What do you think?
Rate this book
Waterloo: June 18, 1815: The Battle For Modern Europe
June 18, 1815, was one of the most momentous days in world history, marking the end of twenty-two years of French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. On the bloody battlefield of Waterloo, the Emperor Napoleon and his hastily formed legions clashed with the Anglo-Allied armies led by the Duke of Wellington -- the only time the two greatest military strategists of their age faced each other in combat.
With precision and elegance, Andrew Roberts sets the political, strategic, and historical scene, providing a breathtaking account of each successive stage of the battle while also examining new evidence that reveals exactly how Napoleon was defeated. Illuminating, authoritative, and engrossing, Waterloo is a masterful work of history.
With precision and elegance, Andrew Roberts sets the political, strategic, and historical scene, providing a breathtaking account of each successive stage of the battle while also examining new evidence that reveals exactly how Napoleon was defeated. Illuminating, authoritative, and engrossing, Waterloo is a masterful work of history.
160 pages, Paperback
First published February 7, 2005
157 people are currently reading
1066 people want to read
About the author
Andrew Roberts
204 books1,493 followersDr Andrew Roberts, who was born in 1963, took a first class honours degree in Modern History at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge, from where he is an honorary senior scholar and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). He has written or edited twelve books, and appears regularly on radio and television around the world. Based in New York, he is an accomplished public speaker, and is represented by HarperCollins Speakers’ Bureau (See Speaking Engagements and Speaking Testimonials). He has recently lectured at Yale, Princeton and Stanford Universities and at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews
May 27, 2024
3.5
"Never was a battle so confusedly described as that of Waterloo".
-General Henri Jomini
This is Andrew Roberts’s account of the battle of Waterloo, focusing on the key moments of the battle and highlighting the major events and individuals that shaped its outcome.
The enduring fascination of Waterloo is not just its sheer size, or its historical results, or the fact that Napoleon and Wellington had never faced each other across a battlefield before and never would again, or the strategy and tactics employed, or the tales of valour, or the famous and colourful individuals and regiments involved, or even the fact that it was ‘a close run thing’; it is the unique combination of all those factors, and of so many more besides.
"Never was a battle so confusedly described as that of Waterloo".
-General Henri Jomini
This is Andrew Roberts’s account of the battle of Waterloo, focusing on the key moments of the battle and highlighting the major events and individuals that shaped its outcome.
The enduring fascination of Waterloo is not just its sheer size, or its historical results, or the fact that Napoleon and Wellington had never faced each other across a battlefield before and never would again, or the strategy and tactics employed, or the tales of valour, or the famous and colourful individuals and regiments involved, or even the fact that it was ‘a close run thing’; it is the unique combination of all those factors, and of so many more besides.
March 16, 2021
Just because you have been beaten by Wellington,’ he told them, ‘you think he’s a good general. But I tell you that Wellington is a bad general and the English are bad troops.’ The whole business would be, he assured them, ‘l’affaire d’un déjeuner’ (a picnic).
Napoleon to his senior commanders the morning of the battle of Waterloo
‘a damned nice thing – the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life’.
The Duke of Wellington describing his victory at Waterloo
Roberts has written a compelling narrative of one of the most consequential battles in the history of Western Civilization. His description of the campaign and battle is engaging, detailed and interspersed with excerpts from the memoirs and letters of men who fought on both sides, from the commanders down to the private soldiers. These excerpts from personal histories lend immediacy and authenticity to the narrative. Roberts’ conclusion is an after-action report supported by facts and evidence developed from two centuries of examination of the battle. In his analysis, the author sticks to the known facts and his own observations, cutting through the fog of inaccuracies, distortions and propaganda promulgated over the centuries by advocates on both sides.
In a chess game, each side can make questionable moves or blunders that the other side may or may not take advantage of. In the final analysis, while Wellington wasn’t perfect—no general, or human being for that matter, ever is—most of the questionable moves were made by Napoleon. Moreover, for Napoleon to blame his Marshals for his own mistakes, which he did, was like a chess master blaming the pieces for failing to extricate themselves from the bad positions in which he had placed them. Nevertheless, Napoleon’s errors should not exculpate his Marshals who, at critical moments in the battle, did not serve either their commander, or those under their command, well.
But armchair generals shouldn’t be too critical, either. Hindsight is twenty-twenty and Roberts is careful to point out how both sides in an early 19th century battle faced considerable “fog of war” obstacles, especially when it came to communications, logistics, unfavorable weather, observation of the enemy and terrain, intelligence gathering and coordination of command.
We should not leave the battlefield without reflecting on the terrible cost in lives.
“Nearly 71,000 men were killed or wounded in the battle of Waterloo and its immediate aftermath, to which horrific toll must be added 2,600 casualties in frontier clashes on 15 June, the 32,500 at Ligny, 8,800 at Quatre Bras, 400 on the retreat from Quatre Bras and 5,000 at Wavre – making a total of 120,300.”
Definitely not Napoleon’s ‘l’affaire d’un déjeuner’.
Roberts concludes with observations concerning Waterloo’s aftermath, including, but not limited to, the 19th century rise of the British Empire and the relative decline of France. He also mentions the rise of the United States once freed from its perilous embroilment in the European conflict. Among other things, the U.S. was free to explore, settle and develop the vast territory it had purchased from France in 1804, which marked the beginnings of a continental superpower.
This edition includes relevant maps and very useful information contained in letters (Appendices I, II, and III), notes and bibliography.
Napoleon to his senior commanders the morning of the battle of Waterloo
‘a damned nice thing – the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life’.
The Duke of Wellington describing his victory at Waterloo
Roberts has written a compelling narrative of one of the most consequential battles in the history of Western Civilization. His description of the campaign and battle is engaging, detailed and interspersed with excerpts from the memoirs and letters of men who fought on both sides, from the commanders down to the private soldiers. These excerpts from personal histories lend immediacy and authenticity to the narrative. Roberts’ conclusion is an after-action report supported by facts and evidence developed from two centuries of examination of the battle. In his analysis, the author sticks to the known facts and his own observations, cutting through the fog of inaccuracies, distortions and propaganda promulgated over the centuries by advocates on both sides.
In a chess game, each side can make questionable moves or blunders that the other side may or may not take advantage of. In the final analysis, while Wellington wasn’t perfect—no general, or human being for that matter, ever is—most of the questionable moves were made by Napoleon. Moreover, for Napoleon to blame his Marshals for his own mistakes, which he did, was like a chess master blaming the pieces for failing to extricate themselves from the bad positions in which he had placed them. Nevertheless, Napoleon’s errors should not exculpate his Marshals who, at critical moments in the battle, did not serve either their commander, or those under their command, well.
But armchair generals shouldn’t be too critical, either. Hindsight is twenty-twenty and Roberts is careful to point out how both sides in an early 19th century battle faced considerable “fog of war” obstacles, especially when it came to communications, logistics, unfavorable weather, observation of the enemy and terrain, intelligence gathering and coordination of command.
We should not leave the battlefield without reflecting on the terrible cost in lives.
“Nearly 71,000 men were killed or wounded in the battle of Waterloo and its immediate aftermath, to which horrific toll must be added 2,600 casualties in frontier clashes on 15 June, the 32,500 at Ligny, 8,800 at Quatre Bras, 400 on the retreat from Quatre Bras and 5,000 at Wavre – making a total of 120,300.”
Definitely not Napoleon’s ‘l’affaire d’un déjeuner’.
Roberts concludes with observations concerning Waterloo’s aftermath, including, but not limited to, the 19th century rise of the British Empire and the relative decline of France. He also mentions the rise of the United States once freed from its perilous embroilment in the European conflict. Among other things, the U.S. was free to explore, settle and develop the vast territory it had purchased from France in 1804, which marked the beginnings of a continental superpower.
This edition includes relevant maps and very useful information contained in letters (Appendices I, II, and III), notes and bibliography.
October 11, 2025
Bitesized Battle
It is the opinion of Andrew Roberts that the Battle of Waterloo gave birth to the modern era. I’m inclined to agree with this statement and so do other prominent historians, for example, Richard J Evans. As a result of Waterloo, Napoleon was finally beaten and exiled for good and Europe looked forward to a new world. Although some would like to turn the clock back, they couldn’t. For Roberts Waterloo was very much an eighteenth century engagement, even though it was fought in 1815. It represented everything that had come before and especially the near continuous fighting which had occurred for the past 20 or so years. Europe was wrecked and people were tired. But this is why Waterloo is so significant today, it was the representation of the turning point in history, it divided one period from the next. Some may argue that Napoleon would have been beaten if not at Waterloo then eventually due to the lack of resources at his disposal, but they are being facetious and deliberately missing the point. It happened at Waterloo and that’s why it is remembered.
So even if Waterloo was very much an eighteenth century battle, it was modern in one sense: the sheer size and number of men involved. 500,000 men crammed into a three mile square patch of land south of Brussels. The dream of a revolution in Belgium and collapse of the coalition would not come. As Roberts shows, Napoleon made fatal errors, going against his own military maxims. One being, never let the enemy choose the battleground. This was of course where the Duke of Wellington picked to stop the emperor. He also divided his forces, sending Marshal Grouchy off like Don Quixote, wandering in the wilderness looking for the Prussians. Wellington also had control of the high ground and Napoleon had no great plan or flanking manoeuvre up his sleeve. In a battle where timing mattered, to get the job done before the Prussians arrived, he was uninspired and indecisive. The rain the night before also didn’t help, as the artillery was stuck in the mud before being brought up to fire. This had become the sad end of military genius, more artillery and more men as the years went on. Less tactics and innovation. He would simple throw French soldiers forward at the British and Dutch lines.
Wellingtons infantry, situated at the top of a reverse slope, with cover from cannon fire and protection from cavalry, were well placed. But as Roberts notes, Wellington also made mistakes. The difference being he placed himself in the thick of the fighting, seeking to be everywhere at once and able to hold a more direct control, quickly deciding how to deal effectively with an issues or opportunities. The Earl of Uxbridge, his cavalry commander, had his leg blown off whilst seated next to Wellington. These men led from the front. Napoleon by this time did not, seated at the back. Almost uninterested. For Roberts, however the battle was not a foregone conclusion, even with one leader on the ascent and the other in decline. It could have gone either way at many points. If he had withdrawn a little earlier, he may have even saved enough men to resist an invasion of France itself. For me, leaving Davout in charge of Paris and alienating Murat were grave defining errors.
The Battle of Waterloo was a great collation victory, led by one of the greatest British military leaders. It cost the lives of 120,300 men. A kill rate which would only be replicated in later conflicts. But what does Robert’s boon contribute to the history? I would say not much, this is a conventional retelling of a well written story. However, it does enable the reader to understand the headlines, which is great for any one with casual interest. Roberts himself cites more detailed books on the subject, which are perhaps a suggestion of where to look next. He also says, the subject is so complicated that there is always room for another account. For me there is nothing wrong with this book, it is an introduction to the subject everyone should have a basic understanding of. As usual it is well written and worth the short time needed to read it.
It is the opinion of Andrew Roberts that the Battle of Waterloo gave birth to the modern era. I’m inclined to agree with this statement and so do other prominent historians, for example, Richard J Evans. As a result of Waterloo, Napoleon was finally beaten and exiled for good and Europe looked forward to a new world. Although some would like to turn the clock back, they couldn’t. For Roberts Waterloo was very much an eighteenth century engagement, even though it was fought in 1815. It represented everything that had come before and especially the near continuous fighting which had occurred for the past 20 or so years. Europe was wrecked and people were tired. But this is why Waterloo is so significant today, it was the representation of the turning point in history, it divided one period from the next. Some may argue that Napoleon would have been beaten if not at Waterloo then eventually due to the lack of resources at his disposal, but they are being facetious and deliberately missing the point. It happened at Waterloo and that’s why it is remembered.
So even if Waterloo was very much an eighteenth century battle, it was modern in one sense: the sheer size and number of men involved. 500,000 men crammed into a three mile square patch of land south of Brussels. The dream of a revolution in Belgium and collapse of the coalition would not come. As Roberts shows, Napoleon made fatal errors, going against his own military maxims. One being, never let the enemy choose the battleground. This was of course where the Duke of Wellington picked to stop the emperor. He also divided his forces, sending Marshal Grouchy off like Don Quixote, wandering in the wilderness looking for the Prussians. Wellington also had control of the high ground and Napoleon had no great plan or flanking manoeuvre up his sleeve. In a battle where timing mattered, to get the job done before the Prussians arrived, he was uninspired and indecisive. The rain the night before also didn’t help, as the artillery was stuck in the mud before being brought up to fire. This had become the sad end of military genius, more artillery and more men as the years went on. Less tactics and innovation. He would simple throw French soldiers forward at the British and Dutch lines.
Wellingtons infantry, situated at the top of a reverse slope, with cover from cannon fire and protection from cavalry, were well placed. But as Roberts notes, Wellington also made mistakes. The difference being he placed himself in the thick of the fighting, seeking to be everywhere at once and able to hold a more direct control, quickly deciding how to deal effectively with an issues or opportunities. The Earl of Uxbridge, his cavalry commander, had his leg blown off whilst seated next to Wellington. These men led from the front. Napoleon by this time did not, seated at the back. Almost uninterested. For Roberts, however the battle was not a foregone conclusion, even with one leader on the ascent and the other in decline. It could have gone either way at many points. If he had withdrawn a little earlier, he may have even saved enough men to resist an invasion of France itself. For me, leaving Davout in charge of Paris and alienating Murat were grave defining errors.
The Battle of Waterloo was a great collation victory, led by one of the greatest British military leaders. It cost the lives of 120,300 men. A kill rate which would only be replicated in later conflicts. But what does Robert’s boon contribute to the history? I would say not much, this is a conventional retelling of a well written story. However, it does enable the reader to understand the headlines, which is great for any one with casual interest. Roberts himself cites more detailed books on the subject, which are perhaps a suggestion of where to look next. He also says, the subject is so complicated that there is always room for another account. For me there is nothing wrong with this book, it is an introduction to the subject everyone should have a basic understanding of. As usual it is well written and worth the short time needed to read it.
May 20, 2025
Brisk, no-nonsense, concise
I realize that forty-plus years ago, John Keegan's The Face of Battle introduced me to this battle. Soon in turn, Vanity Fair, Charterhouse of Parma, and Les Miserables dramatically conveyed elements... Roberts only mentions the last novel and corrects Hugo's face-saving exaggeration of the uneven terrain into a "ravine of death" down to which its cavalry fatally charged headlong, but I admit that the scene sticks in my memory. I'm not hankering for an extended study, simply a quick summary. Which this primer delivers neat and tidy. It can be perused at a sitting, no small accomplishment.
The reason infantrymen arranged themselves in squares gets explained. Horses won't charge an array of fixed bayonets aimed their way. That men young and mature alike, of a particular temper, willingly or not, by the thousands will charge testifies to an array of goads, threats, bloodlusts, delusions, fears, fantasies, and foolhardiness beyond my comprehension. Not to mention all the mud, noise, or horses.
The only improvement? Neither maps nor illustrations enhance the straightforward narrative. I guess that brevity demanded the loss of supplements, but it's a challenge to keep the lines of advance, retreat, and landmarks straight. At least for a casual passerby into this sodden territory. But as a quick summary, this meets the needs of a rapid report on causes, strategies, outcomes, testimonies, and aftermath. For motivations among those swept up in the brutality, many other accounts surely await.
I realize that forty-plus years ago, John Keegan's The Face of Battle introduced me to this battle. Soon in turn, Vanity Fair, Charterhouse of Parma, and Les Miserables dramatically conveyed elements... Roberts only mentions the last novel and corrects Hugo's face-saving exaggeration of the uneven terrain into a "ravine of death" down to which its cavalry fatally charged headlong, but I admit that the scene sticks in my memory. I'm not hankering for an extended study, simply a quick summary. Which this primer delivers neat and tidy. It can be perused at a sitting, no small accomplishment.
The reason infantrymen arranged themselves in squares gets explained. Horses won't charge an array of fixed bayonets aimed their way. That men young and mature alike, of a particular temper, willingly or not, by the thousands will charge testifies to an array of goads, threats, bloodlusts, delusions, fears, fantasies, and foolhardiness beyond my comprehension. Not to mention all the mud, noise, or horses.
The only improvement? Neither maps nor illustrations enhance the straightforward narrative. I guess that brevity demanded the loss of supplements, but it's a challenge to keep the lines of advance, retreat, and landmarks straight. At least for a casual passerby into this sodden territory. But as a quick summary, this meets the needs of a rapid report on causes, strategies, outcomes, testimonies, and aftermath. For motivations among those swept up in the brutality, many other accounts surely await.
April 6, 2020
This is a short but entertaining book about Waterloo. Maps are nonexistent, but fortumately, it is easy to understand anyway. The final chapter gives a succinct appraisal of what Napoleon and Wellington/Blucher did wrong during the campaign. For the Allied cause, more things were done right, which made the difference.
Even though I have read many books about the great battle, I enjoyed this book. It would be a good start for someone just beginning to read about the heady days of June, 1815.
Even though I have read many books about the great battle, I enjoyed this book. It would be a good start for someone just beginning to read about the heady days of June, 1815.
February 21, 2015
The battle at Waterloo marked the final end of Napoleon’s reign in France and, according to Andrew Roberts, the logical end of the eighteenth century. Wellington’s victory effectively signaled the end of France as a first-rank military power and the beginning of England’s imperial rise.
Roberts sets three goals for himself in this little volume: to explain the importance of the battle by setting it in its historical context, to narrate the action in and around the battle, and to survey some of the larger historiographic questions posed by the battle’s participants and researchers.
Setting the battle in its context is a tricky task. How much eighteenth-century political and military history needs to be retold for the average intended reader? Given the small size of his work, his outline of the political context is respectable; the salient facts are all presented. It seems to me, however, that the volume would benefit from a few extra pages outlining military tactics, weapons, and terminology. Roberts uses terminology likely to be unfamiliar to the average reader: chasseurs, heavy and light cavalry, grenadier. A brief explanation would have been helpful to me! On the other hand, Roberts does a great job explaining the military square and some of the complexities of getting infantry, cavalry, and artillery to work together. He also provides helpful reminders about the state of communications, the speed of travel, and some of the difficulties the British commands experienced trying to communicate with their Prussian allies.
Roberts’ battle narratives are quite thrilling. Following previous accounts, he divides the battle into five phases, each of which is well distinguished from the others. He provides a nice mix of first-hand memories from the soldiers themselves with his own narrative. He describes in brief but essential detail the topography of the battlefield, the few crucial buildings involved, the mud resulting from the torrents of June 17, and the corn that impeded travel and provided hiding spots. There are inevitably a lot names—people, places, military divisions—but Roberts’ narrative seems to handle them all with a certain ease.
Concerning the historiographic questions, Roberts seems fairly objective when there are well supported arguments on either side of a question. I’m not well versed in the literature, but I got the impression that he tended to take the British side in those cases where the French and British historiographies are at odds. Nonetheless, I got some inkling of the open or divisive questions concerning Waterloo.
Finally, I think the editors could have done a better job providing maps appropriate to the text. Roberts makes repeated mention of some places like Mons that do not show up on either of the included maps. At the same time, the appendices include a few letters by Wellington and others that provide interesting first-hand accounts of the day.
In all, this is well paced and easy-to-read account of a crucial turning point in European history.
Roberts sets three goals for himself in this little volume: to explain the importance of the battle by setting it in its historical context, to narrate the action in and around the battle, and to survey some of the larger historiographic questions posed by the battle’s participants and researchers.
Setting the battle in its context is a tricky task. How much eighteenth-century political and military history needs to be retold for the average intended reader? Given the small size of his work, his outline of the political context is respectable; the salient facts are all presented. It seems to me, however, that the volume would benefit from a few extra pages outlining military tactics, weapons, and terminology. Roberts uses terminology likely to be unfamiliar to the average reader: chasseurs, heavy and light cavalry, grenadier. A brief explanation would have been helpful to me! On the other hand, Roberts does a great job explaining the military square and some of the complexities of getting infantry, cavalry, and artillery to work together. He also provides helpful reminders about the state of communications, the speed of travel, and some of the difficulties the British commands experienced trying to communicate with their Prussian allies.
Roberts’ battle narratives are quite thrilling. Following previous accounts, he divides the battle into five phases, each of which is well distinguished from the others. He provides a nice mix of first-hand memories from the soldiers themselves with his own narrative. He describes in brief but essential detail the topography of the battlefield, the few crucial buildings involved, the mud resulting from the torrents of June 17, and the corn that impeded travel and provided hiding spots. There are inevitably a lot names—people, places, military divisions—but Roberts’ narrative seems to handle them all with a certain ease.
Concerning the historiographic questions, Roberts seems fairly objective when there are well supported arguments on either side of a question. I’m not well versed in the literature, but I got the impression that he tended to take the British side in those cases where the French and British historiographies are at odds. Nonetheless, I got some inkling of the open or divisive questions concerning Waterloo.
Finally, I think the editors could have done a better job providing maps appropriate to the text. Roberts makes repeated mention of some places like Mons that do not show up on either of the included maps. At the same time, the appendices include a few letters by Wellington and others that provide interesting first-hand accounts of the day.
In all, this is well paced and easy-to-read account of a crucial turning point in European history.
December 20, 2014
Good overview of a BIG battle.
December 22, 2020
This is a very good short narrative of the battle of Waterloo; Ive given it three starts but this isn't censorious. Its not long enough or comprehensive to be four or five stars but it does a great job of giving a basic summary of the day's happenings. Roberts does an excellent job giving details without getting too far into the weeds of military specialization.
July 10, 2018
För min del för detaljerad kring slagfältet och olika individuella enheters rörelse. Belyser väl den imponerade principfastheten man hade under denna tid och hur svårt det var att kontrollera slagfält.
April 22, 2025
A great follow up to Napoleon: a Life. More detailed history on the battle that ended it all. I enjoyed more in depth recollections of the battle and understanding the factors that lead to Napoleons defeat and the victory for Britain and European forces.
April 9, 2014
Roberts' book offers much to satisfy the heart of an Anglophile. He seeks to dispatch the notion that the battle was lost by a decrepit Napoleon, opting for the interpretation that Waterloo was Wellington's victory above all else. Like his other biographical approaches, Roberts meets with success despite some unabashedly flippant castigation of Britain's foes. Waterloo is the classic story we have come to know so well, but it also entertains some hints of revisionism that make it an important contribution to the battle's historiography.
August 9, 2022
This slim volume on one history's most famous battles is part of Harper Perennial's ‘Making History Series’, written by author, historian, and occasional battlefield guide, Andrew Roberts. I enjoyed Roberts' rather grand ‘Napoleon The Great’ a lot - and there was quite a lot of it to enjoy! It's good to see that he delivers equally well at a humbler scale.
Waterloo, Napoleon's Last Gamble, is certainly a real pleasure to read, being as clear, concise, and yet as comprehensive as one might reasonably hope for, in a book this small that deals with an event of such large import.
After a brief introduction that neatly encapsulates both the enduring historical significance of Waterloo - frequently described, in a view Roberts himself embraces, as the end of 'the long eighteenth century' - and it's equally enduring fascination, Roberts then sets out the more specific context of the Waterloo campaign.
For the battle itself Roberts adopts the chronological 'five phase' structure, as favoured by a number of other authors on this potentially confusing topic. And I have to say that this really does help simplify the battle, and make comprehension of it that much easier.
Whilst many other things frequently occur within these five phases, each has a defining central event: phase one sees the French attack the forward position at Hougoumont; phase two finds D'Erlon's massed infantry attacking the Anglo-Allied centre; by phase three much is happening across the whole battlefield, but the central event is the series of massed French cavalry charges.
Phase four has two major facets: the French finally take La Haye Sainte, bringing artillery to bear on Wellington's tattered centre; but Napoleon's good fortune there is swiftly nullified elsewhere, by Prussians arriving in ever greater numbers on his right flank, taking Plancenoit.
The fifth and final phase really sums up Roberts subtitle, as Napoleon makes a last throw of Fortune's dice, sending in the Guard. But the 'invincibles' are defeated, after which the French crumble and are thoroughly routed, harried by the combined Anglo-Allied and Prussian forces.
Throughout all these phases the action is covered with an eye for both the big picture and the little details, making for a compelling read. The whole is then finished off with a pithy conclusion. Numerous controversies are addressed, some dismissed, others remaining open to debate. And the whole is thoroughly enjoyable and satisfying.
If one were being the harshest of critics, like Hazel Mills in her 2005 review of this book for the Guardian, one might easily argue that this little book verges on the redundant, simply recycling material that's already out there.
Indeed, I felt this was also largely true, despite his undoubted efforts to restore some lustre to the sometimes tarnished English view of Napoleon, and despite all the stuff about access to and use of a new edition of Napoleon's correspondence, chiefly for his ‘Napoleon The Great’ work.
In this book on Waterloo Roberts includes one previously unpublished letter - 'in the possession of the author' - by a Major Robert Dicks (who fought at Waterloo in the 42nd Royal Highland Regt, aka the Black Watch), as Appendix I of three appendices.
Written before the battle, it's more about the Duchess of Richmond's Ball (and Dicks' own career prospects) than the forthcoming battle, and seems to me of only very marginal historical interest. Still, if I had such a letter I'd be excited and keen to share it with the world!
But, unlike the following Appendix II, 'Captain Fortuné de Brack's Letter of 1835', Dicks' missive contains no great revelations. De Brack's letter, which has appeared in print a few times before, is reproduced (as is Appendix III, Wellington's Waterloo Dispatch) in an edited form, and pertains to the battle itself, and phase three - the massed French cavalry charges - in particular.
In it, this relatively lowly lancer officer appears to suggest that his own impetuosity might have triggered the cavalry attacks: his loudly articulated belief that the English were already doomed to lose, combined with a desire amongst his unit to move forward slightly, he claims, got amplified as the line shuffled forwards; what started as simply dressing the line grew into a swell that eventually burst, as the eager cavalry felt their moment had arrived.
As intriguing as this is, it's not news anymore. But personally none of this bothers me, as I don't feel that a book on this topic necessarily requires new insights or arguments to justify its existence. What this undoubtedly is is a concise and exciting account, another voice - and an erudite and eloquent one at that - in the ongoing literary conversation on this climactic epoch-ending and epoch-making battle.
I thoroughly enjoyed it, and suspect that all but the most fussy of Napoleonic buffs (and admittedly there are plenty of those!) will love it to.
Waterloo, Napoleon's Last Gamble, is certainly a real pleasure to read, being as clear, concise, and yet as comprehensive as one might reasonably hope for, in a book this small that deals with an event of such large import.
After a brief introduction that neatly encapsulates both the enduring historical significance of Waterloo - frequently described, in a view Roberts himself embraces, as the end of 'the long eighteenth century' - and it's equally enduring fascination, Roberts then sets out the more specific context of the Waterloo campaign.
For the battle itself Roberts adopts the chronological 'five phase' structure, as favoured by a number of other authors on this potentially confusing topic. And I have to say that this really does help simplify the battle, and make comprehension of it that much easier.
Whilst many other things frequently occur within these five phases, each has a defining central event: phase one sees the French attack the forward position at Hougoumont; phase two finds D'Erlon's massed infantry attacking the Anglo-Allied centre; by phase three much is happening across the whole battlefield, but the central event is the series of massed French cavalry charges.
Phase four has two major facets: the French finally take La Haye Sainte, bringing artillery to bear on Wellington's tattered centre; but Napoleon's good fortune there is swiftly nullified elsewhere, by Prussians arriving in ever greater numbers on his right flank, taking Plancenoit.
The fifth and final phase really sums up Roberts subtitle, as Napoleon makes a last throw of Fortune's dice, sending in the Guard. But the 'invincibles' are defeated, after which the French crumble and are thoroughly routed, harried by the combined Anglo-Allied and Prussian forces.
Throughout all these phases the action is covered with an eye for both the big picture and the little details, making for a compelling read. The whole is then finished off with a pithy conclusion. Numerous controversies are addressed, some dismissed, others remaining open to debate. And the whole is thoroughly enjoyable and satisfying.
If one were being the harshest of critics, like Hazel Mills in her 2005 review of this book for the Guardian, one might easily argue that this little book verges on the redundant, simply recycling material that's already out there.
Indeed, I felt this was also largely true, despite his undoubted efforts to restore some lustre to the sometimes tarnished English view of Napoleon, and despite all the stuff about access to and use of a new edition of Napoleon's correspondence, chiefly for his ‘Napoleon The Great’ work.
In this book on Waterloo Roberts includes one previously unpublished letter - 'in the possession of the author' - by a Major Robert Dicks (who fought at Waterloo in the 42nd Royal Highland Regt, aka the Black Watch), as Appendix I of three appendices.
Written before the battle, it's more about the Duchess of Richmond's Ball (and Dicks' own career prospects) than the forthcoming battle, and seems to me of only very marginal historical interest. Still, if I had such a letter I'd be excited and keen to share it with the world!
But, unlike the following Appendix II, 'Captain Fortuné de Brack's Letter of 1835', Dicks' missive contains no great revelations. De Brack's letter, which has appeared in print a few times before, is reproduced (as is Appendix III, Wellington's Waterloo Dispatch) in an edited form, and pertains to the battle itself, and phase three - the massed French cavalry charges - in particular.
In it, this relatively lowly lancer officer appears to suggest that his own impetuosity might have triggered the cavalry attacks: his loudly articulated belief that the English were already doomed to lose, combined with a desire amongst his unit to move forward slightly, he claims, got amplified as the line shuffled forwards; what started as simply dressing the line grew into a swell that eventually burst, as the eager cavalry felt their moment had arrived.
As intriguing as this is, it's not news anymore. But personally none of this bothers me, as I don't feel that a book on this topic necessarily requires new insights or arguments to justify its existence. What this undoubtedly is is a concise and exciting account, another voice - and an erudite and eloquent one at that - in the ongoing literary conversation on this climactic epoch-ending and epoch-making battle.
I thoroughly enjoyed it, and suspect that all but the most fussy of Napoleonic buffs (and admittedly there are plenty of those!) will love it to.
January 7, 2020
A deceptively slender, richly nuanced overview of the battle that, suggests British historian Roberts (Napoleon and Wellington, 2002, etc.), marks the beginning of the modern era.
Though it took place well into the 19th century, Waterloo “was nonetheless an eighteenth-century phenomenon,” Roberts writes—and not only in its deployment of brilliantly outfitted men in straight, easy-to-mow-down lines across wide fields of fire. It was resolutely modern, though, in its scale: Waterloo involved perhaps half a million soldiers distributed among the armies of France, England, Prussia, and lesser principalities and territories, and Napoleon Bonaparte seems to have nursed a born revolutionist’s hope that victory against his enemies would inspire the Belgians to rise against the Dutch, the French to resume control of Europe, and the Tory government of England to collapse. A reasonable desire, perhaps, but in attempting to realize it Napoleon made some curious and even “strategically inept” errors that betrayed some of his carefully pronounced principles, dividing his forces and allowing the enemy to gain control of the high ground; “the topography across which Wellington had chosen to receive Napoleon’s attacks could hardly have been better suited for infantry” against advancing artillery, cavalry, and ground forces, Roberts notes. Wellington made a few miscalculations himself. But, like Napoleon, and far from placing himself at a safe distance as some historians have maintained, Wellington was everywhere at once, keeping careful control over his side of the battle. The battle, Roberts insists, was never a foregone conclusion, and it could have turned decisively for Napoleon at many points; even in failure, had he withdrawn just a bit earlier, Napoleon might have saved some of his army and with it resisted an invasion of France itself. But he didn’t, and the carnage was fearful: taken together with satellite battles and skirmishes, Waterloo cost the lives of 120,300 men, a staggering figure that only raised the bar for subsequent slaughters.
A vivid, thoughtful, and blessedly concise account of one of history’s signal events.
Though it took place well into the 19th century, Waterloo “was nonetheless an eighteenth-century phenomenon,” Roberts writes—and not only in its deployment of brilliantly outfitted men in straight, easy-to-mow-down lines across wide fields of fire. It was resolutely modern, though, in its scale: Waterloo involved perhaps half a million soldiers distributed among the armies of France, England, Prussia, and lesser principalities and territories, and Napoleon Bonaparte seems to have nursed a born revolutionist’s hope that victory against his enemies would inspire the Belgians to rise against the Dutch, the French to resume control of Europe, and the Tory government of England to collapse. A reasonable desire, perhaps, but in attempting to realize it Napoleon made some curious and even “strategically inept” errors that betrayed some of his carefully pronounced principles, dividing his forces and allowing the enemy to gain control of the high ground; “the topography across which Wellington had chosen to receive Napoleon’s attacks could hardly have been better suited for infantry” against advancing artillery, cavalry, and ground forces, Roberts notes. Wellington made a few miscalculations himself. But, like Napoleon, and far from placing himself at a safe distance as some historians have maintained, Wellington was everywhere at once, keeping careful control over his side of the battle. The battle, Roberts insists, was never a foregone conclusion, and it could have turned decisively for Napoleon at many points; even in failure, had he withdrawn just a bit earlier, Napoleon might have saved some of his army and with it resisted an invasion of France itself. But he didn’t, and the carnage was fearful: taken together with satellite battles and skirmishes, Waterloo cost the lives of 120,300 men, a staggering figure that only raised the bar for subsequent slaughters.
A vivid, thoughtful, and blessedly concise account of one of history’s signal events.
May 14, 2020
This is a great introduction to the Battle of Waterloo, one of the turning points in history. It can be read basically one long setting.
There's enough of background given to get a real sense of what was happening. Then the five phases of the battle are presented concisely.
The conclusion goes over the many mistakes from both sides various historians have found.
The bibliography helps you move on to the next steps in your education on this battle.
More maps and colour photos would have been a great addition.
p. 47: Five Phases of the battle:
1) 11:30 a.m. Reille and Jerome attack Hongoumont
2) 1:30 p.m. D'Erlon attacks Anglo-Allied centre
3) 4:00 p.m. Ney's cavalry charges begins
4) 6:30 p.m. Ney attacks and takes La Haye Sainte
5) 7:30 p.m. Old Guard's final attack
p. 95: "History is an argument without end," wrote Peter Geyl in Napoleon: For and Against.
p. 105: Walk the path of the Old Guard's charge when you visit the battlefield.
p. 109: "La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas"/"The Guard dies, it does not surrender."
p. 117: "March together. Strike together."
p. 117: "An enemy should be outflanked, or enveloped, without separating one's own force."
p. 121: "Without la Glorie, France has had to live on her myths and with her ever-mounting roll of defeats, from Sedan to 1940 to Dien Bien Phu."
There's enough of background given to get a real sense of what was happening. Then the five phases of the battle are presented concisely.
The conclusion goes over the many mistakes from both sides various historians have found.
The bibliography helps you move on to the next steps in your education on this battle.
More maps and colour photos would have been a great addition.
p. 47: Five Phases of the battle:
1) 11:30 a.m. Reille and Jerome attack Hongoumont
2) 1:30 p.m. D'Erlon attacks Anglo-Allied centre
3) 4:00 p.m. Ney's cavalry charges begins
4) 6:30 p.m. Ney attacks and takes La Haye Sainte
5) 7:30 p.m. Old Guard's final attack
p. 95: "History is an argument without end," wrote Peter Geyl in Napoleon: For and Against.
p. 105: Walk the path of the Old Guard's charge when you visit the battlefield.
p. 109: "La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas"/"The Guard dies, it does not surrender."
p. 117: "March together. Strike together."
p. 117: "An enemy should be outflanked, or enveloped, without separating one's own force."
p. 121: "Without la Glorie, France has had to live on her myths and with her ever-mounting roll of defeats, from Sedan to 1940 to Dien Bien Phu."
May 31, 2021
Short & focused -- really digs into the details of the tactics & strategies at Waterloo, without spending too much time on background. It's nice to have something like this, where you can look at a well-defined event, knowing that some aspects will never be settled. I basically knew nothing about the battle other than Napoleon lost and that people disputed what, exactly, went wrong for Napoleon. The author does touch on these disputes, quotes original documents (noting that participants would not be clear on actions, either), and gives one a feel for the chronology of the day. There is a very helpful map showing the 5 phases being described, and I often went back to that map for references. The other pictures were interesting, but not as helpful for understanding.
February 5, 2018
En stark 3:a! Intressant sammanfattning om slaget vid Waterloo. Det roligaste var att läsa delar av brev från de som var närvarande vid slaget. Det som drar ner mest är alla de uppräkningar av soldater, hästar och kanoner varje regemente och bataljon hade. Säkert många som finner det väldigt intressant men tycker man hade kunnat skippa sådan detaljrikedom då boken redan är väldigt kort. Roberts håller ändå ett bra tempo och tror aldrig jag kände att boken blev tråkig förutom vid dessa uppräkningar.
March 28, 2018
Reading military battle history, no matter how clear it might be, tends to make me go cross-eyed from all the shifting details. Even in this concise little volume, I suffered the same effect...so I admire anyone who can take relaxing pleasure from such writing. That said, it's certainly an effective little one-stop-shop for information on the Battle of Waterloo. I can easily admire it as a research tool.
June 28, 2021
Roberts dives into Waterloo and gives a fair and balanced interpretation of the forced errors, on both sides, that led to the ultimate result of this most famous battle. Roberts quotes Wellington and Bonaparte from time-to-time and plunges in summaries from memoirs of those who experienced the battle.
Although a relatively quick read at 137 pages, the reader will get an insightful overview of the entire battle and what went wrong, and of course, what went right.
Although a relatively quick read at 137 pages, the reader will get an insightful overview of the entire battle and what went wrong, and of course, what went right.
December 4, 2025
Great as an expansion to 'Napoleon the great', penned by the same author.
;battle for modern Europe' takes a micro account of Napoleon's final gambit; the battle of Waterloo. Decisions made at every echelon of both fighting sides are retold in great detail, even individual accounts of the normal rank and file.
Would not recommend reading this standalone, less you read some form of biography regarding Napoleon.
;battle for modern Europe' takes a micro account of Napoleon's final gambit; the battle of Waterloo. Decisions made at every echelon of both fighting sides are retold in great detail, even individual accounts of the normal rank and file.
Would not recommend reading this standalone, less you read some form of biography regarding Napoleon.
July 8, 2018
This was informative, if a bit technical-heavy. I learned more about Waterloo than I'd known before (considering most of my knowledge depended heavily upon ABBA). It was a quick read, and if nothing else, left me wanting to dive into other books to get more detail beyond the play-by-play of each step of the attacks.
February 3, 2024
Shorter yet very informative read on the prelude and undertaking of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. I specifically found Roberts’ writing style to be fluid and the narrative form chosen to present the story was nice. More maps showing the intricate details described would’ve taken this book over the top, but still a good read.
January 16, 2019
A rather short (too short, in my opinion, for such a topic) but clear description of the great battle. An excellent starting point for anyone just starting the exploration of Waterloo. Also, there is a good list of books for further reading.
March 5, 2020
Great read!
What a great battle between two great armies led by two great commanders. The frontal charge of the French was a decision that was fraught with peril as the Allies demonstrated. Too bad for Napoleon.
What a great battle between two great armies led by two great commanders. The frontal charge of the French was a decision that was fraught with peril as the Allies demonstrated. Too bad for Napoleon.
July 14, 2020
A refreshing look at a familiar subject, replete with interesting anecdotes. Also, I'd not heard the theory that the mass French cavalry charges at the British squares were instigated by accident - interesting, and totally believable.
August 5, 2023
A Nice Overview
An enjoyable history of the battle of Waterloo. A brief introduction for someone who has never studied the battle, I found it helpful. It will be a good resource for further research.
An enjoyable history of the battle of Waterloo. A brief introduction for someone who has never studied the battle, I found it helpful. It will be a good resource for further research.
August 29, 2023
Een adequaat en instructief overzicht, helder en efficiënt van opzet, zonder overbodige uitweidingen of uitgebreide zijpaden. Lijkt mij een prima basis voor verdere bestudering van deze belangrijke ‘draaideur’ in de geschiedenis van Europa.
December 28, 2017
Nice quick introduction. I haven't read much about the Napoleonic Wars, except all the Bernard Cornwell books.
May 8, 2019
Brilliant explanation about the campaign. An wonderful explanation supported by both side generals and soldiers testimony.
February 10, 2020
Simply put, this is the most concise and well written book about a major battle that I have ever read. If you know nothing about this battle and are curious then I highly recommend this book for you.
January 31, 2021
I didn’t have any real understanding of the battle of Waterloo but this short book breaks down the battle into five stages. I found it illuminating but at times drowning in the names of officers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews