Readers of this magazine will probably be aware of the hype and contsversy surrounding the book 'Waterloo - New Perspectives" written by David Hamilton-Williams and first published in 1993.

A number of reviewers have praised the book for its "deep" and "thorough" research, while others, generally the better informed, have censured it for making claims that are difficult to sustain. A major feature of the author's research is the use made of a collection of old letters sent to Captain William Siborne of the British Army in the 1830s and 1840s. As is well known Siborne was the constructor of the famous Waterloo models and the author of the standard English language history of the Campaign - History of the War in France and Belgium in 1815 which first appeared in 1844.

As is also well known, Siborne solicited and gathered a mass of correspondence and information from surviving officers, from which he built his models and prepared his "History". Siborne's son, Herbert, later edited a selection of these letters which were published in 1891 as the "Waterloo Letters". All this is well known.

What is less generally known are the contents of the manuscript letters which remained unpublished. lt is on these Siborne letters, published and unpublished, that Mr. Hamilton-Williams bases his attacks on the reputations of the two Sibornes as historians. His allegations that William Siborne committed a "crime" against History by willfully perverting the facts about Waterloo, chiefly for motives of financial expediency and xenophobia, and that Herbert Siborne compounded this "bad deed" by selectively publishing only those letters which supported his father's version, have been partly dealt with by pens more able than mine (see especially Peter Hofschroer's article "Were the Sibornes Frauds?" in No. 23 of "First Empire").

I will concentrate here on the use made of the unpublished letters as these are little known to the majority of Napoleonic enthusiasts. These letters are gathered in 6 volumes and now deposited in the Additional Manuscripts Department of the British Library, London, where these are known as the "Waterloo Correspondence". As these manuscripts have, until relatively recently been little studied the majority of readers of "Waterloo: New Perspectives" will have small opportunity to venfy or check these sources for themselves.

I am in the fortunate position of having a copy of the complete 6 volume collection on microfilm, supplied to me by the British Library. Therefore, I am in a position to check and comment upon Mr. Hamilton-Williams' handling of these manuscripts. Space (and time) do not permit a full analysis of every reference and citation in "Waterloo - New Perspectives" to the Siborne manuscripts, but I have hopefully chosen a few of the more significant. Incidentally, to clarify references, the 6 volumes of the "Waterloo Correspondence" are referred to by their shelf mark numbers, which are: B. L. Add. Mss. 34,703 - 34,708. My findings are as follows.

The Pencil Note

In the introduction to "Waterloo: New Persepectives", page 25, we are told: "Siborne even omitted a divisional account of the actions of Saxe-Weimar's bngade, not because of prejudice but because he did not bother or could not afford to obtain a translation of the German-language account sent to him. On the back of this account he simply pencilled fallaciously, from an unknown K.G.L. (King's Gemman Legion) officer.' "

We are then directed to note 12 (p.362) where we are referred to: "B.L. Add MS 34703."

On page 386, note 37, we are told, apparently refering to the same manuscript

"In the Siborne manuscript letters there is a certified copy dated 23 April 1840 of the 2nd Netherlands' 1815 Divisional report (B.L.Add.MS.34705), on the back of which Siborne had written in pencil: 'Written by an unknown K.G.L. officer.' "

There appears to be some confusion here. First we are informed that Saxe- Weimar's account is in volume 34,703, then that it is in volume 34,705. Volume 34,705 covers letters dated March - Decem- ber 1835, while volume 34,707, where an 1840 manuscript would logically be found, contains no letter of any description dated 23 April 1840.

The correct manuscript to which Mr. Hamilton-Williams apparently refers is in fact the Nassau report of Saxe-Weimar's brigade and this German - language account is actually to be found in volume 34,703, folios 11-17 and bears no date. The "pencil note" mentioned by Mr. Hamilton-Williams (actually pen I believe) in fact reads: "King's German Legion No date" and in my opinion, by comparative examination of the handwritings was not written by William Siborne at all, but possibly by his son Herbert and most probably by some third person who checked the manuscripts in the 1890s when they were put in order and bound by the British Library (then the British Museum). This "pencil note" is to be found on the back of folio 17 (B.L.Add. Mss.34,703).

Also, Hamilton-Williams seems to be accusing William Siborne of being unable to read this German-language account and thus of not being able to use its contents in his "History".

On the manuscript in question there are numerous marginal pencil annotations in English, summarising the Gemman text, obviously written contemporaneously by W. Siborne himself, which show quite clearly that he understood Gemman well enough. Furthermore, in volume 6 of the "Waterloo Correspondence", (B.L.Add, Mss. 34,708, ff265-268) in a letter dated 14 January 1848 from Baron Bunsen of the Prussian Legation to Siborne we read:

"As to the printed papers, they will speak for themselves, as you read our language so well. But as few foreigners read our gothic written characters, I give you here an Extract". (Bunsen's boldface).

This is surely clear enough. Siborne read printed German well but perhaps had some difficulty with the handwritten version, although the marginal annotations on several German manuscripts show that Siborne probably understood gothic script adequately enough.

Where then is the proof that Siborne could not read German? All the available evidence clearly indicates that he could.

The Mounsteven Letter

We now come to a couple of passages in "Waterloo: New Perspectives" where it is difficult to reconcile Mr. Hamilton-Williams' version with what we find in the Siborne manuscripts themselves.

On page 28 he informs us: "In 1891, the celebrated "Waterloo Letters" was published.... One letter, appearing on pages 350-2, written by Captain Mountsteven [sic] of the 28th, had been lightened by a complete paragraph, which exists in the manuscript copy (B.L.Add.MS.34703,19 August 1839). In the excised paragraph Mountsteven [sic] related how he had stopped his men from firing on a body of Dutch-Belgians who had charged forward to attack d'Erlon's retreating Frenchmen. Siborne Junior could not allow this to stand as it contradicted Siborne Senior's contention that all the Netherlanders in that part of the line had already run away in the other direction. "

On page 388, note 53, we are further informed: "Waterloo Letters, op. cit., No.151. Note in the original: Captain Mountstevens [sic] of the 28th's letter has a complete paragraph omitted in the published letter cited. The original in the manuscript Department of the British Library: B.L.Add.MS.34703, 19 August 1839 contains the phrase: 'Having just been passed by a Corps of Belgians during our advance,' which was excluded from the 1891 Siborne published extracts on page 351 indicated by ..."

Mr. Hamilton-Williams' assertion here seems to be tha the Belgians (of Bijlandt's brigade) charged forward to attack the French and he quotes the Siborne manuscripts to support his claim.

Again, there appears to be confusion. For a start Mounsteven's (correct spelling) letter of 19 August 1839 is not to be found in volume 34,703 at all - that volume covers letters dated 1815 to November 1834 - but in volume 34,707 (which covers letters from 1839 to 1842). Having located the correct volume, I turned, on the microfilm, to Mounsteven's letter (B.L. Add. Mss.34,707, ff 104-106) and was surprised to see that the sentence (not a "complete paragraph") omitted from the 1891 published version actually reads:

"Rather an absurdity, by the way, to suppose les braves Belges would have been there when they had legs left to carry them off."

Now these are Mounsteven's actual words and are rather different from the version given by Mr. Hamilton-Williams. I wonder how this discrepancy can be explained ? Notetaking errors ? Proofreading errors ? printing errors? Any comment would be of interest. Also, if any reader doubts my version of the deleted sentence he should take the trouble to check the original manuscript in the British Library to verify the correct version.

The Printed Proprosal

Discussing Siborne's attempts to fund his Waterloo models Hamilton-Williams informs us, on page 22, that:

"In desperation he decided to try to raise loans from some of the veteran officers with whom he had been in correspondence, ... One such request, which may be seen in the manuscript collection, asked the recipient for 5 pounds, but was amended to need 10."

I checked the microfilm of the collection and the document in question B.L.Add. Mss.34,703, f 152 - actually a printed "proposal", dated January 1834, in fact has 20 pounds deleted and 10 pounds substituted alongside, which puts a different gloss on matters. A mere slip in transcription?

The German Letters

On page 23 of the Introduction we are informed that: "Siborne did not consult any Dutch, Belgian, Hanovenan, Prussian, Nassau or Brunswick sources."

Peter Hofschroer; in his recent article "Were The Sibornes Frauds?", has already shown that there is ample evidence, both printed and manuscript, to show that these claims are difficult to support. A few further comments may be of interest.

The actual Siborne manuscripts contain numerous letters in the German language (over 50 at a rough count) and even the most cursory examination should make this abundantly clear.

Though Siborne could read printed German well he probably could not write it so fluently as his correspondence with the German military authorities, from whom he sought information on the Waterloo Campaign, is written in French. For example, he wrote to the Prussian Minister of War in Berlin on 8 November 1834, in French, applying for information. See: B.L.Add. Mss.34,703, ff.l99,200.

Likewise, he had extensive correspondence with Hanovenan and K.G.L. officers, from whom he received considerable information on Waterloo, both in German and English.

Furthermore, the collection contains a very detailed Nassau report concerning the actions of Saxe-Weimar's brigade (B.L.Add.Mss.34,703, ff.l 1-17 ) and a similarly detailed Brunswick account (B.L.Add.Mss.34,706, FF.23-55 ) which also contains illustrations of Brunswick flags and a plan of Brunswick troop movements at Waterloo.

It is also clear that William Siborne studied these German-language documents as several of them bear marginal annotations in English, obviously written by Siborne, when he needed and analysed them. Where then is the evidence to support the contention that "Siborne did not consult any Dutch, Belgian, Hanoverian, Prussian, Nassau or Brunswick sources"? It would be interesting to see it.

The French Letter (!)

In the Introduction, on page 23, we are given the information that "Siborne's only communication with a Frenchman was with the prince of Essling, Duc de Rivoli, and son of the illustrious Marshal Massena."

We are then given a quote from this letter and directed to note 9, page 362 for the source, which is given as "B.L.Add.MS.34704, The prince of Essling to Lieutenant William Siborne, 22 November 1832."

I trust that Mr. Hamilton-Williams is here referring to the same Siborne "Waterloo Correspondence" that I possess microfilm of and that this film is an exact copy of the originals in the British Library, as I simply could not locate this particular letter (by the prince of Essling), despite many hours of fruitless labour, hunting through approximately 4,000 sides of manuscript material.

Also, volume 34,704, quoted as the source of this letter, actually contains manuscripts dated December 1834 to February 1835. Volume 34,703, where an 1832 letter would logically be found, has no manuscript at all dated from that particular year. Perhaps the letter by the prince of Essling is to be found elsewhere? It would be helpful if Mr. Hamilton-Williams could let us know where it actually is by giving the exact volume and folio numbers. I will then be only too happy to look it up on the microfilm and confirm its existence.

Actually, the only Frenchmen with whom Siborne communicated (as far as I can gaher) were Marshals Lobau and Soult. Siborne wrote several times to Lobau requesting information on Waterloo and received a very polite reply but no actual information. Soult did not even reply. These appear to be the only French generals contacted by Siborne.

The Anton Leter

On page 378, note 21, we read: "A. James, 'Retrospect of a military life during the most eventful periods of the last war: Joumal of Sergeant James Anton 42nd Highlanders' (Edinburgh, 1841), pp.l90-5. See copy of manuscript (unpublished, because Anton was not an officer!) sent to Siborne: B.L.Add.MS.34705 19 April 1839.

Again there is confusion. Volume 34,705 contains letters dated March to December 1835 and not 1839. I turned to volume 34,707 where any 1839 letter would correctly be found and as far as I can see there is no letter dated 19 April 1839 and I have failed completely to find any manuscript by Sergeant Anton. Where is it? Furthermore, there is a catalogue of British Waterloo letter wrters (both officers and other ranks) at the end of volume 6 (B.L.Add.Mss.34,708, ff.406413 ) and Anton is not mentioned.

Conclusion

Despite all these apparent errors it must be said that "Waterloo: New Perspec- bves" is a readable, thought-provoking and intelligently written book. It has also been cleverly marketed. It could even have been a great book. Having said that, however, the Napoleonic hook-buying public who were persuaded to hand over 20 pounds for it are legitimately entitled to question the standard of research which it contains. As I have attempted to show, the book does appear to contain quite a number of errors and ambiguities and these must tend to lessen its value as a work of objectve historical fact.

By selecting only a small portion of the text for criticism, I have perhaps been slightly unfair to the author. Maybe the inaccuracies I have indicated are unrepresentative of the book as a whole or are mere "slips of the pen", for indeed what factual book does not contain a few glitches? However, a controversial book invites criticism and debate. I have tried to keep mine as objective as possible.

In the final analysis I judge "Waterloo: New Perspectives" to be an excellently written work in the literary sense but an ultimately flawed one with regard to the handling (in part at least) of the research sources. The final judgement will come with the passing of the years.

Related Articles

Waterloo Myths
Was Wellington a Defensive Commander?
How Wellington Got His Name
Waterloo: How Napoleon Might Have Won

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