Wellington's Command: A Reappraisal of His Generalship in the Peninsula and at Waterloo

by George E. Jaycock, Saul David (Foreword)

A military historian assesses the leadership style of the man who defeated Napoleon.

The Duke of Wellington's victory at the Battle of Waterloo cemented his reputation as a great general, and much subsequent writing on his career has taken an uncritical, sometimes chauvinistic view of his talents. Little has been published that fully pins down the reality of Wellington's leadership, clearly identifying his weaknesses as well as his strengths.

George E. Jaycock, in this perceptive and thought-provoking reassessment, does not aim to undermine Wellington's achievements, but to provide a more nuanced perspective. He clarifies some simple but fundamental truths regarding his leadership and his performance as a commander.

Through an in-depth study of his actions over the war years of 1808 to 1815, the author reassesses Wellington's effectiveness as a commander, the competence of his subordinates, and the qualities of the troops he led. His study gives a fascinating insight into Wellington's career and abilities. Wellington's Command is absorbing reading for both military historians and those with an interest in the Napoleonic period.

427 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 30, 2019

Reviews

[Ben Powers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wellington’s Command: A Reappraisal of His Generalship in the Peninsula and at Waterloo by George E. Jaycock provides as close an unbiased analysis of Arthur Wellesley (the Duke of Wellington) as a reader is likely to find among the vast literature on the Peninsular War and the “100 days” leading to the Battle of Waterloo. Jaycock finds much to admire about Wellington’s generalship but also sheds light on the less savory aspects of his character. Jaycock emphasizes that the Duke was a man who felt that if a thing was to be done right, he had to do it himself, leaving his subordinate staff officers and commanders to execute his vision unquestioningly.

Jaycock certainly gives Wellington’s leadership and administrative abilities a fair assessment, covering familiar discussions of his thorough preparations on campaign, with specific emphasis on supplying his troops, emphasis on intelligence gathering and selecting the proper ground on which to fight whenever possible. He also gives Wellington great credit for possessing the will needed to command in combat and react to opportunities on the battlefield; however Jaycock notes that he was unforgiving if subordinates attempted to display similar types of initiative in battle.

Jaycock balances his assessment of Wellington with an analysis of his perceived shortcomings. In addition to frustrating his commander’s ability to apply their own judgement under fire, he was reluctant to give them credit for success and only too willing to issue very controlled orders circumscribing their freedom of action. Jaycock points out that the Duke was quick to apportion blame for failures in the field, even in circumstances where the responsibility was clearly his own. Wellington’s tendency to claim the lion’s share of glory most famously occurred post Waterloo; for the rest of his life he sought to control the story of how the Allies won the battle, emphasizing his generalship and British valor while downplaying the contributions of allied forces, particularly the Prussians.

Overall, Jaycock presents a balanced and readable account of Wellington as a commander that may challenge some popular assumptions. The book is well supplied with maps and supplemental information. This is not a book for the interested novice, and an understanding of the basic outlines of the Peninsular War, Waterloo, and early 19th-century European soldiering is required to fully appreciate Jaycock’s analysis. This book is highly recommended for readers who want more than a recitation of battlefield maneuvers, but who seek an understanding of the nuances of commanding armies in combat.