"myths and outright lies!" Topic

Bandit you are on our side and I'm not insulting you. I'm just pointing out that it takes time for people like yourself to realize we aren't beating up on Kevin because we hate Napoléon. We do so because he's an insufferable blockhead.

Edwulf

I strongly recommend Dominic Lieven's Russia against Napoleon. He does a good job of presenting the Russian side of the wars.

Best

Bandit

Agreed. Sometimes, we forgot the men at the sharp end and pay too much attention to the "big picture".

Regards

Baz
Thanks for the recommendation. I might just track that down.

I spent three weeks in Russia once. Had a soft spot for the place and it's people ever since.

Hew Johns,

I will readily admit that your sense of expression gets lost somewhere between your keyboard and my screen, that is to say, I commonly have no idea if you are being a jerk or a really nice guy and it baffles me leaving me at a loss as to your true intent.

Therefore, thank you for the plain followup statement. I appreciate it. I do think just by the law of large numbers *some* of the time people are picking on _________ person (cause it isn't always Kevin) it relates to which "camp" we're each in. But I hear what you're saying.

basileus66,

I have that on my "need to buy list" of Napoleonic history books. One of the reasons I pick on "the English" sometimes is that they dominate the picture of the Napoleonic Wars from the stance of Americans who want to study it. The sad part is that the broader english speaking literary community did not take on translating everything under the sun (imperfect but an improvement). Thus, those of us who don't speak several languages must either decide to dedicate the necessary time & resources to learn such or live with Anglo-source material…

So goes, not a new problem, but it does make me excited when something like Dominic Lieven's Russia against Napoleon gets published in english.

Cheers,

The Bandit

"I don't see what all the fuss is about concerning the providence of one quote, one that was not even that important to the issue we were talking about at the time"

I thought the issue was one of basic honesty and forthrightness.

When somebody asks, "Hey, where did you get that quote?" you should not respond by telling people to go find it, themselves. Just honestly say where you got it.

And if you don't know where the original is from, just say so honestly, rather than insulting people and refusing to answer. It's not the end of the world to say "I don't know."

(Ironically, if he had done that, it would have ended there. But because he refused to disclose it honestly, that made people suspicious, and they discovered the truth.)

When somebody figures out that your source is false, you should not respond by insulting them and standing your ground on pride and stubbornness. A simple acknowledgement of the correction would have sufficed, such as: "I stand corrected."

When it becomes obvious that you were wrong, a simple, "I was wrong" would suffice, rather than pretending to be offering "help" by belatedly finding something else that confirms that your initial argument was wrong, so that you can then argue both sides without having to admit any error.

This is basic sophomore-level stuff. It's about being able to admit when you don't know something, or that you're not always right.

Bandit,

I know what you mean about our colleague "Hew" …. but if I am correct, he is someone who has done quite a bit of highest quality research on this era and published it not for money, but just stuck it up on the internet for free.

I am much lazier and less well-read, but like Hew I follow the Steven H. Smith "school of the six precepts" ….
(i) looking as deeply as possible, with the finest granularity of detail, into as many original sources in the original languages as possible
(ii) giving accurate citations, preferably with a link to an on-line resource
(iii) answering anybody's request for information with as much zeal as possible
(iv) never commercializing for profit or personal renown, nor privatizing, historical knowledge
(v) letting the original sources from all sides speak, and letting every person draw their own conclusions for themselves from these sources
(vi) balancing bias, special pleading, nationalistic feelings, egoism and profit motivation with deeper research freely offered.

There are quite a few other members of this school. Admission is free and there are no entrance qualifications, except following the six precepts. I think maybe you are a member too – "you are on our side" as Hew wrote.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

P.S. If you are really limited to English, try just reading French (with an on-line translator and maybe a military dictionary for when you get stuck). You will be shocked at how quickly you will pick it up. Just think of written French as non-standard or archaic English spelling and, except for a few cases, you will likely know the meaning of most passages – and you will be free of the tyranny of other people's translations and can form your own conclusions about what the authors wanted to say.

letting the original sources from all sides speak, and letting every person draw their own conclusions for themselves from these sources

There I can't agree. At least not without some qualification. Sources never "speak" for themselves. The historians are who make them "speak". They select and explain them. They are, actually, productions of a specific culture and circumstances, which usually won't reveal their inner workings even to trained historians. Moreover, there are, in each source, different layers of meaning, depending on the audience. It doesn't mean that they are misleading on purpose. Perhaps even the original author wasn't aware of those hidden meanings. Other times the author didn't need to elaborate the subtext, as he or she thought it was perfectly understandable for her readers, while it escapes to us though.

Historians must be honest and don't try to push a hidden agenda, but that doesn't mean let the sources speak for themselves. It means that they must present the narrative without hiding information that could change the perception of the story by their readers that would perceive it differently if they would have been made aware of that information.

Best

Dear basileus,

I wish it were as you have written, that historians could be relied upon to act as you have suggested. However, for every 1 that works in this way, there have been 5 that are really driven by less honorable agendas of various sorts.

So, I still say it, despite the real wisdom of your ideas – let the original sources speak, and let each person be their own "historian" to the greatest extent possible. Add the occassional 1 out 6 "good" secondary work as a "bonus", but let the original sources take first place.

Maybe I just have "trouble with authority". I was told that rather often in my youth. But I really don't want anyone to pre-screen my information, and don't want to pre-screen information for other people.

Also, there is a practical benefit : original sources tend to be old, in the public domain and today often available everywhere on-line for free. Modern secondary works can be rather an expensive investment, and to me not a wise investment in 5 out of 6 cases.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

P.S. – Exception made for translations (when necessary for a reader), and works (example Fabry) that are mostly a collection of original source materials, each reproduced essentially in full, with perhaps some notes from the historian, as well as cartographic materials, archeological reports and similar "technical" (although secondary) works.

"(i) looking as deeply as possible, with the finest granularity of detail, into as many original sources in the original languages as possible
(ii) giving accurate citations, preferably with a link to an on-line resource
(iii) answering anybody's request for information with as much zeal as possible
(iv) never commercializing for profit or personal renown, nor privatizing, historical knowledge
(v) letting the original sources from all sides speak, and letting every person draw their own conclusions for themselves from these sources
(vi) balancing bias, special pleading, nationalistic feelings, egoism and profit motivation with deeper research freely offered."

Exactly. These things are to be striven for, even if not achieved.
As far as Kevin's intellectual dishonesty, bluster, name calling and obfuscation is concerned, there is no room for it in History, at any level. It's the kind of thing one associates with the likes of David Irving, not a Historian.

Why was Berezina important?? If the French got clean away with the other half of the force, how would anything be different? Or have you decided the Russians would have caught Napoléon if only they had the will to power? The cossacks could have caught him after Maloyaroslavets or his sleigh could have overturned on the way to Warszawa.

Is there a proper question (i.e something worthwhile that hasn't been answered a million times already on this thread) hidden away inside HewJohns latest effort? I would be grateful if someone could translate for me.

The rest of the posters seem to have understood now why the Beresina was so important, perhaps they could help get Hew up to speed with the basics.

I wish it were as you have written, that historians could be relied upon to act as you have suggested. However, for every 1 that works in this way, there have been 5 that are really driven by less honorable agendas of various sorts.

I totally agree with you on this Alexandre. Questioning authority is the only correct way to behave.

TW,

Why was Berezina important?? If the French got clean away with the other half of the force, how would anything be different? Or have you decided the Russians would have caught Napoléon if only they had the will to power? The cossacks could have caught him after Maloyaroslavets or his sleigh could have overturned on the way to Warszawa.

Is there a proper question (i.e something worthwhile that hasn't been answered a million times already on this thread) hidden away inside HewJohns latest effort? I would be grateful if someone could translate for me.

I think Hew Johns is saying something in the same vein of what I did previously. He asks:
• Had the Russians not engaged at all along the Berezina, does 1813-1814 change any?

I had said:
• Had the French Army been completely destroyed at the Berezina, sure 1813-1814 changes, but the war still continues in 1813.

His reference to Napoleon being captured obviously seems to be linked to you and Kevin saying that if the French Army was destroyed at the Berezina it is an absolute given that Napoleon would be captured or killed. Hew Johns's statement that cossacks could have gotten him in Poland or Germany is akin to me saying that Napoleon was often at risk at a level I believe was similar to the Berezina.

That help any?

Alexandre: I wish it were as you have written, that historians could be relied upon to act as you have suggested. However, for every 1 that works in this way, there have been 5 that are really driven by less honorable agendas of various sorts.

TW: I totally agree with you on this Alexandre. Questioning authority is the only correct way to behave.

On page two of this thread you called me rude for asking Kevin to link his posting to the topic…

Bandit: All of that is nice but how does it pertain to determining the question of Dutch participation in the bridging affair?

TW: I do think Kevin's first post addressed the question, and your response could be interpreted as a bit rude. So Kevin's subsequent irritable response was justified IMO.

Which for point of contrast (or lack of contrast) appears very similar to:

TW: Is there a proper question (i.e something worthwhile that hasn't been answered a million times already on this thread) hidden away inside HewJohns latest effort?

Just saying, glass houses – living in one isn't bad unless you're throwing rocks :-p Either we're both rude or we're both not. I think there is a comparison here to the 'does an army have to meet its own objective to escape defeat?' argument.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit,

Had the Russians not engaged at all along the Berezina, does 1813-1814 change any?

Missing the point. The Russians not engaging at all would have been an insane command decision and a huge failure. The fact that they did engage and yet not trap the Grande Armee was also a huge failure. Just because the possibility of being stupidly inactive exists, it doesn't excuse failure when you are being active.
Your question is akin to excusing a Police Officer for not preventing a crime that happened right in front of him & that was easily in his power to prevent, because the crime would have occurred anyway if he wasn't on the scene.
The point is that the Russians DID attack (which was a good decision), but yet didn't destroy Napoleon and his army for good. Trying to answer the question of why this was so is very interesting me and I think it would have made a good debate. But we all got massively distracted.

akin to me saying that Napoleon was often at risk at a level I believe was similar to the Berezina.

Well its this view that I think is so incorrect, and implies that we have a completely different undertanding of the Beresina situation, probably irrevocably so.

Had the French Army been completely destroyed at the Berezina, sure 1813-1814 changes, but the war still continues in 1813.

Er, completely destroyed means no Napoleon, no Ney or Murat or Oudinot or Eugene or Victor, or a whole list of other important generals. Not to mention the cadre of the surviving Imperial Guard and other Corps. Saying "sure 1813-1814 changes" in that situation has to be the biggest understatement I have heard for some time. Claiming that the war would continue in any meaningful way under that scenario is quite funny to me, and it's more straw-clutching.

Either we're both rude or we're both not.

I'd go with we're both rude. There are a lot of quite cranky posters who have appeared on this thread, what of it? A more important question could be "do they even know that they are rude"? Or, "why are they being rude?".

TW,

Missing the point. The Russians not engaging at all would have been an insane command decision and a huge failure. The fact that they did engage and yet not trap the Grande Armee was also a huge failure. The former possibility doesn't excuse the latter actuality.
Your question is akin to excusing a Police Officer for not preventing a crime that happened right in front of him & that was easily in his power to prevent, because the crime would have occurred anyway if he wasn't on the scene.

Declining to agree with your conclusion does not equal missing the point or missing your point. You presume that the Russians must destroy the French Army in total to succeed, in previous posts (and in this one) you've linked this to a necessary capture or death or Napoleon. I don't think that itself (destruction of the French Army) is required for Russian success. The most obvious goal of 1812 for the Russians is to make the French leave Russia, that goal would still be in effect at Berezina and the French did leave, in a pretty sorry state at that.

Well its this view that I think is so incorrect, and implies that you have a completely different undertanding of the Beresina situation than I have.

It doesn't imply a different understanding, it states a different understanding, my intent is overt.

Er, what? Completely destroyed means no Napoleon, no Ney or Murat or Oudinot or Eugene or Victor, or a whole list of other important generals.

I don't grant this set of presumptions and I do not believe they are self-evident. History is full of times that armies have been destroyed as effective fighting forces and remnants regroup later, times that armies are destroyed and high commands escape is even more common. I think the few portions of the French Grande Armée still under arms could have been largely wiped out without necessarily preventing the escape of Napoleon and some senior commanders escorted by Guard Cavalry. It isn't impossible that Napoleon would be captured or killed, I just don't agree it is a given. I do think if Napoleon escapes, no matter the fate of his army, there is still a war circa 1813 or 1814. I find it hard to believe that both Napoleon and his opponents are willing to accept lasting peace at that point.

I'd go with we're both rude. There are a lot of quite cranky posters who have appeared on this thread, what of it? A more important question could be is "why are they being rude" or "do they even know that they are rude"?

If we're both being rude then wouldn't your questions be more accurately phrased as "why are we being rude?".

Cheers,

The Bandit

"P.S. If you are really limited to English, try just reading French (with an on-line translator and maybe a military dictionary for when you get stuck). You will be shocked at how quickly you will pick it up. Just think of written French as non-standard or archaic English spelling and, except for a few cases, you will likely know the meaning of most passages – and you will be free of the tyranny of other people's translations and can form your own conclusions about what the authors wanted to say."

At Alexander, with all due respect, this is some of the worse advice I have, read, this is exactly how misunderstandings/misinterpretations arise. In order to really understand a book in a foreign language, you need to master this language, some online dictionary will very often produce "jibberish" (look at how this post started 250= postings ago) It will not be the "big" military terms that are difficult, the subtly phrased undertones etc, Is it a negation rather than confirmation and more like thisn especially literary tekst in French can prove very hard to fully grasp. So better to read "only" the books in a language you understand well than to get misled by half understood snippets of foreign text.

Marcel,

I can't disagree with you. All your points should be remembered when looking at a "half-understood" foreign language.
But, you have to start a second language somehow, no ?

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

Very true Alexandre, but starting a language with 200 old history texts is quite a high treshold, but off course a least it will be something in your field of interest so that helps to keep on focused

Marcel,

Yes, exactly my thought – the interest level is high to begin with. You avoid starting with "Good-day, my name is Alexandre", "Where is the hotel?" or the dreaded "The pen of my aunt is blue."

Also, the material is something that you likely know a bit about from your first language. And, there is some degree of stereotyping in the prose – the memoirs of a French officer, a list of forces engaged, or a French regimental history being structurally very similar to their English-language cognates.

Your caveats still 100% apply. I really do agree with you. But the "aunt's blue pen" method is really a hard way to go when you are an adult and have limited free time.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

Alexander

I understand your point. This is a debate that has been going for long between historians. Some of them, from a Positivist tradition, value the original sources by themselves; they got the idea that sources can speak by themselves. Others, lets call them Postmodernists (although I don't like the term that much, it is easy to use), think of sources as cultural products, i.e they have not a meaning by themselves, but the meaning is given by the interplay between the historian, the source and the final readers. I don't consider myself a hardcore Postmodernist -there is not meaning beyond the text itself-, but I see the value of their criticisms to Positivist approaches.

Secondary works are necessary in any research, though. For example, in my PhD research I needed to consult some data about the expenditures of the French treasure to carry the war in Spain, in order to get a clearer picture about how the guerrilla warfare affected France's war effort. I could have spent hundreds of hours and money going to Paris to research the archives (regretfully, not yet digitalized, therefore I wasn't able to consult the archives online), or save a lot of time and money by consulting the works of Pierre Branda -a leading French scholar on Napoleonic France finances-. I chose the later, as the economics of France wasn't the goal of my research, but the Spanish irregular warfare. I accepted Branda's numbers and conclusions, based upon his thorough use of primary sources and the good standard of his researchs. I do not think that makes my work less valuable. Of course, the part relevant to the guerrillas was based upon archival material. Otherwise, my PhD would have been worthless.

My point is that a good research is based upon a lot of things: interpretation and analysis of primary sources, a thorough knowledge of the literature in the topic selected and the support of secondary works that you are confident have been well researched too.

Best

basileus66 & Alexandre,

The question is does a historian:

Research [analyze & interpret] source materials to output a product [the narative].

or

Research [gather and relate] source materials to output a product [make available said source material].

I think from the standpoint of the general masses a historian does the first, they shape 'the narrative' of history.

From the standpoint of another historian the second is more useful. All depends on what part of the food chain you're in doesn't it?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Dear basileus,

You make excellent points. Indeed, I am familiar with Branda's work, and think of him as one of the "1 of 6" secondary sources that are quite agenda-free and in the finest academic tradition. Additionally, his work is rather often available on-line and/or in articles which can be retrieved with (free) inter-library arrangements. Finally, abstracting statistical information, admittedly only a part of Branda's efforts, I would classify as one the "technical" sub-disciplines for which I did note an exception.

While on the subject of finances, I have enjoyed using the data archived here:
esfdb.org/Default.aspx
The organization is maybe not too user-friendly, but the accessibility is wonderful.

I am not so well-schooled as to have known about the idea of a "Positivist tradition". But, I have to admit, it sounds pretty good to me. On the other hand, "meaning is given by the interplay between the historian [and] the source" frankly frightens me.
:-)

Bandit,

Well, do you suppose that you and I are "historians"? I know that I am not (checking to be sure ….. nope, it's confimred : no historians anywhere around my place …. we have a couple of business people, two retired scientists, my adult daughter who has no skills of any sort beyond clothes shopping and being just a really nice person, house staff and 3 large dogs – no historians at all, not even any of the dogs).

Hey, I just like to ask and answer questions on a gaming forum as an antidote to insomnia.

I would suppose historians do something more than that.
Gee, I really hope they do more than that – I pay for lots of them with my taxes!
:-)

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

Alexandre,

Well, if there is a 3rd type who just consumes 'it', source data whether it is something they research as denoted above or as the output of a historian… then I suppose I am… but I don't think I output anything to anyone, I just consume stuff others do in either of the two forms.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit,

We seem to have such a totally different analysis of the Beresina situation that continuation of the conversation is probably not worth it. However, against my better judgement I feel that I should respond at least once more to clear up some of the things that you have assumed without reason.

It isn't impossible that Napoleon would be captured or killed, I just don't agree it is a given

I never said it was a given. I just think your scenarios for escape are wildly improbable, plus they ignore what actually happened at the time; Napoleon did not try to escape when things looked grim, he remained at the bridges (eastern side!) to help oversee the operation. Napoleon's positioning and his leadership on the eastern shore was by some accounts a key factor in preventing panic when Tchaplitz's advance guard on the western bank attacked the area around the bridge. So claiming Napoleon might have fled is doing a disservice to what he actually did historically.
Before you claim that Napoleon might then have tried to escape afterwards (i.e. when the bridges were destroyed or blocked), the obvious counter-point would be "escape where?". As Kevin pointed out earlier, do you expect him to fly over a major river and over the heads of three enemy armies? Please describe to me one single escape route starting from the eastern bank and with the Studienka and Borisov bridges broken and blocked by Russians.

You also keep claiming that I believe the Russians needed to capture Napoleon in order to have won the battle, which is not at all what I have said. My position is that the Russians needed to have destroyed what was left of the Grande Armee (which would have included the capture of many Generals) if the Beresina is to be claimed as a Russian victory, given the CONTEXT.

It doesn't imply a different understanding, it states a different understanding, my intent is overt.

No, it implies a different understanding. You have made scores of arguments that seem bizarre from my point of understanding of the Beresina situation, which implies that we have an irrevocable divergence of opinion.

The most obvious goal of 1812 for the Russians is to make the French leave Russia

Yes at the strategic level, but we are talking about the battle; why even engage at the Beresina If that was the aim for the battle? Why destroy the bridges around Borisov and then aggressively try to cut off the escape from Studienka with Admiral Chizagov's army? This would seem to be counter-productive would it not? We are not talking about the goals for the campaign, we are talking about the goals for the battle of the Beresina.
That is why I said you are missing the point. The Russians DID attack, they DID try to block the escape (from at least two points), and yet failed to win the subsequent battle and trap the French and their allies. Until you address this your arguments are missing the point and/or straw clutching.

If we're both being rude then wouldn't your questions be more accurately phrased as "why are we being rude?".

Yes, you are quite right on this.

This thread has a bit of everything. Now a would be historian who seems to be espousing the "school of the six precepts", and has probably had time to contemplate the same whilst in the dawghouse for imparting wisdom, seems to be comparing Bretchel198 with a holocaust denier. Is this indicative of academic rigour or is it someone being an arseclown of the highest order?

Whichever you like, I'm not interested enough in your view to care. Your persistent goading, or "taking the rise", as you call it, is tiresome enough as it is. Perhaps somebody who takes you and your views seriously might wish to reply.

Chouan, perhaps you would like to explain how your mind made the leap from two quotes to a comparison of Bretchel198 with David Irving. You are much more intellectual than I, and it would make a fascinating read for those members who are still reading this thread.

Being less high brow I couldn't make any connection or see the justification, but the question is how your mind works not mine.

The second one, being an arseclown.

TW,

You: Er, completely destroyed means no Napoleon, no Ney or Murat or Oudinot or Eugene or Victor, or a whole list of other important generals.

Me: It isn't impossible that Napoleon would be captured or killed, I just don't agree it is a given

You: I never said it was a given. I just think your scenarios for escape are wildly improbable

My "scenarios" are wildly undefined is what they are, all I've said is that I believe it possible if the army was destroyed the high command could potentially get away somehow, someway supported by an escort of Guard Cavalry. That isn't wildly improbable as you call it, it is, if anything, wildly vague. So vague that determination of it to be impossible is likely impractical.

No, it implies a different understanding. You have made scores of arguments that seem bizarre from my point of understanding of the Beresina situation, which implies that we have an irrevocable divergence of opinion.

Implies = suggests, I am not suggesting, I am stating outright an opinion that is radically different from yours. Your declaration that my position is obviously wrong to such a degree that you are unable to consider it in the form of discussion *implies* that irrevocable divergence of opinion is in fact the case. I'm able to consider yours without demeaning it, thus, my position does not suggest an irrevocable divergence of opinion.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I'm sick of ice cream always being placed above tape dispenser's, we all know ice cream downplayed the importance of tape dispenser and historians have perpetuated that lie in countless writings.
Tape dispenser is easily top ten all time random topics with ice cream being severely overrated.

Sources for this outrageous statement? David Chandler once said that tape dispensers were indispensable to Saxony. I will have you know that tape dispensers should be and always should be rated far above ice cream as a topic. Especially the red ones!

Red ice cream or red tape dispensers?

I like strawberry.

Brunet 21 februari 2014 13:49 PST

dear brunet , are you realy this brain dead? De balken waren ook nederlanders?

De balken waren ook nederlanders?

Pretty sure that was a joke… also, no reason to go back several pages just to say something like that to him for making the joke…

Cheers,

The Bandit

I'm not amused !
grts serg joe

I read some where French cavalery captured the dutch fleet the French seems to be 20 meter from the frozen shore line the first ship captured threw their powder and shot on the ice in preventing the French bombarding the rest .
Times like the famous admials de Ruyter and Tromp were long gone.
myth an other lie? grts serg oe

gents;
after the word some should be "books" I just forgot this word sorryGRTS SERG JOE

Afaik the capturing of the Dutch fleet by French cavalry in 1795 is a myth.

There were a lot of myths and outright lies with Spain during the Napoleon Wars : Bailen "first" napoleonic defeat, whole Spain in war agaisnt Napoleon when the country remained a napoleonic ally after the Dos de Mayo with a Spanish Army and many others troops fighting with the French in the Peninsula and outside, the "Nation in arms agaisnt Napoleon" when actually there were few guerrilleros (and perhaps more spaniards served with the French) and they were very far to be authentic patriots and defenders of the catholic faith fighters usually depicted, Spain was too very far to be regarded as a catholic and christian country by the French and the rest of Europe. Guerrilleros were seen usually as outlaws and bandits by the napoleonic soldiers and the British themselves, even in Catalonia who was the region considered as the most "guerrillera" it was also the last region where the French were still in garrison after the armistice in 1814. I have read in some napoleonic forum that in Tyrol and Calabria the partisan warfare was worst than in Spain with the guerrilla.
It seems that Napoleon lost 250 to 300 000 Napoleonic soldiers but they were not really killed by the guerrilla who claimed all the merit for that, epidemics and sickness did more, the same for the Spaniards as if all were killed by the French rifles or mameluks sabres like in Goya's paintings.
The war in Spain was more the first Spanish civil war of the XIXth century than anything else.

I don't know Lillian.

I've never heard or seen it written that France's 300 000 casualties were all inflicted by the Guerilla. Just that the war in Iberia as whole caused this loss. Including Losses from disease, desertion, starvation, POW aswell as KIA by British, Portuguese,Spanish forces regular and irregular.
But then I've only read English books. Maybe Spanish ones claim otherwise.

Likewise. I think claiming a Spanish civil war might be pushing it.
The bulk of Spain's forces fighting for France marched off and sailed away to fight for Spain. Joseph's Spanish forces were small and under strength too I believe. And while the list of British vs French or Spanish vs French actions. I can't recall many Spanish vs Spanish battles at all.

It's also usually acknowledged that some Guerillas were selfish and just exploiting an opportunity to plunder the French, and others out right bandits who were happy to rob anyone. I doubt this mattered to the French getting murdered by them or the allies reading the captured intelligence.

" whole Spain in war agaisnt Napoleon when the country remained a napoleonic ally after the Dos de Mayo"

Technically, at least for the French, Spain was an ally right up to 1814. The rebels were that: rebels. For them it was irrelevant that with the exception of places physically occupied by French troops, from 28 May onwards the rest of the country and most of the Spanish army declared war against France and didn't recognize José I as king of Spain.

"with a Spanish Army and many others troops fighting with the French in the Peninsula and outside,"

Which "Spanish Army"? As far as I know, the only Spanish troops that fought with the French were the four battalions of the Jose Napoleon regiment, organized by Kindelan with the remnants of the soldiers that weren't evacuated from Denmark by the British Navy. Because the Spanish Army of José I was regarded as a joke even by the French themselves. Besides the Royal Guard, which was mainly formed by French and other nationalities, the rest of Jose's army was ridden by desertion. The French didn't trust them, and there are numerous cases of Spanish soldiers deserting to the partisans even in the middle of a combat (if you wish, I will provide you with the relevant documents).

"Guerrilleros were seen usually as outlaws and bandits by the napoleonic soldiers"

The word "brigand", used by the French to depict the Spanish irregulars, meant more than bandit. It was both a word used to define an outlaw and a counter-revolutionary rebel. See: Howard G BROWN. "From Organic Society to Security State: The War on Brigandage in France, 1797-1802" en The Journal of Modern History. 69. Diciembre 1997. 661-695; Alan FORREST. Napoleon's Men. The Soldiers of the Revolution and Empire. London, New York: Hamblendon & London, 2002. 127-131; and Alan FORREST. "The Ubiquitous Brigand: The Politics and Language of Repression." 25-43, in Charles ESDAILE ed. Popular Resistance in the French Wars. Patriots, Partisans and Land Pirates. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2005. 31.

General Roguet, who commanded a division of the Young Guard in Northern Spain between 1810 and 1812, recognized in his memoirs -published in 1862- that the word was used as a political tool, not as a description of the activities of the Spanish partisans. See: François ROGUET. Memoires Militaires du Lieutenant-Général Comte Roguet. París: J. Dumaine, 1862. 137-138. You can find them online, so you won't have any problems to check them if you wish.

"I have read in some napoleonic forum that in Tyrol and Calabria the partisan warfare was worst than in Spain with the guerrilla."

Well… this is a first. Just to put them in perspective: the rebellion in Calabria was contained and defeated by two divisions of French troops; the rebellion in Tyrol, once the Austrian regulars retreated from the region, was defeated in one year by three divisions of German allies and French soldiers (I think Gill mentions a fourth division… it can be easily checked). Just in the demarcation of responsability of the l'Armee du Nord (northern Spain), a region nowhere near the front lines, there were 66,000 to 74,000 soldiers present permanently to cover the lines of communication with France, to control the towns and to fight the guerrillas in the area, included 2 divisions of the Young Guard. Not bad for some "brigands" and outlaws, doesn't it?

"It seems that Napoleon lost 250 to 300 000 Napoleonic soldiers but they were not really killed by the guerrilla who claimed all the merit for that, epidemics and sickness did more, the same for the Spaniards as if all were killed by the French rifles or mameluks sabres like in Goya's paintings."

Err… Well, outside the works of some amateurs with more enthusiasm than knowledge, I've never seen any serious historian claim that the guerrillas killed 250-300,000 French soldiers!

"The war in Spain was more the first Spanish civil war of the XIXth century than anything else."

Sorry to disappoint you, but that ship doesn't float anymore. It was cherised by some historians that wanted to trace the "bloodline" of the Spanish civil unrest back to Napoleonic times, but since has been debunked as pure rubbish. None with a passing knowledge of the war accept it anymore. The civil conflicts can be traced back to the post-war, when many of those who had fought weren't shun off by the new government and neither their efforts nor their political views were recognized by Ferdinand's regime. Still, it didn't cause a war yet; some minor rebelions easily put down by the government forces. The first "civil war" can be dated back to 1821, and that with all the caveats imaginable. The only region were there was a significant support between the elites to Jose Bonaparte's rule was in Andalucia, and even there the limits of that co-operation were pretty evident for any observer. I recommend you, for this particular region, to check Jean Marc LAFON L'Andalousie et Napoleon. Contre-insurrection, collaboration et résistances dans le midi de l'Espagne (1808-1812). Paris: Nouveau Monde Éditions, 2007.

Just out of interest, Basileus, until I can get hold of an affordable copy of "Popular Resistance in the French Wars.", which I assume you have a copy of, what and who does Alan Forrest reference for his stuff about the Vendee, in his part of the text?

Hi Chouan

Not at home now, but this evening, once I come back, I'll check my copy.

Best

Thanks, I'd be very grateful.

Chouan

I've not found Forrest's collaboration yet (moved two weeks ago and still unpacking!) but I did check his previous book, Conscripts and Deserters which also deals with the Vendee. He did use mostly archival material, from Archives Nationales, Service Historique de l'Armee du Terre (Vincennes) and different regional archives. I have, though, Brown's article in PDF, which is more specific than Forrest to the Vendee. If you wish, I can send it to your email. Just drop me a line to xixoctubre@gmail.com and I will forward a copy to you.

Best
Antonio

hello
unfortunately I didn't read Esdaile who seems to scandalize Spain with the books he wrote but I have read the Lafon's Andalousie et Napoléon in the past and I remember that the number of Spaniards serving as allied against the Bourbons and Anglo-Portugueses, not only in Andalucia, was very far to be anecdotal as usually said, more numerous than the Guerrilleros, it was the first time I saw such figures, the afrancesadas josefinas forces seem to be usually neglected or ignored. Of course the Regiment José Napoléon is famous, but there were also many others ignored spanish forces allied to Napoléon, who knows that the various Régiments of the Portuguese Legion came from spanish recruits (80% of the corps) or the 8th Sappers Battalion of the French Army

Not at all, Lilian. There have been a fancy to "recover" the afrancesados as the "other Spain". That, though, has more to do with Spain's recent history -the idea of the "two Spains", defended by historians like Álvarez Junco, has been used to try to build a genealogy of the Spanish Civil War, tracing back its origins to the end of the Ancien Regime in Spain and the Napoleonic invasion. I don't buy the idea, if only because the SCW was an event related to the particular conditions of the Spanish politics and society of the 1930s (and even in this case I have serious reservations about the idea of "two Spains", but that's besides the point) If they would limited themselves to prove the dynamic relationship between the Carlist Wars and the war of Spain during the Napoleonic period, I would be more convinced, although not without serious doubts about its accuracy.

I agree it was needed to research their role, as it was neglected (though I would point that Miguel Artola published his seminal research on the afrancesados 25 years ago, in 1989). But regretfully their case has been overstated. Actually, the archival research doesn't support the idea of the afrancesados as anything but a small part of the elites, with somewhat a higher support in Andalucia. Even there, they were a minority of the population, and never too vocal in those places that hadn't a French garrison present.

Just an example about the Spanish soldiers in Jose's service: between 1810 and 1812, 11,000 soldiers* were enroled in the 1st Regiment of infantry… but the actual men under arms never were more than 500. The regiment was a joke. French reports to Paris informed that it would be preferable to disband all Spanish regiments except the Royal Guard, because they were being used by Spanish PoWs as a way to avoid being deported to France and to desert as soon as they could. Actually, Napoleon refused to subsidize his brother's army, as he thought it was useless and a recruiting ground for the Spanish patriots. He insisted that Jose should focus his efforts in the Guardias Civicas, which, in theory, all towns should form to fight the insurgents at the local level. But one thing is to pass a law and other to force it to be implemented. Again, with the exception of certain areas in Andalucia, the Guardias Civicas were between worthless and actually supporting the local insurgency.

As for the guerrillas and their numbers. In the demarcation of the Armee du Nord, in early 1811, there were approximately between 4,000 and 6,000 active partisans, in organized forces, plus another 6,000 to 8,000 soldiers in the light divisions. These, by the way, weren't guerrillas -although some units have been formed around a cadre of former partidas and/or militias recruited in the region-. The light divisions were technically and legally volunteer units, which operated in ocuppied areas. It is more complicated than this brief summary (if you are interested, I analyzed them in depth in my book La guerra interminable. Claves de la guerra de guerrillas en España, 1808-1814 León, 2013.)

As for Charles Esdaile's books he doesn't scandalize anyone. His books have some good points, and others that are unsustainable with the evidence available. Some of his conclusions on the guerrilla (I prefer "insurgency", but that's other story!) show a certain lack of understanding of how Ancien Regime societies were organized, which limit the validity of his analysis. Anyway, in the English speaking world Esdaile's books are what are read, so they are the truth for many English-speaking readers. In Spain… well, let' say that we have other analysis to compare with what Esdaile has written.

(*) I believe that the number of 11,000 is too high. I can't provide you with an accurate figure. The gist, though, is that desertion was rampant, with more men leaving the ranks that staying in them.

"The word "brigand", used by the French to depict the Spanish irregulars, meant more than bandit. It was both a word used to define an outlaw and a counter-revolutionary rebel. See: Howard G BROWN. "From Organic Society to Security State: The War on Brigandage in France, 1797-1802" en The Journal of Modern History. 69. Diciembre 1997. 661-695; Alan FORREST. Napoleon's Men. The Soldiers of the Revolution and Empire. London, New York: Hamblendon & London, 2002. 127-131; and Alan FORREST. "The Ubiquitous Brigand: The Politics and Language of Repression." 25-43, in Charles ESDAILE ed. Popular Resistance in the French Wars. Patriots, Partisans and Land Pirates. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2005. 31."

"Brigand" is one of the standard expressions used in official and unofficial Republican writings for those engaged in the insurrection in the Vendee and in Brittany. The other commonly used expressions are "scelerats", "fanatiques" and occasionally "betes". All are used to derogate or de-humanise the Republic's opponents, the rhetoric and discours being used to make it easier for the armed forces of the Republic to be able to kill these people, and their families and supporters, whether direct or indirect, without normal moral imperitives getting in the way. That Imperial France uses the same expression to describe Spanish irregulars as well as guerillas is hardly surprising. The French monarchy also used the same word to describe those taking part in the popular risings of the 18th and 17th centuries, the Croquants, Tards-Avises, Nu-Pieds etc.