Post
by Liam A of E » Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:09 am
Yes, I thought the "Commando" reference was quite apt. I dont really look beyond Adkin now, but the Osprey book does seem to have those annoying points which should really be cleared up by now - e.g. the start of D'Erlons attack and the timing of the arrival of the Prussians. Time for a revised or completely new edition. I havent looked to see when the edition was first published.
But here is a valid observation - how do you want to read about your battles? I remember buying The Road to Stalingrad, by that chap at Edinburgh who is the big brain on the subject. Totally inacessible. It read like an orbat from start to finish. Well, from start to half way through, cos thats as far as I got. I remember thinking - when is the narrative going to start? when I realised that all I was going to get was effectively a list of troop movements. The Osprey book on - I think Lutzen, by Hofschroer, equally put me to sleep, being a variant on Fat Freddys "and they went, and they went, and they went....."
I do like stirring accounts, especially if they are contemporary - Soldier of the 71st - and do like my history to "come alive", and if I am being honest I do like to read about the British doing well. But i dont like any of this at the cost of the loss of perspective, or the creation of partisan polemic, or the sacrifice of accuracy. And to portray one side as evil, or barbaric, or even weak and useless is not on. Whereas I dont think we need to apologise for winning Waterloo ( I should think not ), and dont think we should completely re-write history ( Hofshroer and his teutonic mania ), I do think we need to have the humility to recognise there was extreme bravery on both sides, especially from our allies ( and I mean especially the Dutch-Belgians and Hanoverians) without whom there would have been no Waterloo as the French would have won Quatre Bras. I do think the Ospery book peddles the old Anglocentric view.
kiwipeterh, spot on about Hourtoulle. I love the plates and other piccies (although the battle maps drive me crazy) and I tend to buy them on the spot. The first one I got was Austerlitz, and it was triumphalist, but I thought, fair enough, it is Austerlitz after all. Then I got 1814, and having ploughed through the cumbersome translation it left me felling a bit giddy. If I remember, the conluding summary was to the effect that although he had been comrehensively beaten this wouldnt have happened if he had even had a wee bit more cavalry ( some truth there ), he had been brilliant in his tactics (fair enough at times ), and although Paris taken and Napoleon abdicated, it was really actually a victory for him, and glory to the French People, Vive La France! ( eh?). It ticked me off at the time but now it just makes me chuckle. Its much much worse than Osprey Waterloo, but not as bad as (Twas the Prussians wot won it) Hofschroer. Is there a Waterloo one? I havent seen it. But then its probably not called Waterloo....
Vex me Not, or I will have you dragged awhile....
