Warning; there may be spoilers for Regency Buck & Devil's Cub in this review,as GH uses characters from both in this book.My good GR friend Hana has covered the historical side of reviewing the book, & I don't feel I can better her comments. This is her review (linked to with her permission) https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... I will mention that GH was meticulous in her research - at the back of the book is what she calls the "short" bibliography & that runs to two & a half pages!I wasn't so keen on this book in my younger days & if GR had been around then I would have given it a solid 3.5*, as in found the history a bit indigestible. I loved the romance, but on subsequent readings I just skimmed through the history & reread Bab's & Charles love story. That's right folks – I breezed through the Battle of Waterloo! & I thought there was even more history than there was! On this reading, I would put romance, Regency life at around 75%, war story 25%.This read, I simply accepted that I wasn't going to remember every real life character & just went with the flow. I'm not a big war story reader at any time, but GH's description of soot blackened faces & horses being shot under riders ring true. Anyone thinking that the name Grouchy must be a typo (& anyone who reads the Arrow editions of GH's books can certainly be forgiven for that!) It isn't. Real life person. Here he is! I was always glad to see one of my favourite secondary GH characters, Charles Audley, given his own romance, but on my first reading I wasn't that keen on Barbara. Each reading I have come to love Barbara more. (view spoiler)[ After a deeply unhappy first marriage (& we are never told explicitly what exactly Jasper Childe did) any suggestions or guidance madden her & make her plunge into even more outrageous behaviour. In our times her actions would, at worst, look like attention seeking behaviour. In the early 19th century – scandalous! & Barbara is given some of GH's best lines Like;“The devil you have! There, it is off at last! You may have perceived that I have been tugging at your ring for the last ten minutes. It should, of course, have been cast at your feet some time ago, but the confounded thing was always too tight. Take it!” I think the instant love rings true. My Kiwi dad & Canadian Mum met during WW2 & really only knew each other for 2 weeks before they married. I think GH captures very well that spirit of recklessness, that feeling you may only have now.Other than Charles, does introducing characters from previous books work?Judith on this reading – yes, although when I was younger I found her middle aged & dull. This time I find her well meaning & valiant in caring for the wounded. Flawed of course as she is also very judgemental.Worth a pass although he is more a spectator. & I don't like seeing my heroes become that!Perry & Harriet – yes. I think marrying them so young in Regency Buck, that GH decided to continue their story & what was likely to happen in such a young marriage when one partner was so immature.Dominic & Mary. Mary was fine but because of the way GH portrays Dominic this time – as a querulous & rather ridiculous old man – I rather wish Heyer hadn't brought them back. I don't think they were necessary to the story at all & I nearly knocked half a star off my ranking for what GH did to one of my favourite leading men.Overall I'm thankful these are the only characters that GH reused in her romance/historicals. Any time I ever wish Thomas (Sylvester) Jessamy (Fredrica) or above all, Gideon (The Foundling) had been given their own story I will reread Dominic's role in this book!Worth (who GH portrays as omniscient) is discouraging about the chances of his brother & Bab being happy together, but he also was unsurprised that a crisis brought out the best in her. After the war Charles will need her. Will they be happy? I certainly wouldn't describe my parent's union as a fairy tale, but they remained together. (hide spoiler)]
Dec 20thThis is an interesting combination of historical romance and detailed history. So far, I'm not too impressed with the love story. The hero is unremarkable. Well, you know, he's a brave and principled and dutiful officer, as you'd expect. And he's tall and handsome, too. Yawn. The leading lady is remarkable for the emotional maturity and self-control of a two-year-old. It's love-at-first-sight, essentially, with no apparent reason for the attachment, and no sense so far, of a developing relationship. My instinct is to skim through it quickly.But the description of Brussels during the run-up to Waterloo is very interesting. I'd forgotten that much of Europe was allied against Napolean, and I'm bewildered by the multiple players; nobles, commanders and regiments, described down to their various colourful uniforms. There's information on troop movements, and provisioning and tactics. Those interested in military history would probably really appreciate this. (In fact, I've been told it was on the reading list at Sandhurst, and I can imagine why.) I'm also interested in the civilian population, and the initial sense that the war wasn't being taken very seriously. I think that's going to change.The balls, the concerts, the theatres continued, but picnics were added to the gaieties now, charming expeditions, with flowering muslins squired by hot scarlet uniforms; the ladies in open carriages; the gentlemen riding gallantly beside; hampers of cold chicken and champagne on the boxes; everyone lighthearted; flirtation the order of the day. There were reviews to watch, fetes to attend; day after day slid by in the pursuit of pleasure; days that were not quite real, but belonged to some half-realised dream. Somewhere to the south was a Corsican ogre, who might at any moment break into the dream, and shatter it, but distance shrouded him; and meanwhile, into the Netherlands was streaming an endless procession of British troops, changing the whole face of the country, swarming in every village; lounging outside estaminets, in forage caps, with their jackets unbuttoned; trotting down the rough, dusty roads with plumes flying and accoutrements jingling; haggling with shrewd Flemish farmers in their broken French; making love to giggling girls in starched white caps and huge voluminous skirts; spreading their Flanders tents over the meadows; striding through the streets with clanking spurs and swinging sabre-taches.Dec 23rdAbout halfway through now, and I'm fully engaged. I think the quality of the writing is quite good, and the detailed descriptions are eye-opening for an ignoramus like me. I get the impression that most of the cast were historical personages, and some conversations/comments are quoted verbatim. Mind you, there is so much detail that it requires concentration. Well worth it, I think. I'm learning a great deal about this battle, the war, the social conditions of the time etc. Even the romantic pair are more interesting as Heyer describes their heartbreak.Jan 2ndI've been reading compulsively all night. Bound to have missed some important detail, but couldn't slow down. Waterloo is grim; the scale of death and destruction of human bodies, tremendous. Many of the handsome young officers are broken, the giggling girls broken-hearted. I'm somewhat stunned.And I have a new respect for Heyer. Many thanks to David for recommending this.
What do You think about An Infamous Army (2004)?
This book tells the story of the eve of Waterloo. Several relationships are tracked in it with the usual intricacies and misunderstandings found in romance novels. But also it provides fascinating insight into the feelings in Brussels after Napoleon escaped from exile on Elba. Scenes of heroism and cowardliness, pain and glory, love and friendship are all intermixed with the story of the Duke of Wellington and the days before the final show down between the Duke and Napoleon . . . and the days after. Most of the books written by Georgette Heyer are good stories and have the ring of truth to them. The writing is compelling and often amusing as she modeled herself after the well regarded Jane Austen. But because she did not write contemporaneously as Jane Austen did, she spent hours researching and writing about details from the Regency period to which Austen might only allude when she was seeking to make a character looks especially silly. Some feel that this attention to detailed accuracy dragged down the stories that Heyer wrote and others, such as myself, feel that it helps create a setting that I would not have understood otherwise. Heyer included, in my opinion, only details that enhanced the story. (And I can think of several writers who just make their novels painful by their inclusion of irrelevant period details.)This book is different from her other books in that it focuses much more on the Duke of Wellington, giving an insight into the struggles of that man as he lead the desperate allied troops.I have read it and reread it since I first found it. This book is a good romance, a good historical novel, a good war story, and a good read.
—J E
This was possibly Georgette Heyer's greatest book. Her research into the battle of Waterloo was so detailed and accurate that it is on the recommended reading list for officer cadets at Sandhurst. Even if you're not into battles (and you can easily skip these sections) there's plenty more here, not just the usual love story but an amazing telling of how the citizens of the town coped with the influx of wounded, the fear, the honourable and dishonourable behaviour of people in a war zone. When Wellington says 'Do not congratulate me, for I have lost my dearest friends', you really feel for him amid the terrible carnage caused by Bonaparte's lust for power.
—Fiona
I read Heyer for romance. This book was not what I expected. Too much military and hard to understand.REVIEWER’S OPINION:I think it might be better to READ this book rather than LISTEN to it as an audiobook. It was hard to understand all the military planning and battle action. I needed to see diagrams and pictures. It was also hard to follow the various officers’ names by listening as opposed to reading. I understand the author did a lot of research in order to be accurate about the “Battle of Waterloo.” The narrator spoke too fast for me which did not help.I may be off on my percentages but it feels like half the book is about a relationship between an army officer and a widow. The other half is about military planning and fighting the Battle of Waterloo. This is NOT for someone wanting interesting and fully developed romantic relationships. I never understood what they saw in each other. It was just instant attraction at first sight.Two characters in this story (Barbara and George) are the grandchildren of characters in Devil’s Cub. You do NOT need to read that book in advance. This is definitely a stand-alone book.There is a mystery about Lucy and her love interest (a minor third story). I can’t remember how that was resolved or even if it was. It needed more explanation – or it could be my own bad memory.STORY BRIEF:Colonel Audley sees Barbara at a ball and falls in love at first sight. Barbara is a notorious widow who is unlikeable, mean, vain, and spoiled. She is beautiful and loves to flirt. She falls for the Colonel as well, but her bad behavior causes problems. Lucy is sad and we don’t know why until much later in the book. The Battle of Waterloo is the second story. Colonel Audley is part of the action.DATA:Unabridged audiobook length: 14 hours. Narrator: Claire Higgins. Swearing language: none. Sexual content: none. Setting: 1815 Brussels and Waterloo, Belgium. Book Published: 1937. Genre: historical military fiction with a side of romance.
—Jane Stewart
