Waterloo: Rout & Retreat

Andrew W. Field's "Waterloo: The French Perspective" offers a valuable and often overlooked angle on one of the most studied battles in military history. While the vast majority of English-language accounts of Waterloo draw heavily on British and allied sources, Field's work deliberately turns to French memoirs, letters, and regimental records to reconstruct the battle from the other side of the field. The result is a book that challenges many long-standing assumptions and adds nuance to a story that has often been told with a distinctly Anglo-centric bias.

The book's central achievement lies in its use of primary source material. Field draws extensively on the accounts of French officers and soldiers who fought under Napoleon, many of which have rarely, if ever, appeared in English translation. This approach allows readers to see familiar episodes of the battle, such as the repeated cavalry charges, the assault on Hougoumont, and the final commitment of the Imperial Guard, through fresh eyes. The French perspective often reveals confusion, miscommunication, and shifting morale that are less visible in accounts built primarily from British sources. This adds texture and complexity to events that have sometimes been reduced to simple narratives of heroism or failure.

Field is careful to present his material with a critical eye rather than simply accepting French accounts at face value. He acknowledges the tendency of memoirists on all sides to shape their recollections to protect reputations or explain away defeat, and he cross-references sources where possible to test their reliability. This methodological caution lends credibility to the book and distinguishes it from works that might be tempted to romanticise the French experience simply because it is less familiar to English readers. The author's background as a former army officer is evident in his careful attention to tactical detail, troop movements, and the logistics of command, which he explains clearly without becoming overly technical.

One of the more interesting aspects of the book is its treatment of the French high command, particularly the roles of Marshal Ney and Napoleon himself. Field examines the criticisms levelled at Ney for his handling of the cavalry attacks and considers how French veterans themselves viewed these decisions in hindsight. Similarly, the book explores how the French rank and file perceived Napoleon's leadership during the battle, offering insight into the psychological dimension of the fight that is often missing from more strategy-focused histories. These sections help humanise the French army, presenting it not as a faceless opposing force but as a collection of individuals grappling with uncertainty, fatigue, and the weight of a campaign that would determine the fate of an empire.

The structure of the book generally follows the chronological progression of the battle, moving from the early morning attacks through to the final collapse of French resistance in the evening. This makes it accessible to readers who may already have some familiarity with the broader outline of Waterloo, while still offering enough new material to engage more experienced students of the period. Field's prose is measured and clear, avoiding unnecessary embellishment, which suits the historical nature of the subject matter and allows the primary source quotations to carry much of the narrative weight.

Some readers may find that the density of eyewitness accounts, while valuable, occasionally slows the pacing of the narrative. Those seeking a more traditional strategic overview of the battle might prefer to pair this book with a broader survey history that provides additional context for readers less familiar with the campaign as a whole. However, this is a minor consideration relative to the book's central purpose, which is not to retell the entire story of Waterloo but to fill a specific and important gap in the existing literature.

Overall, "Waterloo: The French Perspective" succeeds in its aim of presenting a more balanced picture of the battle. By giving voice to the French soldiers and officers who experienced the defeat firsthand, Andrew W. Field contributes meaningfully to the historiography of Waterloo. The book is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the Napoleonic Wars, particularly those looking to move beyond the familiar British-centric narrative and gain a fuller understanding of how the battle was experienced from within Napoleon's own ranks.