by David Hamilton-Williams. Published by Arms & Armour Press. Price £ 20.00.
For any book on this subject to sell in an appreciable quantity today, it either has to be highly original or rely largely on marketing hype. There is certainly some degree of originality here, but this is rather limited.
This book claims to reappraise the 'great battle'. On the whole, it does not. In reality, it is just yet another addition to the many accounts of this battle and campaign.
This book claims that its readers can 'for the first time... assess and discover the true role of the Dutch, Belgian and German forces at Waterloo.' That is beyond doubt a false statement.
This book claims 'to complete a comprehensive evaluation of ALL the Siborne letters.' Regrettably, there is little evidence in this book to support that claim.
This book states that: 'From the mid-nineteenth century to date, scholars have written theses and detailed studies, and built reputations on the basis of the dubious and imbalanced published letters' (i.e. The Waterloo Letters - reviewer's note). It is disappointing that this book does not provide the reader with a list of these scholars and their works to substantiate this claim.
This book states that: 'Siborne's (work) was imbued to the core of deliberate flouting of the cardinal rule of histiography: the balanced search for the truth.' That Siborne committed the sin of which he stands accused here is probably beyond doubt. Was he, however, alone amongst his contemporaries, let alone subsequent historians? A short examination of works by the likes of Thiers (1) and Treitschke (2), to name but two well-known 19th. century popular historians, would demonstrate that Siborne, for all his shortcomings, did not resort to the rabid nationalism and blatant distortions of fact of which many of his contemporaries were guilty. Houssaye (3) and Ollech (4), whom Hamiliton-Williams criticises in passing, committed but the odd peccadillo in com-parison wfth Thiers and Treitschke. Moreover, Hamilton-Williams, by failing to refer to a number of basic, essential French and German works as source material for his account, commits the very same sin of which he accuses Siborne, namely of failing to con-duct: 'a balanced search for the truth'. Does this make the book being reviewed here 'more than a bad book?' Does this make it 'a bad deed' as well?
Before one utters a word of criticism of historians of this period, perhaps one should consider the nature of the society and the politics of the time in which those historians wrote. Europe of the 19th. century was more noticeably divided along national-istic lines than it is today. This is reflected in all historical writings of the period. it should not be forgotten that it was at the time in question that a certain Frenchman provided the English language with the word chauvinism.
Before making unbalanced criticism of one historian, perhaps it would be advisable to examine the works of his contemporaries in equal detail. Baring the occasional passing reference, Hamilton-Williams does not do so. This is, no doubt, because of his limit-ed knowledge of the French and German languages, amongst others; the same problem Siborne had when writing his work.
An anti-Siborne is certainly overdue and would be a welcome contribution to the present generation's understanding of its historical heritage. However, such critical examinations need to be conducted by historians with not only the necessary linguistical skills, but also with the necessary knowledge of source material and how to use it This is a major weakness of the work being reviewed here.
Before allegations as serious as those of Hamilton-Williams are made, it is essential that the evidence to support these allegations should be clearly presented, credible and easy to verify. A detailed bibliographical essay would have assisted in assuring the reader that the accuser had done his homework. However, we are told that: 'because of space restrictions l have not included a bibliography in this book.' That is a very feeble excuse in-deed. Space could have been provided either by adding some more pages, or, if that simple expediency was not a viable option, by reducing the length of the body of the text. The author does assure the reader that: 'as every work, manuscript, and source, without exception, is fully cited in chapter notes, the reader will be able to follow up any point of interest.' Oh were that statement true!
Take, for instance, the Introduction to this work. Here, a number of footnotes cite Chandler where he is referring to a certain Hamilton-Williams. 'l said so before, therefore l am right' seems to be what the reader is being told here. Then the footnotes to Chapter 1, amongst others, refer extensively to an as yet unpublished work by a certain D.C. Hamilton-Williams, a relative of the author of the book being reviewed here, or perhaps the very same? 'l am saying so now and l will say so again, therefore I am right' seems to be what the reader is being told here.
Without access to a work not yet published, it is impossible for 'the reader to follow up any point of interest'. In fact, the reader, having paid money for one book, now finds that he will have to buy at least one more book before being able to establish if he was hogwashed in the first place or not. It should not be forgot-ten how the author of the work being reviewed here accuses Siborne of distorting his writings for pecuniary advantage. Even this reviewer's limited knowledge of mathematics indicate to him that an author will earn more money by selling two (or more) books than just one. Some might be tempted to think that Hamilton-Williams, like Siborne, had such grave financial needs that commercial thinking outweighed 'a balanced search for the truth.'
To go further, it is necessary to check those footnotes that can be verified. There are a number of references to the manuscript in the British Museum known as the 'Waterloo Correspondence' which consists of a number of bound volumes containing several thousand items of correspondence. The author is indeed kind enough to give us the press mark of the individual volume he is referring to. Only exceptionally does he provide us with the actual folio number. Each volume contains several hundred folios. Take, for instance, Hamilton-Williams' accusation that: 'Siborne even omitted a divisional account of the actions of Saxe-Weimar's brigade.'
On the back of this account he simply pencilled fallaciously, from an unknown K.G.L. (King's German Legion) officer. ` To support his accusation, he refers to the relevant volume of the `Waterloo Correspondence', but does not indicate the folio number. Trying to find a pencilled note somewhere on one of several hundred folios is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. The unkind could suspect that the accuser, whilst trying to give an air of authority and credibility, is deliberately making corroboration of his evidence difficult.
A further example of the methodology of this work can be found in Footnote 29 of Chapter 3. This refers to Beamish's History of the King's German Legion (5). Hamilton-Williams states: 'It was the ONLY (author's emphasis) source on the K.G.L. used by Siborne for his History and models. Beamish's book is a mine of information, but of course, it only contains material from the manuscript documents available at that time.' The implicit criticisms of Siborne ONLY referring to Beamish and Beamish only referring to contemporary manuscripts is typical of the sensationalist and fallacious argumentation used by Hamilton-Williams. A more bal-anced view might be that, due to the limits of his linguistical skills, the Englishman Siborne referred to an authoritative work published in English, incidentally the only serious work in English dedicated to the K.G.L. ever published, and that the author of the work, himself once an officer of the K.G.L., based his book on the notes, diaries and correspondence of his fellow K.G.L. officers. Access to any documents in state archives was denied to the public for a number of decades after their deposi-tion, a practise which most governments use even today. So what is in fact Hamilton-Williams' real criticism? That both Siborne and Beamish did not refer to sources NOT available at the time they wrote. That criticism is a little unfair to say the least, particularly as it comes from an author who, judging by the information provided by his footnotes, has apparently not re-ferred to many important sources readily available today!
It is apparent that the author of the work being reviewed here has limitations to his linguistic abilities. One example of this is Footnote 16 of Chapter 5. Here, Hamilton- Williams refers to p. 159 of Vol. 3 of a work by the German General Staff (6) According to Hamilton-Williams, this reference is to: 'theoretical brigade compositions'. In fact, this page is part of a section dealing with the Saxon mutiny and does not deal at all with 'theoretical brigade compositions'. Whilst mentioning that sub-ject, it should also be added that Hamilton-Williams' entire section on Prussian brigades is largely conjecture and fantasy. His citation here is one of a number which is suspect but to deal with each in detail would require writing a book longer than that being reviewed.
Evidently, in producing his work, Hamilton-Williams was labouring under similar restrictions of linguistic and historical knowledge that Siborne was some one hundred and fifty years ago. The dif-ferences between Siborne and this anti-Siborne could be regarded as more cosmetic and superficial than essential. This anti-Si-borne contains most of the faults that the accuser criticises Siborne of perpetrating.
In the view of the writer of this review, only an historian with a working knowledge of the English, French, German and Dutch languages together with a good knowledge of the source material could write a proper anti-Siborne, if, indeed such a work were warranted. Hamilton-Williams' work dramatically fails in what it claims it is setting out to do. Certainly, there is reference to the standard Dutch work by De Bas, which replies to a number of Siborne's criticisms of Britain's allies in this campaign, but where are references to Renard's defence of the Belgians (7), let alone reference to the wealth of documented information provided by several renowned German historians, particularly Pflugk-Harttung?(8) The publisher's claim that thanks to the work being reviewed here, `for the first time it is now possible to assess and discover the true role of Dutch, Belgian and German forces at Waterloo' is entirely fallacious and grossly misleading. For this book to have attempted to achieve what it is claiming to do, it should have consisted of a comparative analysis of De Bas, Re-nard, Pflugk-Harttung, Siborne, The Waterloo Letters and The Waterloo Correspondence. It does not.
To conclude, Waterloo New Perspectives is certainly an interest-ing read. Despite all the marketing hype, it does not meet the claims made by its author and his publishers. It is not a 'revo-lutionary' book, but rather a modern account of the campaign. Had it been presented as such, then this reviewer would have assessed it as being one of the better accounts in the English language produced this side of the First World War. However, if this reviewer were given the choice, due to pecuniary limitations, between purchasing either Siborne or Hamilton-Williams, then he would without hesitation, plump for Siborne. This classic has yet to be superseded by any work in the English language.
(1) Thiers, M.A. Histoire du Consulat et de l'Empire (Paris, 1862). Translated as: History of the Consulate and the Empire of France under Napoleon (London, 1861).
(2) Treitschke, Heinrich von. Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1879). Translated as: German History in the Nineteenth Century (New York, 1915 - 1919).
(3) Houssaye, Henry. 1815. Waterloo (Paris, 1898). English edi-tion, (London, 1900).
(4) Ollech, Karl Rudolf von. Geschichte des Feldzuges von 1815 nach archivalischen Quellen (Berlin 1876).
(5) Beamish, N. Ludlow. Geschichte der Koniglich Deutschen Legion (2 vols., Hannover, 1832 - 1837). Translated as: History of the King's German Legion (2 vols., London, 1832 - 1837) and just republished as a Ken Trotman reprint.
(6) Grosser Generalstab. Das Preussische Heer der Befreiungsk-riege. Band 3: Das Preussische Heer in den lahren 1814 und 1815 (Berlin, 1914).
(7) Renard, Bruno Jean Baptiste. Re'ponse aux Allegations An-glaises sur Ia Conduite des Troupes Belges en 1815 (Bruxelles, 1855).
(8) Pflugk-Harttung, Julius von. Vorgeschichte der Schlacht bei Belle-Alliance (Berlin, 1903) and Belle-Alliance (Berlin 1915).
Other Reviews
Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #17
Back to First Empire List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1994 by First Empire.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com