Reader's Reviews

One Hundred Days

Napoleon's Road to Waterloo

Reviewed by Peter Hofschroer

This work was originally published in hardback a couple of years ago. The paperback edition is now available. Although well written and apparently authoritative in content, the writer of this review is a little too cynical to take accept any book, particularly one on the Waterloo Campaign, at face value.

The first criterion by which this reviewer judges works on this subject with his jaundiced eye is to question the contribution that such works make to furthering our understanding of the events of the Hundred Days. In other words, what does this work tell us that was not already known and documented about this campaign? The answer, in short, is nothing.

The next criterion by which this reviewer judges works on the Campaign of 1815 in the Low Countries is to ascertain its author's linguistic skills. Schom, being a professor of modern European and French history is clearly au fait with the French language. As with most historians who have written on this subject over the decades in English, he has at least a working knowledge of the French language.

However, to write a balanced account of these events, one with further, new insights into this campaign, a knowledge of the Dutch and German languages is a prerequisite. As Schom does not refer to any Dutch or German sources in their original language, one assumes that he can speak only English and French. As such, it is unlikely that his work can present any new information on this subject.

Instead, the reader merely gets a rehash of those boring old myths and legends that have filled so many so-called history books over the years. One is reminded of the comments on Anglo-French accounts of this campaign made by Chesney in his Waterloo Lectures, first published in 1868, that, incidentally, the Elder Mokke had translated into German and that Lettow-Vorbeck described as 'the first unbiased work in English' (were he still alive today, he would probably describe it as 'the only unbiased work in English'). Chesney's comments read:

'It has been intimated that French historians offend terribly in this matter. They sin, not merely by omission, but by wilful repetition of error from book to book, long after the truth has been given to the world. This would matter little to us, comparatively, were French historians and French material for history not specially important to our own. Unhappily, the ease and grace of the military writers of France, and the number and accessibility of their works, have caused those of our country to adhere almost entirely to their versions of European wars, excepting always those in which English armies are mixed up.

This slavish following of guides too often blind has warped our whole judgement of Continental military powers. We could hardly, indeed, have chosen worse for teachers. No German writer would dream of sitting down deliberately to construct a history of a war, a campaign, or even an action between French and Germans, without carefully consulting the French authorities as well as those of his own nation.'

Put another way, any work on the Waterloo Campaign which does not refer in detail to German sources is essentially one-sided and unreliable.

The third criterion by which this reviewer judges works on the Hundred Days is by the source material used. The basic texts on the military aspects of this campaign are by Chesney (English), Ropes (American), Charras (French), Rénard (Belgian), de Bas and Löben-Sels (Dutch), Pflugk-Harttung and Lettow-Vorbeck (German). Schom has not referred to any of these sources. Instead, he relies on Bowden and Chandler, both very much third-hand sources. As such, Schom has not conducted any new or original research on this subject; he merely repeats the same old myths.

To give an example of what Schom's limited knowledge of sources and languages and his inadequate research have produced, one only needs to refer to his statement on p 247 that 'Ziethen reused to inform Wellington of the large French encampment at Beaumont on 13 and 14 June'. Copies of the intelligence that Ziethen 'refused' to send to Wellington can be found in Wellington's Papers in the University of Southampton.

To sum up, the author of the work being reviewed here lacks sufficient knowledge of the source materials and languages to present much more than the same old fairy tales about Waterloo. His only saving grace is that his text is very readable. However, so many works of fiction are eminently readable. Readability is thus not a criterion on which the merit of works of history can be judged.

More Reviews:

Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #21
Back to First Empire List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1997 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