"Prisoners - How often were they taken?" Topic

I was reading about the 1812 retreat from Russia and started to wonder about prisoners on Napoleonic battlefields.

How often were they taken and what was done with them? I don't remember reading anything about POW camps other than the some British hulks used for naval prisoners.

Thanks for the information in advance.

I am currently read the Thunder on the Danube trilogy, and prisoners where taken by both sides all the time. and prisoner exchanges where also set up. In fact it looks as if most infantry casualties from cavalry was prisoners. Lots of guys giving up instead of going down shinging. And the cavalry accepted the surenders as well.

So at least in 1809, lots pf POWs

Owen

I think it was common. I agree that there is not a lot of info about POW camps, but look at all the regiments formed in part or in totality from POWs (early French Polish regiments from POWs from Russia, Prussia and Austria of Polish extraction, entire GW of Warsaw divisions from Polish POWs, the KGL, the Russo-German Legion, many French regiments (regiment de Prusse), several Austrian Frei-Korps, etc.

Prisoners were taken all the time – its just that most of the infantry taken prisoner didn't write much about it!

Napoleon and his British Captives – Michael Lewis
Several POW camps in UK including Porchester Castle.
Use was also made of Prison Ships 'Hulks' by many nations – The troops taken at Bailen died in droves on Spanish Hulks.

here is an account written during the crimean war

link

I believe Davout did not take any prisoners at Austerlitz.

During the later stages 1812-1815 the Prussians and French rarely took prisoners. Wounded were shot, bayoneted or clubbed to death. In particular at Ligny and Waterloo.

Some reading:

PDF link

Another détenu who met Napoleon and had some success at obtaining release was George Sinclair. He was arrested in 1806 near Jena, and was suspected as a spy. Sinclair and his companion Rigel were immediately brought before Napoleon…After numerous questions which were "remarkable by their perfect clearness" and in which Napoleon "omitted nothing that was necessary; he asked nothing superfluous," the conversation then turned to Greek and Roman writers. Sinclair later wrote:

When taken before him, I had the strongest prejudice against him. I considered him the enemy of my country and the oppressor of the rest of Europe. On quitting him, the grace and fascination of his smile and that superior intelligence which illumined his face had entirely subjugated me.

Napoleon and Jesus are the two people from history I would most like to meet. I honestly couldn't say in what order.

I once stayed in a house in Bishop's Castle, Shropshire, England, which was used as accommodation for some French officer prisoners.

Under the terms of their confinement, they were allowed to walk out up to a mile from the town, but if they strayed further, any local civilian could earn a shilling by escorting them back.

I wonder how many arguments there were about where the one-mile boundary lay? A shilling's a shilling, after all.

Many prisioners changed their coats.

There are some books about them (I have posted some for free read at Nap Media).

The "parole" for officers was a very good way to stay more or less comfortable while you wait for an Exchange.

Of course, they were many who can managed to scape and return to their own Armies.

The french used their prisioners for military/civil Works and they paid them (few, but at less a payment)

They always tried to enlisted them in their Legions.

I have read that in Russia many of the french prisioners ended like a kind of servants in hight raking officers houses in the country.

The Turcs were not so good with their prisoners.

Nothing have read about the Austrians.

The Spanish were bad also.

Amicalement
Armand