[Download] ➶ Waterloo Betrayed By Stephen M. Beckett – Marjoriejane.co.uk


Waterloo Betrayed quotes Waterloo Betrayed , litcharts Waterloo Betrayed , symbolism Waterloo Betrayed , summary shmoop Waterloo Betrayed , Waterloo Betrayed 8f5c7fc8 The Truth Behind The Lies Of Waterloo Discover Why Napoleon Really Lost Waterloo, The Campaign That Ended It All Now, For The First Time The Revelation Of A Deceit So Profound That It Brought Down An Emperor And An Era And Then Remained Hidden For Two Hundred Years No Longer Must You Trudge Through Pedestrian Or Outlandish Theories That Napoleon Lost Because He Had Hemorrhoids Because A Messenger Broke His Leg Because There Was A Volcanic Eruption Half A World Away Or Because Wellington Was Superior, The Bravest Of The Brave Was Suddenly Too Cautious, Or Grouchy Refused To Show Up The Truth Is Both Far Complex And Far Logical It Was A Defeat From Within Napoleon Lost Due To Treason In The Hands Of One Of His Most Trusted Men His Ruin Was Meticulously Crafted, A Brilliant Web Of Betrayal Laced In And Around The Whole Campaign, Its Strands So Fine That No One Saw It For Two Centuries Napoleon S Plans Were Undermined Before The First Shots Were Fired In Fact, Much Of What Has Been Written About How The French Conducted This Campaign Is Fiction Did You Know The Campaign Was Delayed A Full Day Due To The Unauthorized Rewriting Of Napoleon S Orders Traitors Enabled The Prussians To Concentrate Hours Earlier Napoleon Went To His Death Never Having Learned The Actual Dispositions Of His Left Wing On June Th Or June Th Napoleon Did Issue Recall Orders To Grouchy On June Th Napoleon Never Said The Battle Of Waterloo Would Be As Easy As Breakfast This Is The Book That Rewrites The Campaign Finally, The Suspicions Of Many Of Napoleon S Veterans And Inner Circle Are Proved By Citing The Hundreds Of Documents That Only Came To Light After Their Deaths Presented Here Is The Story Of The French Staff Work In Luminous Detail And Starting Well Before June Th There Are Over Pieces Of Correspondence In Both The Original French And Translated Into English Many Of Which Have Never Been Referenced In Prior Books On The Campaign Napoleon Never Learned The Truth, But In His Candid Conversations In Exile He Revealed The Extent Of The Deception That Doomed His Plans This Is Not A Book That Once Again Retells The Dramatic Events Of June Th, The Battle Of Waterloo It Simply Tells What Really Happened During The Two Weeks Prior And Why The Battle Of Waterloo Should Have Never Occurred


13 thoughts on “Waterloo Betrayed

  1. says:

    Well, it took me two passes through before I felt comfortable doing this review My grade varied throughout the process, but I finally nailed down the book as a solid 3 stars, with an asterisk More on that to come The sensationalist title aside, Mr Beckett s book was generally a professional study on the events prior to and during one of the most documented and discussed battles in history Specifically, the focus homed in on the odd events and behaviors of the personnel working around Napoleon during the famous 100 Days Obviously, the study concluded that treachery was a major factor in the outcome of the battle at Waterloo The book is about 60% thesis, and about 40% referencesletters, orders, and diary entries primarily I won t spoil all the fun, so I ll speak in generalities than give specific examples to explain my grades and thoughts going on from here My first major comment is that the author really tries too hard to sell his point If I say it enough times, it must be true type of stuff I think he tends to blur the lines between facts and feelings I m not saying his conclusions are wrong as he makes a persuasive argument He simply has little supporting facts, and relies heavily on circumstantial evidence He discredits one persons account of something as being biased, but then accepts another s account of the same events as somehow credible with no discussion offered as to why it is so Another comment is the referencing Mr Beckett actually references websites, something I don t recall ever seeing before Rather than referencing the book, he gives the title and author in the text and then footnotes a website usually a Google site or other site which archives old books in digital form I found this distasteful, as I don t really want a 120 character http fhfeijrj pseudo link as a footnote as it does a paperbook reader no good at all Additionally, websites are notoriously short lived, meaning most of his referenced material will be long gone in maybe a decade or two so useless for future readers A traditional methodology of doing the references would have been just as effective, and would be timeless The reason I upgraded the score to a 3 from my first pass 2 stars was his book conclusion I frankly loved the fact that he essentially said directly that his argument is somewhat weak and would not meet the standards of say a criminal court case But a civil court case ah, that s another matter Just a preponderance of evidence can justify a verdict in such cases, and he feels his case would be good enough I think I might even agree with him, that he does make some interesting possible conclusions But I d vote not guilty I think I took a star off for the referencing I did not like, and I also deducted a half star for the sensationalist title and a half star for a combination of his literary style and daisy chaining of assumptions to create assumptions ex I think this happened, and because this happened it might have caused that to happen These 2 happenings are just too convenient to be coincidence, so it must mean this other thing happened too The website referencing is my asterisk, as it really should deduct for being so cumbersome but I did not want to overly penalize the book for the choice We ll call it error carried forward I did enjoy reading the book twice actually , and learned a great deal about the intrigues of the period The references were nice to see, though the website stuff should probably go away I think I would read of Mr Beckett s works in the future I would recommend this book as a good read for those interested in the 100 Days period of Napoleon.


  2. says:

    So far my rating is based on three thingsthe silly, pompous, but I m hedging my academic bets preface by a French academic who should know better, the amazing from computer wargames to Napoleonic scholar prologue by the author, and the incredible plethora of cumbersome website addresses that serves as the bibliography Scholarship by Google Bookswho knew And outsourcing one s translating because, despite the fact the author is writing about the alleged treason of a French marshal toward Napoleon, he can t read French.I ll update my review when I finish reading the book But thus far I m not holding out much hope for a better result The author did, however, rate it five stars.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *