Jac Weller's Wellington in India is a truly excellent book. It is very readable and flows extremely well. It is one of the few books of its kind that I've read literally cover-to-cover - forward, preface, body, and appendixes - everything. The detail of the book is also exceptional. He tells the reader why and how Wellington achieved his successes not just when.

When Wellington's name is mentioned, people tend to think first of Waterloo, then of the Peninsulars Wars. It is easy to forget that he got his start in India, and that is the period which Jac Weller covers so well in this book. This was a completely different kind of warfare than that fought in Europe, and Wellington (or Wellesley, as he was then) had to contend not only with far superior forces, but also with the climate, which caused Europeans to die like flies. Two things above all should be remembered: first, that when Wellington was asked what his greatest victory was, he said not Waterloo, but Assaye; and second, Weller's three books about Wellington's campaigns were named by Bernard Cornwell as the best source material for his Sharpe series.

As the title indicates, this is essentially a book about Wellington's engagements in the Peninsular War, not the Peninsular War as a whole. Keeping that in perspective, this is an excellent book which covers each of Wellington's battles and sieges, as well as his logistical and strategic decisions, in great detail. Weller uses abundant footnotes to document his sources and indicates any conflicting accounts in the source material. So while this is a view of the British involvement in the Peninsular War, it is an unbiased one. It is also light enough in scope that one can get a good feel for this conflict without having to read all seven volumes of Oman.

I bought this book in preparation for a "Sharpe's Battlefield Tour" of Spain and couldn't put it down. Weller maybe very pro-Wellington, but it is hard not to be when he never lost a battle! Whether this was due to him being a military genius or simply lucky really doesn't matter, since even Napoleon was quick to point out that he'd rather have generals that were lucky that good.

Weller paints a picture of a Wellington that is practically precognitive in his ability to figure out what the French were up to and move his troops into position to do the most damage before the French ever really attacked. According to Weller, Wellington emersed himself into the most mundane facets of keeping his army healthy, fed, clothed and armed, and always well positioned. While he might not have been the great producer of talented subordinates that some of his contemporaries were, he knew how to wring every advantage out of a situation and was willing to sacrifice his own reputation at home by avoiding battles on ground that was not advantageous to him, or when the French were able to concentrate a vastly superior force.

This volume begins with a description of the two armies, how they fought, how they were equipped and how they operated, giving the reader a clear picture of how Wellington's "Thin red line" was able to consistently defeat the armies and Marshals who conquered Europe. He ends the book with a description of how Wellington and his consistently outnumbered army was able to defeat the conquerors of the continent. In particular, his obsession with intelligence which he managed himself, training, supply, so that his troops would not be forced to strip Spain bare to feed his army as the French did, and there by turning the partisans against his army as well, and a tactical flexibility that allowed him to consistently out maneuver the French. While Oman and Napier second guess Wellington in their volumes, Weller sticks to telling the tale of the Peninsula and leaves the reader amazed with Wellington's good common sense.

It should be noted, Weller does not paint Wellington as a genius. The portrait he gives us is one a general who fought smarter and did not take the big risks that Napoleon was famous for. He patiently chose his ground based on his correspondents, his own personal observation, and his enemy's tactical doctrine. And then he patiently maneuvered his troops to cause the most damage to them when they inevitably struck.

For someone going to Spain with the intention of seeing where the battles took place, Weller provides a clear description of each site at the end of each chapter, describing the lay of the land, at least as far as it was at the time of publishing. This was invaluable help when trying to figure out exactly where things happened, since Spain does not look upon the Peninsula Campaign (The Spanish War of Independence) with the same pride as the English do.

I took my time buying this volume as I wasn't too sure of Jac Weller. However, seeing the Greenhill label on it convinced me and I was not disappointed. It is a very good, solid one volume account of the Peninsular War, although the author is quite frank in his adulation of the Iron Duke. Still, it is worth the effort to read, and the author relies on Oman, Napier, and Fortescue in his narrative, and he knows his subject area thoroughly. It is also a thoroughly enjoyable read, as well as being quite easy to skip around and find information you might need immediately, such as to answer a question about battles, leaders, casualties, etc. I highly recommend this book. The photographs of the battlefields, especially of the towns and fortifications are superb and enhance the understanding of the problems both armies faced in Portugal and Spain, especially if you haven't been in that part of the world. This will not be the only Jac Weller book that I will purchase and keep. Once past the blatant hero-worship, the author is a solid historian with much to tell and say. Definitely a keeper.

One appreciates Weller's enthusiasm and readable style. However, he is a Wellington apologist and an anglophile. As such the reader needs to take his work with a large pinch of salt. Rather than a careful presentation of documented fact, we instead get a repetition of the anglophone mythology of this campaign. This book is not serious history, rather something nearer fiction, as are most British works on the subject. One refreshing exception to that is Hofschroer's two volumes on 1815.

Replying to the other 'reviews', none of which show signs that the author read the book:

It is no suprise to find that appologists for Napoleon are still arround. After all he is still taught as a hero in French schools rather than as the bloodthirsty tyrant he really was. Napoleon was the Saddam Hussein of his age, starting a series of unnecessary and ultimately fruitless campaigns which he ultimately lost.

The battle of Waterloo was only fought because Napoleon decided to invade Belgium. Jac Weller is quite right to point out that Napoleon lost to Wellington. In fact Wellington beat Napoleon twice, first in the Penisular campaign when he whipped Napoleon's generals, then at Waterloo he beat the man himself.

We are too often blinded by the supposed "brilliance" of Napoleon, but at Waterloo his shortcomings were finally exposed. This book sets out to give an even-handed account of the battle, and presents both commanders in a realistic light. As an avid student of the era, I have long found it strange how Wellington, outnumbered as he was, could win the battle of Waterloo, and yet still "come in second" to Napoleon, whom he so clearly bested.

This worthy book demonstrates that Wellington and Napoleon may have been equal in talent in most departments, but in two areas, the Iron Duke had a clear advantage: he could see "the other side of the hill", and he was always present on a battlefield where he was most needed, at the precise moment he was most needed.

For the apologists for Napoleon, this book will make hard reading. For once an author is not blinded by the light of the late Emperor's posthumous PR machine, and assesses his military talents objectively and coldly, a task long overdue.

Buy this book.