"Atrocities in the Napoleonic Wars" Topic

@ Gazzola,

I don't think an atrocity has to be classed as an atrocity, only if it is sanctioned by the rulers of whatever nation did it? That is just making excuses for those who got away it with on all sides.

I don't understand the point you are making here. Atrocity has at least a suggestion of size and/or organisation about it. Rape is a crime; mass rape, unrestricted and even on occasions orchestrated (such as that seen in the former Yugoslavia, for example) is an atrocity.

You seem to be unwilling, for some reason, to accept that the British high command at least tried to ensure that its men behaved with some decorum in other people's countries in these wars, and that the British generally were far from as bad as most European participants. Now, this could well have been, at least in part, because their country had not been overrun and ravaged by the French and they had not developed the required "animus" to hate the enemy.

However, organised bad behaviour seems to have been notably absent from the British Army's agenda in Spain and France, and the frequent acts of chivalry between the British and French forces (at all levels) is in marked contrast to the rest of the Peninsula War, and much of the other areas of Napoleonic conflict. Crime was punished with at least the same level of severity as it was back home. If the British were "just as bad" then why did the French, their allies, and eventually their Emperor, choose them to surrender to, rather than anyone else?

And yes, I'm sure the Royalists were just as brutal when they returned to the top of the pile – and I suspect that the (Royalist) authorities turned a blind eye most, if not all, of the time. And I'm not going to make any trite arguments such as "the other guys started it" – the Ancien Regime often treated ordinary folk quite badly and within the law. But I'm pretty sure there was nothing from them that matched the level of annihilation of the Vendee or The Terror.

"The hospitals were nearly all left to the enemy; and, as was commonly rumored, the hospitals were set afire and burned with their inmates"

Kevin, the "commonly rumoured" bit rather spoils the argument.

Some more examples for you colonel.

Bernoyer in Avec Napoleon writes of a traffic of young girls, taken at Jaffa, being traded for loot. Men began fighting over these girls so Boney ordered all the women back to the towns hospital courtyard where he had them executed by a company of chassuers.

General Robin seemed to be so disgusted by his own men he reportedly sabered a few in an attempt to try and stop the rapes and killings.

Pierre Guingret campaigning in Portugal writes of women of all classes abducted, bought and sold and gambled away in card games. The unluckiest ones were forced to satisfy the unbridled passions of the soldiery in order to avoid death and then killed anyway.

After the capture of St Jaques of Compostella two monks were captured by Piedmontese soldiers. Being fat they tied them up and roasted them alive. (Thirion)

J. fricasse writes of the Old Guard cutting the throats of Prussian POWs at Plancoit in 1815. (this tallies with Prussian casualties… One Landhwer unit loses 300 dead and only 100 odd wounded if I recall)

Jacobins issued decrees in 1793 and 1794 specifying that Émigrés and British, Hanovarian and Spanish soldiers if captured were to be put to the death if captured or surrendered. It seems that this was only honored in respect to émigrés but other countries troops seemed to have been spared.

Maurice De Tascher, writing about Cordoba in 1808.
" the cathedral and the sacred lives within it were not spared, which made the Spanish look upon us with horror saying aloud they would prefer we violated their women than their churches. We did both. The convents had to suffer all that debauchery has invented and the outrages of the soldier given up to himself"

"If I were to list all of the villages we pillaged and burned I would never finish"
Lavaux in his memoirs.

At Montillano in 1810, French troops were ordered to burn the house of Romero a suspected Guerilla leader and kill everyone in it. They burned down the whole town. The next morning they advanced on Algondales, whose citizens fearing another Montillano fired on the advance guard of hussars, killing at least 8. By the end of the day Captain Ballue estimated they had killed 700 men, women and children but that this was better than losing "more brave men in that miserable affair than the village and all its peasants were worth". From Ballue's writings.

Spare a thought for poor General Renee captured in Sierra Morano
Who was made to watch the violation of his wife, after which she was forced to watch the general and her child being sawn in half.. she met the same end. I think the war in Spain reached levels of cruelty and brutality not seen since the Vendee.

link

Lots of information from this academic paper.

Edwulf thanks for your hard work finding examples and for the very useful link.

Interestingly, most of the General commanding in the Vendee were neither Jacobins nor "Revolutionaries" in that most of them had been officers under Louis XVI.

'Both of those cities were pro-French (afrancesados – sp?), so whilst they were Spanish cities, the inhabitants were not "allies" in the political and military sense. Some modern-day Spaniards like to get steamed up about the incidents, but the contemporary view appears to have been much more along the lines that they got what they deserved.'

Source(s)?

What about Ciudad Rodrigo?

If the populations of San Sebastien and Badajoz were pro-French, did they participate in the defense of their cities?

The retreat to Corunna by Moore's army was terrible for the civilians along the way also as discipline, except for the rear guard, broke down, and rape, drunkenness, pillage, and looting took place. British troops who were dead drunk and passed out along the route were picked up by the French.

The Royal Navy looted and pillaged its way along the Chesapeake in 1813 and 1814 burning civilian property and taking anything they could get their hands on.

The two British expeditions to Buenos Aires were nothing more than large-scale pillaging expeditions.

The British attack against the Danes twice (1801 and 1807) were unprovoked and the latter one resulted in the shelling and burning of a large part of Copenhagen with about 3,000 civilian dead for no other reason than a terror bombing.

The last three instances were definitely sanctioned by higher British authority and the attacks on Copenhagen were policy.

B

I've no horse in this race Kevin, but it's rather unfair to ask other people for sources unless you are prepared to do the same in your own posts.

More often than not I do supply sources, so I don't see anything unfair about asking for sources on a posting that claims something I haven't seen before.

B

Supercilious Maximus

Firstly, I think you should try to refrain from assuming what people think. You appear to be 'unwilling' to accept that the British did not carry out any atrocities or did bad things?

Second, if someone's wife or mother had been raped, then, a s far as I'm concerned that is an atrocity – if you prefer to think of an atrocity as only when it happens to masses of people and organised (or allowed) by the government, then that is your opinion.

And just because the evidence for atrocities are not thrown up so easily, does not mean they did not occur. If you dug deep into researching the Revolutionary period and the events of 1814 and 1815, the White Terror etc, I'm sure you would find it quite revealing. Sadly, at the moment, no one has actually sat down, fully researched or compiled what the allies did, as readily and quickly as evidence is thrown at the French.

We must remember that the atrocities against the Spanish were often the results of atrocities against the French and their allies. The British did not do it to the French so the French did not do it to the British. Simples! And the British, of course, did not suffer such atrocities from the Spanish. If they had I have no doubt they would have reacted in the same way.

And it is far too easy to say things were organised by the leaders and governments, especially concerning the French.
'The French, then, fell on the Peninsula likes wolves. Outright brigandage was not approved of, on the grounds that it was bad for discipline and liable to prove counter-productive. To quote an edict of Marshal Berthier, 'The emperor is unhappy with the disorders that have been committed. Pillage annihilates everything down to the very army that engages in it.' (page 141-The Peninsular War by Charles Esdaile)

If the leaders and generals were aware of the effect such actions could have on their own army, it seems unlikely they would 'organise' events that were, in their own words, self-destructive.

Back to Russia…

'To my horror I'd been told straggling prisoners were being shot by their Spanish escorts. In vain the Spanish soldiers had pushed them on with blows of their musket butts; in the end they fell down exhausted. Whereupon these barbarians fired bullets into their ears to finish them off.'-Count Roman Soltyk, Polish artillery officer.

There were about 3,000 Russian prisoners 'at the head of the column'…'Parked liked cattle, they weren't being allowed to go a yard from the spot. Laid out on the ice…all those who didn't want to perish were eating the flesh of their comrades who'd just expired from their miseries.'

'Lying to the left of the road were about 200 Russians, who'd just been killed. We noticed that each of them had his head shattered in the same way and his bleeding brain was spread out beside him.'

Regarding this incident, Captain Josef Zalusky of the Polish Guard Lancers who came upon the site stated:

'We were horrified. Indignant, Krasinski galloped forward to the officer in charge at the head of the column, a Portuguese colonel. Krasinski reproached him for his barbarous cruelty that nothing justified. The Portuguese took these observations very much amiss and replied in an improper manner. It was neither the moment nor the place for a discussion. Krasinski hastened to the Emperor's staff and told them how the prisoners had been treated. The Emperor immediately sent his officier d'ordonnance Gourgaud to obtain clarification of this incident.'

Roman Soltyk later stated that 'As soon as [Napoleon] was told of these horrible executions he showed extreme displeasure and put an instant stop to them.'

The French wounded who Marshal Mortier had to leave in the three Moscow hospitals because they were 'too weak to have been transported with their comrades' some were 'thrown on to wagons to be taken to Twer. All perished from cold and misery, or were assassinated by the peasants charged with driving them who had cut their throats to take their coats. The rest were left in the hospitals with the French surgeons who'd stayed to look after them, but were given neither food nor medicines.'-General Guillaume de Vaudoncourt

B

'Sadly, at the moment, no one has actually sat down, researching and compiled what the allies did, as readily as some have concerning the French.'

You're exactly correct.

The presumption that too many make is that the French were the perpetrators of most, if not all, of the depredations and atrocities of the period, which isn't true at all.

There is also no distintions made between requisitions, foraging, looting and pillage, all of which are deemed to be bad and generally done by the French.

The Russians, Austrians and Prussians have all been guilty throughout the period (Yorck damned his own men as 'bandits' in France in 1814), but no 'analysis' has been done on this forum, merely condemnation of Napoleon and the French.

What should also be done I think is a review of the laws and regulations for the armies and what was done when their own troops got out of hand and committed atrocities. Wellington, for example, punished no one for Badajoz, he merely set up a gallows. It was never used. Blucher never punished anyone for the Prussian depredations in France and the former Confederation of the Rhine in 1813-1814.

If you look at the French, however, they did punish. Davout, Soult, and other commanders didn't put up with indiscipline on campaign. French or allied troops who got out of hand were many times executed for what they had done.

A sweeping blanket of guilt for the French while exonerating just about everyone else is nonsense and is not the result of historical inquiry, but of bias, and ignorant bias at that.

Now the sarcasm, condescension, and general odious comments will follow…

B

The Spanish guerillas would castrate captured French officers, crucify captured French and allied troops, as well as bury captured Frenchmen with only their head above ground and use him as a pin in a bowling match.

Other 'diversions' with prisoners would be to hand them upside down, saw them apart between two planks, skin them alive, boil them alive, perhaps impale them and then grill them over a fire.

Guerillas would attack hispitals, which were a favorite target, and massacre both the patients and the medical personnel. If women were captured they would more than likely be gang-raped and then murdered, and children would also be abused and murdered.

Spanish regular units would also engage in the torture and murder of prisoners and innocents, and would also prey on their own people. They levied taxes on Spanish peasants, they kidnapped Spanish civilians to make up for losses and fill their ranks. Some Spanish would cooperate with the guerillas because they hated the French, but some only cooperated out of fear. They requisitioned food, money, and clothing from the Spanish civilians.

B

On a general point, my remarks referred to the British Army, rather than the Royal Navy, which operated under different rules and terms of engagement (both in terms of international law/custom, and strategic policy). However, to deal with you points:-

1) I'm not sure about Ciudad Rodrigo, but the populations of the other two were renowned for their French sympathies (as I suspect you are only too well aware, so I'm not going to waste time on finding "sources" for that), and some of them were indeed suspected of assisting in the defence. Clearly discipline broke down, but on all three occasions officers manifestly attempted to prevent crimes being committed – some were killed by their own men for their troubles.

On a general level, rapes and murders are inexcusable in all circumstances; however, it is difficult to condemn starving men on the retreat from Corunna (or Moscow) for looting food, clothing, or other life-saving supplies.

The Royal Navy looted and pillaged its way along the Chesapeake in 1813 and 1814 burning civilian property and taking anything they could get their hands on.

2) No it didn't. Unless of course you are referring to the human "property" liberated by the British – and for whom the Americans demanded compensation after the war, claiming that the non-return of runaways constituted a violation of the Treaty of Ghent.

Only public buildings were burned in Washington (the Navy Yard itself was actually burned by Americans), although a tornado did make things worse. Damage to private property was limited to reprisals for the American burning of York/Toronto. One British commander did levy "protection money" from a few smaller ports, but by and large private property was respected – and merchants in New England were given licences to continue trading with Canada as an acknowledgement of their opposition to the war.

At the end of the war, the British paid over US$1,000,000 in compensation to Washington for damage, deliberate or not, to private property – all of which was given to slaveowners.

4) The attacks on Buenos Aires were actions against Spanish colonies during a war against Spain (1792-1808) – why should the British not attack the enemy when and wherever they can? Interestingly, this clearly Argentine Wikipedia entry makes no mention of "pillaging expeditions".

link

The British attack against the Danes twice (1801 and 1807) were unprovoked and the latter one resulted in the shelling and burning of a large part of Copenhagen with about 3,000 civilian dead for no other reason than a terror bombing.

5) Er, no it didn't – these casualty figures have been wildly exaggerated. Just over 100 civilians were killed in 1807, almost all people who had chosen to remain behind when the city was evacuated; the reason for the bombardment, which took place after due notice and a formal announcement, was an attempt to persuade the Danes to do something about Napoleon's self-admitted plans to seize their not insubstantial fleet and use it to invade the UK (in contrast, the British had offered safe internment and return at the end of hostilities).

1807.dk/tabstal%20civile.htm

Here's a plan of Copenhagen, which suggests it would be difficult to bombard it from the sea without damaging civilian property:-

link

The first action in 1801 was in response to the "2nd League of Armed Neutrality" which prevented the British from seizing military/contraband cargoes being imported into France (along similar lines to the "Trent" incident in the ACW, which almost resulted in a 3rd League). The League was promoted by the Russain Tsar Paul 1, provided major benefits to the French, and most of its members were lukewarm at best.

In both cases, the attacks on Denmark were the result of a collapse of extensive diplomatic discussions, not a desire for territory or financial gain. I find it rather curious that an American should condemn another nation for putting its own military and/or economic survival first.

You are correct on the number of civilian casualties at Copenhagen in 1807-it wasn't 3,000 it was 2,000.

And 20% of the city's population was made homeless and/or refugees by the prolonged bombardment.

Copenhagen was deliberately targeted and for no other purpose to cause damage, terror, and to frighten the city into capitulation. One of the aiming points for the British was the famous Frue Kirke which burned and the spire of the church fell in (from Captain Bowles, a British eyewitness).

About one-twelfth of central Copenhagen was destroyed and other areas of the city 'sustained lesser or greater degrees of damage.'

And this attack on Denmark, like the first one, was unprovoked.-See Defying Napoleon: How Britain Bombarded Copenhagen and Seized the Danish Fleet in 1807.

The attack on Buenos Aires and Montevideo in 1806 and 1807 was nothing more than a pillaging expedition in search of specie, of which 600,000 dollars was seized by the 'expedition.' See Proud Heritage: The Story of the Highland Light Infantry, Volume I by Ltcol LB Oatts.

And, yes, the British under Admirals Cockburn and Cochrane burned and looted up and down the Chesapeake:

'If by any stretch of argument we could establish the owner of a house, cottage, hut, &c. to be a militiaman, that house we burnt, because we found arms therein; that is to say, we found a duck gun, or a rifle. It so happens, that in America every man must belong to the militia; and, consequently, every man's house was food for a bonfire.'-Midshipman Frederick Chamier, HMS Menelaus, 1814.

'A bullock was estimated at five dollars, although it was worth twenty; and sheep had the high price of a dollar attached to them, they being in reality worth six at least…But supposing, and I have seen it one hundred times, that the farmer refused the money for his stock; why then we drove sheep, bullocks, and geese away, and left the money for the good man to take afterwards.'-James Pack.

I would submit to you that if that was the description of the actions of the French, you'd be outraged.

Small towns, if they resisted or not, along the Chesapeake, such as Havre de Grace, were looted and torched. These were not military targets. See Terror on the Chesapeake: The War of 1812 on the Bay by Christopher Greene.

My opinions and study have nothing to do with nationality. It has to do with historical inquiry where you search for facts and come to a conclusion. If you only search on one side of a historical question and then make a conclusion, that conclusion is incomplete and could also be inaccurate.

And if you believe a nation should put its own military and/or economic survival first, then you have one of the reasons for both the French invasion of Spain as well as the invasion of Russia, which was a preemptive strike as Alexander started planning on war as early as 1810 and attempted to force the Poles into the Russian empire, which they did not want to do.

B

'I'm not sure about Ciudad Rodrigo, but the populations of the other two were renowned for their French sympathies (as I suspect you are only too well aware, so I'm not going to waste time on finding "sources" for that), and some of them were indeed suspected of assisting in the defence. Clearly discipline broke down, but on all three occasions officers manifestly attempted to prevent crimes being committed – some were killed by their own men for their troubles.'

If you're sure, then providing source material would be most helpful for all of us. Finding and listing source material is never a waste of time.

B

Since the original post specifically asked:

" I would be interested to read of specific examples of the excesses of the French armies"

…then obviously anybody who was trying to answer the original question, as asked, should provide examples of French atrocities. Doing so is not an example of bias. It's an example of paying attention and answering the question, and not trying to change the subject.

But speaking of changing the subject, I know this is probably futile, but I just can't resist asking:

"Alexander started planning on war as early as 1810 and attempted to force the Poles into the Russian empire"

What Poles are you talking about? The Poles on Alex's side of the border were already in the Russian empire, as recognized by Napoleon in his treaty and alliance with Russia. If you're referring to the Poles in the Duchy of Warsaw, then how on earth could Alexander try to "force" them into the Russian empire?

I would love to see the sources that document Alexander's efforts to "force" the Duchy of Warsaw into the Russian empire prior to the war in 1812. Because as you say:

"…providing source material would be most helpful for all of us. Finding and listing source material is never a waste of time."

PS – anticipating that you will answer by saying, "Alexander planned for an invasion of the Duchy in 1811, etc, etc." Pre-war contingency planning for possible future wars is not the question. Everybody did that, obviously Napoleon too. I'm not asking about things that didn't happen. You claimed that Alex tried to "force the Poles into the Russian empire." How did he try to do that?

Your usual condescension is noted, and while it will be useless to answer anything that you post because you either make fun of it or make snide remarks about the poster if you don't agree with it. And anything at all to Napoleon's favor, you either attempt to downplay or just disagree with it under the above conditions.

So, I'll keep it short.

The Poles referred to are those of the Duchy of Warsaw which was what Alexander attempted to sway to his 'point of view' and massed troops on the Duchy's borders to enforce his point.

This was a main cause of the French invasion, which was called by the French 'the Second Polish War.'

'As a countermove against Napoleon's influence in Poland, in 1810 Alexander pushed a propaganda campaign throughout the Duchy of Warsaw, urging the reunification of Poland under his own personal rule. Russian troops concentrated along the Duchy's eastern frontier, ready to advance if any sort of popular support could be aroused for Alexander's proposed client kingdom. No demand whatever developed, but the concentrations remained.'-A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars, Introduction to the Russian Campaign.

You can also consult Napoleon's Wars by Charles Esdaile, pages 437-440.

Lieven is also a good source for the problems between Alexander and Napoleon, the bottom line being Alexander could not be trusted.

And yet, the thread title is 'Atrocities in the Napoleonic Wars' is it not?

B

"…the Duchy of Warsaw which was what Alexander attempted to sway to his 'point of view' and massed troops on the Duchy's borders to enforce his point."

"No demand whatever developed"

So we're clear, then: Alexander did not, in fact, ever "attempt to force the Poles into the Russian empire," as you claimed. He made no such demand, nor attempt.

As you're well aware, there was a strong pro-Russian faction within the Polish aristocracy, informally led by Czartoryzki, who served briefly as Alex's foreign minister, and later without portfolio. Not all Poles were opposed to Russian overlordship. Napoleon had, after all, not given them independence, but had instead simply restored them to Saxon overlordship, which was about as popular as Russian overlordship. Since nobody was willing to give them independence, rule by the Tsar as a vassal state was an option many of them seriously considered. But you know that.

I liked the quote about British thieves paying for what they took…… Beasts.

'So we're clear, then: Alexander did not, in fact, ever "attempt to force the Poles into the Russian empire," as you claimed. He made no such demand, nor attempt.'

No, we're not 'clear' at all and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from the posting I made.

And the Duchy, except for a privileged few, wanted nothing to do with the Russians. And they stayed loyal to Napoleon through 1814, even after the Duchy was overrun. And one squadron of the Polish Guard Lancer Regiment went with him to Elba and fought at Waterloo.

Incredible.

Alexander certainly did attempt to coerce the Poles into his empire, which is why he put troops on the border of the Duchy.

And it should be noted, he finally got his wish when the loot was divided at Vienna in 1814.

B

'I liked the quote about British thieves paying for what they took…'

Me too-and 'paid' for it whether the owners wanted to sell them or not…

B

Better than not paying at all and shooting the farmer.

In the style of the French.

'this clearly Argentine Wikipedia entry makes no mention of "pillaging expeditions".'

I'd be wary of any Wikipedia postings as too many of them cannot be relied upon. They can be a good starting point, but that's about it.

B

What I find remarkable is the relative lack of specific instances of atrocities committed by the French whilst living off the land, and this thread has been running some time.

I posed the original question because, depending on who you were reading, some members were making the case that rape and pillage was widespread and went hand in hand with living off the land.

I've read history for years on lots of different periods and I usually find that where there have been widespread atrocities it is documented. In the case of the French armies during the Napoleonic Wars it seems to have either not been as widespread as some would make out or it has been glossed over, reason so far unknown.

I appreciate the efforts of all the posters so far, but personally speaking, as said, there seems to be a lack of evidence being produced.

Each to their own in reaching conclusions of course, and I prefer my history as unbiased as possible.

Good posting. Well-balanced and fair and your conclusions are 'fair and balanced.'

B

'Better than not paying at all and shooting the farmer. In the style of the French.'

Not quite. While looting and pillaging did happen, as well as rape and murder, most of the French requisitioning of supplies was not conducted in this manner.

Now, if you wish to continue, and discuss without insult or rancor, I'd be more than happy to continue. If not, then we can stop here.

B

Perhaps the following description of the French soldier might help all understand what we're dealing with when talking about them in one capacity or another:

'Most of them were simple men, concerned about simple things: good billets and full rations, the 'bottle and a kind landlady' of the old British soldiers' song. They too little interest in the causes of their wars or the cities through which they passed. As for campaigns and battles, their comprehension seldom extended beyond the fortunes of their own regiment. Yet they were good soldiers, serious about their duties, careful of wounded comrades, generous with food or money when they had it. They would forage and loot, especially when they had to keep alive, but some of them didn't particularly like it. A soldier might rape his host's wine cellar yet guard the host's daughter from drunken comrades-possible not quite at the risk of his own life, but usually effective enough. Like Girault, he would try to protect the cow of a family that had been good to him and, failing in that, would steal a cow from the army's beef herd and take it to them. There were brutes among them (and their foreign allies) who would wrench earrings and shawls from Russian women huddling with their children to escape the Moscow fire-and others like Coignet and his three friends who sallied out to drive them off. They could be brutal, especially in Spain after they had found the mutilated bodies of their comrades. -John Elting, Swords Around A Throne, 591.

And where they came from and how they 'developed' is explained succinctly:

'The soldiers whom First Consul Bonaparte inherited were a unique breed. Products of a national conscription, they had been a cross-section of the French people. But-gutter rat, artisan's apprentice, plow-stooped peasant, gentleman's son-most of them had been physically and mentally toughened by eight years of Revolutionary wars. They had learned to live on nothing much and to find most of that for themselves. They had broken the armies of the kings and had seen what passed for a French government flee in panic before their bayonets. Their loyalties-except for a vague concept of la Patrie-were confused. They needed officers tougher than themselves to keep them to their duty, but many of their officers were as restless and undisciplined as they. Officers and men alike had lost the feeling for life outside their demi-brigades and regiments. They had new needs and new vices, scorned civilians, wanted continued excitement and activity. Some deserted when assigned to quiet garrison duty; others, traveling singly or in small groups, took pride in altering their feuilles de route (travel orders) in order to visit old friends en route or simply to see some interesting places…Napoleon's installation as First Consul was a turning point…'-Swords, 589.

B

'What I find remarkable is the relative lack of specific instances of atrocities committed by the French whilst living off the land, and this thread has been running some time.'

One of the problems I believe is that too many judge events of ca 1800 with an early 21st century viewpoint and tend to look with disdain on what happened in the field on campaign and in combat without trying to figure out the 'why' of events and behavior.

Further, I've seen too often that some who either lack the experience of being a soldier themselves or generally look down on military service are shocked when they find out that military history really is about marching and killing, and the best troops are the best marchers and killers.

A lack of understanding of historical periods and the soldiers that fought during those periods permeates historical message boards around the internet. And generally speaking what people don't understand they either hate or are frightened of, or both.

B

The wartime conditions and responses of women in particular to the chaos as detailed in Lowe's Savage Continent. It reminded me of this account from 1806: [Atrocities come in many forms during war…]

The French Army during the Siege of Magdeburg, Germany 1806.

Women became camp followers for any number of reasons, including starvation. Establishing a small canteen [finding a cook] among a squad of French soldiers could follow a path sordid and pitiful. A Swiss soldier nicknamed Petit Louis, a musician in the Grand Army, tells the sad story of a young German. The French besiegers of Magdeburg are starving, supplies having failed to appear. Whenever they return from marauding the countryside for food, each would check the other's booty. One day, one of the marauders, called Maubert, returned to camp empty bag. Not a single chicken, the smallest potato. Nothing, except a pretty girl eighteen years. Maubert had saved her from the brutality of other soldiers posing as an officer. When the surprise was over, discord ignited among the French.
One soldier, Hantz, railed against his comrade "we had to bring food and you bring this girl who is nice indeed, but we eat the little we have worked so hard to procure, not dividing into smaller portions because of her."

[in a squad canteen men cooked and shared the food together.] Maubert and Hantz came to blows, and as they insulted each other in German, the girl understood what the argument was about. She cried to Hantz, " Sir, do not send me in the middle of all these soldiers and I will make myself as useful as I can, I'll wash your shirts."

The unfortunate girl then began to recite her prayers-in vain. Suddenly, Hantz had an inspiration. He says something "typically male" according to the French narrator: "Okay, but if it is proper for this full squad to share, he said, "Among twelve."

Each nose-dived into his food bowl filled with a `bad soup made of barley flour' in front of the girl. Each will only share what they share equally. The girl had been fasting for two days and about to faint, consents to the ignoble market: "Gymnastics [sic] Petit Louis said, started from the right, by Hantz and Maubert". When his turn arrives, the young musician did not partake because he admits he did not know what kind of exercise they are talking about and confessed he would have preferred a cup of hot milk.

The German girl becomes the property of her "inventeur ", and does what it takes to perform her function in the squad. The squad found itself with an excellent canteen. Petit Louis, ends the story saying that despite the opportunity, the musician respected the girl, and never spoke to her "with this consideration created by the exceptional circumstance in which she found herself and which forced her to consent to the sad market."

No rancour
No insults.

If you can name the poster I've insulted ill apologise to them.
I've provided examples that the OP asked for and some others related to Spanish and British ones which were not needed but I thought may interest them.

How is that insulting?

I haven't patronised anyone.
I haven't questioned anyone's ability.
I haven't told anyone to ignore others.
I've not put anyone else down or accused them acting up…

Maybe my tone towards the French army of the 1800s has been rough, and if any veteran of the Boneys imperial army contacts me to state I'm insulting him, ill also give him a fair hearing. Try reading that link, an academic paper on exactly what we are talking about. Makes an interesting read, and while it proves no one side was free of dastardly deeds it remains that the French were by far the worst and most frequently indulgent in the killing of civilians, rape and torture. This is born mainly from the fact that they were the invader and were more often operating in lands they were trying to conquer.

That they were victims too is clear, but I wonder how much of that is born from their previous conduct in their opponents lands. Perhaps if they were less rapacious and blood thirsty with civilians abroad they wouldn't reaped what they'd sown.

Pillage did of course go hand in hand with Napoleon's system of warfare, critical French officers were surprised that Napoléon did not discipline his army in the camp de Boulogne, but it was the common view, the soldiers risked their lifes for his glory and they got their right to plunder.
Edwulf provided enough examples including a very interesting paper, for the rest one has to read memoires or books (be warned dear Colonel, they are in French) like
Morvan : le Soldat Impérial
or Bernhard Coppens one about the 1812 campaigns, there are numerous citations of eye witnesses.

"No rancour
No insults.

If you can name the poster I've insulted ill apologise to them.
I've provided examples that the OP asked for and some others related to Spanish and British ones which were not needed but I thought may interest them.

How is that insulting?

I haven't patronised anyone.
I haven't questioned anyone's ability.
I haven't told anyone to ignore others.
I've not put anyone else down or accused them acting up…"

You haven't, but Kevin can't bear to be contradicted. I'd be interested to find out how his students' efforts are responded to if they write something that he doesn't agree with! Even if supported by evidence!

Sam Mustafa must have the record by now for the number of membership name changes

You are correct on the number of civilian casualties at Copenhagen in 1807-it wasn't 3,000 it was 2,000.

Ah, so suddenly you're quoting CASUALTIES, whereas your original wildly inaccurate post reported 3,000 DEATHS.

Copenhagen was deliberately targeted and for no other purpose to cause damage, terror, and to frighten the city into capitulation.

Wrong. The purpose was to force the ruler of Denmark to change his mind over the internment of his fleet – the attitudes of the individual citizens would have been of no value to the British, nor indeed would the "capture" of the city itself.

The attack on Buenos Aires and Montevideo in 1806 and 1807 was nothing more than a pillaging expedition in search of specie, of which 600,000 dollars was seized by the 'expedition.'

You fail to mention that this was principally in the form of the public treasury captured from the Viceroy as he attempted to flee to Cordoba. Public funds, therefore legitimate booty of war, no? Far from being nothing more than a pillaging expedition, there was considerable interest in seizing control of the region from the Spanish and establishing English-speaking colonies there.

'this clearly Argentine Wikipedia entry makes no mention of "pillaging expeditions".'

I'd be wary of any Wikipedia postings as too many of them cannot be relied upon. They can be a good starting point, but that's about it.

Of course Wikipedia should be used with caution, because it can be a biased source (though perhaps that makes it all the more appropriate for the Napoleonic Boards on here). However, in this case the source would hardly be pro-British would it? Rather than disingenuous evasion, how about commenting on the actual point – ie no mention of "pillaging" in a text that is obviously pro-Argentine (not a group given to understating their victimhood where the British are concerned)?

I would submit to you that if that was the description of the actions of the French, you'd be outraged.

Then you'd be both wrong and engaging in a rather arrogant and impertinent presumption. Other than the genocide in the Vendee (and then only by comparison to the uprising in Ireland in 1798) I've not posted anything to do with the French methods of waging war; nor have I expressed any outrage whatsoever at their dealings with civilians in other countries. I'm afraid you're in danger of believing your own straw man argument that everyone who doesn't openly agree with you is rabildy anti-French. My only bone of contention in this thread is that the British forces tended to be much better behaved than others, to the extent that they should not be included in the meme that "everybody was just as bad as each other". I would put this down to four things – one is the professional (rather than conscript) nature of their forces, the second is not having been invaded by the enemy, the third is the relatively small size of those forces which facilitated both disciplinary control and greater efficiency in supplying essential items such as food and clothing; the fourth is the legal system which, unlike those in Europe, emphasised the liberty of the individual, rather than the supremacy of the state.

You, for your part, casually dismiss the gallows at Badajoz (a very rare example of them not being used, in reality) and thus compare Wellington unfavourably with Soult and Davout. Fine men both, but you are perfectly well aware that, throughout the Peninsula War, the Duke maintained exactly the same strict discipline as those two Marshals. (BTW, wasn't it Soult's troops that got less co-operation than the British from French civilians in 1814?) Given the raw material they had to deal with, I would say the behaviour of the British forces was considerably better than those of most of the other large countries – though I would concede that contingents from some of the smaller states would also tend to be better controlled. I also notice that none of the Francophiles on here has commented on my remark that Napoleon CHOSE to surrender to the British, rather than anyone else. Clearly he believed their behaviour was better.

And, yes, the British under Admirals Cockburn and Cochrane burned and looted up and down the Chesapeake.

Again, I would refer to my earlier comment that the Royal Navy operated in a different environment, and under different rules, both national and international. Whilst I would normally agree that the actions you quote in the Midshipman's journal are taking things too far, viz. to burn the homes of every militiaman, surely the precedent in 1812 was set by the Americans in their behaviour in Canada at the start of the war? Given my more intimate knowledge of American claims of "atrocities" and "massacres" in the AWI, I would also be tempted to take any such allegations with a wee pinch of salt (not too much, but definitely some).

And whilst you sneer at the British paying for what they stole, surely that in itself is a better system than freely requisitioning? Whatever the rights or wrongs of it being in a particular place, an army must be fed – if it isn't, then it plunders. Which is worse?

And if you believe a nation should put its own military and/or economic survival first, then you have one of the reasons for both the French invasion of Spain as well as the invasion of Russia, which was a preemptive strike as Alexander started planning on war as early as 1810 and attempted to force the Poles into the Russian empire, which they did not want to do.

As you say, ONE of the reasons…..but I'm quite happy for that particular one to be applied universally.

One of the problems I believe is that too many judge events of ca 1800 with an early 21st century viewpoint…

Says the man happy to use the emotive modern phrase "terror bombing"…..

[As regards the afrancesados matter, I no longer have a library covering the Peninsula War, having sold it to Richard Brown at Ken Trotman back in the 90s. I also don't speak Spanish – or enough to seek out on-line sources in that language – so someone else is going to have to cover that one. From memory, though, I have a feeling that one of Ian Fletcher's books covers the subject; I also visited Badajoz in the 80s and according to one of our guides, the whole issue of French collaboration was still very (very) touchy, even then.]

I don't think the quality of the posting can be faulted and it has all been very interesting.

I personally think the truth lies somewhere in between, as is often the case. There can be no doubt that atrocities were visited on those who were caught up in the wars, and living off the land covers a multitude of sins. I remain unconvinced that atrocities were so widespread that there frequency constituted the very methodology adopted by the French army, rather they were more random in nature.

@ Gazzola,

Firstly, I think you should try to refrain from assuming what people think.

As a general rule, a good point – although given your posting style and stifle count, I suspect you are more likely to be at the very back of the "first stone casting" queue on this one. In any event, I did not ASSUME that was what you were thinking, I said I THOUGHT that it might be, based on the evidence of previous posts on this and other threads. In much the same way that you regularly attribute negative motives to others.

You appear to be 'unwilling' to accept that the British did not carry out any atrocities or did bad things?

Now you're just trying to deflect criticism of yourself by blindly throwing back something similar at your critics. I am quite prepared to accept that occasional bad behaviour did occur; I just find some of the examples being thrown up to be misinformed or specious by comparison, and sufficiently less common overall to preclude the British being labelled "as bad as everyone else". I also said I believed that "atrocity" should require some sort of higher involvement than just individual men behaving badly on their own behalf.

Second, if someone's wife or mother had been raped, then, a s far as I'm concerned that is an atrocity – if you prefer to think of an atrocity as only when it happens to masses of people and organised (or allowed) by the government, then that is your opinion.

Well, bully for you and your clearly superior standards of morality. I happen to think that, when discussing something objectively rather than emotionally, there needs to be a different word for describing a different magnitude of crime – and that applying such a word willy-nilly (no pun intended) eventually devalues it, much as terms like racism and mysoginy have been devalued by their "liberal" (ab)use to simply silence any and all criticism, however valid.

I also happen to think it's good to avoid sounding as if one is on day-release from the "comment is free" pages of The Guardian.

:) and that last paragraph did make me chuckle :)

I think there's a huge difference between organised atrocities, allowed atrocities, and individual atrocities. None should happen, but to organise it or allow it is much worse and on a bigger scale. Individual acts can & should be put down swiftly.

'Ah, so suddenly you're quoting CASUALTIES, whereas your original wildly inaccurate post reported 3,000 DEATHS.'

I corrected my error of 3,000 to 2,000 and should have said killed, not casualties. Again, see Defying Napoleon, page 200.

According to LtCol George Murray, the Deputy Quartermaster General of the British expedition against Denmark,

'If it is found by experience that the destruction of the fleet is actually not within the power of our mortar batteries, we must then of necessity resort to the harsh meaure of forcing the town into our terms, by the sufferings of the inhabitants themselves. But to give this mode of attack its fullest effect, it is necessary to completely invest the place, and oblige by that means, all persons of whatever description, to undergo the same hardships and dangers.'

The British attack on Copenhagen was unprovoked and done because of what might have happened later. The British had no right to expect that the Danes would just hand over their fleet to them and the British deliberately targeted the city and its civilian inhabitants in order to force them to surrender.

If the French had done that you and others would be historically outraged. That's not only a double standard, but its hypocritical.

As to the expedition to Argentina, Sir Home Popham, whose idea the expedition was, had as its object 'the fabulous treasure to be found in those parts.' The initial take was 600,000 dollars, later raised to one million and after being taken was sent to London in a frigate and 'later paraded through the streets of London.' This was a plundering expedition pure and simple, as was the looting, burning, and plundering in the Chesapeake in 1813-1814.

For the Argentine expedition again see Proud Heritage, Volume I, pages 56-65.

B

Yes, but as has already been pointed out, the bullion was state owned and therefore a legitimate prize of war.
Part of the reason for Buonaparte's campaign of Italy was to seize the means of supporting the Army of Italy from northern Italy. Not only did Buonaparte allow, if not encourage, his men to plunder as they wished in the countryside, he also used the threat of pillage to levy "contributions" on the cities. Some of the specie thus seized was used to pay his men, some, a lot, was sent to Paris to finance the war in other areas, and some he kept as his own personal expenses, as it were. Many works of art were seized from private individuals as well as from municipal collections. When cities resisted this official plundering they were severely punished, as has been posted elsewhere. The massacre at Pavia is a good example of this (Jomini, quoting Buonaparte, in "Life of Napoleon", Vol 1, page 104).

'…in the continued attempt at the cannonization of the little fat Corsican peice of filth.'

Incredible. Nonsense of course, but incredible nonetheless. But it is nice to see that you have studied the British and allied propaganda of the period.

As an interesting contrast in 'styles' Napoleon in 1813 was strongly urged to lay waste to portions of Saxony to impede or ruin the allies logistically. The recommendations were based on Wellington's devastation of portions of Portugal that led to his lines at Torres Vedras. Napoleon refused, believing it would be dishonorable to do that to an ally.

He stated that he would be pilloried for it whereas Wellington was praised for his actions. Looks like the double standard was alive and well even in 1813.

B

'J. fricasse writes of the Old Guard cutting the throats of Prussian POWs at Plancoit in 1815. (this tallies with Prussian casualties… One Landhwer unit loses 300 dead and only 100 odd wounded if I recall)'

Correct. Pelet put a stop to it and had the surviving prisoners put under the Guard of his unit's sapeurs, 'who obeyed with reluctance.'

B

'And yes, I'm sure the Royalists were just as brutal when they returned to the top of the pile – and I suspect that the (Royalist) authorities turned a blind eye most, if not all, of the time. And I'm not going to make any trite arguments such as "the other guys started it" – the Ancien Regime often treated ordinary folk quite badly and within the law. But I'm pretty sure there was nothing from them that matched the level of annihilation of the Vendee or The Terror.'

But the point is that Napoleon did not take any vengeance on the Bourbons and other royalists when he returned from Elba. The Bourbons ran as they had little or no support and there was no point in vengeance-taking, and that was not Napoleon's way.

And it should be remembered that Napoleon finally quelled the Vendean revolt and again did it without taking any vengeance. He also gave the emigres the right to return to France after he took power. He also offered Louis and his entourage monetary help if they needed it and they returned the favor by trying to have him assassinated at least twice, with the help of the British.

The revolt in the Vendee and the massacres as well as the Terror were not Napoleon's doing, and he personally was disgusted with the cruelty and mindless slaughter of the fanatics of the Revolution. He himself was almost a victim of that violence/vengeance after Toulon.

B

Buonaparte quelled the Vendean revolt? When was this? Can I assume that you mean the Concordat of 1801? The Vendee was long over by then, and restarted in 1814 once Buonaparte had returned.

"he personally was disgusted with the cruelty and mindless slaughter of the fanatics of the Revolution"
Was he? He seemed fine about it at the time. Was it mindless slaughter? I see that you're returning to your revolutionary fanatics theme. Next thing you'll be denying that Buonaparte was a Jacobin.

Supercilious Maximus

You can't seem to understand that your posts are full of you 'assuming' everything about me. You really should try to refrain from doing that, then people might believe you might be as clever as you are trying to sound and you can carry on trying to fool people. As it is you just sound like a silly hypocrite wrapped in a Union Jack. I'd take it off if I were you, you might think more clearly.

Napoleon surrendering to the British – what the hell has that to do with nations committing atrocities – apart from the atrocity of wonderful Britain sticking him on an island because they and the allies were still scared of him, even when he was defeated. And he probably thought the British might be honourable and would honour him as a military commander and leader – he certainly got that wrong.

And your sick view on atrocities is quite disturbing – 'a different word for a different magnitude of crime' – really? You really believe that? Try telling that to someone has been raped or lost family members. An atrocity is an atrocity and it does not matter if it against one or a thousand people – it is still people suffering. The pain and heartbreak will not be less because it does not involve a lot of people. You really should be more careful in what you say.

Talking of newspapers – you sound like a cross between the Sun and the Daily Mail and they are only good for when you run out of toilet rolls.

'As regards the afrancesados matter, I no longer have a library covering the Peninsula War, having sold it to Richard Brown at Ken Trotman back in the 90s. I also don't speak Spanish – or enough to seek out on-line sources in that language – so someone else is going to have to cover that one. From memory, though, I have a feeling that one of Ian Fletcher's books covers the subject; I also visited Badajoz in the 80s and according to one of our guides, the whole issue of French collaboration was still very (very) touchy, even then.]'

Here, along with Copenhagen, the Chesapeake, and Buenos Aires, it appears that you're doing nothing but giving excuses for British misbehavior during the period. For Badajoz and San Sebastien in particular your attitude seems to convey the idea that the Spanish populations of those cities had it coming to them if in fact they were Afrancesados, which is ridiculous in the extreme.

By the way, did you know that Goya was an Afrancesado?

B

Brechtel198

You are wasting your time sharing your knowledge with some of the members attending this site. They just DON'T WANT to think anything positive about Napoleon or the French, but always WANT to see the allies in a positive light, especially the British – hence the feeble excuses for when they commit atrocities-lack of discipline etc.

If the same feeble excuses were used for atrocities caused by the French, they'd be up in arms, calling us Francophiles and Napoleon worshippers. It is so sad and funny at the same time. They really do not want to believe THEIR heroes did anything wrong. Their motto is obviously – why let the truth get in the way of a good bias.

ColonelToffeeeApple

Good post – but lost in the fog of bias I'm afraid

Gazzola,

True, but I do believe that both sides of a question or issue should be presented. If people disagree, that can be a good thing. Discussion is the purpose of the forum.

But if some don't like what is posted and turn nasty with ad hominem comments, which unfortunately does happen, that says more about them than anything else.

B

Since we are discussing atrocities the subject of Dupont's troops surrendered at Baylen should be at least mentioned.

The terms of the capitulation were violated by both the Spanish and British (specifically Admiral Collingwood) and the prisoners eventually ended up, after being kept in prison hulks in Cadiz harbor in execrable conditions, in the Balearics in the western Mediterranean.

There, the prisoners were neglected and allowed to die by the Spanish and the British in large numbers. Only about ten percent survived to return to France at the end of the war.

See The Prisoners of Cabrera by Denis Smith.

It should also be noted that prison hulks were used by the British in New York harbor during the War of the American Revolution, also in terrible conditions, which contributed to the deaths of many of the American prisoners of war.

B