Firstly thank you for this podcast. I find it enjoyable listening.
I first became fascinated by the Napoleonic era at around nine years old with the release of the movie Waterloo. Like so many others in Britain, this led to collecting Airfix soldiers, kits, and a lot of reading.
For myself, the most irritating myth is the one I keep hearing put forward on the podcast and elsewhere of 'Anglo-centrism'. Although it has a basis in truth I don't feel it holds up to examination and at this point the claim leads to, not only revisionism, but the creation of another myth - one which future generations will have to wade through.
This point of view pops up again and again on the podcast, without any counter argument whatsoever. For example, are you talking of a myth existing amongst those interested in the history (and have read at least one book on the subject of Waterloo) or within the popular imagination of people who would watch something like Sharpe on the TV? These are very different forms of mythology.
The first book that I remember really affecting me on the subject was David Howarth's (still excellent) Waterloo. A Near Run Thing. He drew from first hand accounts to put across the battle at a ground level. These were mostly British, though did include the viewpoints of at least one French observer too. The battle (to get simplistic) was put across as: French assaults from various arms, crisis in Wellington's centre, intervention of the Prussians and crisis in Napoleon's right rear, desperate assault of the guard and finally...rout.
These are not untruths, nor are they Anglo-centric. Wellington's army was described as a mixed bag with a strong mistrust amongst British troops for their allies. From what I've read this was true.
In subsequent decades the battle has been fleshed out to give more information on, for example, what happened on Wellington's left, particularly after D'Erlon's assault. All of this makes for interesting reading and without a doubt, the decisive actions of non-British troops had been overlooked or downplayed. But the formulation of another model - one that sits more comfortably with the idea of a united Europe or (to use an analogy which seems to crop up a lot) a 'NATO' - like peacekeeping force is simply shoe horning history into a more comfortable contemporary context to which it doesn't belong. The study of history should be to examine a period as it was, warts and all - without course for revision. Wellington's infamous quote regarding 'the scum of the earth' has been the subject of revision from Longford onwards. It's clear that he meant it exactly as it sounds. The 'lower' classes were an inferior breed of human being, genetically predisposed to drunkeness and looting and had to be restrained by not only floggings and punishment, but by a superior class of gentlemen, like himself.
Of course it's unpalatable to us but, the past is a foreign country. It's in large part what made me so fascinated with the period.
Lastly, there's a very fine line between myth-busting and conspiracy theory. We live in a world where the disassembling of official narrative is often considered more believable, simply for being an alternative viewpoint. I don't believe that the significance of the Prussian role in defeating Napoleon was ever downplayed by the British. Certainly not in the 50 plus years of reading I've done. To those truly interested in history, to come from a country is not necessarily to support it.
Thankyou both for your replies.
However, I think that the points I expressed in my initial post are not being addressed. I respectfully ask you to re-read what I have said and try to focus on that. If not, it provides an illustration of exactly what I'm talking about - namely the formulation of a vague myth of Anglo-centrism without being backed up by any specific examples. I have changed the title of this thread as I am specifically addressing Waterloo here.
I will be specific.
To reiterate, I first became fascinated by the period around 1970 with the release of the movie Waterloo. This led to reading anything I could find on the battle. I have already addressed Howarth's book (published 1968) which puts across a balanced account, doesn't stray from the truth, makes it clear that Wellington stood his ground on the premise that Blucher would join him and gives equal credit to the Prussians for the victory.
Another book I bought at this time was a very slim publication meant to coincide with the movie called The Field Of Waterloo by Paul Davies (Pan books 1970). This ran to only 48 pages and included a lot of illustrations. Similarly, it puts across the battle (in a somewhat cartoony way) describing the major phases accurately and giving credit to Blucher and the Prussians for their essential role in the victory.
A third early read was The Battle of Waterloo by J. Christopher Herold (Cassell 1967).
Largely a very well illustrated book but the above is true of this account regarding phases of the battle, giving Prussian intervention its importance etc.
I read something on this forum last night (I believe in another myth busting thread) by Zack White where he expressed that many people seem to think the Prussians simply stumbled onto the French by accident and that Wellington would have stood at Waterloo anyway without the promise of being joined by the Prussians. This is what I mean by the myth of Anglo centrism. The publications I cited are important because they are all fairly generalised accounts, for an English speaking audience and intended to introduce the battle to those (like myself at the time) who had little previous knowledge of the history. All were published over half a century ago. None are Anglo centric, by which I mean giving a propagandised view of the battle.
I would really like to get to the bottom of where exactly people believe a one sided account has been put across by British authors seeking to exaggerate a one-sided British victory. I don't believe it and (ironically) it often smacks of personal or national grudges.