Sign in with Facebook
Nancy's Reviews > Waterloo: The True Story of Four Days, Three Armies and Three Battles
Waterloo: The True Story of Four Days, Three Armies and Three Battles
by
by
This was a mixed bag for me. Starting with the good, as an idiot's (ie, moi) guide to the Battle of Waterloo, it was very good. Before reading it, all I knew about Waterloo, other than Wellington's winning it and Napoleon's being packed off to St. Helena, was dancing at the Duchess of Richmond's ball the night before and "The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton." This was compact and for the most part, engagingly told. I now have a clear sense of the various battles, stands, and personalities, which is to the good.
Frankly, I expected something by a writer of Cornwell's stature to be better written. The frequent shifts in tense drove me nuts. In addition, he repeated anecdotes and analyses (I remember it from the first time, thankyouverymuch) and had another writing tic of ending up a section with a one sentence (and sometimes a sentence fragment) paragraph. That staled quickly. His diction could have been improved. I do not think prevarication means what he thinks it means. I suspect Cornwell is one of those writers who is too big to be edited, alas.
As I've said, I've no basis on which to criticize his historiography. My gut reaction says that Napoleon and Ney couldn't have been quite so incompetent as Cornwell portrays them, nor Wellington so god-like; it was a near thing, after all. It's a matter of the defects of its virtues, I suppose. I like footnotes, but this was clearly mostly compiled from secondary sources and his own vast store of knowledge about the period. Geared to the general reader, so lacking any real historical rigor. I thought the best parts, as in the most evocative, were the quotations from first-person accounts and the pictures; the book was worth reading for those alone.
One last reaction is that Cornwell is superb at protraying the carnage of war. As I get older, I find it harder and harder to understand why disagreements have to end in limbs flying and lives lost and ruined. Wouldn't tiddlywinks be a better choice? (I stole that from a Mad Magazine parody of Wellington and Napoleon remembered from my youth.)
Frankly, I expected something by a writer of Cornwell's stature to be better written. The frequent shifts in tense drove me nuts. In addition, he repeated anecdotes and analyses (I remember it from the first time, thankyouverymuch) and had another writing tic of ending up a section with a one sentence (and sometimes a sentence fragment) paragraph. That staled quickly. His diction could have been improved. I do not think prevarication means what he thinks it means. I suspect Cornwell is one of those writers who is too big to be edited, alas.
As I've said, I've no basis on which to criticize his historiography. My gut reaction says that Napoleon and Ney couldn't have been quite so incompetent as Cornwell portrays them, nor Wellington so god-like; it was a near thing, after all. It's a matter of the defects of its virtues, I suppose. I like footnotes, but this was clearly mostly compiled from secondary sources and his own vast store of knowledge about the period. Geared to the general reader, so lacking any real historical rigor. I thought the best parts, as in the most evocative, were the quotations from first-person accounts and the pictures; the book was worth reading for those alone.
One last reaction is that Cornwell is superb at protraying the carnage of war. As I get older, I find it harder and harder to understand why disagreements have to end in limbs flying and lives lost and ruined. Wouldn't tiddlywinks be a better choice? (I stole that from a Mad Magazine parody of Wellington and Napoleon remembered from my youth.)
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Waterloo.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
July 16, 2015
–
Started Reading
July 16, 2015
– Shelved
July 27, 2015
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-4 of 4 (4 new)
date
newest »
newest »
My thoughts exactly. A good synopsis of the battle, but not a great book. I found his repetition of certain facts annoying. (“Man, you already wrote that”). If you are looking for a short recap of the battle, then it is worth your time.
Ditto, in spades! Great book, poorly written. I get the differences between line, column and square! Etc.
I am a bit intimidated in responding to you, as I do write like a troll. And, I'm frightened you will not suffer a troll who writes.
But your "Idiots" comment rang too true for me not to respond to you. It was a short quick write-up of this great well studied battle to be sure. A "Waterloo for Dummies" - if you will. There is little new here - other than Cornwell's own editorializing.
*** I must say in his favor, he had grown a bit in his overall understanding - or should willingness be used? - to hold and share other's views on the battle. Views that might not dovetail with the ones he had chosen to accept as his own. Kudos to him here for this.
I have read all of Cornwell's swashbuckler stuff - at which, he excels. He just gets it, like few others do. Most of his works are superior too. There have been some stinkers - but not many. Cornwell is at his best when he uses his humor (a critical component in the swashbuckler). He's not as good with his heart or mind. IMO. Not attacking him! How could I? I read everything he writes.
I do think, he works with his publishers closely - he is the good soldier. If they tell him they want something, I have sensed this in the past, he gives it to them. Even at the detriment to his work. An opinion, I have no proof of. I have written to him about this in the past and he has denied it. Of course, I reject his denials.
He is also an anglophile of the first waters. Something that chronically mares many histories of this battle - even its every importance (which I was shocked to see Cronwell, at least, addressed well - agreed with or not).
In "Waterloo - .....", he kept repeating himself. A trait he uses in his fiction too often, I'm afraid to say. So much so here, that whole paragraphs reappeared nearly verbatim. I kept getting the feeling, I had turned to a page I had already read. Not good and page filling too? Remember, tree's lives matter!
I think, your rating of 3 GR STARS was spot on for a mostly forgettable book among 100s on this great battle.
I also believe, that our modern Corpo writers should move over and let others (who need the work) do the work that is outside of their bailiwick. Clearly, academic historical writing is not Cornwell's game.