"Wellington - The Iron Duke" by Richard Holmes

Above: Wellington - The Iron Duke - Richard Holmes - 293 Pages.

Queen Victoria, who shed copious public tears on Wellington's passing, called him the greatest man produced during the nineteenth century.

I completed reading this book today.

The Duke of Marlborough and The Duke of Wellington (Arthur Wellesly) are considered Great Britain's top soldiers. I bought this book on Wellington, while browsing through Hatchard's on Piccadilly, after realizing that my knowledge of Wellington and his victory over Napoleon at Waterloo was pretty sketchy. There is a ton of writing on this topic. Holmes' book was fairly recent, 2007, and short, 293 pages... a good start, it seemed to me, to building knowledge on this topic.

The book covers the important phases of Wellington's life: his privileged upbringing in Ireland as a member of the Protestant Ascendancy; his commissioning, assisted by patronage of his influential brother Richard, into the British Army in 1787; his election a member of Parliament in the Irish House of Commons; his military experience as a field commander in The Netherlands and India; his rise to prominence as a general during the Peninsular Campaign of the Napoleonic Wars; his promotion to field marshal after leading the allied forces to victory against the French Empire at the Battle of Vitoria, Spain, in 1813; his service as ambassador to France following Napoleon's exile in 1814; his defeat, while commanding an allied army, of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815; his two stints as Tory Party member Prime Minister; and, service, until his death in 1852, as Commander-in-Chief of the British Army.

Queen Victoria, who shed copious public tears on Wellington's passing, called him the greatest man produced during the nineteenth century. Wellington was Napoleon's chief nemesis.

Post Waterloo, the European balance of power shifted. It marked the end of French militarism in Europe, certified the pre-eminence of Britain's control of the seas, and ushered in an era, until the Franco Prussian War in 1870, of relative peace in Europe.

Wellington was a brilliant military tactician. Most of his victories occured while his position was on the defensive. His troop strength, battle after battle, was more often than not less than that of his opponent.

Wellington had to be a diplomat as a commander. Most of his armies were coalition armies requiring diplomatic legerdemain to keep his army focused. The victory at Waterloo was a coalition victory where Wellington's success depended on the mid afternoon arrival of Prussian troops led by Hanoverian General Blucher.
Wellington was not a perfect man. He was a bit of a prima donna. He had disdain for his second in commands and would often not bring them in on his strategic intent, not necessarily a good thing had he gone down in combat.

Wellington was frequently criticized for not passing out sufficient credit to his underlings. He acknowledged this, and expresssed his regret for such, later in his life. He was not always in control of his soldiers. Particularly infamous is the bestial rampage of his men after the capture of Cuidad Rodgrigo and Badajoz.

Wellington was a philanderer. He treated his wife, Kitty, with public scorn and disrespect. Kitty, to be sure, did not rise to embrace the social requirements to share in Wellington's fame. She became somewhat of a homebody. However, she always held her husband in awe. Holmes account of Wellington with Kitty on her death bed is poignant:

"Kitty, pale and frail on her bed amidst the trophies of the duke's glory, still rejoiced in the accomplishments of her hero. And as they held hands, she ran a finger up his sleeve to find if he was still wearing an amulet she had once given him. 'She found it,' Wellington told a friend, 'as she would have found it any time these past twenty years, and she cared to look for it.' How strange it was, he mused, that people could live together for half a lifetime and only understand one another at the end."

Reading of Wellington's time in India was fascinating. In 2013, TIMDT, friends, and Mwah (sic) toured the Mysore palace of Wellington's chief antagonist, Tupu Sultan. Wellington, looking to extend the interests of the British East India Company, and leading troops thanks to a sinecure bestowed by his brother Richard, then Viceroy of India, was victorious over Tipu Sultan at the battle of Seringapatnam in Mysore in 1799.

The battle of Waterloo could have gone either way. Two days before the battle, 15 June 1815, Napoleon had mounted an unexpected attack on Prussian troops led by Wellington's partner, General Blucher. Napoleon, defeated Blucher at Ligny, thereby taking out, half of the troop coalition that the allies were depending on to defeat Napoleon. Wellington, attending a party in Brussels, was blindsided by Napoleon's preemptive attack on Blucher. On day two of the French military comeback after Napoleon had returned to Paris in 1814, having escaped from Elba, things were looking pretty good for the French.

Wellington, regrouping, chose Waterloo as a place where he would meet the advancing French on 18 June 1815. The French pounded and pounded. Holmes adeptly chronicles Wellington's personal bravery and leadership, riding his charger, Copenhagen, who carried him throughout the seventeen hour battle, in directing the reactions to various French feints and forays.

Blucher, notwithstanding his defeat at Ligny two days previously, had promised some fifty thousand Hessian troops to arrive mid-afternoon at Waterloo, and these troops, arriving as promised, were critical in enabling Blucher and Wellington to carry the day.

Wellington attributed his Waterloo victory to Providence, acknowledging frequently in ensuing years, that he and Blucher were within a hair's breadth of being defeated. Wellington was seen to be a religious man. He kept his annotated, well marked Bible by his bed side throughout his life.

I thought of the Battle of Midway, during WWII, another battle that could have gone either way... and, how Providence does not seem like such a outre answer for the right side winning.

Then, there is the fact that it is often imperfect men who are called to accomplish out sized ends. Wellington was a philanderer and an egotist. Grant was a heavy drinker. Patton was an egotist. Yet, each possessed the skills, energy, and "je ne sais quoi" necessary to carry the day on a history making scale. Can we include the tweeting, imperfect Trump, astoundingly successful in implementing his campaign promises, into this rogue/achiever mix?