audiobook On Waterloo: Clausewitz; Wellington; and the Campaign of 1815 by Carl von Clausewitz; Arthur Wellesley 1st Duke of Wellington in History

Review

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful. Taking Waterloo Study a Step HigherBy J. SpolerDifferences in language have obscured and confused Waterloo scholarship ever since the battle. National pride and its reciprocal biases have alsostood in the way of obtaining a comprehensive understanding of Napoleon's final campaign. A lack of reliable translations of primary sources hasdogged historians since the mid 19th century. In many ways; the problem is still nagging us today. Enter Bassford; Moran and Pedlow with theireminently readable translation of Clausewitz's thoughts on the Campaign of 1815. Clear-headed; professionally dispassionate; and even handed; Clausewitz clearly understood the intricate entanglements of politics and war-making. He never loses sight of the political imperatives that forged the policies and strategies of Napoleon; Wellington; Blucher and Gneisenau. His critiques of the commanders' behavior during the campaign were carefully phrased; but still managed to rankle the Duke of Wellington; who took exception to Clausewitz's daring to explain Wellington's motives. Wellington responded with his only essay on the battle; and it is here coupled with the Prussian's chapters on Waterloo. Wellington's cold dismissal of Clausewitz's speculations; particularly about Wellington's deployment of his multi-national forces before the campaign; comes clearly off the page; frost and all. We also sense Wellington's defensiveness regarding his reputation and place in history as well as his all too easy rejection of Prussian claims. But there is also his grudging admiration for a needed job of history well done. What I think Pedlow et.al. have given us is a detailed study of an intuitive military mind (Wellington) versus a rigorously analytical mind that believes there is an art and science to war (Clasuewitz). Despite the presence of the sniping; the two pieces; taken together; give the serious student of Waterloo much to think about. This is historical material written after considerable reflection by two men who were there. That both were geniuses of a sort; gives their arguments ballast and impact. This book was a fine idea; made better by the essays the three editors wrote for it. After you have read the first round of general histories of Waterloo; after you have puzzled over maps and asked yourself why and how a hundred times; you are ready for this book to put it all in perspective. Huzzah for Brassford; Moran and Pedlow.1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Good adjunct to "On War"By AlThis was an extremely interesting look at the Battle of Waterloo from the perspective of Clausewitz; who was a staff officer with the Prussian army during the battle. The counter point is provided by the Duke of Wellington; and the contrasting views were of additional interest based on how the battle was viewed at different levels. Even with these two views; the whole of the battle can only be partly understood. It is clear in Clausewitz' narrative that he is using this narrative as an attempt to refine his theories; as well as achieve a deeper understanding of the events. As Bassford states in the introduction; Clausewitz saw theory as a means for providing the framework for analysis and judgement. The editors did an outstanding job in organizing Clausewitz' text; as well as the letters between members of Wellington's ring and Wellington's response to Clauswitz' analysis. Footnotes are kept to a bare minimum; and only used as a means to amplify points in the text. This is a terrific adjunct to "On War" and well worth the time to read.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. excellent bookBy Curtis Sinteresting perspectives on Waterloo -- maps were ok but could probably be improved upon -- recommended for those who are already familiar with the battle