I have just taken delivery of Paul Dawson's latest tome, Waterloo 'the truth at last'. I have read the introductory which outlines the same old criticism of Anglo-centric tellings of the battle with the same old mutterings of the Prussians being ignored along with any other non red coated allied units: "In traditional Anglo-phonic histories which ignore the Prussians"
It goes on and on in that vein which is a shame as it seems that a bias has stepped in before the book is one page in!
The book is another French perspective which hopefully will make for some good reading.
One day, someone will publish a book about the battle laying out what, how and when incidents probably happened without personal comment.
We all know that about 150,000 men and about 50,000 horses took part in the battle. We all know who won and we all know that 'in general' they all fought bravely. lets have a story about that bravery and how 'through study and dissection' their stories can be told without any personal opinion from the author. No matter what the nationality of the author, they all tuck a varying amount of bias into the narrative and that can only be a bad thing.
Get over yourselves....Publish your findings without publishing your thoughts.
Dawson also admits that he is "pro-Napoleon and anti-Britain at the beginning of the nineteenth century."
Anyway! Dawson goes on to describe where he tapped his information of the French army from 'Muster rolls' legion of Honour records etc, and that he and his collegues had collected "over 80,000 points of data" and have found over 200 "untapped" "officer accounts in legal documents.
I'll leave it there and get on reading.
PS. Dawson's book is identical in binding and size as Hussey's.