Anyone can read this and very quickly understand the times, the tactics, and the battle itself.I learned much of Napoleon and his arrogance which I believe came back to bite him. He believed that he was near invincible, attacking two armies that together almost doubled his own strength. He delegated much power to his Marshalls (why?!) who time and time again broke clear rules of engagement. Wellington in contrast was very much involved in the battle--his calm and steady countenance exuded confidence. His troops took heart in brilliant displays of courage and (spoiler alert) withstood to win the day. The Prussian General Blucher's persistence after getting whipped earlier also contributed to the eventual defeat of The Emperor. There is much strength in unity.If I was picky I would wish that Cornwell would have summarized key events a little more. Instead of simply describing the facts and giving quick real time analysis, I would have appreciated Cornwell to have stepped back from the battle to elaborate on the significance of each moment more frequently. Part of me is left wondering--actually how important was the holding of Hougemont or how important was the charge of the Royal Scott Greys in the overall picture of the battle? Cornwell does well to say that understanding Waterloo is near impossible as war (and this battle in particular) is chaos. There are many contradictory accounts over what happened and where it happened and when it happened. Even so, I feel that he could have summarized the key events more.But that is a small thing in the big picture as all in all I found this book masterful. Before I read this I had no understanding of the people and events of Waterloo, and now I know more than most. That is why I read books! I recommend this book to anyone who enjoys learning history and events that have shaped our world. Enjoy.

Bernard Cornwell é um bem sucedido escritor de romances históricos, normalmente criando narrativas em torno de batalhas famosas (a Séria "Sharpe" é justamente ambientada nas guerras Napoleônicas) estréia aqui como um escritor de não ficção.Não é de surpreender que o documentarista apresente no relato da realidade as mesmas qualidades e defeitos do romancista. A narrativa macro é muito boa, o personagens são bem caracterizados, multidimensionais e os comentários sobre os acontecimentos é atraente e preciso. Porém, o livro se perde quando resolve descrever detalhadamente os combates e a sua profusão de regimentos e batalhões das mais diferentes especialidades. Pelo menos os mapas são bons e ajudam bastante no entendimento da confusão que foi.Acho que o livro seria um pouco melhor se as explicações das batalhas fossem menos detalhadas e mais esquemáticas. Talvez perdêssemos um pouco do contato com o lado humano da guerra, pois é exatamente nesse relato detalhado (muitas vezes oriundo de depoimentos de combatentes) que surgem situações inesperadas onde podemos entender como pensavam as pessoas daquela época.Tanto Wellington como Napoleão, assim como seus principais auxiliares são bem delineados. Todos tiveram sua quota de decisões ruins nas brumas da batalha, mas quem acaba pagando a conta foram os franceses, que poderiam ter ganho a guerra se tivessem tido mais iniciativa nas primeiras ações.Resumindo, é um bom livro para quem se interessar especificamente pela Batalha de Waterloo. Para um entendimento melhor das guerras napoleônicas é melhor buscar outros livros.

É surpreendente o nível de detalhes ao narrar as batalhas. Também me surpreenderam as cartas de pessoas reais que sobreviveram à batalha, creditando veracidade aos relatos.

Gosto muito do autor

Uma das narratives mais vívidas e com maior senso de conjunto sobre a batalha do Monte Saint-Jean. Produzida por um autor que acredita que a narrativa de uma batalha é sempre imperfeita.

Having been a fan of Cornwell’s novels for many years, I was extremely curious to see what his first work of non-fiction would be like. After all, fiction and non-fiction are different disciplines and it is a rare writer who excels in both. Cornwell’s fans will be pleased to hear that he has managed this difficult transition extremely well.His choice of the Waterloo campaign of 1815 was wise for many reasons. It is among the most decisive battles in history and witnessed the clash of three great commanders along with a host of famous soldiers who learned their trade during the bloody series of wars that preceded it. These factors alone make Waterloo worth studying but the fact that this campaign marked the end of a long period of warfare that had caused immense social and political upheaval also makes it a favourite topic with military historians.Cornwell has also been here before, notably with Sharpe’s Waterloo, which I number among his best novels. Indeed, he comments in the introduction that this unique campaign and the final battle itself are gifts to a writer since they contain so many famous, infamous and controversial events and characters. Indeed, it is noticeable from the outset that Cornwell’s familiarity with this period enhances his text and he launches into the book confidently and swiftly, maintaining a cracking pace throughout.I was very pleased to see that this book places Waterloo in its full historical context, outlining the events before and after the battle in some detail. Some writers tend to give this lip service or assume knowledge and I am glad that this is not the case with this volume. He sets the scene admirably for novice and expert alike and, once again, his wide knowledge of the period pays off in this regard.Many authors tackling the subject of Waterloo feel obliged to explain why they are tackling an oft visited campaign with literally hundreds of other works to choose from. Cornwell follows this trend and cites the fact that he has unearthed so many primary sources as justification for his new book. Personally I feel that the enormous interest that Waterloo still attracts, along with the forthcoming bicentenary and its historical significance, more than justifies his decision to write another book on the subject but he certainly delivers on this promise, using quotations from excellent primary source material.I was pleasantly surprised to see some rare letters and diaries quoted in this book. The fact that Cornwell has made the effort to use Dutch-Belgian and Prussian accounts is also very welcome as, even today, books occasionally emerge with a rather Anglo-centric bias. It is clear that these sources have been carefully selected for their relevance and my only gripe is that the book is not referenced, which would allow the reader to look up these sources for himself and read those related passages that the author has not been able to include. That said, Waterloo is not intended to be an academic work and the provision of a bibliography and a good index is more than sufficient for the wide and varied readership this title is aimed at.One thing I really like about Cornwell’s description of the Battle of Waterloo itself is his emphasis that many events occurred simultaneously. As he points out, many writers have treated famous parts of the battle as separate incidents – usually for simplicity’s sake. For example, he constantly refers back to the fight for Hougoumont that raged throughout the battle at different stages. This gives the reader a far better understanding of how the battle was fought and the reasoning behind some command decisions and Cornwell makes a masterful job of explaining this in a straightforward manner.In relation to the above, this book also contains clear and concise descriptions of complex troop deployments, formations and tactics on the battlefield. This really reminded me of the Sharpe novels, which also put these concepts across extremely well. I am glad that Cornwell doesn’t fall into the trap of assuming knowledge and takes the time to do this for readers whose knowledge may vary from novice – intermediate – expert. While he caters for the complete beginner, this provision never appears patronising and it is a real strength of this book that he takes the time to do so.One example of this is his description of French infantry columns. He points out that the word ‘column’ suggests a long and narrow formation of men whereas the reality was a wider formation that resembled the shape of a brick and advanced on its widest side. Once again, I think the author’s knowledge of both the subject and those who read his books has proved invaluable in this regard.In relation to the complex deployment and movement of troops, I was pleased to see that most chapters had battlefield maps provided. This always benefits the reader as understanding deployment and movement on the battlefield through text alone is far from easy. I’ve often heard readers say that they would like more maps in a book like this but I think the number provided here is just about right.This book is also extremely well illustrated with blocks of full colour illustrations at the end of each chapter. While many famous paintings have been selected, there are also a number of more obscure pictures on display that will be new to many readers. Ultimately, this volume is well set out with excellent maps and illustrations, which easily justifies the cover price.From the subtitle, I had guessed that the Battle of Wavre would not be examined in great detail. This is a shame as the relevance of Thielmann’s stubborn rearguard action is often overlooked. However, there is so much ground to cover in this campaign that fitting a lengthy description of this fight (forever obscured by Waterloo itself that took place on the same day) into a book of this size must have been problematic. I strongly suspect that this was the result of difficult decisions at the editing stage but at least Cornwell manages to refer to the fight between Grouchy and Thielmann in general terms, which is more than some writers offer.In contrast, the Battle of Ligny is also given short shrift in some books but receives an excellent description here of similar length to that of Quatre Bras, which occurred simultaneously. This is also backed up by some excellent quotations from French and Prussian participants and I was glad that this was not overwhelmed by the Battle of Quatre Bras. I was very pleased to see this coverage as Ligny was Napoleon’s final victory and how he dealt with the aftermath largely dictated the path that the rest of the campaign would follow.Anyone who has read Cornwell’s novels will know that he is no admirer of Napoleon Bonaparte and rather sympathetic to the Duke of Wellington. Nevertheless, in this book he seems to have made a real effort to be objective and, while he criticises Napoleon on occasion, he also takes care to acknowledge his successes. In similar fashion, he also praises and damns Wellington in equal measure when appropriate.That said his treatment of The Prince of Orange, who he often refers to by his contemporary nickname of Slender Billy, is not so even handed. The Prince receives a barrage of criticism for his failings at Quatre Bras, Waterloo and his attitude in general. Personally I feel Cornwell is a little harsh here but, while Cornwell lets us know in no uncertain terms what he thinks of the Prince, many historians concur with his views. In truth, the controversial decisions that some commanders made during this campaign are crucial and make the campaign worth reading about.As far as historical controversies and theories about the battle, this book outlines some of the more famous issues but does not fall into the trap of taking sides or letting them detract from his purpose of telling the story from the point of view of participants (as far as that is possible). For example, he acknowledges Peter Hofschröer’s belief that Wellington ‘stole’ credit for the victory from the Prussians but doesn’t get bogged down discussing every facet of this argument. He makes his points quickly and concisely and then returns to the main action, which I think most readers will appreciate.Nevertheless, I was very glad to read that Cornwell concurs with the theory that the Allied victory at Waterloo was the result of mutual trust between Wellington and his Prussian counterpart Marshal Blücher. Essentially, Wellington would not have stood and fought if he thought the Prussians were not marching to support him. Likewise, Blücher would not have risked his army on a dangerous outflanking march unless he believed that the Duke would stand and fight. The Prussian commander’s suggestion that the battle be named after the inn of Belle Alliance makes a lot of sense when you analyse it from this perspective.Ultimately, Cornwell does an excellent job of portraying just how close Napoleon came to victory at Waterloo and that the outcome was uncertain until mid-evening 18 June. Until I researched the battle myself, I failed to truly appreciate this but this volume hammers this home very strongly. Consequently the reader receives the correct impression that Wellington conducted a masterly defence, Napoleon was often forced to make decisions at a disadvantage (for various reasons) but made some glaring errors and that Blücher’s determination and ultimate intervention was decisive.This book is also a well-timed tribute for Waterloo 200. The outcome of the 1815 campaign had immense social and political influence on world history and it is just that June 2015 will see many commemorative events and re-examinations of this decisive battle. Cornwell’s book provides a great description of the campaign for readers with all levels of knowledge and will hopefully encourage many to visit the battlefields for the bicentenary. Along with providing an exciting and inspiring description of these events, it benefits from the numerous primary sources the author has sought out, and I highly recommend it.My one wish is that I could have had this volume with me when I last visited the battlefield but it had not been released at that time. I strongly suspect that when I visit again in 2015 for the bicentenary commemorations I will meet many fellow enthusiasts carrying this book who will no doubt sing its praises.