Rating: 
Summary: Simple the Best Book about the Waterloo Campaign
Review: And i fail to see why as we have never fought since 1812, speak the same language, you are partly us (anglo-saxons) and have been united in viewpoint since 1914 (give or take the odd thing: suez crisis for example)
Also the Statue of libertys French and you own everything to that country,theres a miniture one on the Seine, you basicully wouldn't have had a Navy in the War of Independence haha,i alert you to this to show you the fickle nature of American global opinon.
Who armed Saddam and Osama?
Back to the book, this book fails to point out:
A/ Wellington (a British General) choice of the Mont St Jean ridge was a big help in the ultimate victory. In protecting the allies from Napoleon's initial bombardment, those futile cavalry charges of Neys amongst others.
Wellington was the only general to successful come up with a tactic to beat Revolutionary style tactics ( using natural obstacles and line as opposed to column)
Waterloo was a great example of this though I do accept it started to crumble before Bluchers arrival.
Napoleon's campaign of 6 days proved none of the opposing army's had successfully came up with a tactic. Soults weary advice to Napoleon to not underestimate Wellington also does as he had suffered countless defeats in the Peninsular war and he was a great general.
If you look at Wellington's line it is like a big wedge with his Left only lightly protected awaiting Blucher arrivals.
B/ Blucher was successfully beating at Ligny
C/ If it was up to Gneisenua Blucher would have left Wellington to his fate
D/ The slaying of Napoleon's Old Guard is perhaps the most glorious incident in the annals of British Military history.
E/ Germany did not even exist as a country, this immediately shows this book up as being a biased facade.
If it was titled 'Waterloo: a Prussian Victory' i would have almost believed him
While I do agree in terms of rank and file, Prussian troops outweighed there British counterparts Statistics can deceive. The British army also contained Dutch? I know many of you are anti-British (so much for our 'special relationship') but to claim Waterloo is purely German is to betray The Prince of Orange and Dutch valour, your biased knowledge in liking this book is discriminating to that other 'great republic' of the dykes.
I agree with the previous reviewer, Waterloo was a allied victory, a Anglo-Dutch + Prussian one.
The title which claims it pure-'A country that didn't even exist' basically reveals its biased judgement.
You can tell the writer is on the defensive to name it that.
As to the reviewer who brought into question the generalmanship and valour of the British soldier, what of the Burning of the White House in the 1812 war?
What of the fate of the American 2nd corp at the Kasserine Pass (haha beating by a retreating army), What about Anzio? (Clark and Lucas=worse generals of ww2)
What of Vietnam?
And what about Agincourt, Crecy, Poiters, Blenhiem, Salamanca, Victoria, The Battle Of Britain and El Alamein? to name just a few.
Or indeed the Naval Victorys: Camperdown, The Glorious 1st of June, St Vincent, Nile, Copehagen and Trafalger?
To quote various British military blunders (some of them with great historical inaccuracy, I may add that you even left out the biggest one of all: Singapore) yet leave out various glorious British victories meanwhile leaving out various American disasters is what's called 'selective memory'.
''Blucher was more energetic then Wellington''
Wellington is reported to have been in amongst the rank in file with the best of them, hiding amongst the squares when it got to dangerous. His siege of Badajoz, Ciudad Rodrigo and the battle of Salamanca prove he was no stranger to the offensive operation despite being a master of defence.
I fail to see your reasoning to this point.
I bet if Wellington's army consisted of his Peninsular vetrans (who were unfortunely half way to N. America) Wellington could have won without Blucher.
Wellington was perfectly aware of the weakness of his unhomgenous army and it's hasty preperation.
Rating:
Summary: Finally the truth
Review: Finally a book that portraits the importance of the Prussians and Blücher in the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo. I wish this honesty would extend to many TV "documentaries" on this subject, which many times do not even have the courtesy to mention the Prussians nor Blücher in their portrait of events. It makes one wonder if a country's PR machine and overall biased control of the media, or even the scarring caused by other historical events (i.e. WWI and WWII) can in fact lead to a covert rewriting of history.
Rating:
Summary: German Victory - Of Course!
Review: I was rather amused to read the comments by the reviewer from Great Britain (where else?) denying that Waterloo was a German victory. I am sorry to say it was. Hofschroer presents some very simple facts to prove that:75% of the Allied troops in the campaign were German.
10% were British. Germany could have taken on Napoleon by itself and won. Britain could not have won without German support. As simple as that. Who was it who said that a mind is like a parachute - it only works when it is opened?
Rating: 
Summary: Nothing new---except spin
Review: Lots of chest-beating, "Germans" won Waterloo stuff (Germans? These small nationalities did not consider themselves Germans...I know; one was my ancestor). So what value does this have? Minimal, in my opinion; just another book on Waterloo passed off as groundbreaking. Want to own a really good book on Waterloo? Get "The Waterloo Companion" by Mark Adkin...it is a superb book that blows away this hyperbole.
Rating: 
Summary: Two wrong do not make a right!
Review: Peter Hofschroer's 'slant' is that Waterloo was a German victory more than a British one and he provides some detailed research to back up his argument. We could, of course, point out that there was no actual German state (as we know it now) at the time of Waterloo but let's not become bogged down in that particular detail. The facts of Waterloo are simple. Wellington chose the ground on which to do battle and in doing so he showed the brilliance which had seen him so regularly defeat French armies since 1809. The backbone of his army was British, backed up superbly by 'German' units (most notably the awesome King's Legion) and not so superbly by dithering Belgian units and deserting Dutch ones. For over five and a half hours Wellington's splendidly deployed army repulsed Napoleon's forces and though it was a damn near run thing they held on (and even distinguished themselves as the first army to stop the legendary Imerial Guard in the process) until the heroic Blucher arrived in the nick of time to deliver the hammer blow. Peter Hofschroer provides no facts that any serious Napoleonic reader didn't already know but the premise of his book is, I sincerely believe, flawed insomuch as it was not an entirely German victory just as much as it was not an entirely British victory either. It was an allied effort that went according to plan... Wellington held Napoleon off and Blucher arrived as promised. To somehow say that the army that fought for those crucial five and a half hours was not a British one is silly. They were under the command of Wellington and were designated a British army. Over the previous decade and a half Napoleon had often used thousands upon thousands of foreign mercenaries to bolster his ranks and no-one ever says that it wasn't a French army!!! To argue, as some reviewers here have done that the Prussians would have defeated Napoleon on their own is just not on. Two days before Waterloo Blucher's army came desperately close to being completely wiped out by Napoleon at Ligny and that tells its own story. On the subject of some of the reviewers of this book on this site, I have to say that their response does not at all surprise me. The book provides a wonderful oppotunity for them to indulge in a much-favoured pastime of 'Brit-bashing' and they don't miss their chance. Peter Hofschroer presents his arguments and they are accepted only too willingly by those who read what they wanted to read. Americans and Australians having a go at the British? Whatever next, Mel Gibson making historically inaccurate films having a go at us as well...oh, er, sorry he's done that three times already hasn't he! Personally speaking, I enjoyed most of the book and would recommend it to anyone who is keen to learn more about one of history's landmark military moments. Be aware though that it has a preset bias built in to it and that's the road it heads down. History, and especially some British authors, may have failed to do justice to the contribution of the German units within Wellington's army and the crucial role played by Blucher's Prussians, however, two wrongs do not make a right and swinging the pendulum wildly in the opposite direction makes Peter Hofschroer as guilty as those errant writers before him. A good read providing you don't allow yourself to be suckered.
Rating:
Summary: Sections superb but others weaker
Review: The author does an excellant job of describing the engagements that occured and a superb job of covering Wavre and Grouchys actions later. Again, though, his main deficiency lies in the fact that he is using a 'slant' to sell the book (of a German victory). Germany did not exist as an entity back then and what the author likes to call 'Germany' contains a large portion of nations who hated and feared Prussia. The slant goes so far as to blanket out anything that might be contradictory to his 'heroes' the famous march of the Prussians starting from the unit furthest from Wellington is brushed over as is the time delay in getting there. One wonders what the authors comment would have been if Blucher had failed to arrive in time after promising his aid - something which was quite possible. My attitude to the slant is quite simple, take away the involvement of one of the sides and would you have had the victory if yes then that side was not a key player. (i.e if America had not entered the 2nd World War would we have lost? - No Russia would have eventually ground out the victory anyway taking longer and probably most of Europe , the same cannot be said for the removal of Britain or Russia from the equation ) apply the same logic to this campaign and if the British and their contingent been removed would the campaign been won? No - the Prussians No - the Nethterlanders and Confederation troops? No - Hence an allied victory. I fully expect Hofschroer in 30 years or so to write another book claiming Waterloo the European Civil War! ;) only kidding. History is coloured by the perceptions of the present political climate but it should never be warped. Final note due to his coverage of the Prussian angle ( as long as you note the biases when they occur ) this book and its partner do belong on a Napoleonic Historians shelf it is just a pity as without the biase these could have been the greatest books written on the campaign.
Rating:
Summary: So it was the Germans?
Review: The author's only objective is putting forward the idea that it was the Germans who were responsible for the victory at Waterloo and the ultimate demise of the French. Ok. Based on this kind of thinking it was the French who won the War of American Independence as without their timely involvement the Americans would have been forced to call it day; and it was the Americans who won World War 1 as without their participation the Allies would not have had enough men for a final push. More respect should be given to those nations represented and the men who fought and died. Waterloo was won by the Allies, as plain and simple as that!
Rating:
Summary: Simple the Best Book about the Waterloo Campaign
Review: The title says it all. It isn't Brit bashing at all. It is simply history finally coming the to light of day. Of all the Allies that fought Napoleon during this campain, only 15% were British! Of all the casualties that the Allied armies suffered, only 17% were British, 8% were Netherlanders, and 75% were German. Now, that should tell you something. This is only part of what Peter Hofschroer brings to us in this excellent book. It deverves to be on every Napoleonic enthusiast's bookshelf. That and his comapion book about the battle of Ligny and Quatre Bras.
Rating:
Summary: * * * * * * (6 stars)
Review: This book is a major contribution to the history of the Napoleonic war in 1815. It reveals a wealth of important information about the German soldiers in 1815 that I had not previously known. This is profoundly researched study, very readable, and an example of how military history should be researched and written. It firmly cement Hofschroer's reputation as a very talented writer and a fine historian. The scholarship appears thorough and careful. This study is written in an accessible style. I consider this work one of the most eye opening books of military history. Hofschroer does not claim that the Prussians won at Waterloo, or won alone the War of 1815, but that 3/4 of the victors were German speaking folks. Thus the German and Prussian contribution to the victory was DECISIVE. Although I love to read Siborne and Chesney, I was a little bit tired from the national fanfaronade from some other British historians. And the lack of humility and objectivity in their works is shameful. They like to criticize Napoleon and ridicule Blucher, but their own Wellington is treated like a SACRED COW. I feel the strong , national, FEEL GOOD, spirit of their books. Also they are too often too keen to blame foreigners for all their own sins. According to my count of the sales ranks on Internet Hofschoerer's "Waterloo: the German Victory" is the No 1 bestseller (of Napoleonics). It surpased even other fine works like: Elting's "Swords around a throne"(No 2) Bowden's "Napoleon and Austerlitz"(No3) Nafziger's "Ivasion of Russia" (No4) and Duffy's "Eagles over the Alps" (No 5) This book covers also the sieges of French fortresses by the Prussians, and THEIR capture of Paris. The maps are fine. This book is worth bying!
Rating: 
Summary: The Decisive Prussian Element
Review: This book is the second volume of Peter Hofschroer's work on the Waterloo Campaign from the Prussian point of view. As expected it carries on where the first volume finishes. The opening chapters cover the retreat of the Prussians from Ligny, their remarkable quick recovery from this defeat and the inadequate pursuit by the French on either the Prussians or British. ( in fact the French had lost contact with the Prussians). The author then describes the difficulties facing the Prussians in their march to join forces with Wellington, the key fighting at Waterloo around La Sainte, Papelotte, Plancenoit and the massive cavalry charges at Wellington's centre. The Prussians gave enough breathing space for Wellington to reinforce his centre as well as causing Napoleon to divert considerable forces to cover his flank. In fact Napoleon is defeated by the Allies using his own style of strategy and tactics ie a massive flanking manoeuvre. The author tries to convince the reader that the Prussians were the decisive factor at the Battle of Waterloo and indeed the entire campaign. Subsequent chapters provide further weight behind this argument and cover the fighting around Wavre, the vigorous pursuit of Napoleon's defeated army which gave the French no opportunity to rally and reform and the Fortress seiges, all of which were almost entirely a Prussian affair. Overall I thought this was a very good book with strong arguments and evidence to suggest that the Waterloo Campaign was ultimately a German victory (although some previous reviewers have rejected these arguments outright). I would recommend that both volumes of Peter Hofschroer's work be read together.
| 
