"British comments of Simon Bolivar." Topic

We, South Americans had always read about the great liberator Simon Bolivar as a heroe of the Independence of great part of our Continent.
But there are another vertions about this "great man" very interesting, specially those wrote by the british officers which served under his command.
Here I extract some of those comments.

"He posseses neither gratitude, honor, liberality,symphaty nor humanity, yet he pretend that his heart and dispositions are congenial to all those sentiments and constantly act in unison"

"Personal courage he is gifted with, even to a fault and he had never show the intrepidity which he is endowed. He has neither talent no abilities for a general, and specially for a commander in chief"

"The numerous mistakes he had made thought out the whole of his campaings have desolate the provinces and annihilated the population. The repeated surpices he has experienced by the enemy shows that tactic, movements and manouvres are unknown to him as to the lowest of his troops"

"All idea of regularity,system or the common rutine of an Army, or even a Regiment he is totally unacquainted with. Hence arise all the disasters he meets, the defeats he suffers, and his constant obligation to retreat and began again".

"General Paez was the real heroe and good Commander of the Venezuelan Army. He had always problems with "El Supremo" and he had declared: "I never lost a battle wherein I acted by myself, or in a separate command, but I had always been defeated when acting in concert with you, and under your orders". He added latter that he would move off his own troops and act with no more with Bolivar in command.

"Bolivar keep alive with his troops all those pasions of inhumanity, cruelty and blood-thirstiness to the prisioners of war. All the slaugther of the prisioners after a battle, or during a retreat, is complety acquiesced in by Bolivar, who was himself condescendent to witness these scenes of buchery and infamy."

"He aspired to be and show as second Buonaparte on South America without possesing a single talent for the duties for the field or the cabinet"

"On victory he show cleary as a tyran and he gives way to sudden guts of resentment and becomes in a moment a madman. He utters curses and imprecations ùpon all arround him of the most disgusting and diabolical nature with the only exception of General Paez which he fear".

Well… it seems that those guys were not very impressive with the "Libertador" at those days.
Another part of the history by british eyes.

Amicalement
Armand

"Bolivar keep alive with his troops all those pasions of inhumanity, cruelty and blood-thirstiness to the prisioners of war. All the slaugther of the prisioners after a battle, or during a retreat, is complety acquiesced in by Bolivar, who was himself condescendent to witness these scenes of buchery and infamy."

In the Liberators, by Robert Harvey, he presents evidence it was the Spanish, in particular the Llaneros under Boves that executed the cruelties first.

The rest of what you described is also sketched in the book.

Cheers,
Robert

So, are South American biographies universally uncritical in their admiration of the man?

Dear Symbiotic, to critic Bolivar or San Martin… is treason to the fatherland in South America.

As a history professor I can asure you that our students NEVER read any critic of them in the "oficial" text books.
And we had to study history from the first grade to the last year of hight.

That way only change when we read about the intervieu of Guayaquil between those two great men.

One side support Bolivar position and the other one (ours) San Martin.

Thanks for ask and show interest in our history.
Amicalement
Armand

One can observe the acts of a 'great' man by what he leaves behind as a legacy.

It is difficult to see how either Bolivar or San Martin (although I favor San Martin) left much to be proud of in terms of governments, laws or legacy.

Dan

Interesting that the British should have said such things.
Many were vets of the Peninsula and would have been used to both French and Spanish cruelty towards prisoners.

So this must have seemed exceptional.

Bolivar had democratic ideals but in fact he wanted to create another superstate and that was bound to fail.

.

Monsieur Dan Cyr, in honor of San Martin, I had to said that he made some good work about goverment, law and legacy.

When he rules Perú, he changed the old Real laws with Mr. Monteagudo, hes argentine minister of justice and economy.
Up today, his laws are used there.

His goverment was not corrupted as was usuall on those days.
He, who had the power to rule Chile, Perú and in some way, Argentina (with his army the only one strong to support or not the goberment in Buenos Aires)had finished so poor as when he began his first campaing in San Lorenzo.

About his legacy, up today he is studied in a military and social way. His maxims are quite good and if some people here REALLY follow those, we would had best rulers on our country.

Amicalement
Armand

And to honor Bolivar, San Martin has his defects too.

One of the worst was the women…

He had married a wife so much young than himself (he 45 she 17)but he only can be with her very few moments.

He was always on campaign so he choose many "local" females to be with him when he was not fighting.

I had made a research of the number of childrens on Chile, Bolivia and Perú who was recogniced by him as sons and there were a LOT.
I remember very good that job because I had lost my work because of it and was very near to be on jail…

Bolivar was another "Latin lover" and both had a big fought for a famous and beautifull Peruvian lady who first was at the side of San Martin and when she note that Bolivar would remain in the power, she choose to change companion.

But her ending was cruel too. Bolivar was not San Martin (a gentleman with ladies).

Amicalement
Armand

Actually San Martin sounds like any other man of his time!

If he acknowledged his offspring outside wedlock then he was far better than most!

En Avant, have you ever read F. Lorraine Petre's account of Bolivar? Petre was an English officer mainly known for his accounts of some of Napoleon's campaigns written in the early 1900s. I have not yet read his account of Bolivar, but you can download it for free here:
link

Dear Mr. Twiningham, I did not.

Many thanks for your info. I had charged it on my favourites to read it in a near future.

Usually, we had here dozens of books about both "Liberators" but only in spanish or portuguese. Reading some English memories had give me another view of the history of my continent.

Thanks again.
Amicalement
Armand

Again, En Avant, I'll rest my case on what the legacy of these two has been. No form of government that survived them, no foundation for either a republic or democratic form of government, no systems of laws, etc. They basically replaced one form of oppression with another everywhere they went.

They came, they drove out the Spanish (which would have happened sooner or later regardless), they disappeared.

Not very important in the greater history of the continent.

Dan

Have you tried reading Conquer or Die! by Ben Hughes? It covers the 1817 to 1821 campaigns from the point of view of the British soldiers who fought under Bolivar.

My dear cousin,

If you have about 45 minutes to spare can I recommend the following radio programme from the BBC domestic service.

link

In it you will find Anthony McFarlane, Professor of Comparative American Studies at the University of Warwick; John Fisher, Professor of Latin American History at the University of Liverpool and Catherine Davies, Professor in the Department of Spanish, Portuguese and Latin American Studies at the University of Nottingham. They discuss the career and legacy of Simon Bolivar.

The programme was first broadcast about 2 years ago. Do enjoy.

Best wishes,

Elliott

Have a look at these memoirs of British officers on Google Books.

link

link

link

Many thanks guys and dear cousin!.

Very usefull info.

Amicalement
Armand