Most Helpful Customer Reviews
28 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great new material - but not complete, 5 Jan 2000
This review is from: 1815: The Waterloo Campaign. Volume 2: The German Victory (Hardcover)
Like Herr Hofschroer's previous volume, the second part of his Waterloo history is clearly a must for anyone with a serious interest in the campaign. Introducing new material from German sources to the English reader, and covering the pursuit after the famous battle that many "authorities" fail to address, its contribution to a full understanding of the war is clear to see. However, much of what is written of a "German" victory takes a simplistic body-count approach to the measure of war, which is not up to the skill otherwise demonstrated by the author. The tactical description of the battle itself is rich with witness accounts, but loses something in bringing the wealth of material together. Ironically for a series which was inspired by the lack of German accounts in English histories, it fails to properly include French, Dutch and Belgian accounts. Also, the concept of "Germany" which underlies the book is clearly flawed from an early nineteenth century perspective. Although national identity existed beyond the individual duchies, it clearly was secondary to that which we would now see as regional, and Prussia had by fact of conquest many Polish subjects who would not have seen themselves as German. Finally, considering the degree of detail covered by the author of casualty rates at Ligny in the prior volume, his coverage of Waterloo is frankly a let-down. Detailed information is simply absent. In summary though, a worthwhile purchase, especially to correct much of the too Anglophile perspective of many histories.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good for Prussian Primary Sources, 5 Aug 2011
This review is from: 1815: The Waterloo Campaign. Volume 2: The German Victory (Hardcover)
While I do think that Hofschroer over emphasises the Germanic contribution to the Allied victory of 1815 and is slightly unfair on Wellington, this is a very well written and researched book. While it is extremely informative and detailed it is also highly readable, which is always a positive factor. It contains good illustrations and I was pleased to see more than one map for battles such as Wavre, detailing troop positions at different times during the struggle.
The main reason I bought this volume, was to look at Prussian primary sources for the campaign and for Wavre in particular. Hofschroer certainly delivers on this, including some quotations that I have never seen before. Many books on Waterloo and the 100 Days Campaign are decidedly anglo-centric and this volume goes a long way to addressing the ommission of Prussian accounts. I am very pleased with this book and heartily recommend it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
24 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Good for the enthusiast, but weak analysis, 29 Dec 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: 1815: The Waterloo Campaign. Volume 2: The German Victory (Hardcover)
I enjoyed this book because I will snap up all I can about the Waterloo campaign. It presents a lot of new material to the English language reader. This is often presented in a rather raw form, with little attempt to interpret or reconcile discrepencies, but this adds to the attraction, in a way...I like to do that bit myself. It falls down as a proper work of history though. This is partly because it focuses too much on the German sources (admittedly its purpose), it can't spend enough time trying to match with English, Dutch or French sources, and start to resolve some of the what-happened-when questions. In a least one case he uses a quotation in what is clearly completely the wrong part of the battlefield. On the interpretation he scores one hit and one miss. He is undoubtedly right on pointing out Wellington's flaws and duplicity in the early stages of the campaign. His miss is his contention that Wellington and the British played mere supporting roles in Napoleon's defeat. I don't buy the argument that the Hanoverians and Prussians in 1815 were the national brothers that they were a century later, and that their acheivements can therefore be lumped together in opposition to the British. There were also flaws in the Prussian campaign: they were beaten by inferior numbers at Ligny; and Waterloo was a much tougher battle for the British, evidenced by their very high casualty rates. It an interesting contention that the more vigorous effort by the Prussians after the battle saved lives rather than lost them...but the author fails to present the argument.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|