Download Waterloo The French Perspective Andrew W Field 9781526752505 Books
Download As PDF : Waterloo The French Perspective Andrew W Field 9781526752505 Books
The story of the Battle of Waterloo - of the ultimate defeat of Napoleon and the French, the triumph of Wellington, Blücher and their allied armies - is most often told from the viewpoint of the victors, not the vanquished. Even after 200 years of intensive research and the publication of hundreds of books and articles on the battle, the French perspective and many of the primary French sources are under-represented in the written record. So it is high time this weakness in the literature – and in our understanding of the battle – was addressed, and that is the purpose of Andrew Field’s thought-provoking new study. He has tracked down over ninety first-hand French accounts, many of which have never been previously published in English, and he has combined them with accounts from the other participants in order to create a graphic new narrative of one of the world’s decisive battles. Virtually all of the hitherto unpublished testimony provides fascinating new detail on the battle and many of the accounts are vivid, revealing and exciting.
.
Download Waterloo The French Perspective Andrew W Field 9781526752505 Books
"This book can be a terrific introduction to the Battle of Waterloo, but you’ll really, really appreciate the author’s presentation of rare sources and his balanced analysis if you’ve read a multitude of other books on this pivotal battle. The author relies on various French accounts of Waterloo (many of them unpublished or otherwise inaccessible), and many corroborating Allied accounts are used as well. Some accounts are exceptionally vivid – such the ones describing the Old Guard’s recapture of Plancenoit or the retreat of the French Army. Other accounts, such as the ones covering the work of Napoleon’s staff or even more casual things, are also very intriguing.
Field takes a stab at numerous myths and misconceptions surrounding the Battle of Waterloo, and the decision-making process and actions of the French Army are analyzed without the hindsight bias. After all, the French were operating under imperfect information, in an unfamiliar terrain (at least unfamiliar to many officers and rank-and-file soldiers), and with an imperfect communication system. At the same time, the author attributes the French loss to various strategic and tactical failures of its leadership, and I think it’s a fair conclusion.
The book sheds a lot of light on the following issues / questions, with many of them ignored or distorted in the voluminous Waterloo literature:
- Realistically, how early could the French commence the battle, given the ground conditions and the initial disposition? Was the start of the battle deliberately delayed?
- What was the initial disposition of the Grand Battery and how was it moved throughout the day? How effective was the French artillery during different stages of the battle?
- What French units were engaged in the attack on Hougoumont? Was there more than one incursion into Hougoumont’s courtyard? How wisely was Reille’s Corps used during the battle? Were some of its units idle?
- What explains the column formation employed during the attack of d’Erlon’s Corp? How did this attack proceed? Was there an earlier opportunity to capture La Haye Sainte or some of the Allied batteries? What really stopped d’Erlon’s attack? What role did hedges play?
- Was the Grand Cavalry Attack really unsupported by the artillery and infantry? Why was this support ineffective?
- Were some of the Allied squares shaken / broken during the Grand Cavalry Attack?
- What was the disposition / role played by the Marines and Sappers of the Guard?
- What was the true role played by the sunken lane? Was it just another Napoleonic myth or a real constraint for the French cavalry and infantry? What was it significance during the retreat of the French Army?
- How did the Middle Guard’s attack proceed? How was it supported by the rest of the French Army? Were there additional means to support this attack? How effective was the Middle Guard’s fire?
- How did the French respond to the arrival of Zieten’s Corps? How did they try to counter it?
- Finally, did the French Army have a chance to win this battle or avoid its own disintegration?
My only critical comment is that the author underestimates the numerical strength of the Prussian units actually engaged at Waterloo. Pirch’s Corps also made a major contribution. While this Prussian Corps in not mentioned in the book, it appears on one of the maps, but I think it is mislabeled anyways and should be Zieten’s Corps instead.
Overall, a magnificent book! Buy it, read it, spread the word about it. It belongs on your bookshelf (or Kindle, I guess) next to “1815: Waterloo†by Henry Houssaye, “The Battle†by Alessandro Barbero, and “Three Napoleonic Battles†by Harold Parker."
Product details
|
Tags : Waterloo The French Perspective [Andrew W Field] on . <span style= >The story of the Battle of Waterloo - of the ultimate defeat of Napoleon and the French,Andrew W Field,Waterloo The French Perspective,Pen and Sword Military,1526752506,9781526752505,Blücher,British battles,Casemate,Duke of Wellington,French battles,GENERAL,HISTORY / Military / Napoleonic Wars,Imperial Guard,Marshal Ney,Military,Napoleon,Napoleonic Wars,Non-Fiction,Pen and Sword Military,Waterloo,Waterloo; Napoleonic Wars; Napoleon; Duke of Wellington; Blücher; Marshal Ney; Imperial Guard; British battles; French battles; nineteenth-century warfare.; Casemate; Pen and Sword Military; 9781526752505,nineteenth-century warfare.
Waterloo The French Perspective Andrew W Field 9781526752505 Books Reviews :
Waterloo The French Perspective Andrew W Field 9781526752505 Books Reviews
- As the 200th anniversary of the Napoleonic Wars rolls through, veteran British historian Andrew Field offers a different point of view on its most decisive battle with "Waterloo The French Perspective". Fields has mined a variety of French sources (and some British sources) to give the view from the other side of the hill, or in this case, of the ridge at Mount St. Jean.
Fields proceeds in a methodical manner through the Waterloo Campaign, from Napoleon's return from Elba and the rebuilding of the French Army, through the preliminary battles prior to Waterloo, to the actual battle itself and the aftermath. The narrative is straightforward, stepping easily from source to source with some connecting explanations. The book includes some excellent graphics of the actual maneuvering of French arms on the battlefield at Waterloo. In his discussion, Fields gives full credit to the Prussians for their aggressive effort to reach the battlefield, and their impact on Wellington's and Napoleon's management of their respective forces.
"Waterloo The French Perspective" is short enough to be worthwhile to the general reader with at least some knowledge of the battle, as a corrective to generally British-centric histories of the campaign. For the student of the Napoleonic Wars, the principal interest may be the use of the French perspective as a re-entrant to some of the battle's lingering controversies, including the struggle for the farmhouse of Hougemount and the various phases of the battle. This reviewer found most interesting the author's placement of the crisis of the battle at the fall of La Haye Sainte rather than at the attack of Napoleon's Middle and Old Guard. So far as this reviewer can tell, there are no major discoveries of new material; no controversies will be definitively settled by the book. However, students of the campaign should find the perspective to be food for thought; it is recommended to that audience. - This book can be a terrific introduction to the Battle of Waterloo, but you’ll really, really appreciate the author’s presentation of rare sources and his balanced analysis if you’ve read a multitude of other books on this pivotal battle. The author relies on various French accounts of Waterloo (many of them unpublished or otherwise inaccessible), and many corroborating Allied accounts are used as well. Some accounts are exceptionally vivid – such the ones describing the Old Guard’s recapture of Plancenoit or the retreat of the French Army. Other accounts, such as the ones covering the work of Napoleon’s staff or even more casual things, are also very intriguing.
Field takes a stab at numerous myths and misconceptions surrounding the Battle of Waterloo, and the decision-making process and actions of the French Army are analyzed without the hindsight bias. After all, the French were operating under imperfect information, in an unfamiliar terrain (at least unfamiliar to many officers and rank-and-file soldiers), and with an imperfect communication system. At the same time, the author attributes the French loss to various strategic and tactical failures of its leadership, and I think it’s a fair conclusion.
The book sheds a lot of light on the following issues / questions, with many of them ignored or distorted in the voluminous Waterloo literature
- Realistically, how early could the French commence the battle, given the ground conditions and the initial disposition? Was the start of the battle deliberately delayed?
- What was the initial disposition of the Grand Battery and how was it moved throughout the day? How effective was the French artillery during different stages of the battle?
- What French units were engaged in the attack on Hougoumont? Was there more than one incursion into Hougoumont’s courtyard? How wisely was Reille’s Corps used during the battle? Were some of its units idle?
- What explains the column formation employed during the attack of d’Erlon’s Corp? How did this attack proceed? Was there an earlier opportunity to capture La Haye Sainte or some of the Allied batteries? What really stopped d’Erlon’s attack? What role did hedges play?
- Was the Grand Cavalry Attack really unsupported by the artillery and infantry? Why was this support ineffective?
- Were some of the Allied squares shaken / broken during the Grand Cavalry Attack?
- What was the disposition / role played by the Marines and Sappers of the Guard?
- What was the true role played by the sunken lane? Was it just another Napoleonic myth or a real constraint for the French cavalry and infantry? What was it significance during the retreat of the French Army?
- How did the Middle Guard’s attack proceed? How was it supported by the rest of the French Army? Were there additional means to support this attack? How effective was the Middle Guard’s fire?
- How did the French respond to the arrival of Zieten’s Corps? How did they try to counter it?
- Finally, did the French Army have a chance to win this battle or avoid its own disintegration?
My only critical comment is that the author underestimates the numerical strength of the Prussian units actually engaged at Waterloo. Pirch’s Corps also made a major contribution. While this Prussian Corps in not mentioned in the book, it appears on one of the maps, but I think it is mislabeled anyways and should be Zieten’s Corps instead.
Overall, a magnificent book! Buy it, read it, spread the word about it. It belongs on your bookshelf (or , I guess) next to “1815 Waterloo†by Henry Houssaye, “The Battle†by Alessandro Barbero, and “Three Napoleonic Battles†by Harold Parker. - Just in time for the 200th Anniversary of the decisive battle of the Napoleonic wars, Andrew Field, taps a variety of French sources to provide a probing recounting of the Battle of Waterloo. I understand why he doesn't use the French name for the battle as Waterloo in the title will sell more books than La Belle Alliance. The book gets off to a slow start with the explanations of the sources employed but once freed from establishing its historical credentials, the history is a cogent account of the battle. Field does not use this work to show how the French really won the battle or excuse genuinely bone-headed generalship. It is a refreshing book and already is one of my favorites about the battle. If you want something different then the old "fields of Eaton" history that relies almost exclusively on British sources, give this book a try.
- Very interesting read which relies on French sources to describe the Battle of Waterloo and, where possible, unique uses both English & French sources to clarify critical moments in the battle. Field, to a large extent redresses the over- reliance on English sources and this particularly clarifies the last attack by the French Imperial Guard. He says that where there are German & French accounts of the same event they are largely in harmony, but sadly doesn't include them. One of the few MUST READS for the upcoming 200th anniversary of the battle.
