[.ca] Wellington at Waterloo (ISBN 1853673390)

Wellington gets his due:
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.

Well-researched and unbiased viewpoint on Waterloo:
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.

Waterloo Mythology:
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.

The truth will anoy Napoleon appologists:
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.

British Feel-Good book:
"Skip this British feel-good book