Kindle Price: $17.99

Save $11.96 (40%)

Promotions apply when you purchase

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

Read with our free app
You've subscribed to ! We will preorder your items within 24 hours of when they become available. When new books are released, we'll charge your default payment method for the lowest price available during the pre-order period.
Update your device or payment method, cancel individual pre-orders or your subscription at
Your Memberships & Subscriptions

Buy for others

Give as a gift or purchase for a team or group.
Learn more

Buying and sending eBooks to others

  1. Select quantity
  2. Buy and send eBooks
  3. Recipients can read on any device

These ebooks can only be redeemed by recipients in the US. Redemption links and eBooks cannot be resold.
Kindle app logo image

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

QR code to download the Kindle App

Follow the author

Andrew W. Field
+ Follow
More books from this author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.

Waterloo: The French Perspective Kindle Edition

by Andrew W. Field (Author) Format: Kindle Edition
4.5 4.5 out of 5 stars 402 ratings
See all formats and editions
From the author of Talavera, an extensive history of the Battle of Waterloo from the losing side’s point of view.

The story of the Battle of Waterloo—of the ultimate defeat of Napoleon and the French, the triumph of Wellington, Blücher, and their allied armies—is most often told from the viewpoint of the victors, not the vanquished. Even after 200 years of intensive research and the publication of hundreds of books and articles on the battle, the French perspective and many of the primary French sources are under-represented in the written record. So, it is high time this weakness in the literature—and in our understanding of the battle—was addressed, and that is the purpose of Andrew Field’s thought-provoking new study. He has tracked down over ninety first-hand French accounts, many of which have never been previously published in English, and he has combined them with accounts from the other participants in order to create a graphic new narrative of one of the world’s decisive battles. Virtually all of the hitherto unpublished testimony provides fascinating new detail on the battle and many of the accounts are vivid, revealing, and exciting.
Read more Read less
Previous page
  1. Print length
    491 pages
  2. Language
    English
  3. Sticky notes
    On Kindle Scribe
  4. Publisher
    Pen & Sword Military
  5. Publication date
    October 24, 2012
  6. File size
    29703 KB
  7. Page Flip
    Enabled
  8. Word Wise
    Enabled
  9. Enhanced typesetting
    Enabled
  10. See all details
Next page
Due to its large file size, this book may take longer to download
Add a debit or credit card to save time when you check out
Convenient and secure with 2 clicks. Add your card

Editorial Reviews

Review

While there has been a relative deluge of books on the Waterloo campaign and battle from the British Perspective and a significant number in recent years covering the Prussian operations, until now one had to know French to understand Napoleon's Army and the hows and whys of its actions in the campaign. Andrew Field has filled that hole...Field's extensive use of French soldiers' accounts makes clear how close the French came to winning both battles....after reading one understands why Wellington called Waterloo "the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life, " and gains an appreciation for the exploits of Napoleon's Armee du Nord in 1815..."
The NYMAS Review

About the Author

Andrew Field is an expert in the battles of Napoleon.

Product details

  • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B00B1GSKBS
  • Publisher ‏ : ‎ Pen & Sword Military; Reprint edition (October 24, 2012)
  • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 24, 2012
  • Language ‏ : ‎ English
  • File size ‏ : ‎ 29703 KB
  • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
  • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
  • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
  • Print length ‏ : ‎ 491 pages
  • Customer Reviews:
    4.5 4.5 out of 5 stars 402 ratings

About the author

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Andrew W. Field

Andrew W. Field

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

4.5 out of 5 stars
4.5 out of 5
402 global ratings

Top reviews from the United States

svdolgop
5.0 out of 5 stars a magnificent book!
Reviewed in the United States on February 9, 2014
Verified Purchase
This book can be a terrific introduction to the Battle of Waterloo, but you’ll really, really appreciate the author’s presentation of rare sources and his balanced analysis if you’ve read a multitude of other books on this pivotal battle. The author relies on various French accounts of Waterloo (many of them unpublished or otherwise inaccessible), and many corroborating Allied accounts are used as well. Some accounts are exceptionally vivid – such the ones describing the Old Guard’s recapture of Plancenoit or the retreat of the French Army. Other accounts, such as the ones covering the work of Napoleon’s staff or even more casual things, are also very intriguing.

Field takes a stab at numerous myths and misconceptions surrounding the Battle of Waterloo, and the decision-making process and actions of the French Army are analyzed without the hindsight bias. After all, the French were operating under imperfect information, in an unfamiliar terrain (at least unfamiliar to many officers and rank-and-file soldiers), and with an imperfect communication system. At the same time, the author attributes the French loss to various strategic and tactical failures of its leadership, and I think it’s a fair conclusion.

The book sheds a lot of light on the following issues / questions, with many of them ignored or distorted in the voluminous Waterloo literature:

- Realistically, how early could the French commence the battle, given the ground conditions and the initial disposition? Was the start of the battle deliberately delayed?
- What was the initial disposition of the Grand Battery and how was it moved throughout the day? How effective was the French artillery during different stages of the battle?
- What French units were engaged in the attack on Hougoumont? Was there more than one incursion into Hougoumont’s courtyard? How wisely was Reille’s Corps used during the battle? Were some of its units idle?
- What explains the column formation employed during the attack of d’Erlon’s Corp? How did this attack proceed? Was there an earlier opportunity to capture La Haye Sainte or some of the Allied batteries? What really stopped d’Erlon’s attack? What role did hedges play?
- Was the Grand Cavalry Attack really unsupported by the artillery and infantry? Why was this support ineffective?
- Were some of the Allied squares shaken / broken during the Grand Cavalry Attack?
- What was the disposition / role played by the Marines and Sappers of the Guard?
- What was the true role played by the sunken lane? Was it just another Napoleonic myth or a real constraint for the French cavalry and infantry? What was it significance during the retreat of the French Army?
- How did the Middle Guard’s attack proceed? How was it supported by the rest of the French Army? Were there additional means to support this attack? How effective was the Middle Guard’s fire?
- How did the French respond to the arrival of Zieten’s Corps? How did they try to counter it?
- Finally, did the French Army have a chance to win this battle or avoid its own disintegration?

My only critical comment is that the author underestimates the numerical strength of the Prussian units actually engaged at Waterloo. Pirch’s Corps also made a major contribution. While this Prussian Corps in not mentioned in the book, it appears on one of the maps, but I think it is mislabeled anyways and should be Zieten’s Corps instead.

Overall, a magnificent book! Buy it, read it, spread the word about it. It belongs on your bookshelf (or Kindle, I guess) next to “1815: Waterloo” by Henry Houssaye, “The Battle” by Alessandro Barbero, and “Three Napoleonic Battles” by Harold Parker.
20 people found this helpful
Helpful
 Report
HMS Warspite
4.0 out of 5 stars The other side of the hill...
Reviewed in the United States on December 25, 2012
Verified Purchase
As the 200th anniversary of the Napoleonic Wars rolls through, veteran British historian Andrew Field offers a different point of view on its most decisive battle with "Waterloo: The French Perspective". Fields has mined a variety of French sources (and some British sources) to give the view from the other side of the hill, or in this case, of the ridge at Mount St. Jean.

Fields proceeds in a methodical manner through the Waterloo Campaign, from Napoleon's return from Elba and the rebuilding of the French Army, through the preliminary battles prior to Waterloo, to the actual battle itself and the aftermath. The narrative is straightforward, stepping easily from source to source with some connecting explanations. The book includes some excellent graphics of the actual maneuvering of French arms on the battlefield at Waterloo. In his discussion, Fields gives full credit to the Prussians for their aggressive effort to reach the battlefield, and their impact on Wellington's and Napoleon's management of their respective forces.

"Waterloo: The French Perspective" is short enough to be worthwhile to the general reader with at least some knowledge of the battle, as a corrective to generally British-centric histories of the campaign. For the student of the Napoleonic Wars, the principal interest may be the use of the French perspective as a re-entrant to some of the battle's lingering controversies, including the struggle for the farmhouse of Hougemount and the various phases of the battle. This reviewer found most interesting the author's placement of the crisis of the battle at the fall of La Haye Sainte rather than at the attack of Napoleon's Middle and Old Guard. So far as this reviewer can tell, there are no major discoveries of new material; no controversies will be definitively settled by the book. However, students of the campaign should find the perspective to be food for thought; it is recommended to that audience.
29 people found this helpful
Helpful
 Report
K. J. Broekema
5.0 out of 5 stars A very detailed description of the battle
Reviewed in the United States on September 26, 2015
Verified Purchase
The book gives a detailed account of the battle which was exactly what I hoped the book would be about. I enjoyed it from the beginning to the end. Strange that an English military man takes the Frenche view which roughly is:"We almost won". Even stranger is that there is nothing in the book that supports this conclusion. When a strategic farm fell to the French, the English square defending that spot was somewhat in trouble but the English army was by far not as devastated as the French army and still had ample reserves. Waterloo is a classic example of the fact that an attacking army needs to be much bigger than the defending army in order to overcome the higher losses during the attack. The writer consistently speaks of Wellington's Anglo-Dutch army. This is something unknown to Dutch people. I now know that many well-known places like the Carl von Bylandt street in The Hague and the Chasse theatre in Breda are named after generals who fought at Waterloo.
One person found this helpful
Helpful
 Report
Zouave
5.0 out of 5 stars A most needed and useful account of Waterloo
Reviewed in the United States on October 2, 2022
Verified Purchase
For a very long time, there were questions about this battle I could not understand or needed clarification on. Most were from the British perspective with few exceptions for English readers. This fills in a vital gap. Very useful!
Helpful
 Report
John B. Sivertsen
5.0 out of 5 stars Andrew Field is a Great Writer
Reviewed in the United States on June 25, 2017
Verified Purchase
This is a great work. If read beside Henry Houssaye's "The Campaign of 1815" (see my review there), you will get a great overall feel for this battle and this campaign.

Field is a serving British officer and you can tell. He brings insights that you do not see in the works of your standard historian. At the same time, this is no turgid academic work. I is very, very readable and extremely entertaining. The general reader will get a lot out of it. Those readers who think that they know a lot about the Napoleonic military campaigns will be surprised at how much they learn here.
One person found this helpful
Helpful
 Report

Top reviews from other countries

Translate all reviews to English
Roby D.
4.0 out of 5 stars Libro di assoluto valore
Reviewed in Italy on December 19, 2023
Verified Purchase
Il libro si legge assai bene, l'autore ha saputo miscelare sapientemente la parte di memorialistica, quella tratta dalle memorie dei vari protagonisti scritte un tot di anni dopo la battaglia intendo, con la parte scritta da lui a commento e collegamento dei vari eventi.
I commenti dell'autore sono di rara sagacia e mettono in risalto le motivazioni delle diverse scelte tattiche prese dai vari comandanti, inoltre butta una luce più che discreta su vari aspetti sempre sottaciuti dalla storiografia "British-centrica", o volutamente nascosti... Peccato vi siano ben poche mappe, cosa per cui non assegno la 5° stella avendo dovuto fare troppo spesso ricorso a ricordi personali, oppure aperto il maestoso libro dell'Adkin "The Waterloo companion" ,oppure allabellissima mappa del wargame "Mt. St. Jean", come sarebbe stato opportuno chiamare la battaglia vista la discreta lontananza fisica del villaggio di Waterloo dai luoghi ove effettivamente ebbe luogo la battaglia.
Report
Jean Jodoin
5.0 out of 5 stars At last a balanced history of this decisive battle!
Reviewed in Canada on November 29, 2016
Verified Purchase
Even forgetting the author's conclusions about specific events, with which I agree in general, having the other side's first hand accounts sheds precious light on events, events that have boor wrongly portrayed for so many years (200+).

I particularly appreciate, and approve of, the numerous use of lower ranks accounts which sometimes differ widely from the officers involved, the more senior the greater the difference of opinions.

In fact those first hand accounts tell the story better than any author could, not to downplay the incisive conclusions and summary of the author.

A Waterloo "must read"!
One person found this helpful
 Report
Emmerich F.
5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent! One of the best books available for the History of the battle of Waterloo
Reviewed in Germany on March 13, 2017
Verified Purchase
I am interested in the history of this battle from early youth on and read every available literature I could get about that
decisive battle. So I thought I knew "nearly everything" about it. With this fantastic book from Mr. Field, an ex army officer, I was fortunately proven wrong. It is a brilliant book, presenting a huge number of first-hand eye-witnesses-mainly, but not exclusively- from French sources, which show the battle from another perspective and reveal a lot of facts that have'nt been presented previously. This book is a chest of gold. Very impressive are the accounts of the french officer Crabbe, an ADC to Marshal Ney, both his reports about the french cavalry charges that took place as assistance to the main attack of DErlons 1st Corps, as well as his account of his mission, given to him by Napolen himself, to change the direction of the attack of the middle guard, which Ney lead to the wrong -direction (obliquely to the plateau instead of frontally in the direction of La Haye Sainte). It shows what decisive errors were done indeed by Ney during this battle. These are just examples and there are more. For example very impressive are also the reports by 4 different members of D'Erlon's 1st Corps who took part and survived the assault.
What is also really good about this book is that there are no exaggarated reports so often seen by other books from the "Waterloo industry".
Highly recommended!!!
One person found this helpful
 Report
GRAEME
5.0 out of 5 stars KNOW HOW THE FRENCH LOST THE BATTLE AGAINST THE BRITISH
Reviewed in Australia on February 2, 2021
Verified Purchase
VERY DETAILED.
SAME MILITARY MISTAKES BEING MADE IN 2021 AFGHANISTAN. WE NEVER LEARN!!!!
Report
Wavetop
5.0 out of 5 stars This is an excellent book and one of the best on the subject ...
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on January 27, 2015
Verified Purchase
This is an excellent book and one of the best on the subject of Waterloo that I have ever read. Written using the words of French soldiers of all ranks, it gives a wider perspective of the great battle and is not just an historical dirge. It has long been known that Wellington massaged the facts about the battle, to enhance his own reputation and that of the British Army, totally unnecessarily, as both his and the army’s performance were exceptional. It does not diminish their achievement to acknowledge the magnificent contribution made by the Prussians and the other Allied troops.

The defeat seems to creep up on Napoleon, from initially believing he had a 90% chance of victory, to standing amongst the wreck of his army as it dissolved around him. Perhaps he had too much contempt for his enemy to take the matter seriously enough. It was not lack of energy, as at several points the narrative has Napoleon almost in the front line, sheltering in a Guard square directing the defence against the Prussians around Planchenoit and with an artillery advanced position, pushed forward near La Haye Sainte, directly bombarding and within sight of the British squares.

In the end, the book highlights the inability of the French to co-ordinate their actions, the author does not agree with Wellington’s statement that ‘they came on in the same old way and we beat them off in the same old way’. The French did attempt to adjust their column formations from those that had failed in Spain, but it didn’t change the result.

French officers were not happy with the way the attacks were being arranged and more junior commanders may have found better ways to move Wellington out of his positions. The French attacks went through several phases; the artillery bombardment of the Grand Battery, the mass infantry attack of D’Erlon’s Corps and mounted charges the Great Cavalry attack. However each arm of the Armee du Nord was attacking separately and in turn, if a co-ordinated attack had been organised, the result would have been different. Napoleon had taken Corps artillery to add to the Grand Battery, but the effects had been negated by Wellington’s reverse slope position and did not prove decisive.

If one French Corps, with its supporting artillery and cavalry, had mounted the slope in a co-ordinated attack and taken the central ground of Wellington’s position, Napoleon’s expectation of arriving in Brussels that night would probably have been met. The Prussians, cut off from their supply lines and with the tardy Grouchy, finally in their rear near Wavre, would have been in a desperate situation.

The author avoids placing the blame clearly on either Napoleon, or Ney, as both were experienced campaigners and should have been able to work together more effectively, but the ‘magic’ between them seemed to have gone. They jointly failed to achieve the result they expected.
All together a very good and enlightening contribution to the already extensive material on this subject.
5 people found this helpful
 Report
Report an issue

Does this item contain inappropriate content?
Report
Do you believe that this item violates a copyright?
Report
Does this item contain quality or formatting issues?
Report