The Battle (49 page)

Certain works published somewhat later—posthumously, in a few cases—and based on eyewitness accounts reworked and reconsidered in tranquillity are deserving of even greater interest: C. von Clausewitz,
Der Feldzug von 1815 in
Frankreich
(Berlin, 1835); C von Damitz,
Geschichte des Feldzuges von 1815 in
den Niederlanden und Frankreich
(Berlin, 1837-38); H. de Mauduit,
Les Derniers
Jours de la Grande Armee
(Paris, 1847); E. Cotton,
A Voice from Waterloo: A History
of the Battle Fought on the 18th fune 1815, with a Selection from the Wellington
Dispatches, General Orders and Letters Relating to the Battle
(Mont-St.-Jean, 1852); and (G. Le Doulcet de Pontecoulant),
Napoleon a Waterloo, ou Precis rectifie de la
campagne de 1815
(Paris, 1866).

In the course of the nineteenth century, the major national historiographical communities produced elaborate versions of the story of Waterloo that were meant to be considered definitive, and in some sense all of them actually were; monumental and meticulously detailed, these works remain indispensable today. For British historiography, the fundamental reference point is the work of W. Siborne, first published as
History of the War in France and Belgium in 1815
(London, 1844) and then in definitive form as
History of the Waterloo Campaign
(London, 1848). Siborne dominated the field for well over half a century, and his primacy of place continued even after the publication of the important works of C. Chesney
(Waterloo Lectures,
London, 1907) and A. E Becke
(Napoleon and
Waterloo,
London, 1914).

Among French studies, the work of J. B. A. Charras,
Histoire de la Campagne de
1815
(Brussels, 1858), was later superseded by that of H. Houssaye,
1815. Waterloo
(Paris, 1903), which is still of seminal importance today. German historiography, which was then in the period of its greatest flourishing, produced three fundamental works: K. von Ollech,
Geschichte des Feldzuges von 1815 nach archivalischen Quellen
(Berlin, 1876); O. von Lettow-Vorbeck,
Napoleons Untergang 1815
(Berlin, 1904); and J. von Pflugk-Harttung,
Belle-Alliance
(Berlin, 1915). Two equally fundamental studies of the campaign from the perspective of the Netherlands are D. C. Boulger,
The Belgians at Waterloo
(London, 1901) and E de Bas and J. de T'Serclaes de Wommersson,
La Campagne de 1815 aux Pays-Bas
(Brussels, 1908).

For a long time, these masterworks overshadowed twentieth-century scholarship on the Battle of Waterloo. After an interval extending from World War I through World War II, a period when interest in the battle was at a low point, the production of books on Waterloo increased steadily; but these were, for the most part, syntheses tailored for a popular audience, often heavily illustrated, excellently legible, but not particularly innovative in structure or interpretation. The best-known titles are J. Weller, Wellington
at Waterloo
(London, 1967); D. Howarth,
Waterloo: A Near Run Thing
(London, 1968); H. Lachouque,
Waterloo
1815
(Paris, 1972); N. Vels Heijn,
Glorie zonder helden. De slag bij Waterloo,
waarheld en legende
(Amsterdam, 1974);
Waterloo
—
Battle of Three Armies,
edited by Lord Chalfont (London, 1979); D. Chandler,
Waterloo: The Hundred Days
(London, 1980); J. Logie,
Waterloo, Vevitable defaite
(Paris, 1989): and A. A. Nofi,
The Waterloo Campaign: fune 1815
(London, 1993).

For easily conceivable reasons, Waterloo generally occupies a greater space in biographies of Wellington than it is granted in biographies of Napoleon. One biography of the duke includes a reconstruction of the Battle of Waterloo that makes it particularly worthy of mention: E. Longford,
Wellington: The Years of the
Sword
(London, 1971).

For an analysis of the forces in the field, see S. Bowden,
Armies at Waterloo: A
Detailed Analysis of the Armies that Fought History's Greatest Battle
(Arlington, Tex., 1983), to which should be added the small monographs issued by Osprey Publishing in its Men-at Arms series and especially valuable for the smaller armies. See, in particular, O. von Pivka and B. Fosten,
Brunswick Troops, 1809-1815
(Men-at-Arms, 167, Botley, 1985); M. Chappell,
The King's German Legion, (2) 1812-1816
(Men-at-Arms, 339, Botley, 2000); R. Pawly and P Courcelle,
Wellington's Belgian
Allies, 1815
(Men-at-Arms, 355, Botley, 2000); and R. Pawly and P Courcelle,
Wellington's Dutch Allies, 1815
(Men-at-Arms, 371, Botley, 2000).

The most important innovation in the historiography of the second half of the twentieth century was the growing attention paid to history as seen from below, the effort to produce a narrative of the battle entirely based on eyewitness accounts of men in the front lines and focused on their experiences. The most spectacular results in this area are certainly those of J. Keegan,
The Face of Battle: A Study of Agincourt,
Waterloo and the Somme
(London, 1976) and P. J. Haythornthwaite,
Waterloo Men:
The Experience of Battle, 16-18 fune 1815
(Marlborough, 1999). A further similarity of these two studies is their limitation to exclusively British sources.

In recent years, historical works on the Battle of Waterloo have taken a significant turn. This can be seen primarily in the publication of some deliberately polemical studies. Designed to overturn the orthodox interpretation of the battle, they have given rise to a heated debate. This is the case with D. Hamilton-Williams,
Waterloo: New Perspectives
(London, 1993), which is perhaps too drastic in denouncing the "politically correct" vision imposed on the battle by Siborne in the nineteenth century; although often unreliable in detail, Hamilton-Williams's study is nevertheless important and refreshing. This category also includes two works by P. Hofschroer, studies that emphasize the role of the German armies at Waterloo with ample recourse to sources hitherto little used:
1815, the Waterloo
Campaign: Wellington, His German Allies and the Battle of Quatre Bras
(London, 1998) and
1815, the Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory: From Waterloo to the
Fall of Napoleon
(London, 1999).

Among French historical studies, special mention must go to the heavily illustrated volumes, or rather albums, by B. Coppens and P. Courcelle (who have now been joined by other collaborators) in the series titled
Waterloo 1815. Les
Garnets de la Campagne
(Brussels, 1999-). Six of these albums have appeared so far, each with its own title but related to the others by a shared, innovative formula that offers abundant illustrated tables of uniforms, a vast collection of eyewitness statements, rare images from the period, and original points of view concerning individual aspects of the battle.

In recent years, two works have appeared that, though differing in dimensions, must be considered fundamental for reference and statistical data; one is M. Adkin,
The Waterloo Companion
(London, 2001), with an excellent series of maps, and, in French, a treatment that is not limited only to the Waterloo campaign, namely A. Pigeard,
Les Campagnes napoleoniennes
(Entremont-le-Vieux, 1998). But in regard to the British army, the information contained in C. Dalton,
The Waterloo
Roll Call
(London, 1890), remains indispensable.

When I typed the word
Waterloo
into the Google search engine on September 5, 2004, I was offered a total of around 3.65 million choices. The referenced sites included Waterloo University in Ontario, the town of Waterloo, Illinois, the Waterloo/Cedar Falls (Iowa)
Courier,
and so forth. More prudently, I typed in the combination
Waterloo Napoleon Wellington,
which reduced the total to 31,500 sites, of which 26,200 were in English. Still too many. Whatever your reason for seeking information about Waterloo, the best idea is to go through one of the big portals:
www.napoleonseries.org
,
www.napoleonguide.com
,
www.napoleonic-literature.com
, and
www.napoleonicsociety.com
. If you're not looking for anything specific, a pleasant way of spending your time is the Waterloo game at
www.pbs.org/empires/napoleon
.