"Walcheren 1809: The Scandalous Destruction of a British Army" Topic

"In July 1809, with the Dutch coast 'a pistol held at the head of England', the largest British expeditionary force ever assembled, over 40,000 men and around 600 ships, weighed anchor off the Kent coast and sailed for the island of Walcheren in the Scheldt estuary. After an initial success, the expedition stalled and as the lethargic military commander, Lord Chatham, was at loggerheads with the opinionated senior naval commander, Sir Richard Strachan, troops were dying of a mysterious disease termed 'Walcheren fever'. Almost all the campaign's 4,000 dead were victims of disease. The Scheldt was evacuated and the return home was followed by a scandalous Parliamentary Enquiry. Walcheren fever cast an even longer shadow. Six months later 11,000 men were still registered sick. In 1812, Wellington complained that the constitution of his troops was 'much shaken with Walcheren'."

See here
link

Only one time I see a Walcheren battle/campaing/wargame and even without the "mosquito" factor, the English cannot broke inside France.

Anyone had wargame this?

Amicalement
Armand

Thanks for the link. I live less than 50 km away from Walcheren.

No mention my friend.
Are there still some mosquitoes like those days?

Amicalement
Armand

Yes it made a large part of the British Army sick but it did permit the larger involvement of the army in the Peninsular as it made it impossible for the French to invade England. The facilities in Flushing were completely destroyed. Remember the Scheldt is the only deep water inlet on the Atlantic coast and Lisbon was successfully being defended.

It should be considered a great strategic success for Britain who now had more freedom to send troops outside Britain.
Stephen

It should be considered a great strategic success for Britain who now had more freedom to send troops outside Britain.

Wouldn't the campaigns of British troops in Egypt, Italy, South America and Portugal prior to 1809 suggest that the British were free to send troops outside Britain before 1809? The invasion threat wasn't as immediate a concern after Trafalgar.

You are right my friend.

Amicalement
Armand

This could be considered on par to Napoleon's Russian campaign, albeit on a much smaller scale. But it is comical for someone to try and offer it as a victory when it was obviously a disaster. Some interesting links which dismiss any silly thoughts on Walcheren being a victory in any way. And I can't see anyone considering it a victory if it had been a French disaster.

link

link

link

Tango01

Looks interesting but I do hope it is not a title that offers numerous excuses for the disaster.

Tango01

Looks interesting but I do hope it is not a title that offers numerous excuses for the disaster.

And what excuses would they be for example?

Paul

I do hope it is not a title that offers numerous excuses for the disaster.

And what, exactly, is the difference between an "excuse" and a "reason?" A pretty subjective one, I think.

dibble & Mserafin

Excuses such as Napoleon was wrong to go to Russia, bad planning etc, and had supposedly not learned from others going to Russia – while the British were right to go to Walchereen – it wasn't a bad idea or bad planning or anything like that, even though others had suffered previously, oh no, just bad luck. Got it now?

Gazzola

dibble & Mserafin

Excuses such as Napoleon was wrong to go to Russia, bad planning etc, and had supposedly not learned from others going to Russia – while the British were right to go to Walchereen – it wasn't a bad idea or bad planning or anything like that, even though others had suffered previously, oh no, just bad luck. Got it now?

No! Re: "numerous excuses"

Looks interesting but I do hope it is not a title that offers numerous excuses for the disaster.

Paul :)

Gazzola,

Excuses such as Napoleon was wrong to go to Russia, bad planning etc, and had supposedly not learned from others going to Russia – while the British were right to go to Walchereen – it wasn't a bad idea or bad planning or anything like that, even though others had suffered previously, oh no, just bad luck. Got it now?

No, I don't "have it now." I've read this quote from you about six times and it still makes no sense to me.

What would be an "excuse" for Napoleon's failure in Russia, as opposed to a "reason?" Is Junot's failure to cut off the Russian retreat at Smolensk a "reason" for the campaign's failure, or an "excuse?" What about the typhus epidemic that wrecked that army long before Borodino? How about the inadequate logistical preparation? It is easy now to say "Napoleon shouldn't have gone to Russia," but if he'd won, would we then say he should have?

Are you saying that you don't think the book under discussion should suggest that the Walcheren campaign was a good idea that failed due to faulty implementation? I don't know that it does, I haven't read it, but if the author says that and offers a compelling argument to support the claim, I don't see why the idea should be thrown out with prejudice.

And again I'll ask – what's the difference between a "reason" and an "excuse?" Is an "excuse" simply a "reason" that one doesn't like?

One person's excuse is another person's reason – get over it!

Gazzola
One person's excuse is another person's reason – get over it!

Get over what?

And what of the rest of those 'numerous excuses'?

link

Paul :)

dibble

Considering the website we're on, I prefer Humbrol and a 5 O paint brush, how about you?

Ain't much better than a good 5 O brush, especially if you're doing piping.

Can't get Humbrol here anymore, I'm afraid. It's barbaric.

Gazzola:

dibble

Considering the website we're on, I prefer Humbrol and a 5 O paint brush, how about you?

YouTube link

Mserafin:

Ain't much better than a good 5 O brush, especially if you're doing piping.

Can't get Humbrol here anymore, I'm afraid. It's barbaric.

As for Brushes, It's Kolinsky and good old Winsor & Newton Artist oils or Acrylics for me. Humbrol went out of the window when I hit puberty, and I stopped playing with soldiers because one of the reasons was that I was just too busy doing the real thing.

Paul :D

dibble

You really think too much of yourself and I certainly hope you were not suggesting I was evading your dumb question? And it really was a dumb question, and you know it!

The topic was becoming a bit boring in my opinion. But you know what I meant by reasons. Bad luck, bad weather, disease etc, etc – when it was flop right from the start – but that can't be admitted because the British don't do flops, do they?

And so glad you stopped playing with soldiers – perhaps you should try playing with toy ones instead! And come on, other 'real' soldiers seem able to find time to play with miniatures, so I'm sure you could, if you tried – I mean, this is what the website is all about, isn't it?

Anyway, I do hope you find time to read the book, being so busy and all that. You could also try Wellington's Worst Scrape (Burgos Campaign) by Carole Divall. You take a break now, have a rest, I'm sure you er, deserve it.

Yes, yes! But I still want to know what those "numerous excuses" were.

Not only do you not know what the context of "numerous excuses" means, It seems you don't with "one of" too!

YouTube link

Paul :)

If no other good comes of this discussion, it has convinced me to pull out and re-read my copy of this:

link

Yes folks, this topic has been covered before. The book above is copyrighted 1979.

dibble

You really are a silly old sausage aren't you. Perhaps you should get back to playing with soldiers. You know you want to.

Gazzola:

dibble

You really are a silly old sausage aren't you. Perhaps you should get back to playing with soldiers. You know you want to.

link

Paul :D

dibble

I see I have hit a nerve. I guess the truth hurts some times. You'll get over it – possibly.