Forged in the Shadow of Mars: Chivalry and Violence in Late Medieval Florence

cloth was produced in the Waterloo Mill, Cork’s glass in the Waterloo Glass House Company, Londoners danced in the Royal Waterloo Assembly rooms and industrialization came to the town ... in the form of the waterloo Iron Works... .” (191). Reynolds’s impressive list does not end there. He goes on to mention places, gardens and even boats named for the battle. The point is made. Reynolds’s book is absolutely worth reading for those interested in the cultural history of the nineteenth century and the political impact of the battle of Waterloo on the British mindset. His use of a wide variety of sources including paintings and literature but also the material manifestations of the Waterloo spirit in everyday life and the role played by the printed press present a rich canvas of the leisured life of the middle-class Victorian. The quality of the book would have been enhanced if the minor mistakes against the situation in situ had been corrected: the forest of Soignes is in no way related to the Ardennes as Byron incorrectly indicated. But Byron had the excuse of poetic license. The farm of Hougoumont, constistently labeled as chateau here, is what one could call a fortified farm not a chateau. The Dutch guide Jean Hornn could not possibly have had a French name and a quick search reveals him to have been Johannes Horn from Bergen. I have enjoyed reading this book and would undoubtedly have enjoyed it even more if I had seen that Reynolds has actually visited Waterloo itself, because by distancing himself from the location and the locals he displays a certain unnecessary arrogance and ignorance that is exposed when he, for instance, writes about the French side of Waterloo – meaning (I assume) the French-speaking side. Waterloo was still largely Flemish(or Dutch-) speaking in 1815 and the border with France was not anywhere near. A short visit would have taught him that Mont Saint Jean was not on the French side either (151). The book is illustrated and, knowing the paintings and illustrations included, I can confirm that the choices made are good but OUP has not invested in color illustrations as a result of which the reader is shown pictures in grey tones that seem to have been pasted over with a whitish emulsion of the kind used to treat and preserve Victorian newspapers. “Who Owned Waterloo” addresses all students and scholars of nineteenth century culture and the imprint of historiography on nationhood. It demonstrates the intricate ways in which victories as well as losses were and still are recuperated and appropriated to serve and uphold the idea of the great British identity. It is well researched and worth reading.