'The Battle' by Barbero - Personal Review

[Didz]

On the recommendation of Randall Turner (a fellow forum member) I am currently working my way through ‘The Battle’ by Barbero (an Italian Professor of Medieval History).

The book itself is very well written and in common with those written by Lachouque has that emotional style to the presentation that makes it read more like a novel than a history book. However, its coverage is very limited. It only covers the battle of Waterloo itself, which is quite unusual for a book on this campaign which usually includes Quatre Bras and Waterloo if written from an Anglo-centric viewpoint and at least three of the six battles in the campaign if written from a more neutral standpoint. As such the book only deals with the finale of a protracted conflict that actually lasted four days.

Nevertheless, it does so with some style and Barbero’s determination to be as controversial as the subject matter will allow keeps you gripped to the text in order to find out what he’s going to come up with next.

I’ve come across a number of interesting digressions from the well trodden Waterloo Myth, the most recent this morning when reading his explanation of the attack by Jacquinot’s Lancer’s was his version of the death of Sir William Ponsonby, which differs significantly from the English myth and from several English eyewitness accounts and regimental histories.

However, in other area’s he sticks rigidly to the Waterloo tradition. For example, in the same chapter that contains the novel account of the death of Ponsonby he skips through the story of the charge of the Scots Grey’s sticking rigidly to the standard story line and in common with most historians ignoring the fact that this advance was actually conducted by the entire of Ponsonby’s Union Brigade, and the other obvious problems that arise in the ‘English Myth’ of a glorious charge gone wrong.

What is most frustrating about both Barbero’s and Lachouque’s style of writing is that they provide no testimony to support the information they are presenting. They present the reader with a simple proclamation ‘I am a historian, trust me’ and make no attempt to justify their words. Thus, you get some lovely statements such as 'Colonel Elphinstone of the 33rd Foot was one of the least esteemed officers in the entire army' which paint a lovely mental image but hang in thin air with nothing to support them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...th_Elphinstone

Compared to Peter Hofschroer’s far more detailed and measured account of the entire campaign, I found ‘The Battle’ a lot easier to digest, but far less satisfying as a source of reliable and re-quotable information.

I would certainly recommend this book to anyone who wants a slightly different spin on the battle of Waterloo, but not if you are interested in a serious understanding of the events which occurred between the 15th and 18th June 1815.

[Astaroth]

Moved to the Wars and battles sub-forum.

[Jihada]

The title surprised me.I have a book with the same title on Aspern Essling


P.Hofscroer is biased too,He seems obsessed with his theories that Waterloo was predominantly a Prussian victory.His writing is always biased towards Prussia although he is British.The most factual and straightforward account I read of Waterloo was in 'The Face of Battle',

[Didz]

P.Hofscroer is biased too,He seems obsessed with his theories that Waterloo was predominantly a Prussian victory.His writing is always biased towards Prussia although he is British.The most factual and straightforward account I read of Waterloo was in 'The Face of Battle',

Well all historians are biased, if not towards their own national interests then towards their own self-interest. But the point I was making was that Hofschroer does at least justify his statements with actual quotes and references instead of expecting the reader to accept whatever he says as gospel.

You may not agree with his conclusions, but at least you can see what evidence his is relying upon in forming them.