[.ca] 1815: The Waterloo Campaign: From Waterloo to the Fall ... (ISBN 1853675784)

Overrated book:
This is revisionist history. It is not the first book to state that the Brits did not win Waterloo, nor will it be the last. The coverage of Waterloo is fixated only on the issue of Wellington's culpability in covering his tracks. The other irritating theme is that the Germans won Waterloo by sheer numbers of Germanic people represented in the campaign. For a full understanding of the roles played by the French, the Brits, the Dutch-Belgians, you'll have to look elsewhere. So how can this book be the definitive book on Waterloo?

Simple the Best Book about the Waterloo Campaign:
The title says it all. It isn't Brit bashing at all. It is simply history finally coming the to light of day. Of all the Allies that fought Napoleon during this campain, only 15% were British! Of all the casualties that the Allied armies suffered, only 17% were British, 8% were Netherlanders, and 75% were German. Now, that should tell you something. This is only part of what Peter Hofschroer brings to us in this excellent book. It deverves to be on every Napoleonic enthusiast's bookshelf. That and his comapion book about the battle of Ligny and Quatre Bras.

Nothing new---except spin:
Lots of chest-beating, "Germans" won Waterloo stuff (Germans? These small nationalities did not consider themselves Germans...I know; one was my ancestor). So what value does this have? Minimal, in my opinion; just another book on Waterloo passed off as groundbreaking. Want to own a really good book on Waterloo? Get "The Waterloo Companion" by Mark Adkin...it is a superb book that blows away this hyperbole.

I know Brit-bashing is a popular pastime amongst Americans:
And i fail to see why as we have never fought since 1812, speak the same language, you are partly us (anglo-saxons) and have been united in viewpoint since 1914 (give or take the odd thing: suez crisis for example) Also the Statue of libertys French and you own everything to that country,theres a miniture one on the Seine, you basicully wouldn't have had a Navy in the War of Independence haha,i alert you to this to show you the fickle nature of American global opinon. Who armed Saddam and Osama? Back to the book, this book fails to point out: A/ Wellington (a British General) choice of the Mont St Jean ridge was a big help in the ultimate victory. In protecting the allies from Napoleon's initial bombardment, those futile cavalry charges of Neys amongst others. Wellington was the only general to successful come up with a tactic to beat Revolutionary style tactics ( using natural obstacles and line as opposed to column) Waterloo was a great example of this though I do accept it started to crumble before Bluchers arrival. Napoleon's campaign of 6 days proved none of the opposing army's had successfully came up with a tactic. Soults weary advice to Napoleon to not underestimate Wellington also does as he had suffered countless defeats in the Peninsular war and he was a great general. B/ Blucher was successfully beating at Ligny C/ If it was up to Gneisenua Blucher would have left Wellington to his fate D/ The slaying of Napoleon's Imperial Guard is perhaps the greatest incident in the annals of British Military history. E/ Germany did not even exist as a country, this immediately shows this book up as being a biased facade. While I do agree in terms of rank and file,. German troops outweighed there British counterparts Statistics can deceive. The British army also contained Dutch? I know many of you are anti-British (so much for our 'special relationship') but to claim Waterloo is purely German is to betray The Prince of Orange and Dutch valour, your biased knowledge in liking this book is discriminating to that other 'great republic' of the dykes. I agree with the previous reviewer, Waterloo was a allied victory, not a British or German. The title which claims it pure-'A country that didn't even exist' basically reveals its biased judgement. You can tell the writer is on the defensive to name it that. As to the reviewer who brought into question the generalmanship and valour of the British soldier, what of the fate of the American 2nd corp (haha beating by a retreating army)in the 2nd WW, N. Africa? What of Vietnam? Are you not losing men in Iraq now? And what of Agincourt, Crecy Poiters, Blenhiem, El Alamien and the final march in the 1st ww?. To quote various British military blunders (some of them with great historical inaccuracy I may add, and you even left out the biggest one of all: Singapore) yet leave out various glorious British victories meanwhile leaving out various American blunders is what's called 'selective memory'. ''Blucher was more energetic then Wellington'' Wellington is reported to have been in amongst the rank in file with the best of them, hiding amongst the squares when it got to dangerous. His siege of Badajoz, Ciudad Rodrigo and the battle of Salamanca prove he was no stranger to the offensive. I fail to see your reasoning to this point. This book is biased however i will give it 2 for alerting the courage of the German rank and file previously unknown to British Victorian historians.

Finally the truth:
Finally a book that portraits the importance of the Prussians and Blücher in the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo. I wish this honesty would extend to many TV "documentaries" on this subject, which many times do not even have the courtesy to mention the Prussians nor Blücher in their portrait of events. It makes one wonder if a country's PR machine and overall biased control of the media, or even the scarring caused by other historical events (i.e. WWI and WWII) can in fact lead to a covert rewriting of history.