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

@ Jeff

Just because people have prejudices and misunderstand what the true factors behind combat potential does not mean that 'National Characteristics' has any logical basis in ethnicity and culture whatsoever.

I don't know of anyone in the modern era who thinks national characteristics do have anything to do with ethnicity. They thought that at the time, certainly. Nowadays I think we'd be more nuanced. The various combatants trained their armies in a variety of ways according to the doctrine, equipment, terrain, and previous experience they had in mind.

The outcome was French armies that typically fought in a quite different manner to the Austrian or French or Russian armies fought. I am quite comfortable calling these differences "national characteristics", because for all practical purposes, that's what they are.

I agree

I also agree. 'National characteristics' have to do with culture, and as Diane Ravitch sagely remarked, all cultures are not equal.

Different nationalities do fight and react differently in different or similar situations. Unfortunately, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the invasive and anti-intellectual pervaseiveness of 'political correctness' has again raised the subject of 'ethnicity' to the nth degree and confused it with nationality. There is a very large difference between the two. The idea that no one should be offended in historical analysis, historical inquiry, or historical writing is absolute nonsense and all it does is either water- or dumb-down what is being attempted and leaving the reader with useless material that is also inaccurate. As John Adams said, when the Declaration of Independence was being debated and edited, 'this is a Revolution-we're going to offend somebody.'

The eastern Romans classed their enemies by what they would do in certain situations. Different cultures would react differently in war and that to me is where 'national characteristics' come into play historically and realistically. Read de Brack's memoirs, and he does the same thing. That is 'knowing your enemy' and not denigrating anyone's ethnicity.

K

I find it amusing that Alexey praises Napoleon and then proceeds to catalogue a long list of his failings as a commander. Including such strategic blunders as failing to adequately support the army in Spain and being comprehensively out thought and out fought by the Russians in 1812. Allowing the Russians to channel his retreat along a devastated route and letting the Russians raid his foraging parties and harass his army at will while not being able to do the same to them in return.

I spent 3 years in the middle east fighting Islamic terrorism (pathetic how Defiant posted that I am "easterner" who "dislikes westerners") and I am absolutely convinced that wars against guerrillas, not to mention nation in arms (exactly what Spain was) cannot be won, especially by Napoleonic era technology.

I spent 3 years in the middle east fighting Islamic terrorism (pathetic how Defiant posted that I am "easterner" who "dislikes westerners") and I am absolutely convinced that wars against guerrillas, not to mention nation in arms (exactly what Spain was) cannot be won, especially by Napoleonic era technology.

I would take the opposite view. I think it was easier to defeat insurgencies in Napoleonic times as modern armies try to substitute technology for manpower. That has limitations even in conventional warfare, but is a severe disadvantage in combating an insurgency.

I think it was easier to defeat insurgencies in Napoleonic times.

Yes. Also because it was harder for guerillas to recruit supporters and crush National Will of the opponent as there were few countries with anything like free media and people were generally far less concerned about losses and sufferings.

And no human rights lawyers making it impossible for the side with a conscience to win.

As a personal opinion (an a faintly jingoistic Brit) Wellington was a genius with what he had – HIS choice of battlefield, French generals who would launch an assault on his chosen position and infantry that HE could rely on.

1. He could practically guarantee a battle with any French general by choosing merely to stay in one place. My reasoning – every battle he won added to his "invincible" myth and any French general would be both honour bound to destroy him for the good of France and also to enhance his personal Kudos for been the man that broke Wellington. He did this to Napoleon at Waterloo – he chose his ground and Napoleon came to him.

2. He knew how devastating artillery could be so his chosen battlefields (and he DID choose most of them – see point 1) normally had his troops in some form of cover, even if it was just a small dip, a road cutting or lip of a hill. This makes a lot of difference if most artillery fire is line of sight.

3. He knew (especially in Spain) that the French would launch an immediate assault and not wait him out simply because because the French supply system was basically "eat this area bare then move or starve". His supplies meant he could stay in one place for as long as he wanted.

4. He knew that his British troops, especially his infantry, wouldn't rout. Not because of pride, hubris or some mystical belief but history. British troops under a commander they respect fight hard. An example would be Neerwinden in 1693. The allied army was been crushed and forced to retreat in haste (somewhere between a rout and a retreat) and an English regiment in the rear guard captured a French standard. Hard enough if your winning but nigh impossible if your losing. Another example (though not for Wellington) would be Inkerman 1854. They didn't even have a general but they held.

I don't know if he could have fought in the "European" style moving massive columns of troops around a battlefield because his chosen strategy never required him to. Probably not since he no reason to learn to.

His strategy worked well enough – advance slowly through a country ensuring good supply lines (mainly by not giving the locals reason to go guerilla – his army was under STRICT orders to PAY for everything they wanted – during his advance through France in 1814, French civilians never quite got used find redcoats hung at crossroads for looting a country they were at war with), choose good defensive ground and then wait for the French to attack, which they would because they HAD to destroy him.

I'd like to point out that the French forces opposing him while not the elite weren't bottom of the barrel either. They were average soldiers. On top of this their generals were above average compared to most European armies simply because the French army was almost a meritocracy. You had to be fairly good to be promoted.

Instead of judging Wellington on HIS merits, judge him on his ENEMIES merits. He defeated some good generals so he must have been fairly good himself.

It's been mentioned that the British army was an 18th century army in a Napoleonic world. I would heartily agree with this but I'll start a new post. This ones too long.