"End of an era? Toulouse 1814-2014" Topic

Dear All,

Today the 10th of April marks the 200th Anniversary of the Battle of Toulouse, which actually fell on Easter Sunday that year of 1814.

Unbeknownst to the protagonists, the battle was actually fought after Napoleon had abdicated, and so was a waste of brave men's lives.

However, it marked the end of the Peninsular Campaign, fought by British, German, Portuguese and Spanish troops for 7 long years to free the Iberian Peninsular from Napoleon's tyranny. After the Battle of Toulouse the Portuguese and Spanish peoples could return to peace under their rightful Sovereigns.

So spare a though today for the gallant British, German, Portuguese and Spanish soldiers, and civilians, who struggled for liberation, and indeed the brave Frenchmen, Germans and Poles who, for whatever reason, fought so hard against them.

Whilst there were excesses and atrocities committed in this campaign, it remains a tale of epic battles and guerrilla warfare that continues to enthrall and inspire…

Actually the British pointed out to Soult that Napoleon had abdicated.

Soult stated he had no confirmation of the fact so wanted to carry on with the hostilities.

Agree it was an important day and the brave men of both sides should be remembered and honoured. Also wouldn't argue with your bit about French tyranny but I'm not sure I'd agree with the line about "Spanish people returning to peace under the rightful Sovereign"!!!!??

The Spanish royal house at this time were hardly the paragons of virtue deserving of the love and devotion of their subjects. Thoughts of the peace and well-being of their people were a VERY long way from their minds. Even amongst themselves they couldn't agree who was "rightful", and their only concern was their individual wealth and power. Indeed, a less respected royal house would be hard to find.

I don't believe for a moment that the Spanish people were fighting to restore their royals, they were fighting for independence and freedom from oppression by a foreign power. And also not a little bit to please the ruling clergy of their state religion.

I will admit to a dog in this fight – I'm an Australian, we judge our rulers very pragmatically. Stuff all the royalist sentiment, nonsense and rhetoric, we measure a ruler by the hard evidence of how well they sort things for their people.

I'm an Australian

Yer me too mate… well I pay my taxes here anyway…(I've had my Citizenship denied because my Visa had expired for a day when I applied for my next one…)

we judge our rulers very pragmatically. Stuff all the royalist sentiment, nonsense and rhetoric, we measure a ruler by the hard evidence of how well they sort things for their people.

You have got to be kidding me! Have you not heard of ICAC – more pollies being investigated for corruption than are in Canberra I should think! I think Aussies are more tolerant of corrupt, incompetent or self-entitled politicians than in any other Western country…

Anyway the point of this thread was about the ending of the Peninsula campaign…

I don't think the Spanish returned to peace for long,…
;)
As for Aussie Pollies,… Yep we have our share of dodgy ones.

Exactly, we have an ICAC to clean out the scum.

Spain doesn't have that even today but they're still stuck with a King thingy! Pity them.

Good thread my friend Sparker.
I have to agree in some point with our friend nsolomon99.

Spanish people did fight because of freedom, religion AND their King.
The Spanish King was imho the most useless and incompetent ruler and that was fully demonstrated when he returned to the throne and ruled ignoring the voice of people who had gained a greater share of state decisions through the lost of their blood in that war. Many of those who courageously led the resistance against the French invasion, were persecuted and killed by him. The Inquisition returned with their practice of torture, the people were suffocated by taxes and the nobility who had fled or collaborated with the French recovered all its privileges.
We know how his management ended and the consequences that for poor Spain.

About Toulouse I could never fully understand why was the decision of the Duke of Wellington to carry it out .
I understand that Soult has to obey orders and to resist , especially at that Era where communication was not the best .
But Wellington ought not to obey to anyone . He was the master of strategy and tactics and unique leader of the Allied Army.

Which was the sense of attack Toulouse having numerical superiority , much better quality of troops , weapons, etc?
If he knew that Napoleon had abdicated and Soult was immobilized why not he wait a little more until the arrival of the orders of ceasefire for the French Marshal?

There was not a single possibility that Soult and his second class troops begin an offensive. Nor that maneuvered from the city.
So it was much better to wait a few weeks more and keep the lines between the two armies in peace.
I suspect that Wellington wanted a final and totally defeat of the French under Soult, but this was totally useless .
Imho he was the total responsible for those lives lost.

Amicalement
Armand

Hmmmm …. need I say more?

With respect to the comment "… Spanish peoples could return to peace under their rightful Sovereigns….", well, I submit that the Prosecution now rests its case.

And with respect to Toulouse, Armand you confirm my long held belief that good men died there for nought. Wellington need not have brought on this action, he already knew of the abdication, Soult's surrender without further bloodshed was not far off.

"There was not a single possibility that Soult and his second class troops begin an offensive. Nor that maneuvered from the city.
So it was much better to wait a few weeks more and keep the lines between the two armies in peace.
I suspect that Wellington wanted a final and totally defeat of the French under Soult, but this was totally useless .
Imho he was the total responsible for those lives lost."

Well said. But holding the British responsible for anything when they've been rewriting history in their favor is wishful thinking.

No doubt Hollywood will soon clear up any misunderstanding!

Everyone is re-writing their history these days. It's the thing to do.

Well not good for the casualties from that day but what happened to any owed back-pay for these men. Would it have found its way to their families or kept by the Treasury?

Stuff all the royalist sentiment, nonsense and rhetoric

But holding the British responsible for anything when they've been rewriting history in their favor is wishful thinking.

What a celebration of trite, medioce platitudes this thread has descended into! Whilst I appreciate that you may not be capable of understanding the contemporary mindset and political outlook that prevailed in the early 19th Century, or that I was trying to replicate it in linking 1814 to 2014, at least keep your cheap 'chardonnay socialist' teenage anti-monarchism to suitable forums please…

Whilst I have no agenda to defend the Spanish Monarchy, or the Bourbons, I do find it amusing that King Juan Carlo's monarchy was recently polled as one of the most respected and popular institution in Spain today, much to the disgust of the media organisation who paid for the poll!

As for the British rewriting history in their favour, this is a standard legend on TMP, so on this occasion I shan't bore you with the facts…

But if you are interested, do read Australian historian Rory Muir's 'Tactics and Experience of Battle in the Napoleonic Wars' for a coherent and lucid explanation of why British accounts of the wars have formed the overwhelming written record, and despite the most intense efforts to prove their partiality, the majority have held up as honest and fair…

I'm not entirely sure why the unhappy plight of the Spanish after the Peninsula war is somehow the fault of the British or of Wellington, surely ridding Spain of the French Invader can only have helped their plight (which, in truth, wasn't all that good before the war…)

As for why Wellington decided to aim for a decisive defeat of the French at Toulouse, after pleading with Soult that Napoleon had abdicated, well surely events in 1815 justify his goal?

Rather, with the benefit of hindsight, castigate him for losing those brave men at Toulouse, could we not use that same hindsight to celebrate his wisdom and forethought in realising that Napoleonic France needed one more decisive blow?

Or is that asking for a little too much balance in assessing a British hero!

Of course it is! But one thing you will never be able to take away, and what I suspect really gets your goat, is that Wellington had a hand in administering that final, decisive blow!

Last book I read by Hofschroer said it was the Germans who saved the British bacon south of Belgium. Other books paint Wellington as a glory hound, so it would make sense that he would force an attack that would enlarge his reputation.

Well, I wouldn't take anything by Hofschorer too seriously! In all his works claiming that Wellington was trying to do the Prussians out of recognition for the Waterloo Victory, he only menitons Wellington's Waterloo despatch, the key primary source, once in a footnote on a side issue!

In that source, Wellington of course praises the Blucher and the Prussians at Waterloo and makes it clear that victory was as a result of their involvement…

But facts are rarely of interest to British bashers with books to peddle!

As for Wellington being a glory hound, even his most biased critic would have to admit that his men's lives were his main concern – so if he sought a decision at Toulouse, it was not until establishing there was no alternative.

Understand you're unhappy with us all, you being a Soldier of the Queen and all, but mate, you really opened it up for yourself with the jingoistic line about rightful sovereigns and stuff. Now we're all just having a lend of you cos you bite so well. :)

Lighten up sunshine

Oh dear – that thing that wizzed about 2 klicks abover your head at the start of this post – that was me trying to be in character for 1814.. you know, this being a Napoleonic wars thread and all…

Seems to me you're the one who needs to 'lighten up' mate!

And if you can't, as I say, take it elsewhere to someone who gives a e!

But I am a little saddened that you've spoilt what could have been a thought provoking thread….

But only a little ;-)

"What a celebration of trite, medioce platitudes this thread has descended into! Whilst I appreciate that you may not be capable of understanding the contemporary mindset and political outlook that prevailed in the early 19th Century, or that I was trying to replicate it in linking 1814 to 2014, at least keep your cheap 'chardonnay socialist' teenage anti-monarchism to suitable forums please…"

The above statement from Sparker is one of those wonderfull statements, that say so much more about the person expressing it, than it does about those which it was intended to belittle. Allthough I am partial to redwine I almost feel like having a Chardonnay for a change while delighting in my teenage anti monarchism. It reminds me of a british colleague I once discussed military history with, he was of the firm opinion (reading to much commando mags as a kid) that the britsh Tommy of WWII was infinitely superior to the individual german infantryman – that is why the british won WWII (alone by the way) :-)

"Other books paint Wellington as a glory hound, so it would make sense that he would force an attack that would enlarge his reputation."

All well and good, but would you mind to provide the documentation that supports the idea that Wellington did attack at Toulouse in order to enhance his already strong reputation? I would point that by then he was hailed in Britain as the most brilliant commander of his country and that he already had a strong political support in the ruling classes of Britain. Given those facts, I believe you need to prove your case before affirming that Wellington's motivation was to enhance his reputation.

There is a difference between it being proven that you are beaten and maintaining that you are still viable. The terms of the peace treaty are partly dictated by what the balance of force and capabilities are at the seize fire. If France was to think that they could have pushed the Port/Spanish/British back into Spain, there would be one solution to the equation- if not, then another. Remember that war is just an extension of politics. A good comparison is the WWI German " we just lost because we were stabbed in the back" propaganda that gave support and life to Nazi calls to march back to war.

I am not sure where this stuff comes from about Wellington knowing that Napoleon had abdicated before the battle. Every account which I have read says that the messengers from Paris did not arrive until after the battle.

Rod

In all his works claiming that Wellington was trying to do the Prussians out of recognition for the Waterloo Victory, he only menitons Wellington's Waterloo despatch, the key primary source, once in a footnote on a side issue!

He also fails to cite a single English language source that claims the Waterloo campaign to have been a British victory. The whole premise of Hoffie's Waterloo series is a straw man.

He also doesn't take on board that Wellington's army beat the French every time in 1815 whereas "Germans" lost unless Wellington was on the field.

Still, he convinced me the Prussian army was really good at retreating, a skill they still had in 1918 and 1942 to 1945, so the time spent reading him wasn't wholly wasted.

4th Cuirassier,

He also doesn't take on board that Wellington's army beat the French every time in 1815 whereas "Germans" lost unless Wellington was on the field.

You say "every time in 1815" as though it was a really long list. Just how many times to you reckon Wellington fought the French in 1815?

And in comparison… how many times did the "Germans" lose out of how many encounters… again, as you reckon it to be?

Rod MacArthur,

I am not sure where this stuff comes from about Wellington knowing that Napoleon had abdicated before the battle. Every account which I have read says that the messengers from Paris did not arrive until after the battle.

That seems a rather valid question to have answered as to which side of this thread seems more likely true.

Sparta,

The above statement from Sparker is one of those wonderfull statements, that say so much more about the person expressing it, than it does about those which it was intended to belittle.

Yep.

Cheers,

The Bandit

"What a celebration of trite, medioce platitudes this thread has descended into!"

Well look at how you started it off? You wanted to turn it into a messy thread with the poor taste you used in writing it. Now, I'll let you get back to whichever Bernard Cornwell book you were reading.

As it happens I'm reading Rory Muir's 'Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon', and may I recommend that anyone interested in an even handed assessment of why British accounts and views of the Napoleonic Wars predominate do the same, particularly the preface about the historiography of these wars…

But I must confess to looking forward to Bernard Cornwell's forthcoming popular history: 'Waterloo'!

As for having poor taste in wanting jejune political platitudes kept clear of a thread about the Peninsula War – guilty as charged, M'Lud!

Regarding whether the battle was fought with knowledge that Napoleon had abdicated, I've now had a chance to read up and it seems not:

"Early on 12 April (after the battle had been fought and won) Wellington entered the city to the popular acclaim of the Royalist majority amidst great rejoicing. At 1700 hours the same day Colonel Ponsonby rode in from Bordeaux with reports that Napoleon had abdicated as early as 6 April…Soult refused to believe the authenticity of the reports from Paris and sent word to Wellington demanding an armistice until unequivocal evidence could be obtained"

Colonel Nick Lipscombe; The Peninsula War Atlas, pp348

This passage not only clears Wellington of any charges of being a 'glory hound' in this affair, it also indicates that popular Royalist sentiment existed in some parts of Southern Europe in this era, at least in the heady days of liberation…

(And no, that has no bearing whatsoever on Monarchism vs Republicanism in the 21st Century, although its really rather sad that I'm obliged to make so obvious a point on this forum!)

How Jacobin Nick, with you all the bloody way!!!

For the sake of correcting the impression, as drawn by Sparker of rampant political corruption in Australia. Those politicians he mentioned all come from the state that Sparker currently resides in, New South Wales. There are another 7 states and territories that are perfectly safe to visit. :oP

"For the sake of correcting the impression, as drawn by Sparker of rampant political corruption in Australia. Those politicians he mentioned all come from the state that Sparker currently resides in, New South Wales. There are another 7 states and territories that are perfectly safe to visit. :oP"

No roaming bands of Chouans? We Jacobins are a paranoid bunch!

For the sake of correcting the impression, as drawn by Sparker of rampant political corruption in Australia. Those politicians he mentioned all come from the state that Sparker currently resides in, New South Wales. There are another 7 states and territories that are perfectly safe to visit. :oP"

The ICAC commission I mentioned is a New South Wales institution, so, once again with a little sadness, I have to point out the bleeding obvious, that it will tend to confine itself to investigating politicians in New South Wales…

link

Nevertheless, even this institution has been forced to call the Premier of Queensland to account…

However, gone seriously off topic now so I will jump ship on this thread and invite the editors to remove it as it hardly does credit to TMP!

"once again with a little sadness, I have to point out the bleeding obvious"
Not to the international readers. To which, I thought was blindingly obvious, I was correcting your misleading comment.

Sparker,

As for having poor taste in wanting jejune political platitudes kept clear of a thread about the Peninsula War – guilty as charged, M'Lud!

If you wanted it kept clear, why did you include some in your original post – seems an odd choice.

ThePeninsularWarin15mm,

But holding the British responsible for anything when they've been rewriting history in their favor is wishful thinking.

They didn't rewrite it, they beat everyone else to writing it the first round :-p

The real problem with holding them responsible for their… "perspective" on history is that they are right, just ask em, they'll tell ya.

Cheers,

The bandit

Turns out nuking this thread from space comes with technical difficulties…

If anyone has any relevant observations about the significance of the Battle of Toulouse; 200 years ago this week, as marking the end of the Peninsular War; perhaps they would be kind enough to make them here:

TMP link

or perhaps start another thread and we can leave this train wreck of a thread behind us and move on.

Thanks!

"After the Battle of Toulouse the Portuguese and Spanish peoples could return to peace under their rightful Sovereigns."

Apart from the ones in their American colonies, who were busy for another ten years or so, deciding whether they wanted their 'rightful Sovereigns' in charge.

Mind you, that gives you a load more 200th anniversary battles involving Spanish, and even British, troops. And you could paint some Argentinians to go with them :-D

link

I'd always thought that Wellington didn't find out about the abdication until after the fighting at Toulouse, although both sides were aware of the Allied occupation of Paris. However, even the most hardened Bonapartists have never considered that in itself a reason for not continuing hostilities.

Can anyone show sources which claim that Wellington and/or Soult knew of the abdication before fighting the battle?

OTOH, there was perhaps an element of unnecessary bloodshed regarding the French sortie from Bayonne.

Regards

I've never read anything that suggests Wellington knew about the abdication before the battle of Toulouse.

Like Whirlwind, I would be interested to see evidence/arguments to the contrary.

"Mind you, that gives you a load more 200th anniversary battles involving Spanish, and even British, troops. And you could paint some Argentinians to go with them."

That should keep us going till around 2024. Great idea! On with the Spanish American wars of independence…

@ Bandit

You say "every time in 1815" as though it was a really long list. Just how many times to you reckon Wellington fought the French in 1815?

And in comparison… how many times did the "Germans" lose out of how many encounters… again, as you reckon it to be?

In 1815 I make it:

Wellington: played 2, won 2; wins 100%
Napoleon: played 4, won 2, lost 2; wins 50%
Blucher: played 3, won 1, lost 2; wins 33%

I've previously contended that the Prussian army of 1813-15 needed either very large numerical advantage and / or a more effective ally on the field in order to win; and that these were necessary, but insufficient conditions to win.

That is, they won only when these circumstances obtained; they quite often still lost when they obtained; and they always lost when they did not.

I'd dig the post out if I could remember the ʎpooןq thread subject. It was a view that I was surprised to arrive at myself, but it is backed up pretty well by the actual battle outcome data. It's even more stark if you include the 1806-7 era, although that is arguably a different army.

I was expecting the main vector of Prussian defeat to be whether Napoleon was on the field against them. While they won mainly when he wasn't, it didn't seem to be a factor when they lost. That is, his absence helped them to win, but did not ensure they won.

Viva la Emperuer! Mort as les roast-beefs!

Just kidding since you do seem the over-excitable nationalist sort (not a insult, just a statement of fact. I tend to not like such sorts, but people are what people are, and you seem a good enough fellow beyond that and frankly I have my own hot buttons.)

However:
"After the Battle of Toulouse the Portuguese and Spanish peoples could return to peace under their rightful Sovereigns."

Come on Sparker. You know that is not the case. Nah, they just happily got into the process of killing each other about who their sovereigns will be!

I am of the Schroeder school of thought. Spain was a civil war throughout the whole period of the Peninsular war, and continued to be at civil war after it. The popular fighting against Napoleon was more fed by traditionalism and conservatism than nationalism.

For me the Napoleonic Empire died at Liepzieg. The rest of the 1813-1814 was a hard fought moping up campaign, but a moping-up campaign never the less. . If you wish to see Tolouse as its death-knell you are free to do so, but I would dispute it.

@4th Cuirassier,

Did you mean your post in this one? TMP link

Regards

@ Whirlwind
Thanks for the link. 4th Cuirassier's list of Prussian battles is certainly thought provoking.
As well I enjoyed the nostalgic trip of seeing Gazzola, in his hey day, performing a "western saloon fight" with near everyone on the page. This also produced this classic quote from him!

Dear 4th Cuirassier

I wouldn't bother wasting your time trying to offer accurate information

I nearly snorted my coffee! :o)

"The rest of the 1813-1814 was a hard fought moping up campaign"

Is a 'moping-up campaign' one where they all stay at home all day feeling sorry for themselves and eating endless packets of chocolate biscuits? ;-)

Yes indeed Kaptain Kobold! But sir! Ice Cream sir! That is the thing!

You don't think after a generation of fighting the French, having a battle when encountering Frenchmen just seemed like the natural thing to do?

:p they are english, and they do like to fight :p

Hi Whirlwind

Yeah, that's the one. Ta for the reminder.

The funny thing is I started getting into Prussians in about 1980. I had started with Airfix British Napoleonics, added Hinchliffe for the troop types Airfix didn't do, and only then noticed that these were all strictly 1815 uniforms. This told me I needed a second army, i.e. Prussians, since 1815-clad British fought their key battle alongside them and fielding 1815 British without Prussians felt like spaghetti without the pasta.

So I started digging around trying to find a Prussian triumph, with the idea of depicting some formation from whatever army that was. Imagine my feelings when I found that in order to depict a legendary unit from a triumphant 1813-15 Prussian army, I'd need to buy Swedes or Russians!

It was an interesting exercise, because reading Hoffie's various Osprey paeans about how fantastic their drill squadron was and what a crack unit this that or the other unit was, I started to feel a certain, er, dislocation…

In the end I went for Steinmetz' brigade because it was at both Ligny and Waterloo. The 12th and 24th Regiments unfortunately looked like dustmen, but it is what it is.

Not long after I drifted out of the hobby, and only in the last few years, cooped up at home with smallish children, have I been in a position to get back into it, although figure painting time and gaming space are now the issues.