Jak Francuzi wygrali pod Waterloo

by Stephen Clarke, Maria Jaszczurowska (Translator)

Pełne uszczypliwego angielskiego humoru spojrzenie na kult Napoleona. Mnóstwo tu barwnych anegdot, pozwalających poznać nastroje epoki, ekstrawaganckich przykładów manipulowania historią, zarówno przez zwycięzców, jak i przegranych, sensacyjnych lub zabawnych momentów, groteskowych portretów postaci historycznych.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, France, Humor, War, 19th Century

320 pages, Paperback

First published April 29, 2015

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.

Stephen Clarke is the bestselling author of seven books of fiction and nonfiction that satirize the peculiarities of French culture. In 2004, he self-published A Year in the Merde, a comic novel skewering contemporary French society. The novel was an instant success and has led to numerous follow-ups, including Dial M for Merde (2008), 1,000 Years of Annoying the French (2010), and Paris Revealed (2011). After working as a journalist for a French press group for ten years, Paris-based Clarke now has a regular spot on French cable TV, poking fun at French culture.

Reviews

[Chris Boulton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my second dip in the historical writings of Stephen Clarke and I enjoyed this one just as much as the last one ("1000 years"). Pretty sure it's the genetically programmed need to take the mikey out of the French.. it's weird that it comes so naturally! (Remember the google search thing where you put in "French military victories", click "I'm feeling lucky" and it comes up with no results and asks "did you mean "French military defeats"?" ... that made me chuckle a lot.

I like this book because the premise of the French won the Battle of Waterloo (Mont Saint-Jean, ha!) even if Napoleon lost is an interesting one. If you take the changes, the years of relative peace and the ironing out of Napoleon's laws and government that could only really come into effect because Napoleon lost and abdicated the second time then, yeah, I guess they did win a victory of sorts.

I also liked the idea that Napoleon won history .. a lot of people outside the UK might know who Wellington is .. even if it's just for his boots.. but he's not nearly as well known as ole Boney, as fhe book states, there are monuments and re-enactments all set up because of him.. there's nothing nearly as grand for Welly... and he won.

So what I'm trying to say is.. read this book. It's cool.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

How The French Won Waterloo (Or Think They Did) – Funny and Factual.

With the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo now a memory to most and to the British a win under Wellington’s guidance which finally put the French and the puny Corsican back in his place, we British know we were the victors! Just do not let the French hear you say that as they believe they won and yes we lost, there is a collective amnesia in France for the last 200 years.

As Stephen Clarke shows throughout this delightfully funny but factual book the French do not like to see their ultimate hero cast as a failure at Waterloo. Even Napoleon wrote after the battle that he won and that the English cheated, as he sat in exile on an obscure British territory in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. It is 200 years since Napoleon set off for Saint Helena, and as Clarke explains his stature has never stopped growing in France, Victor Hugo said of him a case of ‘losing the field but keeping control of history.’

This book is a wonderful examination of that keeping control of history and the collective denial of the French who were there that they lost of the battlefield. The French political, education, military systems are deeply based on the Napoleonic codes even today, when he lost at Waterloo even the Arc de Triomphe had not been completed but the boulevards had! Even today the French President life in Napoleon’s Palace, sits in his chairs and eats from his table.

French patriotism does not allow them to admit that they lost at Waterloo from Victor Hugo to the recent French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin all state that it was the French that won the moral victory. Villepin stated ‘This defeat shines with the aura of victory’ and Hugo in Les Miserable wrote ‘What was Waterloo? A victory? No, a lottery, won by Europe and paid for by France.’ Proof that denial can last more than a life time but for 200 years and will continue.

At the same time as this tongue in cheek look at Waterloo there are plenty of historical facts packed in amongst the pages some of which you cannot help but admire Napoleon’s work as a leader and commander. Such as he was able to raise an army of force between March and June 1815 of 413,000 men to guard against invaders and these were mobilised and ready to act.

Again one cannot disagree with the fact that on all sides at Waterloo it took super human courage and stoicism (or plain stupidity) to fight a battle in which the main tactic of both sides was to stand up in non-camouflaged uniforms and let the enemy fire at you, or charging armour without anything that was bullet proof right in to the mouth of canon that was firing right at you.

One interesting aside about Waterloo and the weather, it was raining in June 1815, and this came as a surprise to the French blaming God for being against them with the weather. But if they had done their research they would have found that June has the fourth highest amount of rainfall in Belgium so turning those fields in Flanders in to a quagmire and rivers of mud. It cannot be said we learnt the lesson of history of Flanders, rain and mud 100 years later. In fact Napoleons canons attempted to pound the British lines but most of his cannonballs settled in the mud and did nothing.

Out of the 80,000 books that have examined every inch of the battle at Waterloo, How The French Won Waterloo is probably the most interesting and funny making the subject seem almost fun but not hiding the harsh realities of war. Sometimes a student needs to remember facts but as a history graduate I tend to remember the funnier stories as it always sparks my memory towards the actual facts. This book is fun, well written and a very welcome addition to the Waterloo canon and I am sure there are plenty of people who will smile all the way throughout the book.

[JEAN-PHILIPPE PEROL · Rating 2 out of 5]

Stephen Clerke a peut être suffisamment d'humour et de connaissances de l'Histoire de France pour nous faire sourire pendant quelques pages, mais surement pas assez pour ne pas retomber dès la moitié de son livre dans un French bashing des plus traditionnels chez les anglo-saxons. Basée sur son impressionante consolidation des acquis de la Révolution plus que sur ses victoires militaires, sa gloire toujours actuelle agace visiblement l'auteur qui ne se prive ni de contre vérités historiques, ni d'amalgames douteux, et ni de confusions de dates pour étayer sa démonstration.Parfois brillant ou drôle dans ses premières pages, "Comment les Francais ont gagnés Waterloo" se vide au fil des chapitres pour devenir ennuyeux et tendancieux. Tous les Français savent que la bataille de Waterloo a été une terrible et douloureuse défaite de la France, de Napoléon et tous les idéaux portés par la Révolution et l'Empire. Mais ces idéaux ont survécus à la défaite, ont conquis une large partie du monde, et ont construit, n en déplaise à Stephen Clerke,, la gloire du Petit Caporal, justifiant la fierté de ses compatriotes.

[Noemi · Rating 4 out of 5]

A refreshing and quirky read soaked with entertaining irony. It was fun to explore the battle of Waterloo and Napoleon's whereabouts from a rather British perspective. I definitely learned a great deal of interesting things that are often overlooked in textbooks and history classes.

[Bartek Maciej · Rating 1 out of 5]

Nie ma tu ani humoru ani soczystych anegdot, jest za to dużo głupiej złośliwości

[Franciszek Porayski-Pomsta · Rating 4 out of 5]

Czyta się świetnie. Dzieło Clarke’a ma dość wyraźną tezę, ale wynikają z niej interesujące myśli, dotyczące obecnego kształtu Francji.

[Shawn · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderfully lively and engaging read. The wry wit offers a unique and clever approach to what is well considered and researched work. Challenging himself unpeal the rational onion that is the enduring popularity of Napoleon, Clarke successfully attempt to ask how and why facts can be assembled to support the belief that Napoleon or the French forces were the Victor's in 1815.
Clarke relies largely on French sources (balanced against carefully selected foreign commentators both contemporary and modern) to substantiate and document the enduring myth of Napoleon.
This is a superb read, approachable and written in Clarke's consistently witty fashion - both amusing and educational.

[Michał Hołda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Half billion pounds, is How much England has paid for fight with Napoleon, paying
anyone who dare to help.

To begin with, Napoleon's enthusiasts think even that God has send rain on times of battles
Napoleon could not use his favourite weapon, artillery.

At war, same as in love. To end you have to be in the closeness.
So, french think that Napoloens defeat was success of faith as he was to good to win, and
payed the price, just like Joanna d’Arc did.

In two decades french developed interesting ideas about wining Wotterlo, such as, that
they captured more baners, some say, even six, losing only two eagels. Other one is that
first part of the battle hes been won by french, second by British.

Pierre Cambronne has said " merde!" in response to proposal of surrender. And that naked him a winner in enthusiasts eyes.

Le memorial de sainte-helene memorial is like Bible to bonapartists. Napoleon has written
there why he has been called petit coprol, not because of his height, but that hi has fought
in Armee d’Italie,french invasion army, not Italian. As swell written that he didn't crave for
crown, that he got it up from gutter, given by people.

There are also other books on the subject that are mensioned,with one example of french
paranoia that everyone is against the France, an that Waterlo is more like lottery win,
rather then wining. As for me I will always be in favor of Aristocracy, that core of France.

English Accuracy, precaution, geometry, prudence intuition... vs french intuition of
guessing... is the ground scenery of this conflict.

baccalauréat, french A levels or matura in Polish was invented by Napoleon for students
entering high school. Name of this exam is meaning preparing to become scholar or
knight.

Finally defeat of Napoleon has been whining ground for France as France could grow and
prosper after that period.

[Nonethousand Oberrhein · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sometimes you win, and sometimes… Merde!
When you think about Napoleon, you very rarely think of the Empereur as a loser.
Based on this line of thought, Clarke gets back for the third time (after 1000 Years… and Dirty Bertie ) on history books and delivers a witty account on the last years and the legacy the first emperor of France left. With this, he takes some pleasure (and the reader with him), poking fun at Bonapartists and French historians that tend to give Napoleon more than the deserved amount of moral victories. A well documented and enjoyable “history-based” book, but some generalizations are not to be taken blindly.

[David Vernon · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an entertainingly written book looking at how some of the French re-interpret Waterloo as a victory for France rather than a loss. While written for a general reader it required better referencing for me to accept some of the assertions Clarke makes. At times I wasn't sure whether what I was reading was 'fake news' or reality. It tended at times to be repetitive and there was no clear narrative flow. He addresses what he sees an inability of the French to accept the reality of Napoleon's defeat but gives little indication of whether these ideas are extensive or just held by a bunch of fanatics. If you want an entertaining introduction to the Napoleon era which is quick to read, you will not be disappointed with this book.

[Miltiadis Michalopoulos · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very witty and entertaining book, but it is also well balanced and, rather surprisingly, it pays a lot of respect to Napoleon, to his faithful soldiers and to France. I give 4 stars to this delightful and engaging book.

[Flob · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well it amused me.

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Now, I don't know how accurate the title is and how prevelent the attitude is across France but this is a rather amusing review of the instances and occasions where the history of Waterloo has been interpreted slightly differently by those on the side of the Tricolour, including reference to the many occasions where Napoleon himself did the exact same thing. Of course this is worth taking with a pinch of salt but Clarke presents well reasoned, seemingly well researched and very witty observations on how the events leading up to and during Waterloo have been amended, modified and adjusted to provide a more favourable light is cast on French forces and the English come across the very (very) lucky sort of victors thanks to Prussian reinforcements (I'm sure that's how war works but hey). Clarke keeps an excellent level of wit and sarcasm throughout the book, which would've been a joy to read regardless of the subject matter.

[Mark Bowden · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit disappointing: the book lives up to its jokey title but it isn't really all that funny and Clarke's constant nudges and winks are somewhat wearisome. Though it contains some interesting information and ideas it is far from scholarly. Clarke's claim that Britain and France had been at war 'virtually non-stop since 1337' (p3) is ahistorical and though he quotes a number of sources many of his statements are not backed up by evidence. What, for instance is the authority for the story that a French officer deserted to the Allies in the middle of the battle and informed them that the Garde Imperiale were about to attack (p 88)? Clarke is also very selective in his sources; he quotes George Home on Napoleon's surrender but does not mention Captain Frederick Maitland's very full account. So it is fairly amusing and Clarke's comments on recent French attitudes are illuminating but a more nuanced study of French thinking about Waterloo would be valuable.

[Julia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Powiedzmy, ze dosyc ciekawa ksiazka i sporo sie o niej dowiedzialam, ale! Autor nie jest historykiem, tylko dziennikarzem i nie odpowiadal mi styl w tej ksiazce - wiele fragmentow, ktore mialy byc smieszne i uszczypliwe, wcale takie nie byly, a zdarzalo mi sie troche pozgrzytac zebami przy lekturze. Teraz pytanie, czy to kwestia tlumaczenia czy wlasnie stylu autora, ktory mozliwe ze w oryginale tez by mi nie przypadl do gustiu. Bibliografia byla zdecydowanie za krotka, a fragmety o tym, jak okres napoleonski wplynal na kulture, sztuke, system administracyjny itp mial zbyt anegdotyczny charakter. Z kolei zas jest to bardzo przystepna ksiazka, ktora sie szybko czyta, co jest jej zdecydowanym plusem jak na pozyjce historyczna.

[Mark Farley · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really amusing and entertaining overview of Napoleon's life and the Waterloo campaign, whilst still being very well researched and accessible to even the most history ignoramus like I. And also very insightful about the psyche of the French from a Brit abroad. But seriously very interesting and I would happily recommend this to any age. Merde!

[Pedro Paes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting read indeed about Waterloo and about Napoleon. It does however poke the French in all respects, probably upsetting Bonapartist French people substantially, and bring many chuckles to all others. For me, I have enjoyed and recommend it to others for a read, whether you are a Bonapartist or not, always good to have someone else's view.

[Ben Larzabal · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a fun way to learn more about the demise of Napoleon’s reign while considering how even the largest historical events are remembered and rewritten.

That said, the focus of the book is so niche (perhaps because I live on the other side of the Atlantic) that it left me wondering: who cares?

[TheIron Paw · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not nearly as good as his previous book about annoying the French. Clarke does provide some different perspectives and views of Napolean that are quite interesting; but he too frequently gets bogged down in details that tended to lose my interest. A mediocre read.

[R.J. Southworth · Rating 4 out of 5]

I certainly learned a lot from this book about how the French viewed both Napoleon and the Battle of Waterloo in the centuries after the fact. Some of the content was a bit dry, but mostly it's as interesting as Stephen Clarke's other historical work.

[Matthieu · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unfortunately the author did a lot of cherry picking and his "analysis" is far from perfect. You can see as a book intended for people who want to mock the French at the expanse of historicity and facts.

[Wilmington · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not the best of Stephen Clarke

I have read most of Stephen Clarke's books and enjoyed all of them, but this one was not particularly funny, nor very historically enlightening. I found his views more biased than usual.

[Giannis · Rating 4 out of 5]

28/03/20 CoVID-19 quarantine.


3.5 actually

[Sophia Rigby · Rating 4 out of 5]

Entertaining and witty writing

[Manuel Ruiz · Rating 2 out of 5]

No es lo bastante divertido ni lo bastante informativo como para merecer una recomendación.
Del montón.

[Rhiannon Grant · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had never thought about this before but this book gave an amusing introduction to some key cultural and historiographic questions.

[Alastair Murray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not really an end to end read. More of a dip in and read.

[Hania · Rating 5 out of 5]

"My, my
At Waterloo, Napoleon did surrender"

[Ghada · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was fun.

[Simon Legood · Rating 4 out of 5]

Finally, a book on Waterloo and Napoleon written by a true scholar. An honest, reverent account. No jokes, no frills, just the truth.