Reader's Reviews

The Eagle's Last Triumph

Napoleon's Victory at Ligny,
June 1815

Reviewed by John Cook

This is an interesting book. As far as this reviewer is aware, it is the first work ever in the English language that is entirely devoted to one of the most consequential battles of the Napoleonic Wars. As such, it is certainly novel and well overdue. This work is well presented and well written. It comes from a new talent whose name is largely unknown, even in Napoleonic circles. It is clear from the list of sources given that its author has worked hard on the subject. It is clear from the footnotes that its author has been thorough in his presentation.

It was pleasant to notice that its author's footnoting was accurate and that, unlike a certain recent publication on this campaign, his sources actually do say what the author says they do. As a pre-graduate essay, this work would score high marks. As a post-graduate thesis, it would not warrant such a high rating. There are, unfortunately, few signs of original, archive research, little in the way of new ideas and no really fresh approach. The Battle of Ligny was fought by two armies, namely the French and the Prussian. One would therefore expect that the bulk of the sources cited would be French and German. They are not.

In the main, they are French and English. Indeed, although reference is made to one of the several detailed works on the subject written by Pflugk-Harttung, Lettow-Vorbeck's German General Staff history of the campaign, the standard secondary source, is not mentioned at all.

Furthermore, his assessment of the Prussian army is apparently based on English language works and not on standard German sources such as those published by the General Staff. This assessment is about as accurate as one would expect in such circumstances. This is a shame as a comprehensive list of sources is available in Waterloo - The Battle of Three Armies, which was published as recently as 1979. Moreover, further details can be found in various volumes of the Men-at-Arms series, so it is not the case that the necessary information on relevant sources is hard to come by.

It is also a shame that Uffindell did not attach greater significance to Pflugk-Harttung's research as presented in his Vorgeschichte. If he done so, he would not have repeated as fact so many of those myths about the campaign, the battle and the sequence of events, myths that were invented by Wellington and his supporters, elaborated and embellished by 'my country right or wrong' historians ever since.

Like so many historians, Uffindell would appear not to have grasped the fundamental rule of historical research, namely that historical evidence, like judicial evidence, is based on the testimony of credible witnesses. He uses selected sources, but he does not question them. He regards Wellington, a politician first and a military commander second, as an impeachable witness, an honest politician. He uses Napier's 'Waterloo Letter' as gospel although its author, at the time of writing, was very ill, on drugs and a bitter man with scores to settle. Napier was neither credible nor reliable, yet Uffindell accepts his comments, hearsay evidence at that, without question.

Uffindell tends to accept the point of view of British participants in the campaign in preference to that of Germans. Take, for instance, the contentious issue of exactly what time on 15 June Wellington received his first message of the French offensive from Ziethen. Pflugk-Harttung devotes a considerable amount of space to this subject. Although Uffindell cites this source on other occasions, he chooses to rely mainly on British sources at this point. What is worse is that he refers to and even supports a new myth invented by Hamilton- Williams in his recent publication Waterloo - New Perspectives, namely that communications between Ziethen und Wellington ran via Mons. Hamilton-Williams cites references to Wellington and Müffling that either do not exist or do not support the point. Instead of checking the relevance or veracity of these references, Uffindell states that Hamilton-Williams has 'skilfully researched' the subject. Historical truth is based not only on the testimony of credible witnesses, but also on the reliability of subsequent historians.

When it comes to describing the meeting of 16 June at the windmill of Bussy, Uffindell again prefers to repeat the accounts recorded by Wellington and his supporters when a comparison of all the eye witness statements may have thrown further light on the subject. This is particularly disappointing as Uffindell mentions Pflugk-Harttung but fails to examine the detailed analysis of these events made by that historian.

One is left wondering why this author did not do this. Does he regard Wellington and Hardinge as being more reliable than all the other witnesses of these events? If so, why? Or is it the case that he would rather present one side of the story, repeating the boring old myths, than take an objective, balanced view of these events? Although critical of Wellington's actions, or rather lack of them, in places, Uffindell appears to regard the Duke as a great national hero with no blemishes on his character. Sadly, an objective analysis of the actions of Wellington the politician does not support this.

One further example is Uffindell's treatment of De Lancey's infamous 'Disposition' and the subsequent misleading letter regarding the positions of his troops which Wellington sent Blucher on the morning on 16 June 1815. This letter was an important factor in Blücher's decision to accept battle that day. Wellington himself never published a copy of this document nor ever made reference to having written it. It was published neither in his 'Despatches' nor in the 'Supplementary Dispatches'. It was never referred to in any of the early accounts of the campaign. It was first published only once the copy in Prussian archives was made available to the public. This was in 1876 in Ollech's work. A good twenty years passed before any British historian even mentioned it. It was then dealt with by Robinson in his work. Here, this highly erroneous and misleading document was then rather feebly excused. In Maxwell's Life of Wellington, the letter is indeed quoted, but its errors are ignored. Most subsequent historians writing in the English language have either ignored this document totally or glossed over its implications.

The only historian writing in English that looked at its true ramifications was an American, John Codman Ropes, who wrote at the turn of the century. The inference of this sequence of events is that Wellington did mislead Blücher, that he subsequently attempted to hide this fact by carefully selecting which of his papers should be published, that his son colluded with this distortion of history in his selection of the first Duke's papers and that certain later historians supported this, either knowingly or not.

Years later, Wellington and his supporters start telling of how they had said at the time that the Prussian position at Ligny was untenable. However, Uffindell holds the view that 'Wellington did not mislead the Prussians intentionally'. That is by no means certain. There is enough evidence available to argue that, for whatever motives, he did mislead Blücher and subsequently conspired with others in an attempt to conceal this.

To sum up, an interesting book by a 'new face' on an unusual subject, one that is due proper treatment. It has a readable text and footnotes that can be checked. It is a solid work. These are its positive points. When compared to other works of the Campaign of 1815 in the Low Countries that have appeared in the last twelve months or so, then Uffindell's is certainly the better. Its author has honest intentions and his work is competent. However, its negative points are that it is in places unquestioning and credulous. It lacks a new approach and has little in the way of original views. It is in part one sided and superficial. Uffindell is a talent worth developing. I look forward to reading his next book.

More Reviews:

Related to Eagle Review:

Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #21
Back to First Empire List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1995 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