What do you think?
Rate this book
Wellington's Smallest Victory: The Duke, the Model Maker and the Secret of Waterloo
From the back cover: "The extraordinary story of how one man's obsession to build a huge model of Waterloo - the greatest model of the greatest battle of all time - incurred the wrath of the Duke of Wellington."
324 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
1 person is currently reading
32 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
August 28, 2012
This book's structure follows a nearly-chronological account of Capt. Siborne's struggle to create and display his model of the Battle of Waterloo, against the behind-the-scenes machinations of the Duke of Wellington. The account, while very detailed and obviously well-researched, is not as vividly-written as "A Model Victory" (which I also read), and often lapses into what appears to be pure speculation on the part of the author ("I believe the Duke of W. may have...", etc) that could've been left out with no serious harm to the book.
When comparing the two books, what I found particularly useful in this account was that the author took pains to explicitly recount the reasons why Wellington made Siborne's life so difficult and what was at stake politically for the history of the Battle of Waterloo. Although the book assumes the reader has an in-depth knowledge of the events of the battle (a presumption which "A Model Victory" handles better), its explanation of how/why the Duke of W. was so reluctant for the truth to be known is much better than "A Model Victory's", as the latter mostly alludes to the Duke's prejudices in broad terms but does not delve into some crucial specifics.
The two books also varied in where they gave details about the construction of the model - reading both gives a much clearer account of Siborne's travails than either book does alone, and the books would be excellent as a one-volume, all-inclusive tome. If I were recommending the books, I would say that one should read "Wellington's Smallest Victory" first in order to fully appreciate the timeline of events following the battle, with 'A Model Victory' adding some very interesting and vivid details about the battle itself and aspects of Siborne's struggles that "Wellingtons Smallest Victory" glosses.
When comparing the two books, what I found particularly useful in this account was that the author took pains to explicitly recount the reasons why Wellington made Siborne's life so difficult and what was at stake politically for the history of the Battle of Waterloo. Although the book assumes the reader has an in-depth knowledge of the events of the battle (a presumption which "A Model Victory" handles better), its explanation of how/why the Duke of W. was so reluctant for the truth to be known is much better than "A Model Victory's", as the latter mostly alludes to the Duke's prejudices in broad terms but does not delve into some crucial specifics.
The two books also varied in where they gave details about the construction of the model - reading both gives a much clearer account of Siborne's travails than either book does alone, and the books would be excellent as a one-volume, all-inclusive tome. If I were recommending the books, I would say that one should read "Wellington's Smallest Victory" first in order to fully appreciate the timeline of events following the battle, with 'A Model Victory' adding some very interesting and vivid details about the battle itself and aspects of Siborne's struggles that "Wellingtons Smallest Victory" glosses.
November 22, 2025
Objectively very good.
But honestly what am I even reading now
But honestly what am I even reading now
September 6, 2025
I should begin this review by pointing out that Peter Hofschroer is evidently a recognized authority on the Battle of Waterloo, and has published a two-volume work dealing with that campaign apart from this book. He states that he wrote this book as a sort of side-project. Unfortunately I have not read his other work, which I feel would have been a better place to start.
I say that because while this is an intriguing book and a subject I had not much considered before, I feel that it is not entirely convincing. I would like to think that Hofschroer elaborates on his case more in his perhaps more dedicated work.
The subject of this work is the brilliant cartographer and surveyor William Siborne, who was charged with building a model for the Battle of Waterloo by General Lord Rowland Hill while the latter was Minister of War.
This seems like it ought to have been a straightforward affair, but this book makes it clear that Siborne had to overcome numerous obstacles to find the funding and support to finish the project.
I thought that the endless litany of Siborne's appeals (or those of his friends like Vivian), which all invariably were rejected, grew very tiresome. I did not think it necessary to catalogue and explain in detail every appeal he made to every quarter, to be concluded with a negative reply. It became rather repetitive.
The much more pertinent question was not the number of appeals he made and to whom, but why they were all declined. This is the core of the book, and here Hofschroer claims that there was a conspiracy headed by the Duke of Wellington to hamper Siborne's work, and perhaps to prevent its completion.
I was convinced by Hofschroer's explanation of Wellington's motivations for the Waterloo Despatch, and that the Duke was not being entirely honest in his version of events. For example his claim to have witnessed the Prussian defeat at Ligny, when everyone who had been at Quatre Bras said that this could not have been possible due to an intervening ridge.
The heart of the matter was that Duke's somewhat embarrassed position of having delayed his dispositions, perhaps because Napoleon had deceived him (this question is raised and discussed), and then having lied to his allies in order to essentially trick them into fighting at Ligny in expectation of British support even though Wellington, so Hofscrhroer alleges, must have known that he could not have supported them due to his delay in deploying.
More to the point, Wellington was careful to downplay the role of the Prussians at Waterloo itself, seeming to deny that their attack at Plancenoit had been decisive in relieving pressure on Wellington at the crucial moment.
Siborne made the colossal mistake of deciding to depict the Battle at this juncture, and originally the model included figures for forty-thousand Prussians.
Casting doubt on the Duke's veracity and drawing attention to the Prussian contribution is assumed to have raised Wellington's ire and resulted in his opposition to Siborne's work. But a lot of Hofschroer's claims are based on speculation and circumstantial evidence.
There is no documentation that Hofschroer provides that establishes the Duke to have been directly responsible for blocking funding. He just assumes that those close to Wellington were pressured by the Duke to deny the appeals. This might well have been the case, but also perhaps not.
The author also claims that the Duke encouraged stooges like Gleig to push his version of the battle, even in order to undercut the sales of Siborne's book on the campaign. It seems awfully petty, and again it might have been so and might not.
From another angle we learn that Lord Uxbridge was approached for information, and that since this officer had a sort of feud with Wellington, Hofschroer suggests that he funded the New Model as a slight to the Duke.
As many of Siborne's financial records are missing, and we do not know where much of the funding actually came from, I feel this lack of certainty, as ever, opens the historian up to too many possibilities. He inserts his own pet theories in these gaps, rather as the imagination fills in gaps in memory.
So, he says, since we do not know where the money for the New Model came from, it must have come from Lord Uxbridge who hated Wellington, and thus there was a counter-conspiracy hatched by Uxbridge and Siborne to oppose the conspiracy of Wellington!
This is not so far-fetched to be impossible, but it is rather pushing credulity.
Apart from this drama, this work goes into great detail about the position of Prussians at Waterloo, the correspondence Siborne carried on with officers and soldiers from all participating armies, the design and construction of the model itself, the techniques used, the materials, all the way down to the minutiae of the soldiers and who made them.
This is all very useful and highly readable information. The models themselves are impressive works of art and it is to be appreciated that they survived, and are still viewable today.
Siborne was a remarkable figure and his collection of testimonies from participants at Waterloo is a celebrated achievement and invaluable legacy. He stirred up controversy beyond these matters as well, since his depiction of the Prince of Orange as incompetent has long caused acrimony amongst scholars of the battle. I regret that this was not touched upon, though it is, admittedly, tangential to the subject.
This work should be a delight for anybody interested in Waterloo or in the Napoleonic Wars, and leaves one to question the accounts of other events. How accurate are they? How much have we been led by the testimonies of one or two great figures? These are worthwhile questions.
Yet, as the financial records of Siborne are simply not available, and there is no documents linking the Duke to the repeated denials of Siborne's appeals to funding, this could be less of a case of conspiracy and more of a case of bureaucratic cold-heartedness, as subsequent officials chose to misinterpret Hill's original dispensation.
Governments are hardly above such callous treatment of worthy citizens, and do not need elaborate conspiracies to motivate them. So I am not prepared to say that I was convinced by the thesis, even if I was convinced that Wellington was a liar and could often be petty and small-minded (he never visited the model, which seems an unnecessarily cruel slight). It is an intriguing possibility, but other possibilities exist.
I say that because while this is an intriguing book and a subject I had not much considered before, I feel that it is not entirely convincing. I would like to think that Hofschroer elaborates on his case more in his perhaps more dedicated work.
The subject of this work is the brilliant cartographer and surveyor William Siborne, who was charged with building a model for the Battle of Waterloo by General Lord Rowland Hill while the latter was Minister of War.
This seems like it ought to have been a straightforward affair, but this book makes it clear that Siborne had to overcome numerous obstacles to find the funding and support to finish the project.
I thought that the endless litany of Siborne's appeals (or those of his friends like Vivian), which all invariably were rejected, grew very tiresome. I did not think it necessary to catalogue and explain in detail every appeal he made to every quarter, to be concluded with a negative reply. It became rather repetitive.
The much more pertinent question was not the number of appeals he made and to whom, but why they were all declined. This is the core of the book, and here Hofschroer claims that there was a conspiracy headed by the Duke of Wellington to hamper Siborne's work, and perhaps to prevent its completion.
I was convinced by Hofschroer's explanation of Wellington's motivations for the Waterloo Despatch, and that the Duke was not being entirely honest in his version of events. For example his claim to have witnessed the Prussian defeat at Ligny, when everyone who had been at Quatre Bras said that this could not have been possible due to an intervening ridge.
The heart of the matter was that Duke's somewhat embarrassed position of having delayed his dispositions, perhaps because Napoleon had deceived him (this question is raised and discussed), and then having lied to his allies in order to essentially trick them into fighting at Ligny in expectation of British support even though Wellington, so Hofscrhroer alleges, must have known that he could not have supported them due to his delay in deploying.
More to the point, Wellington was careful to downplay the role of the Prussians at Waterloo itself, seeming to deny that their attack at Plancenoit had been decisive in relieving pressure on Wellington at the crucial moment.
Siborne made the colossal mistake of deciding to depict the Battle at this juncture, and originally the model included figures for forty-thousand Prussians.
Casting doubt on the Duke's veracity and drawing attention to the Prussian contribution is assumed to have raised Wellington's ire and resulted in his opposition to Siborne's work. But a lot of Hofschroer's claims are based on speculation and circumstantial evidence.
There is no documentation that Hofschroer provides that establishes the Duke to have been directly responsible for blocking funding. He just assumes that those close to Wellington were pressured by the Duke to deny the appeals. This might well have been the case, but also perhaps not.
The author also claims that the Duke encouraged stooges like Gleig to push his version of the battle, even in order to undercut the sales of Siborne's book on the campaign. It seems awfully petty, and again it might have been so and might not.
From another angle we learn that Lord Uxbridge was approached for information, and that since this officer had a sort of feud with Wellington, Hofschroer suggests that he funded the New Model as a slight to the Duke.
As many of Siborne's financial records are missing, and we do not know where much of the funding actually came from, I feel this lack of certainty, as ever, opens the historian up to too many possibilities. He inserts his own pet theories in these gaps, rather as the imagination fills in gaps in memory.
So, he says, since we do not know where the money for the New Model came from, it must have come from Lord Uxbridge who hated Wellington, and thus there was a counter-conspiracy hatched by Uxbridge and Siborne to oppose the conspiracy of Wellington!
This is not so far-fetched to be impossible, but it is rather pushing credulity.
Apart from this drama, this work goes into great detail about the position of Prussians at Waterloo, the correspondence Siborne carried on with officers and soldiers from all participating armies, the design and construction of the model itself, the techniques used, the materials, all the way down to the minutiae of the soldiers and who made them.
This is all very useful and highly readable information. The models themselves are impressive works of art and it is to be appreciated that they survived, and are still viewable today.
Siborne was a remarkable figure and his collection of testimonies from participants at Waterloo is a celebrated achievement and invaluable legacy. He stirred up controversy beyond these matters as well, since his depiction of the Prince of Orange as incompetent has long caused acrimony amongst scholars of the battle. I regret that this was not touched upon, though it is, admittedly, tangential to the subject.
This work should be a delight for anybody interested in Waterloo or in the Napoleonic Wars, and leaves one to question the accounts of other events. How accurate are they? How much have we been led by the testimonies of one or two great figures? These are worthwhile questions.
Yet, as the financial records of Siborne are simply not available, and there is no documents linking the Duke to the repeated denials of Siborne's appeals to funding, this could be less of a case of conspiracy and more of a case of bureaucratic cold-heartedness, as subsequent officials chose to misinterpret Hill's original dispensation.
Governments are hardly above such callous treatment of worthy citizens, and do not need elaborate conspiracies to motivate them. So I am not prepared to say that I was convinced by the thesis, even if I was convinced that Wellington was a liar and could often be petty and small-minded (he never visited the model, which seems an unnecessarily cruel slight). It is an intriguing possibility, but other possibilities exist.
December 8, 2024
Synopsis A fascinating investigation into the creation of the Siborne model of the Battle of Waterloo and the political intrigue surrounding the Duke of Wellington's enduring legacy.
Title Wellington's Smallest Victory: The Duke, the Model Maker and the Secret of Waterloo
Author Peter Hofschröer
Categories Documentary, History, Military History, Napoleonic
Date First published in 2004 by Faber & Faber.
Pages 269 pages of text; small pocket sized format hardcover edition with additional illustrations, extensive references, index and appendices detailing the Siborne model.
Readability Medium—accessible to both history enthusiasts and those new to Napoleonic studies, though some background knowledge enhances the experience.
Cover My original 2004 edition lovingly covered in plastic has a detail from the Denis Dighton painting, The Battle of Waterloo.
Wellington's Smallest Victory is an extraordinary examination of how the history of Waterloo has been shaped and reshaped by political agendas, particularly through the lens of Siborne’s famous model. Peter Hofschröer meticulously uncovers the tension between Siborne’s pursuit of accuracy and Wellington’s desire to cement his image as the unchallenged victor of Waterloo.
When published in 2004, Wellington's Smallest Victory created a furore across a wide swath of society. There was even a half page review of Hofschröer work in The Weekend Australian (June 18-19, 2005) that my mother lovingly saved for me. I still have this folded up inside my cover of Wellington's Smallest Victory.
With my original publication of Wellington's Smallest Victory lovingly bound in plastic, newspaper review tucked inside the jacket, I set off for a memorable trip to London and Europe ... mainly for work ... but just as much to determine the historical veracity of Hofschröer’s arguments. First stop was the British War Museum in London to witness this model first hand. I had probably seen this model in previous trips and paid it too little attention. With book in hand, many stick it notes bearing my careful annotations, I stood and double checked everything that had been said between the covers. I then later crossed the channel and revisited the Waterloo battlegrounds, checking again the various sites referenced by Hofschröer.
I can confidently say that Peter Hofschröer findings are irrefutably correct.
In my mind Hofschröer brings to light two critical themes that resonate deeply with me:
1. The victor gets to write the history: The original reference for this maxim can be traced back to Hermann Göring during the Nuremberg Trials: "The victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused."
Arthur Wellesley manipulated the outcome of The Battle of Waterloo in his famous Waterloo Dispatches. Hofschröer recounts that Wellesley then spent much of his remaining lifetime defending the accuracy of what he had written in these dispatches.
2. Napoleon's observation: "If you fight the same enemy too many times, they will learn all your military skills and you will lose."
This is brilliantly applied to Arthur Wellesley, who not only mastered Napoleon's military strategies but also adopted his methods of shaping his post-war legacy. After The Battle of Eylau, Napoleon wrote a series of dispatches that portrayed the battle as a French victory, emphasising the resilience and valour of his troops. Wellesley learned well from Napoleon and used the same tactics in his dispatches of June 1815.
Of particular relevance is a highly recommended YouTube video, The Congress of Vienna, which contextualises Britain’s imperial strategy of colonialism. Wellesley, having served in India, understood the importance of framing Britain as Europe’s liberator while positioning himself as both the military and political architect of this narrative. His dual role as a general and twice-serving Prime Minister reflects this strategy.
Hofschröer’s narrative is gripping, combining historical rigor with an ability to unearth the human drama behind the Siborne model’s creation. The book also illuminates how Britain’s colonial mindset influenced its broader European strategy and legacy.
Who should read Wellington's Smallest Victory? Military history buffs, Napoleonic enthusiasts, and readers interested in how history is shaped by political forces.
Who should not read Wellington's Smallest Victory? Those seeking a simple battle recounting without delving into political or historical controversies.
Recommendation A must-read for anyone interested in the intersection of military history, politics, and historical narrative.
Title Wellington's Smallest Victory: The Duke, the Model Maker and the Secret of Waterloo
Author Peter Hofschröer
Categories Documentary, History, Military History, Napoleonic
Date First published in 2004 by Faber & Faber.
Pages 269 pages of text; small pocket sized format hardcover edition with additional illustrations, extensive references, index and appendices detailing the Siborne model.
Readability Medium—accessible to both history enthusiasts and those new to Napoleonic studies, though some background knowledge enhances the experience.
Cover My original 2004 edition lovingly covered in plastic has a detail from the Denis Dighton painting, The Battle of Waterloo.
Wellington's Smallest Victory is an extraordinary examination of how the history of Waterloo has been shaped and reshaped by political agendas, particularly through the lens of Siborne’s famous model. Peter Hofschröer meticulously uncovers the tension between Siborne’s pursuit of accuracy and Wellington’s desire to cement his image as the unchallenged victor of Waterloo.
When published in 2004, Wellington's Smallest Victory created a furore across a wide swath of society. There was even a half page review of Hofschröer work in The Weekend Australian (June 18-19, 2005) that my mother lovingly saved for me. I still have this folded up inside my cover of Wellington's Smallest Victory.
With my original publication of Wellington's Smallest Victory lovingly bound in plastic, newspaper review tucked inside the jacket, I set off for a memorable trip to London and Europe ... mainly for work ... but just as much to determine the historical veracity of Hofschröer’s arguments. First stop was the British War Museum in London to witness this model first hand. I had probably seen this model in previous trips and paid it too little attention. With book in hand, many stick it notes bearing my careful annotations, I stood and double checked everything that had been said between the covers. I then later crossed the channel and revisited the Waterloo battlegrounds, checking again the various sites referenced by Hofschröer.
I can confidently say that Peter Hofschröer findings are irrefutably correct.
In my mind Hofschröer brings to light two critical themes that resonate deeply with me:
1. The victor gets to write the history: The original reference for this maxim can be traced back to Hermann Göring during the Nuremberg Trials: "The victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused."
Arthur Wellesley manipulated the outcome of The Battle of Waterloo in his famous Waterloo Dispatches. Hofschröer recounts that Wellesley then spent much of his remaining lifetime defending the accuracy of what he had written in these dispatches.
2. Napoleon's observation: "If you fight the same enemy too many times, they will learn all your military skills and you will lose."
This is brilliantly applied to Arthur Wellesley, who not only mastered Napoleon's military strategies but also adopted his methods of shaping his post-war legacy. After The Battle of Eylau, Napoleon wrote a series of dispatches that portrayed the battle as a French victory, emphasising the resilience and valour of his troops. Wellesley learned well from Napoleon and used the same tactics in his dispatches of June 1815.
Of particular relevance is a highly recommended YouTube video, The Congress of Vienna, which contextualises Britain’s imperial strategy of colonialism. Wellesley, having served in India, understood the importance of framing Britain as Europe’s liberator while positioning himself as both the military and political architect of this narrative. His dual role as a general and twice-serving Prime Minister reflects this strategy.
Hofschröer’s narrative is gripping, combining historical rigor with an ability to unearth the human drama behind the Siborne model’s creation. The book also illuminates how Britain’s colonial mindset influenced its broader European strategy and legacy.
Who should read Wellington's Smallest Victory? Military history buffs, Napoleonic enthusiasts, and readers interested in how history is shaped by political forces.
Who should not read Wellington's Smallest Victory? Those seeking a simple battle recounting without delving into political or historical controversies.
Recommendation A must-read for anyone interested in the intersection of military history, politics, and historical narrative.
December 3, 2019
A fun, well-researched and tightly focused book that covers two things: the specific story of a British officer, William Siborne, who was commissioned to make a scale model of the Battle of Waterloo but soon encountered hostility from none other than the Duke of Wellington; and the general story of Waterloo's historiography, how the story of the battle was told and understood from its earliest reports through to the present day. Hofschröer did his research into Siborne's voluminous papers as well as other reports about Waterloo, and doesn't hesitate to make his conclusions clear: the Duke of Wellington intentionally played down the Prussian role in Waterloo, and (more seriously) concealed how he had hung the Prussians out to dry in pursuit of broader strategic goals after Napoleon stole a march on him in the Waterloo campaign.
Highly readable and enjoyable, recommended for any fan of Napoleonic history.
Highly readable and enjoyable, recommended for any fan of Napoleonic history.
January 8, 2023
I found the story of William Silborne captivating! The writing of the author takes right in the middle of the era described. The research he has made is astonishing! You can tell that he has made a lot of visits in libraries and archives to find the information he needed!
I recommended it to all history lovers!
PS. The greek translation has quite some problems. I hope there will be a new one someday.
I recommended it to all history lovers!
PS. The greek translation has quite some problems. I hope there will be a new one someday.
September 23, 2017
What's small is waging a petty campaign to denigrate a long dead historical figure. Foolishness indeed. Apart from that it was potentially an interesting tale
Read
July 4, 2016A diligent and painstaking piece of research provides an interesting footnote to history. By following a subsidiary strand in the various accounts of the Battle of Waterloo, the author convincingly establishes that Wellington's own version was inaccurate - and deliberately so.
In the years following the battle, a young lieutenant is commissioned to make a large scale model showing the disposition of the opposing forces at a decisive moment in the engagement.
The book clearly outlines the hurdles the young officer encountered once it became apparent that his quest for accuracy was likely to throw up facts that would be embarrassing to the Duke. Official co-operation was not forthcoming. Promises of funding were retracted or denied.
Completing and exhibiting the model became an obsession, but was only accomplished after the constructor had mae changes in which he did not believe. This is the version currently in the possession of the British War Museum/ It should be viewed i conjunction with this wholly worthy volume.
In the years following the battle, a young lieutenant is commissioned to make a large scale model showing the disposition of the opposing forces at a decisive moment in the engagement.
The book clearly outlines the hurdles the young officer encountered once it became apparent that his quest for accuracy was likely to throw up facts that would be embarrassing to the Duke. Official co-operation was not forthcoming. Promises of funding were retracted or denied.
Completing and exhibiting the model became an obsession, but was only accomplished after the constructor had mae changes in which he did not believe. This is the version currently in the possession of the British War Museum/ It should be viewed i conjunction with this wholly worthy volume.
January 23, 2016
I finished the book feeling that Siborne's passion somewhat equalled by the author's attempt to tell his story. It was somewhat dry with too much detail but at the same time rich with somehistorical facts. It was interesting to note the amount of interest generated by the war and the battlefield tourism. Could what Siborne did with the model have sparked the British obsession with detailed miniature models ?
Read
November 11, 2009Interesting stuff.
January 27, 2026
Proof toy soldiers matter.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews