"Wellington and the British Army: a question of morale" Topic

@ Lord Hill

I've always thought that the same streak of national character which we Brits like to (rightly) recoil from with repugnance – gangs of yobbish football holligans smashing everything in sight, drunk, not very bright, and absolutely in love with the idea of fighting – is also what has seen the British army through it's greatest moments of "glory".

Barbero makes the same point and explicitly compares the British soldier of 1815 with the British football hooligan of today. Both, he observes, are "magnificent combatants".

@ Defiant:

Basically, Wellington had to hold the beast by the horns front on while Blucher attacked from the flank. It was a trap and it worked.

I think Wellington was also, in 1815, the canonical "lucky general".

- Saxe-Weimar had the nous to hold onto Quatre Bras.
- At QB he was up against Ney, who reasonably but wrongly assumed there were more Allied troops than just those he could see.
- It rained overnight. This could have simply delayed Prussian reinforcement, but luckily it also delayed the battle.
- At Waterloo he overmanned his right, undermanned his left, and very nearly fell to d'Erlon's attack, but got away with it because the heavy cavalry rescued him.
- Losing most of his heavy cavalry didn't matter, because the French helpfully threw their own away, too.
- As a result, he actually outnumbered the remainder of the French army, and many of his men gained at least some advantage from being in cover or in buildings, offsetting the French artillery superiority.

Napoleon's assessment of the chances – 60:40 in our favour – was both accurate, and a bad set of odds at which to fight. Unluckily for Napoleon, Wellington threw sixes all day.

Napoleon's assessment of the chances – 60:40 in our favour – was both accurate, and a bad set of odds at which to fight. Unluckily for Napoleon, Wellington threw sixes all day.

It is amazing that it was always Wellington who threw sixes all day. Perhaps he used loaded dice?

Regards

The lucky general?

Saxe-Weimar had the nous to hold onto Quatre Bras.

Frankly, the importance of Quatre Bras is overrated. If Saxe-Weimar had simply retreated, would the course of the campaign have been substantially different? If he had been destroyed, Wellington would probably have just took moreof a risk at Hal than he actually did and so end up with the same numbers at Waterloo.

At QB he was up against Ney, who reasonably but wrongly assumed there were more Allied troops than just those he could see.

Maybe. But any good commander should have been so prudent. After all, if the allies had been where, say PH, reckons they should have been, he would have invited a Kulm-type disaster on himself. Seriously, what else was he going to do?

It rained overnight. This could have simply delayed Prussian reinforcement, but luckily it also delayed the battle.

So the effect was roughly equal on both sides. In fact, it probably saved the French from suffering an even worse calamity (more hours of daylight left for pursuit).

At Waterloo he overmanned his right, undermanned his left, and very nearly fell to d'Erlon's attack, but got away with it because the heavy cavalry rescued him.

Very arguable, the French had the power to attack where they wanted. In fact, this had the effect of inviting the French to chuck in a hammer blow too early. Using up the heavy cavalry in this way seems an advantageous trade for the Allies perhaps?

Losing most of his heavy cavalry didn't matter, because the French helpfully threw their own away, too.

Well, the French thought it would work – shades of Eylau, perhaps. Of course, the French Heavy Cavalry was a far larger proportion of the French strength and was unforced by the British, so was a genuine French misjudgement.

As a result, he actually outnumbered the remainder of the French army, and many of his men gained at least some advantage from being in cover or in buildings, offsetting the French artillery superiority.

Good generalship rather than good luck perhaps? It was the French who accepted the battle and the French who had to win quickly and in some style and completely failed to do so.

Regards

"I've always thought that the same streak of national character which we Brits like to (rightly) recoil from with repugnance – gangs of yobbish football holligans smashing everything in sight, drunk, not very bright, and absolutely in love with the idea of fighting – is also what has seen the British army through it's greatest moments of "glory". Barbero makes the same point and explicitly compares the British soldier of 1815 with the British football hooligan of today. Both, he observes, are "magnificent combatants".

This is one of the topics on the British army of the Napoleonic Wars that most mistifies me.

I can understand that nationalist pride played a part in how the British soldiers fought, if most of the soldiers were from English or even Welsh stock. However a huge part of the rank and file came from Ireland and Scotland. Although Scottish could feel some loyalty to the British Crown, common wisdom says that Irishmen didn't. But they fought as hard as any Englishmen, Welshmen or Scottish for an army that, in theory, represented the state that was occupying their land.

It occurs to me some possible explanations:

1/Small unit comradeship accounted more for how soldiers fought, than any nation loyalties. As the British soldiers were mostly volunteers, they were used to fight together (and forged bounds of friendship) for long periods of time. In the case of Wellington's veterans it was more accused. As Wellington tried hard not to waste his soldiers lifes in senseless pursuits, long term relationships between the soldiers were more common than in other armies of the era.

2/ The confidence in their CiC and in their invencibility. Wellington leaded them to victory after victory. They thought of themselves unbeatable. Probably, this was compounded by a believe in the inferiority of their enemies (I am not sure of this statement, though; British officers apparently thought high of their French opponents abilities, but I don't know if that opinion was extended between the rank and file).

3/ The Irish anti-Englishness at the time has been exaggerated by historiography. If Irish peasants' behaviours were anything like Spanish's, the hostility would have been directed against individual landlords, rather than against the State. As most soldiers of Irish extraction came from peasant stock, once they were away from the target of their hate -i.e. the Anglo-irish landlords-, they hadn't too much troubles to stay loyal to their regiments and, therefore, to the State it represented. As in the previous point, I don't know enough about the Irish-English relationships at the times to be sure this is an accurate statement, so forgive me in advance if I've said something utterly stupid!

Any insights are welcome!

Best regards

Irish-Americans and assorted terrorist dross tend to ramp thios up to justify what they have done. In truth, Ireland was "so great" that most of its inhabitants wanted to leave and work in some way for the Crown/British. One of my ancestors went digging canals in the North-West of England, while another took the boat from Dublin (probably from the Poor House) to South Africa to work as a servant to British settler families.

There is much invention in Republican propaganda and some years back (before the EU poured money in) several leading Irish rather sarcastically suggested approaching HMQ and saying they were sorry about the last 80 years and could they come back under the Crown.

Anglo Irish relations have been greatly tarnished by the events of the 1920s and 1960s.

I think prior to that there was little difference between English/Irish working men. And once serving with each other in the army there seems to have been little friction.

Wasnt Private Harris of the 95th recruiting in Ireland, and his rowdy Irish recruits were more antagonistic to each other than they were the English/Scottish.

I know from the regimental history that 200 English men from the Derbyshire militia joined the 88th after a punch up with them left them impressed with their fighting.

Some revealing wisdom about Irish attitudes here. My best mate,and a staunch comrade through life, in the Royal Navy was a lad from the 'Nationalist'/Catholic side of West Belfast. He joined the Navy because he didn't fancy a life cooped up in prison (which as any navy lifer will agree, is a little ironic…)

At school he was spoon fed all the history of 'Bruddish Opression' etc but took the view that once he had nailed his colours to the mast, as it were, then it should be all or nothing, and he went all the way from Radio Operator Third Class to Lieutenant Commander (One higher than me the SOB!)

The point of this tale is that this attitude was probably shared by the Irishmen that made up the bulk of Wellington's army – Personal honour means giving it all you've got once you are committed, even if its not your cause originally. Loyalty to the Regiment and one's messmates becomes the focus instead of loyalty to country…

before we drift into another Anglo/Irish debate could I just answer Basilius?

The point is Basilius, and you are SO lucky to not understand this, is that the British LOVE fighting, in a way that most other nations (not including Australia, Ireland etc) do not.
I lived in Spain for 5 years. At Carnival in my town everyone got drunk and danced in the street for several days. 200,000 people. I never saw any aggression, I never even saw a police officer!

An event of 100th of the size in the UK would require hundreds of mounted police, riot vans etc etc and all the bars would have to be closed by a certain time to avoid total devastation.

Sergeant Wheeler of the 51st (at Waterloo) was later stationed in the Greek Islands where he observed similar Easter celebrations (several days of celebrations in the street). His accounts then (200 years ago) mirror mine in sentiment exactly – he remarks that such an event back home would have degenerated into a massive drunken brawl within the first evening.

So don't confuse the British soldier fighting FOR anything. He just likes fighting. And take his uniform off and he still likes fighting.

Awful really.

So don't confuse the British soldier fighting FOR anything. He just likes fighting. And take his uniform off and he still likes fighting.

What utter rot! This cod psychology should be challenged. Comparing a street yob with a trained soldier is to utterly fail to understand the training, exercise, and unit cohesion that chracterise British Infantry tactics, then and now.

And, although I daresay they have thick skins, its borderline offensive to those who are serving. They may join up for a variety of reasons, and none will vouch 'Queen and Country', but most certainly don't join up so they can get into a street brawl and get paid for it…

Fair point by Sparker, it's usually (though not always) the locals who pick fights with soldiers in garrison towns, not the other way round, if only because the disciplinary consequences are so one-sided.

<<3/ The Irish anti-Englishness at the time has been exaggerated by historiography. If Irish peasants' behaviours were anything like Spanish's, the hostility would have been directed against individual landlords, rather than against the State. >>

Indeed – Pakenham's "Year of Liberty" mentions some of the 1798 rebels being upset at being accused of treason, and stating that their fight was against tyrranical landlords, and not the King. However, one should not assume all the landlords were "Anglo-Irish" – the Gardner Act of 1778 repealed all the worst provisions of the Penal Laws and by 1800 about 1/4 of all landlords were middle-class Catholics (and that's before you deal with all the methods by which the "old" landowners had circumvented the Penal Laws, by blind trusts, shared ownership, judicious marriages etc). During the latter half of the AWI, several regiments were raised in Ireland, with extensive support from wealthy Catholics eager to prove their loyalty in return for the changes in the law. From 1793, when Catholics were allowed to hold commissions in the Army (a provision designed, inter alia, to accommodate the mass departure of the French army's Irish Brigade to British service), the Army became a means of social advancement that remained impossible until 1828 in terms of the law, medecine, or politics.

As regards your first point, whilst "the regiment" had not yet achieved the iconic status it did in Victorian/Edwardian times, it was very much a "home from home" for often rootless young men. One should not underestimate the comradeship that would evolve in such circumstances – nor the care that most officers took of their men (despite the mythology – and the Sharpe novels). To a great extent, this reflected the creation of local allegiance, through the distribution of county titles in 1782; however, one should not ignore previous traditions and the same "who wants some?" mentality could be seen at Blenheim, Fontenoy, Minden, Bunker Hill, Princeton and Guilford Courthouse, and numerous smaller actions across three continents and 100 years before you even reach the Napoleonic period.

Duffy's "Warfare in the Age of Reason" is actually a good primer in terms of looking at the pros and cons of national characteristics in military forces of the Ancien Regime (which, of course, the British army still was during the Napoleonic period).

For many of the English, the ideal night out features a lot of heavy drinking, concluding with either a fight or a sh@g, i.e. some sort of scuffle.

It's not hard to see why army life would have appealed.

If Saxe-Weimar had simply retreated, would the course of the campaign have been substantially different?

D'Erlon would successfully march to Ligny.

For many of the English, the ideal night out features a lot of heavy drinking, concluding with either a fight or a sh@g, i.e. some sort of scuffle.

Not much different to down here except it does not have to be in any particular order

D'Erlon would successfully march to Ligny.

Maybe. Or maybe not. Presumably Ney would still have encountered the Allied Army at some point and be attacked by them and still have felt the need to call on D'Erlon for reinforcement.

Or perhaps the battle never happens at all. The Prussians maybe lose a few more at Ligny – but the Allies are a bit stronger at Waterloo.

Still, it was a fine bit of fighting by Saxe-Weimar and his troops. It allowed the French to make their mistakes, if you will.

Regards

Did anyone comment on Wellington's experiences in India?

IMO Wellington received his training at the school of hard knocks in the sub-continent. Reverse slope tactics, preservation of force in the face of an opponent with substantially larger numbers, and importance of; and implementation of the logistical tail.

By the time Wellington hit Europe he possessed more experience -- running an army -- than any other general save Napoleon himself.

By the time Wellington hit Europe he possessed more experience -- running an army -- than any other general save Napoleon himself.

-This is getting too much really…. What dream you are living?

Thanks Sparker. That's just the kind of politeness I was talking about.

I don't think I'll bother with this forum anymore.

Bye all!

Shane's assessment of Wellington in 1815 is, IMHO, pretty accurate, and it does indeed appear from what transpired that in modern parlance Napoleon did get 'played'. Good to see you safe and well BTW, mate. I would have said so earlier but of course was in the Cooler.

I think it naive to believe that Wellington had some sort of freedom to operate without an eye on the political situation or any of the other necessary sidelines that accompany war. After all, do any of us believe that he expected to go up like a puff of smoke the day after napoleon was defeated. i would suggest he already had an eye on political advancement long before 1815.

As for 'Alexey'…well, you're just a little sus there, comrade.

I don't know what "sus" means but apparently this English speaking forum is full of Anglo-centrism (what a surprise!) with ridiculous comments like: "we are unfair to Wellington" and "Wellington was the most experienced commander in Europe after Napoleon" "British soldiers were the most blah-blah-blah" etc…

It would be interesting to see how these "ubber soldiers" and "genius Wellington" would perform somewhere on the field of Eylau, Wagram, Borodino or Leipzig. When there is no place to hide from hundreds of guns and embarking on the ships (as they did many time in Europe during Nwars) was not an option. When retreating behind that water ditch called LaMansh is not possible and British army under Wellington have to endure weeks of forced marches and to maneuver against Napoleon and his Grande armee and defend the vital strategic points in open battle not only whenever it suites you but whenever the geopolitical and geographical situation does not leave the choice . History tells us that that being 18th century army, Wellington and his army hardly would be able to make to the battlefield on the first place.

Wellington in Peninsular and soldiers under his command were fighting in the different league to Grande Armee, Prussian, Russian and Austrian army. Apparently, Wellington and British government new their place in this game and not surprisingly when in 1813 Alexander I asked them to join on the main theatre – the answer was: NO thank you, we really like Spain.

No wonder considering all the greenhouse conditions Wellington enjoyed Spain. Even with smashing superiority on all aspects he could not do much. Someone of Napoleon's, Suvorov's or even Blucher caliber would exploit into decisive victory far sooner than NEVER- exactly what it took to Wellington.

The advantages he enjoyed over French were not created by his genius like many people here suggest but rather by Napoleon's own mistakes and by geopolitical events going back to 200 years since the destruction of Spanish armada by British Navy and by geographical location of Britain being an island.

Napoleon, being badly outnumbered and with no supplies by British army standards and without any support from "guerillas" smashed Austrians in Italy in 1796-97, Suvorov did the same to the French the following year in just 6 month causing around 120,000+ casualties to the French and being outnumbered in every single major battle (apart from Novi), Naploen's Ulm Camping of 1805 is a role model and yet someone tries to compare Wellington to Napoleon ? , especially considering how pathetic Wellington was in 1815 with Blucher saving his but?

Considering that Wellington's myth making has been going on for the last 200 years it is naοve to assume that someone will change his mind and admit it based on some posting on a forum even it will provide the most detailed evidence. Was funny to see how a few people jumped up with comments "no, French troops in Spain were not second tier" etc completely ignoring the apparent evidence found in range of sources. PH tried to challenge this marketing monopoly presenting the most reliable evidence and yet he is considered to be something like "anti-Christ".

I am afraid some bad news for Wellington fans are coming soon. As globalization continues we are likely to see more and more national myths breaking and more analysis of Wellington "achievements" in the context of the situations he was operating under – I have seen some of it in bits and pieces from different authors but no-one really tried to put it in one solid argument like it was done by PH or Leiven in "Russian against Napoleon".

Alexey,

As much as I understand and to an extent, agree with your summation I don't think anyone is calling Wellington a genius unless they live under the Union Jack, which is their right. You need heroes in history in your own country, it builds national character and courage for descendants to strive to repeat or surpass. I think you understand my meaning.

Yes, commanders did take advantage of an enemy's mistakes, this goes without saying. However, for the British their army was secondary to their navy, the army was seen as a group of undesirable individuals that had not better place in society. It was the navy that was seen as glamorous because it meant adventure and exploration etc in those days.

Wellington turned public opinion of the army into a positive because of his achievements and thus gained for him and the army a place in history for Great Britain that rivaled the navy. You say that Wellington and the British could not fight on the great battlefields of Central Europe? what an arrogant thing to say. Wellington's army in 1813-14 grew to over 100,000 strong rivaling any army of central Europe, whether it be Russian, Prussian or Austrian. I think your bias is showing your inadequacies in appraisal of the situation right there.

In 1815 Napoleon had a plan and carried it out because it was the best plan to counter the predicament he was in i.e. outnumbered. Blucher just wanted to fight and made massive blunders of his own. Wellington was a capable character, he understood Napoleon's style of combat even if caught off balance early on. When you are unsure of your enemy's direction of attack you are apt to leave your own decision making until the last possible second to enable you to gather as much intelligence as you can before committing to your own plan of action. This is exactly what Wellington did and is now what he was condemned for.

Some historians see that as a mistake or some fault on his behalf, I do not. He was blamed for inaction and seemingly paralysed but that was not the case as far as I am concerned. I strongly feel he was holding back as long as he could to gather evidence of his enemy's actions before committing to his own. That to me is a very brave strategy and worthy of a man who had the courage not to panic in the face of rapidly changing circumstances. Unlike PH who sees fault in everything Wellington did I see it as one of his greatest positive traits. He exhibited very similar behaviours in Spain.

The only reason the British did not want to enter the conflict in central Europe is because they would have to play a subordinate role to the other powers in this region. In Spain, Britain could play a commanding role which is what Wellington preferred. He was his own boss down there. The British government were acting here and chose to only commit to Spain because they knew it would give them parity of status.

I also doubt Wellington would have enjoyed fighting alongside his European allies and their strategies and tactics that had proved so poor in the past. To the British, if the Allied armies were defeated this would have compromised their army and I don't blame them for not getting heavily involved.

As for PH, you cannot take this guy seriously after his antics here on TMP. His childlike poor attitude lessens the value of his work and to be honest I have no inclination to go out and purchase his thoughts, and that is all they are. He is trying to convict a man in history with VERY circumstantial evidence of no real validity at all so that he can make a name for himself. If anything, PH is going to do nothing but stain his own reputation as a man who cannot be trusted with history because of his own personal shortcomings here is only too willing to exhibit in public.

Alexey….. you seem quite annoyed… To me it's quite simple, Wellington will never get the recognition he should because there is a strange wargamer love affair with Bonaparte, probably becasue their uniforms are nicer to paint :o)

People have picked on the odd small tactical mishap by Wellington that never proved anywhere near fatal as perhaps a pointer to some kind of infallibility… they mention it because that's all they have to call upon as a minus to his brilliant generalship. He chased a huge French army out of Spain Generaled by some of Frances best.

As a couple of examples…. Did Wellington lose an army of quarter of a million men in Russia? Was his army crushed and routed at Leipzig… yet a certain revered little Corsican chap did and despite these monumental defeats he is lauded as the top man. How does he dodge the bullet?

One thing I always mention to wargamer Francophiles or those that try to berate Sir Arthur Wellesley…..

in all of Wellington's battles, the French never once manage to break through a British line and Bonaparte ended his days in a British jail.

Testament to the old saying that the only battle worth winning is the last, the fact is that Wellington won all the ones before as well.

Alexey, You seem to allocate much weight to the Central European battlefields – fine. But ask yourself how well the Prussian, Russian and Austrian armies would have fared without British gold, muskets and uniforms…

How is this relevant – well Wellington at times was less well funded than these armies were – because the British government was sending all the British gold to the Central European allies! So by all means magnify some of his tactical errors into saying he was a poor general, but don't expect to be taken seriously if you criticise him as an army 'manager'…

In fact, if you start quoting PH you won't be taken seriously anyway…

Lord Hill;

Thanks Sparker. That's just the kind of politeness I was talking about.

I'm sorry M'Lud – I was rude, and I apologise. Whilst I stick to my original point, I could have phrased it slighly less offensively. Its a subject I feel strongly about, having been an army brat, but thats no excuse and I would hate to think I was responsible for this forum losing your valuable comments…

Kind Regards,

Sparker

Defiant, Warwick Castle

British army from Napoleonic wars is not something to be ashamed of but what we see in this thread is much more than that – if I had no Napoleonics background whatsoever I would be leaving this forum under impression that Wellington was the best commander of the era and British soldiers were the best.

This thread is not an exception but rather a set pattern which is followed by many English speaking forums, video games (e.g. Total war), movies (Waterloo, Sharpe) and popular books and journals (I already named a few on this thread).

What I believe is that Napoleonic enthusiasts and above average history student should learn how to separate national myths from facts and analyze facts in a context –( eg "French were defeated in Spain because….") rather than in a vacuum (eg- "British always defeated French").

In depth analysis is what makes the difference between a casual wargamer and a person with a genuine interest in unbiased history. By the nature of this forum I would expect most people here ro be from the second group but nevertheless this thread is a life evidence that it might not be the case.

Don't get me wrong -its not about British – but about mixinign national bias with history in general. I don't have any problem to say that it was Britain that created this unique advantage over French through its excellent Navy, undisputed sea superiority, economic power through colonization, and indistrial revolution. But all these had nothing to do with Wellington.

I understand that making him a national hero making a perfect sense on a national identity level but heavy boasting we see here and trying to expand this myth beyond UK borders seems laughable to me on a more serious history forums.

_______________________________________
"You say that Wellington and the British could not fight on the great battlefields of Central Europe? what an arrogant thing to say. Wellington's army in 1813-14 grew to over 100,000 strong rivaling any army of central Europe, whether it be Russian, Prussian or Austrian. I think your bias is showing your inadequacies in appraisal of the situation right there. "
__________________________

- You got me completely wrong here. My point has nothing to do with quantity but with quality. Ablity to marsh was the most important trait – British army was the worst in this sence.

"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

IF they had to face similar conditions as Russain, Prussains and Austrinas in central europe , they would be badly outmanuevered and forced to give battles against odds in a very unfavourable conditions.

To create this situation the French needed NAPOLEON, terrain suitable for manuever, at least SOME supplies or ability to leave off the land, at least basic intellegence and comparable amount of cavarly and artillery – all this was NOT the case in Spain, but most of it was present when French was figthing in Central / Eastern Europe.

I say Wellington and his soldiers have never experienced real Napoleonic warfare – that is fighting the war of maneuverers against Grande army under Napoleon– which was a distinctive feature of Napoleonic military genius – this is a strategic level. Even on the tactical level despite all the advantages Wellington had at Waterloo, outnumbering the French by 12-15K and despite all the Ney's mistakes French were still pushing for the late victory. Put this to armies one against each other like Russians and Austrians had to fight at Eylau, Borodino and Wagram – things would go really bad for Wellington and his army. This is just to demonstrate the point of double standards used when evaluating Wellington and British army.

______________________________________________
"European allies and their strategies and tactics that had proved so poor in the past."
______________________________

This is exactly what I mean by Anglo-Centric and not putting things into context with no attempt to go beyond the obvious surface facts.

You forget to mention that Russians, Prussians and Austrians were fighting Napoleon with his best army that was ever created in history – with the man in charge the man after which the whole era was named – they were not figtrinhn in Spain enjoying all the advantages listed on page one of this thread.

I already stressed it here many times and I repeat again – This is not apple to apple comparison.

PS. As for PH – I do not care what person he is – lazy, childlike attitude or pregnant– I care for his research and in my mind his books has something to say.

One of the guys from US mentioned something along these lines here and I cant agree more:
"Arguing with British about Waterloo and Wellington is like telling a kid that Santa Claus does not exist."

Sparker,
___________________________________
Alexey, You seem to allocate much weight to the Central European battlefields – fine. But ask yourself how well the Prussian, Russian and Austrian armies would have fared without British gold, muskets and uniforms…
__________________________

Firstly, they would perform worse but I think eventually they would prevail. Secondly, this is an odd argument as it was Britain who was the main driver for war. Without Britain it is questionable that there would by Napoleonic wars in the first place, certainly not in the way we know it. Finally, how does your point supports the argument of "ubber British soldiers" and "the best general of Napoleonic wars Wellington" – it is totally irrelevant.

___________________________________
How is this relevant – well Wellington at times was less well funded than these armies were – because the British government was sending all the British gold to the Central European allies!
_____________________________________

Do you care to provide the figures for British government which "was sending all the British gold to the central European allied" and figures for military spending in Spain and its subsidies to allies? If you don't I in fact do have these figures and I am afraid you are not going to like them.

_____________________________________________
So by all means magnify some of his tactical errors into saying he was a poor general, but don't expect to be taken seriously if you criticise him as an army 'manager'…
________________________________________

- Not saying he was poor. Saying that his exploits have to be valued in a context of Napoleonic wars, not in a context of British national mythology.

I believe Napoleon lost the battle at the outset by putting the right men in the wrong positions. Ney wasn't the best choice.

As regards to Wellington, I believe Churchill's quote concerning Admiral Jellicoe almost a hundred years later can aptly be applied to Wellington in Spain or Belguim.

During WWI Churchill described Admiral Jellicoe as 'the only man on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon'.

Alexey, you seem to have a contextual bias against anything western? This is a common trait of some easterners who envy our way of life and what were are. But it is misplaced, our way of life and thinking is not much different to yours, it is just that we embraced democracy, freedom of speech and our way of living that enables us to look at the world differently than easterners. Not saying it is better or worse, just saying it is different.

I can tell just by your few posts that you have a very identifiable dislike for the west which is common amongst easterners. If you are indeed from the east? you will understand what I am talking about. But coming on here, an English speaking forum, to vent your disdain for us and our histories and try to convince us we are somehow all wrong and that we are blinded by our own bias is to deny your own bias…

Wellington was a great "Western" commander, just as Napoleon was, or Blucher or Arch Duke Charles etc. This is no different than Russian commanders such as Bargration, Barclay, Kutozov, Suverov etc. They were all great commanders that were also human and made mistakes. They were capable of achieving great things in their careers but also shared a bond in that they fought individually for their countries. Bagging Wellington, a British national hero is not good sport, especially on an English speaking forum that you knew would gain you no friends.

You forget we all know Wellington had his limits, drawbacks, and foibles, you just don't think we know that. People today have a much greater understanding of Wellington than they did 50 years ago, or even 100 years ago, we get that, but you are going to push peoples button here if you persist. I do feel your real agenda is going to expose itself very quickly, especially after you read my post. You will become incensed and angry and respond as I suspect you will.

especially considering how pathetic Wellington was in 1815 with Blucher saving his but?

In-depth analysis you say? :-)

"no, French troops in Spain were not second tier" etc completely ignoring the apparent evidence found in range of sources

No. I say that they were the same soldiers. Identical. Literally the same people. Read the Orders of Battle. The only Corps that Wellington fought that hadn't been in the 1805-7 campaigns was Junot's in the Vimiero campaign.

What I believe is that Napoleonic enthusiasts and above average history student should learn how to separate national myths from facts and analyze facts in a context –( eg "French were defeated in Spain because….") rather than in a vacuum (eg- "British always defeated French")

Surely the correct form is the synthesis. "The British always defeated the French because…"

Even on the tactical level despite all the advantages Wellington had at Waterloo, outnumbering the French by 12-15K and despite all the Ney's mistakes French were still pushing for the late victory. Put this to armies one against each other like Russians and Austrians had to fight at Eylau, Borodino and Wagram – things would go really bad for Wellington and his army. This is just to demonstrate the point of double standards used when evaluating Wellington and British army.

. The first figures are just wrong. As for the rest, you set-up a counter-factual and then use the counter-factual as evidence of a double standard – "The British would have been defeated at Eylau if they had been there". There is literally no basis but prejudice for your assumption. Here is a more reasonable counter-factual: given their records, it is likely that any of the continental forces you name would have lost at least one of the Peninsular battles and thus, possibly, the war.

No wonder considering all the greenhouse conditions Wellington enjoyed Spain. Even with smashing superiority on all aspects he could not do much. Someone of Napoleon's, Suvorov's or even Blucher caliber would exploit into decisive victory far sooner than NEVER- exactly what it took to Wellington.

Laughable. Look at your maps again. Look at the troop numbers again. Look at the European situation again. Try some in-depth analysis and then work out exactly why the Peninsular War was fought in the way, and over the time it was.

The advantages he enjoyed over French were not created by his genius like many people here suggest but rather by Napoleon's own mistakes and by geopolitical events going back to 200 years since the destruction of Spanish armada by British Navy and by geographical location of Britain being an island.

Again, amazing – read your own words "Napoleon's own mistakes". And boy did he make some huge ones. Lost his armies. Made massive strategic mistakes. And Wellington? Oh, he was a bit too dispersed on 15 June 1815.

"One of the guys from US mentioned something along these lines here and I can't agree more:
"Arguing with British about Waterloo and Wellington is like telling a kid that Santa Claus does not exist."

And some people cannot get over the Anglo-Allied armies winning everything larger than a skirmish with the French for 15 straight years, not surrendering, not losing millions of men, not having foreign troops in their capital. Sorry. If these wars are ever re-fought then hopefully future-Wellington will do worse and some people won't have to feel as bad about it.

Regards

well said Whirlwind, he will reveal his true self very quickly now.

But Alexey, I want to thank you, you have now united people here that tend to argue including me against your bias and disdain. We needed that.

Defiant,

________________________________________
Alexey, you seem to have a contextual bias against anything western? This is a common trait of some easterners who envy our way of life and what were are. But it is misplaced, our way of life and thinking is not much different to yours, it is just that we embraced democracy, freedom of speech and our way of living that enables us to look at the world differently than easterners. Not saying it is better or worse, just saying it is different.
I can tell just by your few posts that you have a very identifiable dislike for the west which is common amongst easterners. If you are indeed from the east? you will understand what I am talking about. But coming on here, an English speaking forum, to vent your disdain for us and our histories and try to convince us we are somehow all wrong and that we are blinded by our own bias is to deny your own bias…
____________________________

What a rubbish…. Why do you discuss my personality making ridiculous assumptions on what I like and dislike knowing absolutely nothing about me and applying "one size fits all" logic along with "freedom of speech" , "easterners", "westerners" and all other common stereotypes?

I will repeat again you know nothing about me and completely wrong about all your assumptions – morevover this has nothing to do with Napoleonic history discussion. Somehow I knew it will become someithing about me and not about history.

Defiant
You are welcome – you were all united here in your fake vitual reality before I came – thats exactly why I came here – "freedom of speech" you say? well well …. but… hey I understand enjoy the party. Show must go on.

and this is for you to read once you complete your chest-thumping:
link

""Our nation may boast, beyond any other people in the world,
of a kind of epidemic bravery." Samuel Johnson -British poet

Well, the contemporaries believed that the French army could not retreat efficiently either. And even the French offensives were not always triumphs of organisation and endurance – big push into Russia decimated La Grande Armee, it lost any semblance of discipline in Moscow and was finished off by its flight to safety. I think that everyone is familiar with the total collapse of the French moral, order and discipline during this retreat.
While the French system of plundering countryside to provide food and everything else for the troops was rather effective, it sometimes backfired disastrously.

and this is for you to read once you complete your chest-thumping

I would avoid such sources like plague as info on this page is completely biased. Corunna and Bussaco are the French victories while Albuera is a stalemate and Tolouse is a draw? Well…

Some interesting points raised here. Alexey says "how would Wellington have fared in the Russian and German battlefields"

Is this a question possible to answer? Maybe he would have won even bigger victories? If you going to postulate on fantasies at least make it fair, if your going to stick him their, at least give him and army of 100, 000 plus British soldiers (impossible but if youre going to go down this route..)
At the same time how would these continental generals have faired in Spain. Maybe if Austrians and Russians had been out there the Peninsula would have been over by 1808 as the main powers seemed quite incapable of doing it on the "real" battlefields.

Likewise while I have read that the British were not the swiftest marchers (from some French sources, does that make them bias?), to say they couldnt march is a little unrealistic. Lots of Marching and Manourve in spain too, especially against Massena and Soult.
the swift approach of the third division at Salamanca taking the French by surprise. Granted the scale was smaller but the bullets just as deadly and the tactics still Napoleonic, and the two largest battles Salamanca and Vittoria being big enough to the average continental scrap.

Genius is a word banded about to freely. Wellington was not a genius by a longshot but then neither was Napoleon. I do not think any historical general has truly been able to claim the mantle genius. Wellington had his setbacks (in seiges Badajoz twice and Burgos) and Napoleon was drubbed several times and made a complete of the hundred days. Both however are worthy of being considered great, masters of the art of war. Im British, and worse in your eyes Im sure, im English, so I will always take Wellington over Napoleon. Though Id expect, and be somewhat disgusted if they didnt, most Frenchmen to fancy Bonerparte. What I wouldnt do is go onto a French language forum, denounce Napoleon as an egotistical tyrant, war mongerer, Imperialist, propaganderer who lost out to a British army comprised of 16 year old school boys from Bedford, Some Guards and both mounted and foot Highlanders. with some help of British hired foriegn mercanries blah blah blah..
Thats just bad form lad!
(And for the record thats not what I actually think, or have ever read)

If you dont like the English speaking world (because all Americans, Irish, Canadians, Australians, Kiwis are rabid anglophiles with nothing but praise and admiration for the Anglo Saxon ancestoral homeland) perhaps you should try NAPOLEONISTYKA or something like that, which is an English speaking website for Anglophobes, and it has some quite vitrolic anti english (sometimes British) sections too it.

They love the whole, Englishmen were all drunks, British soldiers couldnt fight, or shoot, or march, worst army out of the big ones.. even the Neapolitans were better than them, They were all bastards, except the Irish who were the best, and the Scots who were better than the ENglish who were just naff.. except 70% of the army was actually Irish and NO English soldiers really fought. Wellington was a bastard too, made some many mistakes ect ect ect.. youd love it. I think they burn British regimental flags on their sometimes too.

I think Shane/Defiant has hit it on the head.

I would add he (the Duke, not Defiant)is usually derireded by "continental" historians and almost always left out of lists of great generals, when lesser, less succsesfull generals make it in (maybe that is Defiant). so its natural that in his homeland, this will not only be recognised but possibly over trumped. Add to it, that the UK has produced only two generals that can possibly sit at the same table as the many great continental ones Frederick the Great, Napoleon, De Saxe, Ceaser, Pompey, Alexander et al (these being Marlborouhg and Wellington) then its a bit odd to try and claim he never really fought a proper battle
or his MANY victories are somewhat less than the European ones because the French didnt have masses of artillery)

On this pont Id also argue that maybe this shows that Napoleon was not really that talented and just releyed on massing artillery, no finesse.. OR that the French cant fight unless they have a at least 10 batteries of artillery. Or that the war in spain was much more about troop movement and generalship than in Europe which was more about the human wave and massed cannons.

I dunno, I hope you an find some happiness in this hobby my friend. I like to read about this period, from the uniforms to the tactics to the men and their wives. It makes me happy and helps me relax if it ever started to rise my bile to the level it SEEMS to in you, id probably move into fantasy gaming… not many orcs with a chip on their shoulder, or historians claimng Erkenbrand won peloner fields and it was actually a Rohirrim Victory, and the gondorians were actually…

anyway, I admire your passion for the period.

My apolgies for my poor typing, I type in more a stream of conscience style than written queens English.. makes for horrid reading.

"L'infanterie anglaise est la plus redoubtable de l'Europe; heureusement, il n'y en a pas beaucoup." (The English Infantry is the most formidable in Europe, but fortunately there is not much of it) – Marshal Bugeaud.

The case for Wellington being an exceptional commander rests on the fact that he never lost a battle or an army, and that he defeated everyone sent against him up to and including Napoleon.

One can quibble about failed siege assaults, and whatnot, but it would be quibbling. There's not a lot a commander can do to equalise the odds in a siege unless he has time to do so.

This makes Welly pretty unequalled.

If you look at the major engagements in central Europe, it seems clear that Wellington wouldn't have got himself surrounded at Ulm; suckered at Austerlitz; dispersed all over the place at Jena-Auerstadt; into any battle at all in a Polish winter; caught in flagrante crossing a river at Friedland; holding a defensive line 14 miles long at Wagram on exterior lines without first fortifying it; in need of 3 to 1 superiority to win at Leipzig; and so on, and so on.

He was able to pick and choose his battles in the Peninsula to some extent, but not whether he needed to be there at all.

Correlli Barnett said it best, for me, about Napoleon 35 years ago: the statesman kept writing cheques the general couldn't cash.

Incidentally, on the subject of whose army was the worst, this has to be a tie between the Austrians and Prussians. The Austrian success record was better than most realise but even in 1809 they hadn't cracked the art of marching more than 6 miles a day, according to Rothenberg. This made it impossible to achieve more than tactical checks on an enemy army that was known to march 70 miles in 2 days.

The Prussians have, if I'm not mistaken, the worst record in terms of losing battles against patsy armies.

The French span the whole spectrum from the best of the era (the army of 1805) down to the worst (that of 1813), though at no point were they as bad as the Prussians.

Alexey, you seem to have a contextual bias against anything western? This is a common trait of some easterners who envy our way of life and what were are.

It is not fair to declare that passionately negative attitude towards Wellington and his army and vitriolic criticism reflects general bias against the Western way of life. I used to know quite a few men who hated Britain but loved France or, probably, they hated Britain because the were the Frog-lovers and Napoleon's admirers.

"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier."

Well, he certainly tested that hypothesis.

Alexey

I'm not British. I'm Spanish. For many centuries, there have been not love lost between Great Britain and Spain. I can be as ed off by Anglocentrism of Peninsular War stories as anyone else. But that doesn't preclude me to recognise that without British money, soldiers and Wellington leadership, Spain would have been forced to surrender, no matter how brave my ancestors were or how many guerrillas they raised. I've been studying guerrilla warfare in Spain for 10 years, and wrote my PhD on them. I know that without the guerrillas, the Spanish and Anglo-portuguese armies would have had harder times to defeat the French; and, more importantly, the war would have been a lot cheaper for Napoleon, both in money and men -many of them irreplaceable veterans-.

To say that in Spain the French troops were second-tier soldiers is a false assumption. Just take a look to which commanders and which soldiers fought here. In Spain, the French had, at some point, 350,000 men (some claim 420,000, but I believe that figure is too high, so I stick to the more conservative number). They lost around 200-300 thousand men in Spain -illness, desertion, casualties, ecc-. Many of those men were veterans, not recently recruited conscripts. In 1813, Napoleon pulled off many NCOs and officers from his Army at Spain, to provide cadres for his army in Germany.

You say that British historians are nationalists that glory in re-telling myths about Wellington and the British Army in Spain. Well, some present dilettante historians and XIXth Century trained historians -when Nationalism was at its height in ALL countries- were biased by Nationalism; but modern histories, written by trained historians, are not precisely biased by nationalism. Sometimes you can appreciate that they trend to use sources that are more accesible for them -and if you know how much money costs to research in foreign archives, you will know that the nation-centerness have nothing to do with nationalist pride, but with availability of funds. Also, they are writing for an audience interested in the past of its own country, and therefore the narratives will be commonly centered in the experience of history of their own ancestors. However, please, tell me how many histories in Russian, German, French or Spanish don't do the same?

What you are actually angry is with the domination of English as the international language of communication. But that's hardly the fault of British. You read popular British stories (emphasis in 'popular') of the Napoleonic Wars and pretend that those narratives represent the WHOLE body of scholarship written by British historians! (which they are not, by the way). PH did the same mistake: jump to a conclussion, from a small body of evidence.

What I don't understand is how you get the idea that a commander that knew how to preserve his army, to accomplish brilliantly with the strategic interests of his country; that knew how to chose a position to optimise his chances to defeat his opponents; who learnt from his mistakes; and that had an almost spotless record of victories; how can be that commander such a lousy general as you imply Wellington was? I don't follow your rationale. However, commanders that lost entire armies, that didn't care about how many casualties costed their battles and that were blinded by hubris, you praise them to the skies? How can that be?

Best regards

@ Alexey, (or should that be Petrovich Hofschroerski?)

<<It would be interesting to see how these "ubber soldiers" and "genius Wellington" would perform somewhere on the field of Eylau, Wagram, Borodino or Leipzig. When there is no place to hide from hundreds of guns and embarking on the ships (as they did many time in Europe during Nwars) was not an option.>>

Well, I suspect the genius Wellington would not have fought in those places, prescisely because those positions would not have suited his army/tactics. And not least because exposing his army to "hundreds of guns" wasn't his style – he didn't aspire to the brilliant tactic of macho meat-grinder battles, unlike the "great" Russian commanders you cite, who thought nothing of having their men "prove their manhood" by standing still for hours under heavy bombardments. The British operated close to water precisely so that they could be properly supplied – it's called "good thinking". Again, what is special about over-stretching your supply lines and making your troops suffer un-necessarily?

<<When retreating behind that water ditch called LaMansh is not possible….>>

So now we're being criticised for an accident of nature? Of course the British used The Channel (intersting that you chose the French name for it) – it would have been stupid not to. That's like saying the Russians simply hid behind the vastness of their own country (forcing invaders to over-extend their own lines of supply/communication) and allowed the weather to do the job, eh? Perhaps the only "great" Russian commander was "General Winter".

<<…and British army under Wellington have to endure weeks of forced marches and to maneuver against Napoleon and his Grande armee and defend the vital strategic points in open battle not only whenever it suites you but whenever the geopolitical and geographical situation does not leave the choice.>>

Has it occurred to you that Wellington avoided prolonged marches whenever possible precisely BECAUSE he knew – from being a "Sepoy general" in India – how badly it affected the physical and moral state of an army. That's ANY army, not just his own – hence he made every effort to make his opponents in Spain do the marching, and the standing around, and the starving. Once again, it's called good thinking.

<<History tells us that that being 18th century army, Wellington and his army hardly would be able to make to the battlefield on the first place.>>

No it doesn't. (18the Century army? Really? Ever heard of The Light Division? Shrapnel? Rockets? Hardly evidence of backwards/conservative thinking, are they. There are plenty of occasions when British troops – like all others – performed poorly; the fact that they rarely did so when Wellington was in command suggests he was an important factor in their successes.)

I wonder why I bother with the Napoleonic boards sometimes. I think I'll head back to ancients where we discuss such usefull things as the size of an Optio's knob and how big an Achaemenid Persian's balls are! :-)

Or what's a Greek urn?

I love this thread….one of the funniest things I have read for days!

Alexey,

Have fun before your current account gets locked.

I don't think Alexey has said anything to get his account locked, Old Bear. He merely presents a rather provocative and certainly thought-proposing view, that he is perfectly entitled to.

I personally don't agree with him, but I cannot see why his account should be locked because some of us disagree with him. After all, in many ways this particular topic is all about personal opinion, as there is no standard for what makes a good or bad general, so none of us can actually be correct or incorrect. And it is a very interesting topic.

At least he does not resort to childish insults and slurs on peoples' sanity, unlike a certain well-known gatecrasher on these boards.

4th – Your assessemnt of the Austrian army is largely fallacious – the roads were useless south of the Danube and that April saw near-continuous rain, which spread dysentry through the army. N was using a good road network as he had done at Ulm. However, you do make a good point – albeit inadvertently: who was the commander with the well-trained and fed army on the single axis of attack facing an opponent, who had to cover a range of possibilities and was thuis soon on the defensive? W in Spain and N on his great campaigns are in the first category, their opponents in the second.

I don't think Alexey has said anything to get his account locked, Old Bear. He merely presents a rather provocative and certainly thought-proposing view, that he is perfectly entitled to.

Arteis,

Not so much what he says as who might be saying it…

I may end up making a fool of myself here – but I don't think Alexey is that certain well-known gatecrasher whom (I think) you believe he is, Old Bear.

While I don't actually agree with Alexey, my reading of his posts shows a genuine point of view that is being well articulated … quite unlike the usual MO of that certain well-known gatecrasher.