"Atrocities in the Napoleonic Wars" Topic

Prison hulks were used in Britain for British convicts as well. Was that also an atrocity?

So who did I insult?

There is an excellent book, A History of Napoleonic and American Prisoners of War 1756-1816: Hulk, Depot, and Parole by Clive L. Lloyd which covers civilian prisoners, prisoners of war on both land and in harbors incarcerated by the British during the period cited.

The book, among other things, covers the French prisoners on Cabrera and on the hulks, the massacre by the British of American prisoners from the War of 1812 in April 1815 held beyond the end of the war in Dartmoor, and the fact that some Danish prisoners taken in the 1807 attack on Copenhagen were not released until 1814.

It's a very well done volume, in large size, well-illustrated and 374 pages of text.

B

"the massacre by the British of American prisoners from the War of 1812 in April 1815 held beyond the end of the war in Dartmoor"

Interesting perspective. At short notice I found this, below, which illuminates the above event.

"After the prisoners had heard of the Peace of Ghent, they expected immediate release, but the British government refused to let them go on parole or take any steps until the treaty was ratified by the United States Senate, 17 February 1815. It took several weeks for the American agent to secure ships for their transportation home, and the men grew very impatient. On 4 April a food contractor attempted to work off some damaged hardtack on them in place of soft bread and was forced to yield by their insurrection, and the commandant, Capt. T. G. Shortland, suspected them of a design to break out of the gaol. This was the reverse of truth in general, as they would lose their chance of going on the ships, but a few had made threats of the sort, and the commandant was very uneasy.[2]
About 6 p.m. of the 6th, Shortland discovered a hole from one of the five prisons to the barrack yard near the gun racks. Some prisoners were outside the fence, noisily pelting each other with turf, and many more were near the breach (and the gambling tables), though the signal for return to prisons had sounded. Shortland was convinced of a plot, and rang the alarm bell to collect the officers and have the men ready. This precaution brought back a crowd just going to quarters. Just then a prisoner broke a gate chain with an iron bar and a number of the prisoners pressed through to the prison market square. After attempts at persuasion, Shortland ordered a charge which drove part of the prisoners in. Those near the gate, however, hooted and taunted the soldiery, who fired a volley over their heads. The crowd yelled louder and threw stones, and the soldiers, probably without orders, fired a direct volley which killed and wounded a large number. Then they continued firing at the prisoners, many of whom were now struggling to get back inside the blocks.[2]
Finally the captain, a lieutenant and the hospital surgeon (the other officers being at dinner) succeeded in stopping the shooting and caring for the wounded — about 60, 30 seriously, besides seven killed outright. The affair was examined by a joint commission, Charles King for the United States and F. S. Larpent for Great Britain, who exonerated Shortland, justified the initial shooting and blamed the subsequent deaths on unknown culprits. The British government provided for the families of the killed, pensioned the disabled and promoted Shortland.

Here is a good piece.

link

Paul :)

Well, it looks we we've all learned something from this thread -

If the French commit atrocities, they are bad bad men and their dreadful actions have been sanctioned by their uncaring commanders and emperor – but if the Allies commit atrocities it is just a lack of discipline and their wonderful caring leaders have no idea what their naughty naughty boys were doing

Ho hum – bias still rules it seems – never mind, on to the next topic, eh? – How the British empire was created for the benefit of all the people forced, sorry, welcomed, to become part of it.

No Gazzola.

The simple point is that if a soldier commits an offence, the soldier is guilty, regardless of which army he belongs to – everyone agrees with this.

If his superiors encourage him in the act, they are guilty too. If his superiors look the other way and condone his activities they share in the guilt to some degree. If his superiors take measures to prevent the soldier from committing crimes and punish him if he carries them out, then their degree of guilt is arguably small or none. I think that you are the only poster who believes there is no moral difference between these positions but clearly I could be wrong.

None of this implies a bias to one nationality or another. In the evidence presented so far, it seems (unsurprisingly) that soldiers from all nations carried out atrocities. However, only the troops of certain countries at certain times and places were encouraged in this behaviour, or were otherwise condoned in it by their officers or generals. Reading the thread and other works will show what these instances were, including where the assumption of atrocities seems to be mistaken, for example the reputation for the cossacks committing atrocities against German civilians liberated from Napoleon's rule seems to be untenable.

'Reading the thread and other works will show what these instances were, including where the assumption of atrocities seems to be mistaken, for example the reputation for the cossacks committing atrocities against German civilians liberated from Napoleon's rule seems to be untenable.'

'Seems' is the operative word here, since it hasn't been shown even close to conclusive.

Troops will commit what they can get away with and it is the duty of the officers and NCOs to maintain discipline. when that isn't done, then atrocities or crimes will be committed. The Cossacks were not controlled by Russian regular army commanders and they seldom, if ever, even knew at any one time or at all how many were with the army as the Cossacks served under their own officers. And allowing them to 'forage' on their own relieved them of the resonsibilily of feeding them-which the Russian supply system probably couldn't do anyways.

Sir Robert Wilson characterizes the Cossacks, among other descriptions, as 'In the land which gave him birth he is the peaceful and civilized inhabitant, natural in his affections, and domestic in his habits; but in other countries he is the lawless Scythian, respecting no property or rights.'

Wilson also describes the Russian supply system, The Commissariat, as follows:

'The Commissariat is wretched, but not from the neglect of the commissaries. magazines and transports are only to be provided with money. The Russian treasury was exhausted, and British aid amounting to eighty thousand pounds, was hardly obtained.'

'Whilst armies are advancing rapidly, the food of the inhabitants can be seized and may prove sufficient; but when the seat of war becomes permanent, as was the case in Poland [in 1807], in consequence of Russian valor, famine must destroy the population, and disorganization and disease consume the army, unless arrangements are made to ensure the regular supplies from unexhausted countries.'

'…great facilities are afforded for the establishment of sufficient supplies; but, unless those supplies are, in the first instance, redundant, the convoys will always be intercepted by the famishing divisions in route, and rapine and violence will destroy all the resources which might be collected, under a proper direction, from the immediate country in which the army may be acting. As it was, no derangement could be greater, no effect more distressing, and no misery more continual, and it is only extraordinary that the army did not disperse, not from mutinous spirit, but actual necessity*'

*-'Konigsberg was only 20 miles from Eylau, and yet, although that field had long been selected for the battle, although it was notorious that the army would arrive there without food, not a loaf of bread was on the ground, so that they were fighting and starving from the 7th to the 9th. General Bennigsen, for himself and staff, could get but a bowl of potatoes at midnight after the battle, and from the evening before the battle, had not eat anything.'

So it seems, according to Wilson, that the Cossacks were notorious for their conduct outside of the home areas, the Russian commissariat was 'wretched' and the Russians attempted to live off the land and pillaging and 'rapine' occurred.

The thread has not been even-handed at all times, but overall it is a good discussion, even though Dwyers paper was referenced twice.

B

'…German civilians liberated from Napoleon's rule…'

I believe the point was in northern Germany, not Germany as a whole. I wonder what the citizens/subjects of that portion of Saxony 'liberated' by the Prussians and taken permanently thought of that 'liberation?' That portion of the army that became part of the Prussian army mutinied against Blucher and nearly caught him as he ran out of his headquarters to get away from him. Apparently the Saxons were shouting 'Long Live Napoleon!' as they mutinied.

The Germans of the Rhineland weren't too fond of their new Prussian overlords either, not being used to being ruled by something much harsher than they were used to.

Germany being 'liberated' in 1813 too many times meant being forcibly annexed by Prussia, which was the object of the Prussian exercise. The southern and western German states did not want to be dominated either by Prussia or Austria, and as the Confederation of the Rhine was being overrun in late 1813, with the exception of Bavaria and the northern German principalities, the allies plundered them quite thoroughly and exacted from them more in men, money, and supplies than Napoleon ever had.

At the very least, from 1806-1813 Napoleon had kept the Prussians and Austrians out of the countries that composed the Confederation of the Rhine, which was why most of those German states had allied with France in the first place. They believed that France was the lesser evil than either Prussia or Austria.

B

Dwyer,Dwyer, so good he was referenced twice
Dwyer,Dwyer, all the atrocities, not very nice
Dwyer,Dwyer, now isn't it a pity……. What they say about a French pillaged City

Paul :D

Liberation or 'liberation'? That hardy perennial…

TMP link

TMP link

Or in case anyone wants a pithy summary:

Kevin:

All things being equal, the question remains why did the minor western German states fight against Prussia and Austria and form the Confederation of the Rhine for self-defense?

The answer would seem to be to retain their independence from both Austria and Prussia. And it is noteworthy that Austria invaded Bavaria twice without provocation during the period-in 1805 and 1809.

Upon the invasion of Bavaria in 1809 the Archduke Charles' proclamation to his 'German brothers' to rise up against the French fell flat. The Confederation of the Rhine contingents in 1809 served with both skill and devotion to the alliance with the French.

And this thread was begun in order to bring the question out from another thread that was way too long.

Sam:

The Confederation was created by Napoleon. The small German states didn't form it for their own "self-defense."

A number of small German states were removed from the map altogether, as Napoleon created his new constellation of German satellites.

(I'm having trouble imagining Hannoverians, Hessen-Kasselers, Braunschweigers, etc., voluntarily disbanding their states "for their own self-defense.")

In other cases, like the northern coastal states, they were simply annexed by France outright.

Why did they fight for Napoleon against Prussia and Austria? The same reason they fought for him in Spain, or in Russia, or elsewhere: because he ordered them to.

Napoleon didn't 'order' Bavaria, Baden, Hesse-Darmstadt, and Wurttemberg to fight Austria in 1805. The Austrian invasion and the Austrian order to Maximilian Joseph, the Bavarian Elector to 'turn his army over to the Austrian commander' sent those four countries in an alliance with Napoleon. From that alliance after Austerlitz, the Confederation of the Rhine was formed on 12 July 1806. that act infuriated Prussia who declared war on France because of it, Prussia forcing Saxony into an alliance.

The overriding issue was Prussia and Austria attempting to rule in Germany and annex as much German territory as they could, which Prussia finally accomplished in 1814. And Austria once again invaded Bavaria in 1809 and the members of the Confederation responded enthusiastically to the outside threat, especially Bavaria, Saxony, Wurttemberg, Baden, and Hesse-Darmstadt, and were a large part of the combat power of the Army of Germany.

B

Well, naturally you can rehearse the old arguments again if you wish. But my point is that it seems…unhelpful…to base your arguments on a topic (atrocities) on further arguments (on the motivations of the rulers and people of German states) that are already highly contentious?

Regards

"The Austrian invasion and the Austrian order to Maximilian Joseph, the Bavarian Elector to 'turn his army over to the Austrian commander' sent those four countries in an alliance with Napoleon"

Do you have an exact date for the start of the Austrian invasion?

Also, any specifics concerning the Austrian order to Max Josef? Date? Source?

Thanks.

'Well, naturally you can rehearse the old arguments again if you wish. But my point is that it seems…unhelpful…to base your arguments on a topic (atrocities) on further arguments (on the motivations of the rulers and people of German states) that are already highly contentious?'

There is nothing 'rehearsed' nor are the statements 'old.' The statements reflect the situation at the time and what happened, nothing more, nothing less.

Anything can be termed 'highly contentious' merely because they are being disagreed with. That doesn't make your assertion either accurate or factual.

B

The Austrian invasion began on or about 2 September 1805 with the order for the Austrian army on or about the same date.

See Map 46, A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars by Vincent J. Esposito and John R. Elting.

B

"The overriding issue was Prussia and Austria attempting to rule in Germany and annex as much German territory as they could, which Prussia finally accomplished in 1814."

Two Question Pop Quiz:

Q #1: Which nation annexed* the most German-speakers in the period 1790-1815.

1. Austria
2. Prussia
3. France

By "annex" you can choose to define it as:

a) Directly brought new peoples and regions into the national borders who hadn't been prior to 1790, or

b) Conquered and turned into a vassal state ruled from the national capital.

-

Q #2: Which of the above three nations ever "ruled Germany" in this period?

- -

Hint: it's the same country in both cases.

Hint #2: They are known for possessing a curious fondness of paté.

Thanks, was hoping for an actual source for the order to Max Joesph, as in the specific document reference or a secondary source citing such. And the Esposito/Elting atlas text is fine for overview but hardly useful for any in depth information.

Regarding the Austrian invasion, can you provide a list of battles between Austrian and Bavarian force prior to the arrival of the French, Bavarian cities occupied by the invaders, fortresses besieged or blockaded or other specific actions?

There is nothing 'rehearsed' nor are the statements 'old.' The statements reflect the situation at the time and what happened, nothing more, nothing less.

Anything can be termed 'highly contentious' merely because they are being disagreed with. That doesn't make your assertion either accurate or factual.

Kevin, I'm not arguing with you. 'Rehearsed' here just means 'presented', the arguments are 'old' because they have been made many, many times before – see the links.

Anything can be termed 'highly contentious' merely because they are being disagreed with. That doesn't make your assertion either accurate or factual.

Yes, that is why I've used the term highly contentious – your statements have been argued over for literally thousands of posts. I've made no comment about whether any of them are right or wrong – merely trying to suggest to you that they aren't likely to be any more persuasive over the next thousand posts.

I haven't made any assertions as far as I know, either accurate or factual or otherwise, so presumably that is just a random dig on your part? I hope it made you feel better.

@Carnot93,

I re-read the relevant passage in Kagan's 'The End of the Old Order' (p335-336). It seems that the order of events was that Max Joseph had already agreed to an alliance with Napoleon, Schwartzenberg (unaware of this) was sent to Max Joseph to persuade the Elector to join with the Austrians (or to find out if the Elector *had* chosen sides yet and if he could be persuaded to renege on that). Max Joseph agreed to open negotiations about joining the Austrian alliance but said he needed to speak to his councillor, Montgelas. Apparently this was a ruse on the part of the Elector to gain time, but it convinced Schwartzenberg that Max Joseph had agreed to put the Bavarian Army at the disposal of the Allies to do it. However, when the Austrians issued an ultimatum to that effect, Max Joseph preferred the promises of Napoleon to the imminent threat of the Austrians, and ordered his Army to march north to Wurzburg and Bamberg.

Kagan cites various archives in KA AFA, von Zwehl's 'Der Kampf und Bayern 1805' and Krauss' 'Der Feldzug von Ulm' in this section.

Regards

Thanks Whirlwind. I will confess that I was asking leading questions to see if Brechtel would recognize his mistake and modify his position or if he would simply keep reasserting the same false statement.

Kagan is, of course, correct – and it is impossible that Austrian troops crossing the Bavarian frontier on 8 September 1805 (not "on or about 2 September 1805") could have caused the Bavarians to sign an alliance with France on 23 August. 2 September, btw, was when Mack issued orders for the Austrian forces in the camp of Wels to start their march to the Inn (the river separating upper Austria from Bavaria).

I also disagree entirely with Brechtel's assertion that fear of Austria led Max Joseph to willingly ally himself with France. From my research it seems plain to me that fear of France was the single largest motivating factor. Diplomatic correspondence that Alex Stavropoulos has gone through in the archives indicates that Bavaria was justifiably concerned about both, and it's perhaps a matter of opinion what the deciding factor was. Indications are that Max Joseph would have preferred neutrality, but both sides made it plain that neutrality was not a choice.

Napoleon's correspondence with Guillaume Otto (French minister to Munich) and Talleyrand (foreign minister at the time) provide one half of the picture. Some useful passages from Napoleon's correspondence:

To Talleyrand, 13 August 1805: "Also write to Mr. Otto that it is necessary that Bavaria decide, and that I will not allow it to remain neutral." The same message went out to Baden and Württemberg.

16 August he instructed Talleyrand to send the Elector of Bavaria his assurance of military support by promising to send 200,000 men to Bavaria if Austria did not stand down from the frontier (the camp of Wels and from the vicinity of Innsbruck). "With a character as hesitant as that of the Elector of Bavaria, unless there were such strong provisions, he would not do it [sign an alliance]." – a friendly promise of assistance, or a veiled threat to intimidate the Elector?

23 August, also to Talleyrand:
"My intention is that your language with the ambassadors always rolls in this direction, and that you make to my various ministers a circular written in the same spirit, in which you will charge to Austria the beginning of the hostilities. … You must not say that I answer war with war; but that the war in fact is declared" -- to Napoleon the cassus belli was Austrian mobilization, not the "invasion" of Bavaria. War is in fact declared, according to Napoleon, more than two weeks before Austrian forces crossed into Bavaria. N's message to the elector of Bavaria was: "if Austria does not evacuate the Tyrol, I am determined to put myself at the head my forces, and that Germany will see more soldiers than it ever saw" – once again, a friendly promise of assistance, or a veiled threat to intimidate the Elector?

27 August – Napoleon orders his army from the channel coast to the Rhine. Note that this is a week before Austrian troops were ordered from the camp of Wels and nearly two weeks prior to their crossing of the Bavarian frontier.

But Brechtel is technically correct in saying that "Napoleon didn't 'order' Bavaria, Baden, Hesse-Darmstadt, and Wurttemberg to fight Austria in 1805." He in fact told them that he was sending 200,000 men into southern Germany and he would not allow them to remain neutral.

And what 'false statement' did I make? If you believe a mistake has been made, then state it as a mistake. Accusing someone of a 'false statement' is not only an ad hominem attack it is also a pejorative statement that is not necessary.

You really ought to watch what you say and how you say it.

You can disagree all you like and that is fine, but to make accusatory comments like you just did is outside the Pale.

The minor western German states did not want to be ingested by either Prussia or Austria and that is why they chose France instead of either of the other two.

B

At that, dear audience, concludes another fun-filled episode of The Incredible Man Who is Immune to Factual Correction.

Stay tuned for the special documentary, "Oh yeah? Well the British did it too!".

— Brought to you by Clinical Myopia Productions, Copyright 1999-2013.

Whirlwind

What the heck are you talking about? I said an atrocity was an atrocity, no matter if it was against one person or thousands or if the commanding body organised or allowed it or not, so kindly get off my back – it is a bad habit you seem to have concerning my posts.

By the way, I thought you had me stifled. A porky pie was it?

Carnot93

The Bavarians sided with the French because, at the time, they felt that was the better side to be on, which turned out to be right. Later, they changed sides when they thought it would be better to side against the French, and again, they were right. Clever those Bavarians, aren't they?

Spreewaldgurken

I suggest you stick to researching your Westphalian book. How may years has it been now? But I guess you are too busy thinking up new member names.

Gazzola,

If that's all he can do it says more about his antics and nonsense than anything else.

He has to make fun of something, that's just his way. He's very brave from behind a keyboard.

B

True of False: the Austrian invasion of Bavaria was a factor that contributed to the creation of the Franco-Bavarian alliance.

The only thing I "accused" you of is stating something as fact that was, in fact, false. Proven, I believe beyond any doubt, with a simple recounting of facts. The topic was your statement. Not your character, personality, integrity or anything else. Not ad hominem. not pejorative.

"You really ought to watch what you say and how you say it." -- See, it's funny. Where you come from, apparently if someone says you have made a false statement it is a personal attack. Where I come from, it just means you've made a false statement. Now where I come from, when someone says "You really out to watch what you say …" it is a threat, hostile in tone and intent, with an implied " … or else" that is an overt, bullying way to tell someone to shut up if they don't want to get hurt.

So you will say you were not intending to threaten me, and I have already said that my only intention was to provide evidence to correct statements you had made that were (pick the word of your choice): factually incorrect, mistaken, erroneous, wrong, untrue or … false.

And I disagree with your opinion (which you stated as fact) regarding the reason why the south German states allied with France in 1805.

BTW Spreewaldgurken, the show may need new material but its been running longer than Oh! Calcutta! with no signs of stopping. I didn't have some of my print sources at hand, so I just popped over to the Napoleon Series archives and pulled material from one of my posts in reply to Kevin from June 2004…

Gazzola – simply put, and I agree with you. I suspect Kevin will as well. But beyond that is where the disagreement lies.

'Two Question Pop Quiz: Q #1: Which nation annexed* the most German-speakers in the period 1790-1815.
1. Austria
2. Prussia
3. France
By "annex" you can choose to define it as:a) Directly brought new peoples and regions into the national borders who hadn't been prior to 1790, or
b) Conquered and turned into a vassal state ruled from the national capital.
Q #2: Which of the above three nations ever "ruled Germany" in this period?
Hint: it's the same country in both cases.
Hint #2: They are known for possessing a curious fondness of paté.'

That is really interesting in that you have fixed your own definition to what 'annex' means in order to get the answer you wish to have, instead of an accurate one.

Here are the five definitions from Webster's for the term 'annes':

1: to attach as a quality, consequence, or condition
2 archaic : to join together materially : UNITE
3: to add to something earlier, larger, or more important
4: to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state
5: to obtain or take for oneself

Now if you compare the amount of territory that Prussia had in 1806, 1808, and then 1814 you'll find, no doubt, that Prussia had annexed much more German territory than France did in 1790-1815. France had annexed the Rhineland, two of the smaller German states of the Confederation of the Rhine and the Hanseatic states.

Prussia annexed the Rhineland, some small North German states and forty percent of Saxony. She had grown substantially in territory because of the Congress of Vienna.

Now, if you're assuming that the Confederation of the Rhine was annexed to France, then that is incorrect. Those states, with the two exceptions noted (Olde3nberg and Salm) were not a part of France and had not been annexed.

Now if I've misread your posting, then please explain it without sarcasm, condescension, and the obvious lack of meaningful wit.

B

'But beyond that is where the disagreement lies.'

My disagreement with you is how you express yourself in your posting which was wrong. The term 'false' as you used it is a pejorative usage of the term. If you cannot understand that, then I feel very sorry for you.

Whether anyone is right or wrong here is not the point-all of us make mistakes. However, how you express yourself is important and you have a very bad habit of expressing yourself badly.

B

Sigh. pass.

Very insulting that.

By the way, I thought you had me stifled. A porky pie was it?

No, clearly not. How come you being wrong about that means that I have lied?

"That is really interesting in that you have fixed your own definition to what 'annex' means in order to get the answer you wish to have, instead of an accurate one."

No, I long ago learned that when dealing with you, I have to choose words and definitions very carefully, to prevent you from playing with semantics, diverting the topic from one that is uncomfortable to you, or obfuscating by deliberately arguing about words instead of meanings or facts.

Note, for example, that I specified "brought new peoples into…" because I anticipated (correctly, as it turned out) that you'd attempt to obfuscate by claiming that Prussia "annexed" the Rhineland, when in fact part of the Rhineland territory had already been Prussia's prior to 1790, and thus many former Prussians were being returned to Prussia.

Note also my use of the term "German-speakers." I chose that very deliberately because I anticipated (correctly, as it turned out), that you'd try to equate territories without accounting for population, in order to say something like "Well France got three but Prussia got four…"

So to return to the math: Which major European power did the most of the two things that you said Germans were afraid of? (Being annexed and attempting to rule over all Germany) ?

France annexed @10 million Rhinelanders, and the entire Rhineland from Wesel down. France annexed the whole north German coast from Lübeck to Frisia, and as far south as the Wendland. That's another @3 million people.

And France indisputably "ruled over" vassal states like Westphalia and Berg (combined, another @2.5 million) which had no sovereignty, and then of course France arguably dictated to the rest of the Confederation.*

How many did Prussia ADD (i.e., not get restored) in 1814? Northern Saxony (less than 1mil people), two of the departments of the former Westphalia (@ 500k), and about 6 million new Rhinelanders that they hadn't ruled before.

TOTALS:

France: annexed 13-14 mil new Germans plus ruled over another @2.5 mil as vassals. (Total: @16 mil.)

Prussia: annexed @7-8 mil new Germans.

Not only is that directly annexing many more people than Prussia did in the same period, but also accomplishing the feat of "Ruling Germany."

Thus if Germans were – as you claimed – worried about being annexed or ruled-over by outsiders… it would be France who posed the greatest real threat in that regard during the period 1790-1815.

Any questions?

- –

* Nobody has claimed that the other Confederation states were "annexed" to France, nor do they appear in the math above. But they were certainly under French control, militarily, economically, and politically. They had no sovereign foreign policy, and French police, customs agents, and military officials came and went as Napoleon pleased, enforcing French regulations, making arrests and transporting people back to France, etc. Napoleon exercised sovereign authority over whom those states chose as ambassadors to other courts, and he dictated much of their military and conscription policies, and of course their commercial policies.

Whirlwind

Are you saying that in another thread you did not say that you had stifled me?

Are you sure it was him.. Wasn't it Flecktarn and Peeler?

Edwulf

Members can unstifle people ya know. It has been done.

@Edwulf,

Na, Gazzola means from the last time he and Kevin were doing the 'Germans' thing: TMP link

I didn't actually stifle Gazzola though, as he knows perfectly well – I have wished him a happy birthday since then! (we get on perfectly well when not talking about the contentious stuff) TMP link

Regards

Whirlwind

But you could have stifled me and then, unable to resist the urge to read my wonderful posts, you unstifled me. Go on admit it, you won't be the only one.

And you do realise that if you threaten to stifle anyone from now on, they won't believe you.

Na Gazzola, if you read closely I said 'if', so no 'porky pie'.

However, you on many occasions have promised not to post on the contentious stuff and stick to figure, uniforms, rules, painting and so on…and yet, here you are.

But you could have stifled me and then, unable to resist the urge to read my wonderful posts, you unstifled me. Go on admit it, you won't be the only one.

Well, what seems more common is that people stifle you…and then keep you stifled.

Having returned from what Colonel Toffee Apple described as "playing with tanks" (although, rather sadly, tanks were somewhat lacking as the British army seems to have remarkably few these days), I need to start by replying to von Winterfeldt, which I will do in English, although it would be easier to do so in German.

Your quotes on what happened in Jaffa are interesting and, if I get time, I will pursue them in detail; they certainly seem to throw a different light on what happened. The problem, however, is still the same: who de we believe when we are presented with different versions of historical events?

Some on this site display an almost total unwillingness to believe anything presented by Napoleon or his supporters on the basis that much that was written or stated by them has been shown to be inaccurate and rooted in developing and maintaining the Napoleonic "legend", with the rewriting of the history of the battle of Marengo being an example of this. Some of them, as a result of adopting this position, will tend to believe anything that paints Napoleon, his regime and his army in a bad light.

On the other hand, there are those, and one in particular, who only seem willing to believe the writings and statements of those who present Napoleon, his regime and his army in a positive light and will reject anything that does not.

Both positions, which have been displayed in this thread, are clearly false; true historical enquiry should be objective and not informed by bias. One should also remember that, for example, not all French accounts were written by those who supported Napoleon or, at in some cases, were written by people who had supported him but later found it politically expedient to no longer support him and to write negatively about him.

All armies in the Napoleonic wars looted and committed what we would regard as atrocities, as have virtually all armies throughout history. However, what is very apparent is that some armies were worse than others and that the French, possibly because they had greater opprotunity through spending so much time fighting in other peoples' countries, were the worst of all.

It does seem that the Prussians in particular behaved very badly in France in 1814 and 1815; excusing that behaviour on the basis of the earlier French treatment of Prussia is not really good enough, athough, of course, the same argument is often used to excuse the behaviour of French forces in Germany in 1945.

Coming from a country, army and family where atrocities are a sensitive subject, I do think that one needs to discriminate between those nations which generally made strong attempts to control the behaviour of their soldiers during the Napoleonic wars, in particular Great Britain, and those which, despite some exceptions, did not, such as France. An atrocity is an atrocity regardless of the scale or the level of government or command complicity, but a nation which does everything in its power to prevent such acts cannot be judged in the same way as a nation which is complicit in condoning or not trying to prevent such acts.

With regard to the reasons for the allegiance of the lesser already established German states to Napoleon, in most cases it is fairly apparent that the reasons had more to do with a desire to be on the side of what appeared to be the dominant military power and the aggrandisement of the rulers (for example, the Electors of Bavaria and my ancestral homeland were turned into Kings), than any real love of France or of the ideals of the revolution or of the Bonapartist empire.

Apologies if this post has been overly long, but a lot has happened in this thread since I went off to play with tanks and I wanted to try to respond to as much if it as possible without making multiple posts.

Jurgen

whirlwind

So sue me ya big dafty!

But we are not talking about 'other' people, we are talking about you!

And if I remember rightly, I think I said I will 'try' to stick to posting on certain topics. And one can only try.

Other than that, please point out where it says where and when I can or can't post or even change my mind, should a thread sound interesting enough or far too biased against Napoleon and the French, as many of them are? Should I say oh no, Whirlwind will be annoyed. Get over it man!

Anyone would think you don't want me attending this website. I'm sure that is not the case. And it is noticeable that those claiming to have used the silly stifle against me always seem to know exactly what I posted. LOL

Dear Jurgen, I hope that you didn't break any of our tanks, they're very fragile, and, as we only have a few, we'd be very upset.
I'm assuming that the reference to Marengo was to my view of Buonaparte during that campaign? Yes, he won, but not through his military genius. I would maintain that he was lucky rather than skillful, especially lucky in that a potential political died at the same time.

"Your quotes on what happened in Jaffa are interesting and, if I get time, I will pursue them in detail; they certainly seem to throw a different light on what happened. The problem, however, is still the same: who de we believe when we are presented with different versions of historical events?"

You have to read eye witness reports and there are plenty about Jaffa, all French – and why should they lie?
Also it is pure propaganda – that the French Army had no food to feed those captives, they captured plenty when they sacked Jaffa.

As to Marengo, what has to be re – written? Napoleon himself ordered Berthier to write a history and it had to be re written by poor Berthier because his original version did not glorify N enough.

The 1800 campaign was of course won by a much better general than Bonaparte – Moreau. ;-)).

'As to Marengo, what has to be re – written? Napoleon himself ordered Berthier to write a history and it had to be re written by poor Berthier because his original version did not glorify N enough.'

While Berthier did write a history of Marengo, that is not the one that was ordered rewritten by Napoleon. That document was written by Col Vallongue of the Depot de Guerre in 1803. This one was fairly accurate which was why Napoleon wanted it redone.

Napoleon ordered it rewritten and it was done in 1805, again by Col Vallongue (I wonder what unrecorded remarks were made by the Col). Napoleon also ordered all of the copies of the original report destroyed, but one was kept by a clerk and found years later.

An excellent account of this can be found in On the Napoleonic Wars by David Chandler, Chapter 4 entitled Adjusting the Record: Napoleon and Marengo.

B

As for Moreau being a 'better general' than Napoleon the record does not support it.

Moreau was a good general and an excellent commander, but Hohenlinden was won for him by Richepanse, Ney, Grouchy, and Decaen.

And Moreau ended up a renegade supporting the allies at Dresden as an 'advisor' and was duly mortally wounded by French artillery fire-poetic justice.

B

Since it was brought up in a previous posting, when did Napoleon ever consider Desaix a rival? I would like to see evidence supporting it from Napoleon's Correspondence or any other primary source.

Napoleon considered Desaix 'the most balanced of his lieutenants' and was certainly upset at Desaix's death at Marengo.

I have seen nothing to support the 'rival' idea and I consider it to be nonsense.

B

Since it was brought up in a previous posting, when did Napoleon ever consider Desaix a rival? I would like to see evidence supporting it from Napoleon's Correspondence or any other primary source.

Napoleon considered Desaix 'the most balanced of his lieutenants' and was certainly upset at Desaix's death at Marengo.

I have seen nothing to support the 'rival' idea and I consider it to be nonsense, especially because at the time of Marengo Napoleon was already First Consul.

B