What do you think?
Rate this book
A Near Run Thing
The first shots were fired at about eleven-thirty on a Sunday morning in June, 1815; by nine o'clock that night, forty thousand men lay dead or wounded, and Napoleon had abandoned not only his army, but all hope of recovering his empire.
From the recollections of the men who were there, esteemed author David Howarth has recreated the battle as it appeared to them on the day it was fought. He follows the fortunes of men of all ranks and on both sides. But it is on the French side that the mysteries remain.
Why did Ney attack with cavalry alone? And was Napoleon's downfall really due to the minor ailment he suffered that day? Beautifully written, vivid, and unforgettable, this illuminating history is impossible to put down.
From the recollections of the men who were there, esteemed author David Howarth has recreated the battle as it appeared to them on the day it was fought. He follows the fortunes of men of all ranks and on both sides. But it is on the French side that the mysteries remain.
Why did Ney attack with cavalry alone? And was Napoleon's downfall really due to the minor ailment he suffered that day? Beautifully written, vivid, and unforgettable, this illuminating history is impossible to put down.
239 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1968
7 people are currently reading
425 people want to read
About the author
David Howarth
100 books90 followersDavid Armine Howarth (1912 - 1991) was a British historian and author. After graduating from Cambridge University, he was a radio war correspondent for BBC at the start of the Second World War, joining the Navy after the fall of France. He rose to the rank of lieutenant commander and spent four yeas in the Shetland Islands, becoming second in command of the Shetland Naval base. He was involved in the Special Operations Executive (SOE), including the Shetland Bus, an SOE operation manned by Norwegians running a clandestine route between Shetland and Norway, which utilized fishing boats with crews of Norwegian volunteers to land agents and arms in occupied Norway. For his contributions to espionage operations against the German occupation of Norway, he received King Haakon VII's Cross of Liberty. The King also made Howarth a Chevalier First Class of the Order of St Olav.
After the War he designed and built boats before turning to writing full time. He wrote an account of the Shetland Bus operation, as well as many other books of history, bringing to his many of his books an immense practical knowledge of ships and the sea.
David Howarth died in 1991. At his request, his ashes were scattered over the waters of Lunna Voe, Shetland, near Lunna House, the first base of the Shetland Bus operation.
After the War he designed and built boats before turning to writing full time. He wrote an account of the Shetland Bus operation, as well as many other books of history, bringing to his many of his books an immense practical knowledge of ships and the sea.
David Howarth died in 1991. At his request, his ashes were scattered over the waters of Lunna Voe, Shetland, near Lunna House, the first base of the Shetland Bus operation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
Read
April 1, 2018My paternal Grandfather, now long deceased, smoked Donatello cigars. And at regular intervals I'd get through the post a collection of cigarette cards. My favourite was a set showing people from the Battle of Waterloo (18th June 1815). They came with a display poster which I had up on the bedroom wall probably until I was thirteen and we moved house. Among others it featured Marshal Berthier, General Gneisenau playing the flute for some reason, and the charge of the Scots Greys.
According to this book the regimental name Scots Greys was misinterpreted by the French as Drunken Scots, which seems a happy coincidence since gin was about all that was provided on the morning of the battle of Waterloo to the Duke of Wellington's army. In principal the army also provided beef, but on this occasion the soldiers were left to fend for themselves - except for the gin. I can't say the prospect of standing opposite the French lines for a day with nothing but a swallow of gin in my gut appeals much, but I guess steady jobs were harder to come across in 1815.
Howarth flavours his account of the battle of Waterloo not with Juniper berries, but with eighteen eye witness accounts of that day (almost all of them British), and the book is based on two nineteenth century histories, one British and one French. In short even though this is a book written in the 1960s it relies on much older scholarship. This isn't the book to read if what you want is to enjoy the fruits of generations of study, or a revisionist, modern account of the famous battle. It is a short book, and because of all the illustrations this is a book much shorter than its page count suggests, that aims to give an impression of the experience of the battle.
That experience as in The Charge was strongly coloured by perspective - the Duke of Wellington, had apparently, a good view over the battlefield, while Napoleon had a restricted view, slumped down in an armchair - in the author's opinion suffering from piles and cystitis, this kind of attack, I believe is known as a 'pincer movement'. The piles were a state secret, known only to four men including the Emperor , and were treated with leeches, which I suppose ruled out horse-riding during the period of treatment. This left French forces effectively under the command of Marshal Ney who during the course of the battle had a horse shot from under him five times - which also ruled out horse riding I suppose.
The nature of the battle was also largely unclear to the participants. There were no general orders given, Wellington ordered units to move without any explanation, and once battle begun most of the allied forces were kept behind a ridge to protect them from the French artillery (for much of the battle they were lying down).
Recently I've heard the idea that Waterloo could be remembered as the first NATO action or as a kind of precursor to NATO. Waterloo might not, on Howarth's telling, be the best choice to inspire any military alliance although it might reflect the difficulties encountered in war since there was some "friendly fire" between the allies (the common language among the allied forces was French which probably didn't much help matters).
This isn't a book for somebody well acquainted with the battle or interested in the technical details, since I've only seen the old film with Rod Steiger as Napoleon, it was fine for me.
Howarth seems to be paraphrasing his sources, I read a couple of books by Anthony Brett-James - one about the Battle of Leipzig which takes the opposite approach of serving up chunks of source material with a little bit of commentary. Of the two approaches Howarth's makes for an easier narrative, but there is not clear line between the participant and the editorial.
He's not an ideal guide: he seems to think that the American Revolution came to end in 1813, believes that British soldiers - unlike the French - would never kill an injured enemy combatant, and considers that all people with red hair have the same personality .
There were a few interesting titbits - the unreliability of the Dutch and Belgian troops who a year earlier had been citizens of Napoleon's French Empire, that fighting tended to stop when cavalry charged infantry arranged in squares (artillery would stop firing for fear of hitting their own men, the infantry wouldn't fire because they wouldn't be able to defend themselves while reloading, the cavalry would slow down to a trot and poke occasionally at the foot soldiers with their swords), there was a lot of looting by soldiers of dead combatants either for food, money, or gold braid. The Duke of Uxbridge lost his leg during the battle - which is a roundabout way of saying that it was sawn off after it was hit by a cannonball - it was later ceremonially interred. Santa Anna was to have his leg similarly buried after losing it during the siege of Vera Cruz to the French. On reflection I'm not sure if burying your amputated limb was a particularly nineteenth-century phenomenon since I've so far never paused to consider what I would do with my own leg should we be torn asunder even amidst the perils of this earthly life.
On the old theme of the unprofessionalism of the armed forces in pre-modern times the Duke of Wellington had appointed the Price of Orange to watch the frontier and report on Napoleon's movements. When the Duke asked the Prince if there was any news he said no, apart from that Napoleon had crossed the frontier in force, leaving one to wonder quite what the Prince might have considered news. Likewise Blücher sent one of his officers, Müffling, to coordinate with Wellington, however Müffling, perhaps the fattest man in Prussian service, took thirty hours to cover thirty miles while on horseback which must be a record for tardiness in any situation military or otherwise. And Wellington himself who bought his way up through the ranks in the army didn't have any combat experience until after he became a Major - this sharpens Clausewitz's concerns with military education discussed in Clausewitz and the State, it is a wonder that British military history didn't have more disasters during this period but then the shortage of professionalism was fairly general among European armies allowing the disadvantages to balance themselves out.
Howarth's account isn't critical, although entertaining (an entirely inappropriate word to describe a book about a battle). For example he suggests that Napoleon's Old Guard if sent into action a half hour earlier would have been unopposed and had an open road to Brussels. Yet on the other hand the Prussians were already arriving on the battlefield in force and Brussels was only a provincial city of the newly created Dutch kingdom of the Netherlands. Hard to imagine that in the event of it falling to the French that the Russians, the Prussians, the Austrians and the British would all have been a weeping and a wailing by Napoleon's tent begging him for peace terms, however much the King of the Netherlands might have been annoyed. Such an event might have caused a messier end to the battle but it is hard to see the day as anything other than already lost for the French by the time the Prussians arrived. I find it hard to see Waterloo, despite any residual patriotism, as anywhere never as significant as the battle of Leipzig in October 1813, but it is all the same a fascinating battle enlivened with a degree of myth as for example the Duke of Wellington is alleged to have remarked upon seeing that Uxbridge had been hit by the aforementioned cannonball "By God, Sir, you appear to have lost your leg", to which the response was "By God, Sir, so I have". Despite military victory lying with the allies, the degree of sang froid shown by all participants suggests that the cultural victory was won by the French.
According to this book the regimental name Scots Greys was misinterpreted by the French as Drunken Scots, which seems a happy coincidence since gin was about all that was provided on the morning of the battle of Waterloo to the Duke of Wellington's army. In principal the army also provided beef, but on this occasion the soldiers were left to fend for themselves - except for the gin. I can't say the prospect of standing opposite the French lines for a day with nothing but a swallow of gin in my gut appeals much, but I guess steady jobs were harder to come across in 1815.
Howarth flavours his account of the battle of Waterloo not with Juniper berries, but with eighteen eye witness accounts of that day (almost all of them British), and the book is based on two nineteenth century histories, one British and one French. In short even though this is a book written in the 1960s it relies on much older scholarship. This isn't the book to read if what you want is to enjoy the fruits of generations of study, or a revisionist, modern account of the famous battle. It is a short book, and because of all the illustrations this is a book much shorter than its page count suggests, that aims to give an impression of the experience of the battle.
That experience as in The Charge was strongly coloured by perspective - the Duke of Wellington, had apparently, a good view over the battlefield, while Napoleon had a restricted view, slumped down in an armchair - in the author's opinion suffering from piles and cystitis, this kind of attack, I believe is known as a 'pincer movement'. The piles were a state secret, known only to four men including the Emperor , and were treated with leeches, which I suppose ruled out horse-riding during the period of treatment. This left French forces effectively under the command of Marshal Ney who during the course of the battle had a horse shot from under him five times - which also ruled out horse riding I suppose.
The nature of the battle was also largely unclear to the participants. There were no general orders given, Wellington ordered units to move without any explanation, and once battle begun most of the allied forces were kept behind a ridge to protect them from the French artillery (for much of the battle they were lying down).
Recently I've heard the idea that Waterloo could be remembered as the first NATO action or as a kind of precursor to NATO. Waterloo might not, on Howarth's telling, be the best choice to inspire any military alliance although it might reflect the difficulties encountered in war since there was some "friendly fire" between the allies (the common language among the allied forces was French which probably didn't much help matters).
This isn't a book for somebody well acquainted with the battle or interested in the technical details, since I've only seen the old film with Rod Steiger as Napoleon, it was fine for me.
Howarth seems to be paraphrasing his sources, I read a couple of books by Anthony Brett-James - one about the Battle of Leipzig which takes the opposite approach of serving up chunks of source material with a little bit of commentary. Of the two approaches Howarth's makes for an easier narrative, but there is not clear line between the participant and the editorial.
He's not an ideal guide: he seems to think that the American Revolution came to end in 1813, believes that British soldiers - unlike the French - would never kill an injured enemy combatant, and considers that all people with red hair have the same personality .
There were a few interesting titbits - the unreliability of the Dutch and Belgian troops who a year earlier had been citizens of Napoleon's French Empire, that fighting tended to stop when cavalry charged infantry arranged in squares (artillery would stop firing for fear of hitting their own men, the infantry wouldn't fire because they wouldn't be able to defend themselves while reloading, the cavalry would slow down to a trot and poke occasionally at the foot soldiers with their swords), there was a lot of looting by soldiers of dead combatants either for food, money, or gold braid. The Duke of Uxbridge lost his leg during the battle - which is a roundabout way of saying that it was sawn off after it was hit by a cannonball - it was later ceremonially interred. Santa Anna was to have his leg similarly buried after losing it during the siege of Vera Cruz to the French. On reflection I'm not sure if burying your amputated limb was a particularly nineteenth-century phenomenon since I've so far never paused to consider what I would do with my own leg should we be torn asunder even amidst the perils of this earthly life.
On the old theme of the unprofessionalism of the armed forces in pre-modern times the Duke of Wellington had appointed the Price of Orange to watch the frontier and report on Napoleon's movements. When the Duke asked the Prince if there was any news he said no, apart from that Napoleon had crossed the frontier in force, leaving one to wonder quite what the Prince might have considered news. Likewise Blücher sent one of his officers, Müffling, to coordinate with Wellington, however Müffling, perhaps the fattest man in Prussian service, took thirty hours to cover thirty miles while on horseback which must be a record for tardiness in any situation military or otherwise. And Wellington himself who bought his way up through the ranks in the army didn't have any combat experience until after he became a Major - this sharpens Clausewitz's concerns with military education discussed in Clausewitz and the State, it is a wonder that British military history didn't have more disasters during this period but then the shortage of professionalism was fairly general among European armies allowing the disadvantages to balance themselves out.
Howarth's account isn't critical, although entertaining (an entirely inappropriate word to describe a book about a battle). For example he suggests that Napoleon's Old Guard if sent into action a half hour earlier would have been unopposed and had an open road to Brussels. Yet on the other hand the Prussians were already arriving on the battlefield in force and Brussels was only a provincial city of the newly created Dutch kingdom of the Netherlands. Hard to imagine that in the event of it falling to the French that the Russians, the Prussians, the Austrians and the British would all have been a weeping and a wailing by Napoleon's tent begging him for peace terms, however much the King of the Netherlands might have been annoyed. Such an event might have caused a messier end to the battle but it is hard to see the day as anything other than already lost for the French by the time the Prussians arrived. I find it hard to see Waterloo, despite any residual patriotism, as anywhere never as significant as the battle of Leipzig in October 1813, but it is all the same a fascinating battle enlivened with a degree of myth as for example the Duke of Wellington is alleged to have remarked upon seeing that Uxbridge had been hit by the aforementioned cannonball "By God, Sir, you appear to have lost your leg", to which the response was "By God, Sir, so I have". Despite military victory lying with the allies, the degree of sang froid shown by all participants suggests that the cultural victory was won by the French.
December 26, 2014
Another, solid hack at history for Howarth!
Personally, I love myself some history, but some authors do present it in a rather dry and academic way...probably because they're hoping their book will get picked up for college course reading, so they tailor it to the very textbooky style that universities look for. That's useful for class structure, but it doesn't often lend itself to a pleasurable read.
David Howarth has a great way of casually writing about that old, musty stuff. In Waterloo: A Near Run Thing, he lays out the great and seemingly invincible Napoleon's...well..."his Waterloo" as the saying goes. This was the iconic moment - in what probably should've been called World War 1 - when the mighty Goliath was finally conquered.
How was it done? If you're not a military strategist, if you don't understand maneuvers and the importance of soldier formations, you probably wouldn't understand how Napoleon's defeat in this single battle was achieved and why it was so miraculous. Howarth presents the facts and information in a more conversational manner, making it easy for the layman to grasp. He gave 1066: The Year of the Conquest the same treatment and made that even older and more remote world-altering battle clear as day and a pleasure to read.
Personally, I love myself some history, but some authors do present it in a rather dry and academic way...probably because they're hoping their book will get picked up for college course reading, so they tailor it to the very textbooky style that universities look for. That's useful for class structure, but it doesn't often lend itself to a pleasurable read.
David Howarth has a great way of casually writing about that old, musty stuff. In Waterloo: A Near Run Thing, he lays out the great and seemingly invincible Napoleon's...well..."his Waterloo" as the saying goes. This was the iconic moment - in what probably should've been called World War 1 - when the mighty Goliath was finally conquered.
How was it done? If you're not a military strategist, if you don't understand maneuvers and the importance of soldier formations, you probably wouldn't understand how Napoleon's defeat in this single battle was achieved and why it was so miraculous. Howarth presents the facts and information in a more conversational manner, making it easy for the layman to grasp. He gave 1066: The Year of the Conquest the same treatment and made that even older and more remote world-altering battle clear as day and a pleasure to read.
October 13, 2014
Waterloo: A Near Run Thing is an excellent introduction to the great battle that ended Napoleon’s dreams forever. I have not read about this battle or much about Napoleon. This book does not burden with extensive history or details of the armies. It tells the stories of men on both sides, from Dawn to Evening on one day, with a short few pages about the aftermath. Liberally sprinkled with maps, sketches, color reproductions of paintings of the men, terrain, key features of the battle. A good book to whet the appetite for more details on the event. Although this book was written some time ago, the stories told here are timeless. Howarth’s focus of this book is:
Waterloo was an extreme case of this strange behavior (transform from normal humans to acting like ferocious animals). The combatants on both sides were ordinary men with ordinary, homely faults and virtues. French and British soldiers admired each other. Yet the battle they fought was not the impersonal, scientific kind of battle that armies fight nowadays. They hacked and slashed at each other with sabres, lances and bayonets, shot each other point-blank with muskets and pistols, and triumphantly mowed each other down with grape-shot from cannon at thirty paces, until one in four of them was lying dead or wounded and the field was encumbered with the heaps of corpses. Why did they do it? Why do men ever do it—and women never? Why, on the other hand, did 10,000 men of Wellington’s army run away? And why did the French, who had been attacking all the afternoon, suddenly change in the course of ten minutes from an army to a rabble?
Highly recommended as we approach the 200th anniversary of the battle.
Waterloo was an extreme case of this strange behavior (transform from normal humans to acting like ferocious animals). The combatants on both sides were ordinary men with ordinary, homely faults and virtues. French and British soldiers admired each other. Yet the battle they fought was not the impersonal, scientific kind of battle that armies fight nowadays. They hacked and slashed at each other with sabres, lances and bayonets, shot each other point-blank with muskets and pistols, and triumphantly mowed each other down with grape-shot from cannon at thirty paces, until one in four of them was lying dead or wounded and the field was encumbered with the heaps of corpses. Why did they do it? Why do men ever do it—and women never? Why, on the other hand, did 10,000 men of Wellington’s army run away? And why did the French, who had been attacking all the afternoon, suddenly change in the course of ten minutes from an army to a rabble?
Highly recommended as we approach the 200th anniversary of the battle.
May 30, 2020
Ask someone to name any battle from history. I bet Waterloo would be one of the most popular answers.
Given its name recognition, you'd expect that it was a grand showdown between Military Masters, strategy at its peak, strokes of brilliance one-upped by counterstrokes of genius, back and forth until one side prevailed.
It was not that.
It was a mess of mistakes and miscommunication that all but did away with maneuvers, leaving the two sides to just face each other and square off in a brutal clash.
Howarth does a great job at laying out the facts (as far as he is able to piece them together) and paints a vivid portrait of the day without going overboard with flowery language. I only gave it three stars because there wasn’t anything particularly gripping about the narrative, even though it was well told.
One thing to note is that Howarth trains the camera solely on that single day of battle. There is almost no context about the events leading up to the encounter at Waterloo or anything that transpired afterward. That would have been helpful to have known before digging in.
(P.S. Howarth's We Die Alone: A WWII Epic of Escape and Endurance is one of my favorite narrative nonfiction reads. If you're into stories in the style of Erik Larsen or Candice Millard, give We Die Alone a look.)
Given its name recognition, you'd expect that it was a grand showdown between Military Masters, strategy at its peak, strokes of brilliance one-upped by counterstrokes of genius, back and forth until one side prevailed.
It was not that.
It was a mess of mistakes and miscommunication that all but did away with maneuvers, leaving the two sides to just face each other and square off in a brutal clash.
Howarth does a great job at laying out the facts (as far as he is able to piece them together) and paints a vivid portrait of the day without going overboard with flowery language. I only gave it three stars because there wasn’t anything particularly gripping about the narrative, even though it was well told.
One thing to note is that Howarth trains the camera solely on that single day of battle. There is almost no context about the events leading up to the encounter at Waterloo or anything that transpired afterward. That would have been helpful to have known before digging in.
(P.S. Howarth's We Die Alone: A WWII Epic of Escape and Endurance is one of my favorite narrative nonfiction reads. If you're into stories in the style of Erik Larsen or Candice Millard, give We Die Alone a look.)
February 10, 2011
The brilliance of this book is its approach – Howarth goes through the day, section by section, and depicts what Waterloo was like from the perspective of several different men. Dry and confusing strategy is cast aside in favor of real-life experience and descriptions of the truly breath-taking gusts of fate that determined this battle. Good thing you know the outcome before you start! And, as a bonus, sort of, I have to admit that if anyone can breathe humanity into that dreadful little megalomaniac from Corsica, David Howarth can.
June 25, 2022
A super, fast-paced account of the Battle of Waterloo, which focuses on the human drama and doesn't shy away from the horror of it. I first read it not long after it was published - I am that old and remember using a prized book token - and loved it then and found it a cracking read now. Yes, scholarship has moved on (thank you to the Napoleonicist podcast for opening my eyes to recent developments) and these days one would hope to find Dutch/Belgian and German voices, plus a few more French ones alongside the Brits but, even so, I think it still stands out as a relatively short and very readable account of that famous day. It is well illustrated and - huzzah! - has lovely clear and elegant maps. Perhaps it was reading this when I was 11 or 12 that I first appreciated the value of good maps in books!
April 22, 2012
A minute-by-minute review of the greatest battle in history is provided, mostly from the allied side, which brings the battlefield events to life. It's all a bit gnarly, what with the explicit descriptions of heads blown apart by cannonballs and the like, but the book definitely makes the strategy and the tactics very understandable to the lowest common denominator reader (me).
Napoleon's strange behaviour is explained (piles) and Wellington comes across as the cool-ass dude that he really was. His remarks would be Twitter-worthy in today's world. Marshal Ney is redeemed somewhat as being the only French general to actually do anything that day, while his Emperor sat, literally, on his butt.
I would have liked more emphasis on each of the real-life participants whose recollections are brought together by the author. Still, it's quite good, a swift overview of a near run thing.
Book Season = Year Round
Napoleon's strange behaviour is explained (piles) and Wellington comes across as the cool-ass dude that he really was. His remarks would be Twitter-worthy in today's world. Marshal Ney is redeemed somewhat as being the only French general to actually do anything that day, while his Emperor sat, literally, on his butt.
I would have liked more emphasis on each of the real-life participants whose recollections are brought together by the author. Still, it's quite good, a swift overview of a near run thing.
Book Season = Year Round
July 20, 2025
Not a tactical overview, but an account of what the battle was like to experience. Amazingly vivid writing.
February 25, 2013
This is one of those books that I know I will read probably dozens of times in my life. The narrative style, based entirely upon eyewitness accounts of the battle, is extremely compelling. It's not long, but it will leave you feeling as though you had actually witnessed Waterloo.
While the book does focus mostly on the Allied experience to the neglect of the French, Howarth explains in his introduction that it was unfortunately necessary because, having lost and no doubt feeling a bit bitter or disappointed, far fewer French soldiers can be found who chose to record their experience of the day on paper in sufficient detail to add to the narrative. The British on the other hand, in their excitement and pride, tend to have written a great number of journal entries, letters home, and even books describing what they witnessed. The detailed source material for the historian is, therefore, almost entirely from the British perspective. It's a pity, but it is what it is.
I could not recommend this book highly enough if you're interested in the Napoleonic War time period.
While the book does focus mostly on the Allied experience to the neglect of the French, Howarth explains in his introduction that it was unfortunately necessary because, having lost and no doubt feeling a bit bitter or disappointed, far fewer French soldiers can be found who chose to record their experience of the day on paper in sufficient detail to add to the narrative. The British on the other hand, in their excitement and pride, tend to have written a great number of journal entries, letters home, and even books describing what they witnessed. The detailed source material for the historian is, therefore, almost entirely from the British perspective. It's a pity, but it is what it is.
I could not recommend this book highly enough if you're interested in the Napoleonic War time period.
September 23, 2013
One of my favourite works of military history has always been 'The Face of Battle' by John Keegan. Major battles seen from the viewpoint of individual combatants. I stumbled on a hardcover version of David Howarth's classic at a local market recently for a paltry $5 and sat down to read it immediately. It is everything that Keegan's book is and more. Waterloo recounted from the viewpoint of a number of individuals who fought on that day.
I have read every book on this battle that I have been able to find and 'wargamed' the conflict on many occasions. Reading this intimate account has, however, told me so much more about that day and brought me closer to understanding the battle than ever before.
A magnificent work, rightly regarded as a classic by a fine historian who sadly died in 1991. However, his fine legacy will endure as long as there are discussions about the events of Sunday, 18th June 1815 on a field of conflict about 13 km south by south-east of Brussels, and about 1.6 km from the town of Waterloo.
I have read every book on this battle that I have been able to find and 'wargamed' the conflict on many occasions. Reading this intimate account has, however, told me so much more about that day and brought me closer to understanding the battle than ever before.
A magnificent work, rightly regarded as a classic by a fine historian who sadly died in 1991. However, his fine legacy will endure as long as there are discussions about the events of Sunday, 18th June 1815 on a field of conflict about 13 km south by south-east of Brussels, and about 1.6 km from the town of Waterloo.
October 11, 2007
A decisive battle told from the point of view of the soldiers. Interesting and well written, it makes clear how hideous war is and reinforces the notion that soldiers survive major battles by luck - only luck.
And, if the author is correct, Napoleon lost because he was distracted by his hemorrhoids.
Go figure............
And, if the author is correct, Napoleon lost because he was distracted by his hemorrhoids.
Go figure............
August 30, 2015
The interweaving of genuine, men-in-the-field accounts from different parts and different sides of the battle give this account of the battle of Waterloo a real sense of gritty realism and authenticity that you will find hard to beat.
August 4, 2011
Having known nothing and not studying Waterloo this is a fantastic history book, very informative highly recommended.
September 14, 2014
It's a fun read, but the history is dated.
August 9, 2022
I absolutely loved this book, it was right up there with Barbero's ‘The Battle’ (also about Waterloo), and works like ‘1812’ by Zamoyski, or Paul Britten Austin's superb 1812 trilogy (both of the latter about Napoleon’s disastrous invasion of Russia). In an assessment I'm entirely in agreement with, Napoleonic military book specialists Empire Books describe it in their product listings as 'One of the most admired accounts ever written on the Waterloo campaign.'
Unlike a lot of books about Waterloo, which often cover all sorts of other aspects, such as Napoleon's return from Elba, the battles of Ligny & Quatre Bras, etc, Howarth confines himself to the day itself. I don't doubt that some fussy Napoleonic buffs out there could pick holes in his portrayal of the days events (this was written in the late 1960s), but as he himself quite rightly says on p. V of his introduction 'too much has been written about the arguments ... too little about the experience'.
Like Paul Britten Austin, whose trilogy on Napoleon's ill-fated Russian expedition is one of my favourite Napoleonic history books, Howarth based this account on the memoirs of the participants themselves, of whom he observes 'Behind all their stilted prose, and underneath their peacock uniforms, they were much the same ...' as we are. Unlike PBA, who uses his sources verbatim, Howarth chooses to reformulate the first hand accounts into his own prose. A job he does extremely well.
Howarth indulges in some speculation, in particular regarding Napoléon's health. He pretty much seems to take the line that Napoleon was very unwell on the day of Waterloo, and that this was in large part responsible for his poor performance. This kind of speculation has become quite unpopular and unfashionable in modern scholarship, but, as he points out at the start of his book, this is not a work of scholarship, but a dramatic retelling of the days events, based on the words of the participants themselves.
The Napoleonic wars were amongst the first, as Howarth himself points out, in which, thanks to increasing levels of literacy, we get accounts from all levels, from generals down to rankers. Using many such contemporary accounts, from the personal narratives of officers and men to Captain Siborne's exhaustive work - 'which I suppose' writes Howarth 'is the most detailed, authoritative and boring account of the battle ever written' - itself based on a massive evidence-collecting correspondence with participants, Howarth's rendering is anything but dull.
When I read this I was glued to it for two days solid, reading it in every available spare moment. It's a highly accomplished telling of a tale that's very often been told, but very rarely with such verve. It's always exciting, and often very moving. The 'Night' section (he divides the battle into chronological periods of the day) is terribly poignant and affecting, the story of William Howe De Lancey being deserving of a tragic romance. This is the sort of book that could easily kindle a lifelong love of history.
My copy is a 1969 Literary Guild hardback, heavily illustrated. I can't vouch for the 'Great Battles' edition, which is the version most easily available now from sellers like Amazon. But if they've left the text as it is in the Literary Guild version, then, unlike Napoleon, you can't lose. In a single word: brilliant
Unlike a lot of books about Waterloo, which often cover all sorts of other aspects, such as Napoleon's return from Elba, the battles of Ligny & Quatre Bras, etc, Howarth confines himself to the day itself. I don't doubt that some fussy Napoleonic buffs out there could pick holes in his portrayal of the days events (this was written in the late 1960s), but as he himself quite rightly says on p. V of his introduction 'too much has been written about the arguments ... too little about the experience'.
Like Paul Britten Austin, whose trilogy on Napoleon's ill-fated Russian expedition is one of my favourite Napoleonic history books, Howarth based this account on the memoirs of the participants themselves, of whom he observes 'Behind all their stilted prose, and underneath their peacock uniforms, they were much the same ...' as we are. Unlike PBA, who uses his sources verbatim, Howarth chooses to reformulate the first hand accounts into his own prose. A job he does extremely well.
Howarth indulges in some speculation, in particular regarding Napoléon's health. He pretty much seems to take the line that Napoleon was very unwell on the day of Waterloo, and that this was in large part responsible for his poor performance. This kind of speculation has become quite unpopular and unfashionable in modern scholarship, but, as he points out at the start of his book, this is not a work of scholarship, but a dramatic retelling of the days events, based on the words of the participants themselves.
The Napoleonic wars were amongst the first, as Howarth himself points out, in which, thanks to increasing levels of literacy, we get accounts from all levels, from generals down to rankers. Using many such contemporary accounts, from the personal narratives of officers and men to Captain Siborne's exhaustive work - 'which I suppose' writes Howarth 'is the most detailed, authoritative and boring account of the battle ever written' - itself based on a massive evidence-collecting correspondence with participants, Howarth's rendering is anything but dull.
When I read this I was glued to it for two days solid, reading it in every available spare moment. It's a highly accomplished telling of a tale that's very often been told, but very rarely with such verve. It's always exciting, and often very moving. The 'Night' section (he divides the battle into chronological periods of the day) is terribly poignant and affecting, the story of William Howe De Lancey being deserving of a tragic romance. This is the sort of book that could easily kindle a lifelong love of history.
My copy is a 1969 Literary Guild hardback, heavily illustrated. I can't vouch for the 'Great Battles' edition, which is the version most easily available now from sellers like Amazon. But if they've left the text as it is in the Literary Guild version, then, unlike Napoleon, you can't lose. In a single word: brilliant
February 10, 2025
Battle of Waterloo from the view of the common soldier. Not an overview of the whole battle, but snippets from men who were there seeing only what they could see. In a time when musketry filled the air with blue smoke that often meant less than 50 yards. Individual recollections of all the major events, each soldier has no idea what is going on over the hill. The story becomes that of men who are wet, hungry, lost, sometimes bored, and mostly just trying to stay alive. Tales of men complaining about the lousy food and idiot officers, wondering who was winning. The same story that any WWII GI or Civil War soldier would tell, except these men are wearing bright red uniform coats with sashes and big bear skin hats with badges.
Not meant as a scholarly or exacting retelling of the battle, it is still scholarly and filled with detail. The overall view is that only happenstance allowed Wellington a victory, as Napoleon was mostly incapacitated with the piles and played little part. The Alliance had Wellington involved constantly, rushing from one part of the battle to another, and surveying the field with his telescope when he wasn't moving. This should have been Napoleon's job, but he sat out most of the day. Marshall Ney could have taken over, but he was actually in the midst of the fighting, down in the valley and unaware of much of what was happening. This led to the French making many mistakes while the Allies simply had to hold the line.
While the tactical view of the battle can still be seen it is the soldier's eye view that intrigues. Well worth the read.
Not meant as a scholarly or exacting retelling of the battle, it is still scholarly and filled with detail. The overall view is that only happenstance allowed Wellington a victory, as Napoleon was mostly incapacitated with the piles and played little part. The Alliance had Wellington involved constantly, rushing from one part of the battle to another, and surveying the field with his telescope when he wasn't moving. This should have been Napoleon's job, but he sat out most of the day. Marshall Ney could have taken over, but he was actually in the midst of the fighting, down in the valley and unaware of much of what was happening. This led to the French making many mistakes while the Allies simply had to hold the line.
While the tactical view of the battle can still be seen it is the soldier's eye view that intrigues. Well worth the read.
October 10, 2021
This history of the historic 1815 battle that ended Napoleon’s reign is told from the perspective of the participants in the battle. These people told their stories in letters, reports and memoirs. As such, the book is well researched and put together as much as possible in a chronological order of that day’s events. This collection of first-hand accounts gives the reader an unusual look into a historic battle. You’ll discover how individuals struggled to survive that day. And, surviving was their major focus. Very few participants knew of the grand strategies and tactics. Nor did they think about those things. They could only attempt to understand what was right in front of them. So, the “glory” of being in a Napoleonic era army is fully disclosed. Sleeping in the mud during a rain storm, lying wounded and disabled on a battlefield and subject to being killed as other survivors attempt to steal whatever possessions you may have. This was a particular hazard for officers because they had money, watches and other things of value to be stolen. Medical treatment was still rather primitive and getting wounded men to hospitals was not a priority until well after the battle ended. Some background and explanations are provided by the author on some of the pivotal events that day, such as Marshall Ney’s commitment of the French Cavalry too soon without infantry support, Napoleon’s strange behavior as he seemed to be quite inactive and out of touch early on, and then the disastrous frontal infantry assault of Napoleon’s “Old Guard” too late in the day.
June 2, 2023
Based on first hand sources, this book gives a very graphic and detailed account of the battle. The narrative allows you to see and feel what the Battle of Waterloo was like. It is not a detailed description of the full campaign. Rather it is much more of a personal account written for a more popular audience than historians. And that is the beauty of the work reading as a gripping narrative. There are sufficient maps that work very well with the narrative so that the reader has an excellent image of the battlefield and troop movements. Contemporary illustrations help portray the battlefield and scenes of battle.
I was first given this book as a present when I was in middle school. At first, I was skeptical as I did not know of the Battle of Waterloo. However, reading this book filled me with awe and instilled in me a deep interest in the battle. Reading the book again before my visit to the battlefield years later greatly enriched my visit as I could clearly see the event in my mind through the author’s words. And now several decades later, I have read the book again and am again inspired.
I was first given this book as a present when I was in middle school. At first, I was skeptical as I did not know of the Battle of Waterloo. However, reading this book filled me with awe and instilled in me a deep interest in the battle. Reading the book again before my visit to the battlefield years later greatly enriched my visit as I could clearly see the event in my mind through the author’s words. And now several decades later, I have read the book again and am again inspired.
January 2, 2025
At this point, I am committed to the First Empire so any book about the topic is a welcome read :)
However, I'd say that I wouldn't necessarily recommend this to someone who doesn't know anything about the Napoleonic wars. It's not general enough to help you really get to know the main key figures and dynamics, and it's more of an exploration of the individual experience of battle. But if you're already a bit familiar with the topic, this will complete your knowledge in a very satisfying way, as it summarises things that appear in other books and documentaries, but in a way that helps you put a face on the lived experiences of French, English and Prussian soldiers.
To anyone interested in learning more about the Coalition wars, I actually really recommend the order that I happened to learn about the subject ! War and Peace + the two Oversimplified videos on Youtube followed by the movie Waterloo, then reading 1812 by Adam Zamoysky and then watching Abel Gance's Napoleon.
However, I'd say that I wouldn't necessarily recommend this to someone who doesn't know anything about the Napoleonic wars. It's not general enough to help you really get to know the main key figures and dynamics, and it's more of an exploration of the individual experience of battle. But if you're already a bit familiar with the topic, this will complete your knowledge in a very satisfying way, as it summarises things that appear in other books and documentaries, but in a way that helps you put a face on the lived experiences of French, English and Prussian soldiers.
To anyone interested in learning more about the Coalition wars, I actually really recommend the order that I happened to learn about the subject ! War and Peace + the two Oversimplified videos on Youtube followed by the movie Waterloo, then reading 1812 by Adam Zamoysky and then watching Abel Gance's Napoleon.
November 18, 2017
Mesmerizing and written as if it were on the day of the battle; with the fluffy language of the early 19th century included! The author seems to capture the soldiers memoirs so vividly and still retains the skill to tell the immense detail of the battle of Waterloo. At times I feel I am reading a graphic novel and at others I return to the reality of the brutal history. The memoirs add such a vivacious character to the battle, however it still reminds us of the horrors of war. Packed with countless maps and paintings for reference, it also deals with some of the reasons for the outcome of the battle, thus it gives us a flavor of appropriate military history.
March 9, 2021
I discovered this book by pure chance at a second-hand stall on the Meadows of Edinburgh long ago. It so happened I had just returned from a cycling holiday in Belgium during which I had visited the Battle of Waterloo site. David Howarth is a most under-rated historian. He has produced a sensitive, clear account of the battle, both at the level of the overall flow of events and at the level of eye witnesses. He does it without imposing on the reader any personal judgement about the rights or wrongs of Napoleon's bid to regain power. This is an unusual achievement, the more so in that he was an 'amateur' rather than an academic 'professional'. Perhaps his experiences with SOE during WW2 gave him a more sympathetic and nuanced understanding of what it is to be on a battlefield.
For a fine understanding of the Battle of Waterloo, what it was like to be there, a fair insight into how close Wellington came to losing, and (probably) why it was Napoleon that lost, this book is recommended.
Howarth also wrote an excellent biography of King Abdul Azziz Ibn Saud, the founder of Saudi Arabia. It's an excellent history of how the Arabian peninsula got yanked from the tenth century to the twentieth in about a decade after oil was found first near it and then under it.
For a fine understanding of the Battle of Waterloo, what it was like to be there, a fair insight into how close Wellington came to losing, and (probably) why it was Napoleon that lost, this book is recommended.
Howarth also wrote an excellent biography of King Abdul Azziz Ibn Saud, the founder of Saudi Arabia. It's an excellent history of how the Arabian peninsula got yanked from the tenth century to the twentieth in about a decade after oil was found first near it and then under it.
August 13, 2022
Brilliant. Wonderfully written. My favourite bit was the story of Mrs Deacon: spent all day Friday at the side of the battle with her three small kids, out of concern for her husband; heard he was injured, spent all night searching the battlefield for him; Saturday, with the kids, crossed the battlefield where the armies were assembling, walked all night in the rain through the chaotic French retreat, found husband on Sunday night; Monday, GAVE BIRTH to a girl who they called Waterloo. Husband was fine by the way, just had been shot in the arm 🤣👏💯
June 30, 2019
After finishing 1066; The year of conquest, I decided to read another of David Howarth’s books. This well-written and expertly researched book depicts warfare tactics from a general’s perspective and that also of the regular soldier, all from multiple perspectives around the battlefield that ended Napoleon. Heart-breaking and intense, it shows the true horrors of war.
I recommend this to any history buff interested in military history.
I recommend this to any history buff interested in military history.
October 16, 2022
Waterloo: A Near Run Thing is a combination of stories about a few officers and soldiers who had been in the battle of Waterloo in 1815. The book’s focus is mainly on the experiences of those characters and only mentions the causes and the aftermath of that great battle in a few pages. The military aspect of the war combined with the stories of the main characters is also meticulously presented which makes the book a rare piece about Waterloo.
December 19, 2023
I have had this book in my Napoleonic Wars section for some time and now got around to reading it.
It is one of the faster reads on the subject of the battle of Waterloo.
Seen when it was published (1968) the amount of research that went into this was quite impressive.
The description from the ground level of the soldier is a aspect that gives a lot of new insights as is the human aspect of the battle.
A must read for all Napoleonic history fans.
It is one of the faster reads on the subject of the battle of Waterloo.
Seen when it was published (1968) the amount of research that went into this was quite impressive.
The description from the ground level of the soldier is a aspect that gives a lot of new insights as is the human aspect of the battle.
A must read for all Napoleonic history fans.
October 16, 2019
David Howarth puts you on the battlefield for the entire day. He was able to show how various soldiers experienced the battle and something of what it was like to be there. It was one of the most gut wrenching experiences to see what these soldiers had to endure. It was an amazing book and one I will never forget,
June 7, 2020
If you're interested in the Battle of Waterloo, this is a great place to start. It is relatively quick read and highly engaging throughout as it pieces together the battle from accounts of soldiers on all sides who were there. It's a reminder, too that warfare and battle has always been a deeply upsetting and bloody thing but demonstrates the courage of those who serve. Fantastic book.
July 2, 2018
More like 3.5 stars - I knew very little about the events - the author lays it out nicely and in an easy way to follow. Some battle recap stories can get very dense and technical - this was not the case with this book
July 6, 2025
this is about the Battle of waterloo in belgium. Napoleon was quite ill and unable to effectively command and his opposition was duke o f wellington and mainly brit and prussian soldiers.
the author does a good job describing the chaos and misery from a common soldiers perspective.
the author does a good job describing the chaos and misery from a common soldiers perspective.
August 23, 2019
Good length, easy to read, very enjoyable.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews