In my opinion Waterloo new perspectives is by far and way one of the best accounts of Waterloo. It explains a whole series of very fundamental flaws to original British empire imposed commentaries offered.
I give it 10 out of 10. JFC Fuller once wrote a book called the Generalship of Alexander the great. This was also heavily criticised by the less talented 'scholars'. Fuller went on to demonstrate his military and historical genius in many ways not the least of which was his development of the attack by paralysation with Liddell Hart that led to the basis of modern warfare.
His books are a must read for those interested in Military history. He brings operational understanding and I believe the title we discuss here does exactly the same. Read in conjunction with 'the Battle' and the traditional accounts you can gain a correct insight as to what may really have transpired on those hallowed valleys in Belgium.
The English accounts are full of holes that to me are obvious if you are a student of the period.
For example a decisive hinge strike by the Prussians just as the old guard attacked is contested as the real reason for the mass French rout. I believe given the deployment and shape of the battle line this was indeed the real reason.
As the author points out given the massive smoke many French soldiers that routed could not even see the Old Guard's attack and resultant defeat. This to me is one of the many things this excellent piece of work brings.
The people who actually launched a series of personal attacks on this wonderful author would IMHO make for easy meat in this club.
![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)