"Prisoners of War" Topic

If you managed to be a prisioner of war on Nap Era, which was the Army you choose to surrender and why?.

You decided which Army you belong and which one took you under their scort.

The question appoint to know which was the Army of Nap Era who managed to give a better life to their prisioners of war.

Medical service, work (voluntaire?), prisions, weather, food, etc etc are very important points to cualify the better "gaoler".

Amicalement
Armand

70 posts, still not a mention of wargaming

I'm so glad Bill started that Napoleonic History board…

It's a very complicated question with no easy answer.

First off, if you were an Officer and gave your word not to escape then you could get parole and live a reletivly easy and free life in the country that captured you. All the countries involved offered parole to a degree.

As a ranker you would be lucky to find yourself in a prison for several years, half starved, beaten and probably worked to death.

If you were unlucky then you might find yourself in a prison ship and dead from disease within 6 months. Or in the hands of peasant militia and skinned or burried alive.

Who gave the better treatment? depends how lucky you were.

Prisoners of all the nations were lucky to get starvasion rations. Some of the countries themselves found it hard to feed their own men not alone tens of thousands of prisoners. Medical treatment was practicaly unheard of and if it was available prisoners would be at the very bottom of the pile.

Prisoners died or were killed in their thousands, i realy don't think anyone would have wanted to be a prisoner durring this period unless they had money and a good rank.

CS, you should check out his posts over at the HAT plastics forum. Same style.

Thanks,

John

Please, I'm confused. This is not a Napoleonic Discussion forum?. Because I take note that some people take bad my proposal to discuss Napoleonic history.

As wargamer, I had inform here a detail to which is my activity in that matter. What more I had to write about that?.
A report of my battles?.

About your obervation that I wrote on Hat forum, it's true as another five forums. And there, I had posted many pics of my little soldiers. Even some of them were choised by Hat to be in their pages.

There were more on Bennos and Rafa forums too.

So, please clarify to which point go your observations.

Amicalement
Armand

Armand… I would think a better topic would ask the membership how their rules handle prisoners. Or, do their rules encourage slaughter, mayhem and senseless bloodshed as a way of determining a victor?

salut,
Robert
18thcenturysojourn.blogspot.com

I have no problem with his question.
It is not offensive in nature and he seeks information about the Napoleonic era.

Armand, there is a forum that discusses history of the Napoleonic wars and is frequented by scholars and authors, maybe posting there would be more well received.

link

Michael.

Let's face it, Armand. You have a reputation which you are doing little to address, although of course that may well be your intention.

I don't see the problem in Armand posts. Not everyone enjoy this kind of topics; but they are not offensive. Just an innocent way to see what other people, with the same interests in wargaming and Napoleonic history, thinks.

Anyway. To Armand's question. I should say that for the rank and file there were not a "good" enemy to surrender. The British could send you to the pontoons. The Spanish would kill you or, more probably, send you to some prison to starve to death (though their own soldiers were starving too!… the country was so devastated by war that in 1811 people fell dead of hunger in the middle of the streets in many Spanish towns). The Russians… well… lucky if you didn't starve and froze… at the same time! French weren't so bad. At least if you was lucky enough to be sent to France (the Spanish soldiers hadn't happy memories of the marchs to the frontier; and the Turkish that surrender at Acre were simply massacred to the man). I can't say about Austrians or Prussians. I have no info about how they treated their prisoners.

Better no surrender and run to fight another day!

Armand, you are attacked because of an almost always overlooked distinction between the Napoleonic Discussions board –
TMP link
which concentrates on the wargaming aspect
and Napoleonic History board –
TMP link
for more general discussions.
Very unfortunate, since the subject is interesting.

Your way of seeking comparison of different nations has apparently marked you as a provocateur. We have had too many nationalistic fights in our past.
Still, a sad way to welcome in our community.

I do not know who gave the best treatment but I read that a town called Leek in England has an area known as the French Quarter because of the number of Napoleonic prisoners in the area

Well, many thanks to all of you for your explanations.

My question was onlty to kwnow more about that subject because, for example, I didn't know anything about to be prisioner on Austrian side. I had read many books about French, English, Spanish, Portugueses, Napolitanians, Russians. But nothing about Prussia, Austria, North Africa, etc.
And as here I saw many historians wrote their opinions, I think that it is the place to do that.
As Mr.Nikola show me the right place, I would quit these forum and if I had a new question I will go there.
Many thanks for that. It was a mistake for ignorance.

Another thing that confused me is when I began to read the post here, more than a half of them are personal of from history. Only a little part is for wargaming only (personal pages or questions of little soldiers).

But now I understand, so apologhies in advance for my mistake and good luck to all of you.

Amicalement
Armand

Different forum?
Have we ill treated you that much?
Each of us has been attacked at a time, just don't bother yourself. I was accused of persecuting homosexuals, and if I remember right someone else for pedophilia. And anyway, most of the people will not care about this issue, that "reputation" of yours.

And sorry, but I know nothing about the treatment of prisoners.

There is a great Russian word- "Sharomyshnik"- from French "Mon sher ami"- usually last words of french begging straggler before being pitchforked by some Russian peasant woman. So surrender to Russians…

Armand,

You carry on. I find your posts intereting – especially from the point of view of setting up games. The aspect of whether surrendering is a viable option or not is a ligitimate rule question not often covered. Would the Jews have defended Masada to the last man if the Romans had had a good reputation for looking after prisoners? Or even taking them? Did the Russians fight so hard and bloodily aginst the French because they doubted their fate as prisoners?

Being a POW was not always the result. You could also desert: the French were quite encouraging, especially in Spain.

Connard Sage and timurilank:
Boorish. If you weren't interested in Armand's questions, then why click on the thread??

nikola
'Your way of seeking comparison of different nations has apparently marked you as a provocateur'
Don't be silly. What is a wargame but a comparison of the armies of different nations first and foremost?

Anyway: the main point is that because officers could be paroled, their life as a prisoner was reasonable and perhaps they could afford to be more adventurous. A good case is Paget's control of Moore's British rearguard: he often risked getting cut off but because of his his forward policy nabbed General Lefebvre-Desnouettes. Presumably the French believed the British would treat them well: Junot surrendered a whole army to them.

Spain was probably one of the most dodgy countries for a Frenchman to be taken prisoner. With all their country overrun, the Spanish had to use prison hulks tied up outside their one fortress of Cadiz. They really were death traps.

Surrendering to Polish lancers would not necessarily be the acme of good sense. They didn't seem to take prisoners. Surrendering to either side in Egypt or the levant likewise would be an act of folly: Boney killed prisoners and I don't suppose his muslim opponents were a whole lot better.

Bonaparte was prepared have civilians murdered in certain countries he'd overrun like Spain, Italy (and Portugal): whether this had a knock on effect in making his soldiers more fearful of surrrendering to the understandably angry enemy. The decision to rout rather than getting cut off and captured must have been a factor sometimes. Likewise the decision not to desert. One of the reasons Messena was able to keep soldiers with his army for so long in front of Torras Vedras, despite poor rations, might have partially been because they'd been responsible for so many massacres. You don't surrender to the enemy after you've massacred the civilian population of a town like Elvas, not too far away.

In the Pyrenees, I think it was Beresford called on one French garrison to surrender. When they started delaying, he simply told them, any more delay and he'd hand them over to the Spanish! It worked.

I don't find your posts offensive Armand. I second Cacadores; carry on.

I find the discussions interesting.

Cacadores, I did not want to state that I considered Armand as a provocateur. And do not. Rather, it was my conclusion after reading Connard's post, and trying to make sense of it by looking what it was that Armand has posted before that was referred to, to explain to Armand why his questions may have led to such response. To a newcomer to our forum such as Armand it is meaningless, and he himself asks the reason for such a reaction.

And of course I agree that such comparisons are unavoidable and could be useful. However our discussions are often poisoned by nationalism, and degenerate into fights. The consequence of which is this distrust.
And just to clear myself from possible future remarks, I have nothing against nationalism and am a nationalist.

I apologise to Armand for not being clear.

This is how I work such rules for my Napolionic in Egypt and the Holy Land Rules.

link

g. Rout, Retreat and Surrender?: Once one side achieves the normal victory conditions play continues until the losing side exits all units from the field of battle or night falls, whichever comes first. The loser suffers a -1 to all combat, but add's 25% to all movement rates. The loser cannot initiate combat unless enemy forces are blocking the exit from the battlefield.

Troops exiting by their own table edge are immediately available for battle the next day.
Those leaving by a flank edge will roll 1d6 counting ½, round down and return that many days later. Those leaving by the enemy's table edge will roll 1d6 and return that many days later.

If any of the subordinate commands of the winning side reach its break point, or units that are shaken, their part in the pursuit is called off. If there are no pursuers the loser's forces are allowed to escape.

Surrender: When a unit or group of unit's have reached their break point and have no way of "Retreat, Rout or of Fleeing" there is a chance that they may attempt to surrender to the enemy.
During the Military Operations in Egypt and the Holy Land there were many cases of forces surrendering not being granted full military honors.

In some cases if a force surrenders it may be given a parole agreement. Therefore, it would agree not to fight again or for a certain amount of time.

If a city was laid siege to, it was normal for the attackers to ask for the city to surrender.
However if the city refused and the city was taken then in most case the city and its inhabitants would feel the wrath of the attacking force with a no holds barred to rape, pillage and death to the defeated defenders.

European vs European (French vs Great Britain): Surrender will be accepted with all military honors.

European (French) Surrender vs Ottoman: Ottoman will kill (massacre) European Prisoners; unless there are European (Great Britain) with the Ottomans trying to save their lives then they will be killed on a 1, 2, 3 on 1d6. Note: this took place at different times during the campaign. An example would be the French fort at Aboukir negotiated surrender with the Ottoman commander. Then the Ottoman commander had the entire French garrison massacred.

Ottoman/Native Surrender to European (French): Surrender will be accepted with all military honors. Unless it is found that the Ottoman have Surrender previously and broken there parole agreement. Then they will be executed by the Europeans (French). Note: this did happen after the Ottoman Surrendered to the French at the Siege of Jaffa. It was found that some of the Ottoman's had surrendered previously at El Arish. Since they had broken there parole, and could not be trusted to abide by it. And there were not enough provisions or French manpower to guard the large number of prisoners. It was decided to execute the garrison of Jaffa. This took approximately three days to accomplish.

European (French) Surrender to Native: Natives will kill (massacre) European Prisoners.
If the Unit or Command doses surrender, it will take a minimum one (1) guard to guard every ten (10) prisoners. Use an appropriate number of units to fulfill this.

Note: Once European (French) are aware of their fate, (if they surrender to Ottoman or Native forces) they will not surrender. They will fight to the death.
If a Unit or Command wishes to or is forced to surrender, use the procedures below to cover the surrender process.

Surrender Procedures:
With the losses to a unit or group of unit's and rolling 1d8 you roll the appropriate number to see if the unit or group of units will surrender. This will be done each turn of the game when the appropriate commander card is drawn. It will not count as an action. But if a unit or group of units do surrender, that will take place before any actions taken. If they do not surrender then the unit or group of units may continue as per normal rules.

-1 Subordinate Commander or the Commander in Chief of the unit's was killed.
-2 Defending a city or town that has had the walls breached.
+2 Defending a city or town that has not had it's the walls breached.
+1 Elite unit or group of units is checking to see if they will surrender.

No Loss Markers, 100% strength
Will not surrender.
One White LM, 25% Loses.(1-2) Surrender.
Two White LM, 50% Loses.(1-4) Surrender.
Three White Red LM, 75% Loses.(1-6) Surrender.

Well – the best was to be a French officer who surrendered to the Brits – that way you spent the rest of the war hunting foxes in Kent

As an enlisted man, dodgy all around, but I suspect that surrendering to the Austrians was probably safest, given that the French usually beat them quickly prior to 1813 so you had a quick release policy

Armand, you are attacked because of an almost always overlooked distinction between the Napoleonic Discussions board –
TMP link
which concentrates on the wargaming aspect
and Napoleonic History board –
TMP link
for more general discussions.

No, the distinction is not as clear cut as you may think.
"Naploeonic Discussion" had been taken over by bad mannered idiots.
"Napoleonic History" was set up to provide the more well mannered posters a place to opine.
The distinction worked as well as you might imagine.

You know I am right…

In other words, one Board is for riff-raff, and the other is meant for serious discussion.

Ah – correct me if I'm wrong chaps, but the Nappy History Board is described as being for academic level discussion. If Armand (and most of us, thankfully) aren't interested in taking the Prisoner issue up to ivory tower level, then it must be put in the Discussion board here. Doh!

As 11th ACR proves so elegantly.

Thank you Cacadores.

That is the STATED policy.
I am merely providing historical context, based on past TMP threads.

The whole distinction is nonsense. Why is Napoleonics the only topic that has a separate board for academic level discussion? Well? Doesn't Ancients deserve the same consideration? WW2? 18th Century? American Civil war? Well?
It is laughable to think that only Napoleonics rates this distinction.

No. We all know that a select group of argumentative buffoons tended to monopolize the … first board. In a misguided and ultimately futile decision, Bill sought to let the buffoons stay in their familiat playground, and let elevated academic discussion migrate to the "serious" board. It did not work.

No, I will not name names, and name the buffoons. That would be considered a TMP DH-able offense.
You know who they are. They SHOULD know, but they are too dense to recognize an accurate description.

Armand, interesting question (to which I have no answer IÄm afraid!)

Don't be deterred by rudeness – you only have to look at the stats (63 and 60 versus your measly 4) to see who people are REALLY tired of on this forum!

As an academic, I take offense at labeling the sort of "debate" that created the Napoleonic History board academic!

Elementary – as in Elementary School Playground – yes, but academic … not so much. You would be surprised how calm and open-minded we are as a species apparently set apart from the normal run of humankind. ;)

As for Armand's questions, they are worded in a perfectly neutral tone for the most part, even if one might suspect the subjects are chosen to stir the pot rather than set it to a nice simmer.

Armand,

I personally do indeed have some doubts about your veracity and intentions, but I would encourage you not to go. If nothing else you are providing an interesting breath of life. Regardless of your motivations I strongly defend your right to post freely here. Unlike some I don't at all, never have, never will. For my money it's akin to putting your fingers in your ears and humming.

At least you aren't overbearingly pompous, which can only be a good thing.

Dear Sirs, many thanks to all for your words, explanations, support and kindly manners.

I cannot now, but I promise that in a couple of hours I'm going to wrote here again explaning more why about my question and a comment to all who take their value time to answer me.

Aphologies to not write more right now.

Amicalement
Armand

First of all I had to thank for your answers to Mrs Joinspaintservice, Timurilank, Basileus 66, The black Tower, Sergeis, Anleiher, Frederick, Lord Hill and CA Tenwolde.
Speciall tanks to Caçadores and Mr. 11thACR which comments complete all my doubts.
To Mr. Angel Barracks (How! what a page you had!)and Nikola many thanks to point to me the best place were I can post my questions, but as Mr. John the ofm said, Napoleon Series and the Nap History forum is not to my level of knowledge and nobody want to show there as an idiot. I think that these place is more to "common" people because the answers I read are more or less the same I can do.

To Mr. Old Bear, I take note that you are a "fighter" here, but I agree many times with your post (and position), I never had plans to be a problem or a searcher of difficulties. Many thanks to vote for encourage my not to leave. Please a little of faith to new people.

Now I had to explain that my question about prisioners was because I'm playing a Campaing myself since 20 years ago.
It is a "ficctional history" were Nap has won the 1814 campaign and peace rules Europe, so the new struggle began in Africa (Colonies)because of the gold, animals, silver, etc.
In my fictional history there are two Armies, The Asociated (French-Spanish-Italians-Belgeans-Natives as Zúlu-Matabeles) and the Allied (Prussian-British-Austrian-Otomans-Portugueses-Holland-other Natives as Xhosas, Pombos, etc).
I only made a big battle once a year so I had made 20 up today. There are plenty of "personages" on both Armies including some ladies. Each battle is a new chapter and the tittle is "The Serengetti War". I'm writting a book of this.

I had wrote my own rules (during the years of wargaming) and in the chapter of prisioners I had to take note those nations which hated each others as Otomans vs. Spanish.
They never took prisioners in my fictional history.
I had to decided what to do when a camp-hospital fall in hands of the enemy, what would happen if a batallon surrender in the middle of a battle, what about a cavalry persecution of artillery or infantry and they decided to surrender (did the cavalry agree or killed them all?), etc.
And as a history professor and fan of Nap Era I also want to know what happened with prisioners as I asked (for Example the Austrians).

I also had to thank to all those people who can send to me a mail supporting my permanence in this forum . I had answer to all of them but I know that here as in mostly of the forums the 80% of the people are only readers and very few decided to participate PRECESELY because of situations as I had to suffer here.

To Mr. Conrad SAge and John Leahy I accepted your words, but really boys, what are your so big and important contribution on this forum?. I had repass the last 32 theads one by one and there are not so great contributions from your part. So,why atack me in that way?.
PLease, I call you both to reconsider your actitude.

The best thing on this kind of places is be in touch with people all over the world. That's the bless of Internet.
Here you can lern how or what are doing people so far of your country!. Imagine if one guy of Namibia or Papeteee decided to write here. Are they not interesting?.

well, dear forum brothers, thanks again and we continue with the adventure.

Amicalement
Armand

Bless

Ditto on the bless

If you're a high up officer, you're pretty much OK surrendering to anyone, except as a French officer surrendering to the Spanish guerillas. If I had to surrender I'd surrender to the Brits. From the 1700's onwards I think the Brits have been the best to surrender to. Except in WWII where it was best to surrender to the Yanks, then you could go farming in Nebraska and get good country food.

Surrendering not a very good option for any side. Surrendering to Brits chances will wind up in prison hulk and die in three months. French surrendering to the Spanish not an option better kill yourself first.

I forget to said about surrender that I had read some books about soldiers which surrender to Napolitanian troops and obtein their liberty with not a big tip.

Tips was very usuall in the Italian Penninsula.
And many of the Italians guys didn't want to work as gaolers. they prefer the tip.

And I'm speaking about soldiers, imagin if you was an officer!.

Amicalement
Armand

French offices would be alright with the Brits, you'd end up in some small country town. Rank and file… odds are you'd end up in a prison hulk or some freezing northern camp, with nowt to do but whittle and freeze.

A rather unpleasant tale of how the British treated some of its prisoners.
link

I've visited Caberra. Its pretty grim now, must have been a lot worse 200 years ago.

From my point of view, Armand has been asking some interesting and thought provoking questions. I would much rather read his posts and the discussions they provoke than those of many who seem to think that:

1. The boards are a form of free advertising and waste no opportunity to use them as such.

2. Every thread needs a 1000 word demonstration of how their rules handle everything better than those of anyone else (that was not aimed at 11th ACR).

3. They and their opinions are far more important than those of anyone else.

As most people have commented, officers were probably ok as long as they surrendered to a "reasonable" enemy (ie not Spanish or any types of partisans or guerillas); in general, the British do seem to have treated officer prisoners rather well while the French were not always quite so pleasant.

For the rank and file, I suspect that life as a prisoner was uniformly rather grim. Again, the British (in general) seem to have been among the better captors, although they were not without their faults.

A fascinating subject and one that I know very little about.

"3. They and their opinions are far more important than those of anyone else."

This is the 21st century…its ALL about ME!!!

christot, indeed. A very sad reflection on society.

No, it really is all about me..isn't it?

Armand I have been at TMP since 1999. I followed your posts at the HAT forum and found many of them to be an attempt to stir things up. I also found your wholesale creation of various books to support your points to be in very poor form. You lost your credibility with me and many others at that point at the HAT forum. Maybe you have corrected your behavior. I would hope so. Discussion here is allowed to anyone. You have every right to post as you please. Others have every right to do the same as long as they don't make personal attacks.

John

How long have you been a prisoner then, Christot?

Edwulf
''Rank and file… odds are you'd end up in a prison hulk or some freezing northern camp, with nowt to do but whittle and freeze.''

Or Dartmoor prison: especially made for the French! Still in use (though they do accept other nationalities now). The chattering classes were complaining about conditions on the hulks – they had bloody do-gooders even then. An inspired location though – the unusual ionic atmosphere of semi-sea-enclosed Deeeevon puts most visitors into deep coma within a few hours. Escaped prisoners were often found slumbering just outside the gates.

We are all prisoners of our opinions….;o)

There is plenty of information on memoires, i would recommed to read as many as possible, treatment of POWs could be kind, Prussians being POWs in France receiving pay, the same for French being POWs in Russian in 1812 getting kopecks, to the most cruel killing of POWs as well, as pointed out above, Bavarians crucified on gate barns in 1809, Tyroleans hanged on bridges, fires burned on bellies of French officers in Spain, Russian POWs shot in Russia on the way to the rear because they could not keep up the speed, and so on, you will all find this in memoires educate yourself – form your own opinion read memoires.

wise words…not much different in any war..good and bad to be found on all sides

Mr. John Leary, thanks for your comments.

Please allow me to said that it is not my intention to "stir" nothing. I only want to know another opinions about history . Nap Era specially. I never began or continue any fight against nobody in Hat or another forum. I know that I'm not english speaking but that did not made me feel bad.

Sorry if I had boder you in any instance. As you said this is a free forum and if I can "correct my behaviour" be sure I do.

Fortunally many people show friendship to me and I hope you would be one of them in the near future.

Amicalement
Armand

If nothing else, Armand, you are sure to keep the Dawghouse full of customers. ;)

christot 05 Nov 2009 1:09 p.m. PST

''wise words…not much different in any war..good and bad to be found on all sides''

Good and bad to be found on all sides; true. Though on some sides, the bad are encouraged, and on others they're restrained.