"French Soldiers Behaving Badly" Topic

In July 1806, Napoleon directed his
brother Joseph, King of Naples, ‘to execute at least 600 rebels' and to ‘pillage
five or six of the villages that have behaved the worst'.34 Joseph carried out the
order, hanging and shooting 600 ‘brigands' over an eight-day period.35
If fear was used as an instrument of political subjugation, it was also a means of
wiping the slate clean so that reforms could be introduced, that is, the state modernized.
We get an inkling of this thinking in Napoleon when he wrote to his
brother Joseph, impatient to see the people rise in revolt. ‘As long as you have
not made an example, you will not be master [of the situation]. Every conquered
people needs a revolt. I would look upon a revolt in Naples as a father of a family
looks upon small pox visiting his children. As long as it does not weaken the
patient too much, it is a salutary crisis'.36 The premise was reiterated in other
letters to Joseph: ‘In a conquered country, kindness is not humaneness'.37 The
fact that people were not prepared to accept French rule, or indeed the spirit of Napleon"

--Violence and the revolutionary andNapoleonic wars: massacre, conquestand the imperial enterprise
Philip G. Dwyer

"KINDNESS IS NOT HUMANENESS" -Napoleon

Seems He knew something about morality and chose to ignore it.

Bob

If one bothers to look, one will always find cases of what may be considered as atrocities from all sides ordered by commanders, including Wellington himself. And you don't have to look far. For example, I found the following on the Nap Series website, posted by Tom Holmberg, 18/3/2015. It clearly shows Wellington to be completely ruthless when it suited him.

‘On the other hand, when the Spanish plundering had made the peasants rise in arms, Wellington issued a proclamation requiring them either to join Soult's army or stay at home, otherwise he would burn villages and hang the inhabitants. 'Thus," says Napier, "notwithstanding the outcries against the French for this system of repressing the partida warfare in Spain, it was considered by the English general justifiable and necessary."' Glenn, Garrard. The Army and the Law. Columbia University Press, 1918. p.75.

"Lindau does not write about strategy or tactics, but of things that concern the lowest ranks – staying alive and where his next meal would come from. He was a master forager and he could find something to eat in the midst of a starving army. Much of his story is about how evaded and out-witted various patrols, sergeants, officers, and local farmers in his quest to find something to eat. He was quite unapologetic about his activities and took pride in his looting farmers and cheating inn-keepers. A theme that runs through the book is that his sergeants and officers knew what he was doing and that as long as he shared his stash with his fellow soldiers and them, they turned a blind eye to his activities." Review of "Waterloo Hero" – Napoleon Series, Bob Burnham

"Adopting their usual military strong-arm response to such threats, the British initially sent out columns of redcoats to engage in punitive raids on villages thought to be sympathetic to Dhooniah….The redcoats, sent out to ‘restore tranquillity' in rebellious localities, usually by wanton torching of villages and stealing of livestock, tried to instill in the inhabitants an ‘apprehension of their own safety.' …Such was the situation encountered by Lieutenant-Colonel J. Montressor, an officer commanding the punitive expedition against the fortress and town of Arrakerry and its surrounding villages. After setting the villages alight…" Davies, Huw. Wellington's Wars. Yale, 2012. p.25

Wellington orders for Capt. Campbell, 27 Aug. 1799, "There is a place called Ey Goor, at the distance of about four or five coss from Munserabad, which is -the residence of the Rajah. You will be pleased to destroy it, and hang all persons either in it or Munserabad that you may find in arms."

Wellington, orders to the officer commanding a company at Simoga, Sept. 1799, "If he refuse to give you possession, you must attack the fort and take it by escalade, if you should deem it practicable to get at it; and having got into it, hang the killadar and all persons whom you may find there in arms."

Wellington to Lt.-Col. Tolfrey, 22 March 1800, "You will be joined at Ooscotta by the infantry above mentioned, to be encamped at Munserabad, and you will immediately attack the people at Ey Goor: you will burn that place, and you will hang all the people that you may find in arms, or that you may have reason to know have been so…"

"Towards the end of the month [May 1800] Mr. Webbe secretary to the Government of Madras, wrote to Wellesley: "You are to pursue Dhundia Waugh wherever you may find him, and to hang him on the first tree. For this purpose you will receive immediate authority to enter the Mahratta frontier." Forrest, George W. Sepoy Generals: Wellington to Roberts. p.43.

Wellington to Lt.-Col. Montresor, 4 May 1800, "It is very desirable that whenever you find a village deserted you should burn it, and wherever a man is in arms he should be put to death….In destroying Arrekeery it will be desirable to open the jungle as much as possible, and burn every habitation it contains."

Wellington to Major Palmer, 19 Aug. 1800, "I despatched orders to Mungush Rao last night to hang the commanding officer of peons, the chiefs of the tappall, and their myrmidons, guilty of delivering over to the enemy the aumildar of Soonda."

Wellington to Col. Sartorius, 18 Sept 1800, "A hint might be given to him that I am in the habit of hanging those whom I find living under the protection of the Company and dealing treacherously towards their interests, I spare neither rank nor riches…"

Deputy Adjunct-General to Major Palmer, 24 October 1803, "…the Honourable Major-General Wellesley…may assure all such as who may behave in such a pusillanimous manner as to pay money to this army, that the General will hang them up before their own town gates."

Wellington to Maj. Malcolm 7 Sept. 1804, "However, as it is, the destruction of the band is complete, but I wished to hang some of their chiefs, pour encourager les autres."

Wellington to Marshal Beresford, 28 Jan. 1814 "You may also give the person you will send to understand, that if I have further reason to complain of these or any other villages, I will act towards them as the French did towards the towns and villages in Spain and Portugal; that is, I will totally destroy them, and hang up all the people belonging to them that I shall find. Let the rest of the people of Biddary be detained

And yet the number of incidents of the British in Europe ACTUALLY commiting atrocities is rather thin on the ground. Retreat to Corruna and From Burgos. Sacking of Cuidad Rodrigo, Badajoz and San Sebastien. Non of which are comparitable to the actual campaign of slaughter, rape and theft that accompanied a French army.
So much so that the French actually PREFFERED an Anglo-Portuguese army marching through their territory than their own.

I agree that it's t likely the British, like all Europeans tended to have a double standard regarding civilians who were not European. Though that doesnt alter the fact that in Europe the French were outright brutal. Your quotes show several threats… No indication if they were carried out though. Several orders to hang traitors… Reasonable enough at the time, one of burning a "deserted village" …. quite different to burning them with the civilians still in them in the French manner… I see very little giving licence to steal, murder or abuse civilians.

The French now… Coimbra.. Thoroughly pillaged by the French. Thankfully most of the civilians got away in time. Pity the poor chaps and ladies who didn't. The Portuguese and British would find executed peasents in every burnt out town they passed through pursuing the French out of Portugal.
The British hung their robbers when they caught them. The French? Under men like Loison? Actively encouraged.

All armies looted. Sure. Difference was under the French it was policy, permitted by generals… Under the others, it was a hanging offense.

Gazzola

Actually, it is you who is imposing his modern morality on the past. It's you who feels upset by the evidence that the policy of retaliation carried by the French in Spain and Portugal was officially sanctioned by the Emperor himself.

Some French commanders tried to implement a more lenient policy. Caffarelli, for instance, tried to strike a deal with partisan leaders in order to break the cycle of retaliation counter-retaliation. He was ordered to stop by Napoleon. Reille, in the other hand, widened the scope of retaliations to the family members of known or suspected partisans; that action merited a strong reply from Espoz y Mina, who threatened to kill every French prisoner if implemented. Reille was actually complimented by Napoleon for his anti-partisan policy.

All the available evidence points to Napoleon giving the orders and his generals implementing them ruthlessly. It wasn't mere retaliation but a policy officially sanctioned.

And yet the number of incidents of the British in Europe ACTUALLY commiting atrocities is rather thin on the ground. Retreat to Corruna and From Burgos. Sacking of Cuidad Rodrigo, Badajoz and San Sebastien. Non of which are comparitable to the actual campaign of slaughter, rape and theft that accompanied a French army.

Those cited you consider 'thin'? You are mistaken. How many British troops were punished during Moore's retreat when looting, pillaging, and the abuse of the peasants was rampant?

How many troops did Wellington and his subordinates punish for the sack of the three fortress cities mentioned?

…the French were outright brutal.

So were the Prussians, Bavarians (no matter whose side they were on) and the Cossacks among others. The worst were undoubtedly the Cossacks, but the Prussians were considered worse than they had been by Belgian peasants who experienced Prussian 'liberation' in 1815-and they were supposedly allies.

The French now… Coimbra.. Thoroughly pillaged by the French. Thankfully most of the civilians got away in time. Pity the poor chaps and ladies who didn't. The Portuguese and British would find executed peasents in every burnt out town they passed through pursuing the French out of Portugal.

According to Pelet, Coimbra was already looted by the British and Portuguese when the French arrived on the way to Torres Vedras. And the Portuguese peasants had been forcibly removed by the two allied armies. Those who refused were many times shot. And those removed and sent inside the lines at Lisbon suffered greatly from disease and starvation so much so that between 40,000 and 50,000 died over the winter.

The British hung their robbers when they caught them. The French? Under men like Loison? Actively encouraged.

As previously stated, no, they didn't for the incidents cited. As for active encouragement, Blucher not only allowed, but encouraged looting, pillaging, burning of villages and rape in France in 1814. The Prussians were brutal.

All armies looted. Sure. Difference was under the French it was policy, permitted by generals… Under the others, it was a hanging offense.

It was not French 'policy' to allow looting. Davout and Suchet, for example, did not allow it. Napoleon as policy didn't allow it either. And it may have been a 'hanging offense' in all of the armies, but it wasn't always punished by everyone.

You also should distinguish between looting and foraging for supplies, which all armies also did. It is the responsibility of the unit commanders to feed their troops. Napoleon went to great lengths to establish a logistic system which is why he began organizing and militarizing his trains in 1807.

Please cite examples of, for example, the Russian and Prussian supply systems during the period. And because Wellington took great care in feeding and supplying his troops, he was successful logistically. And that is with a small army. Without his logistical expertise, his campaigns would have failed. And when his army outran their logistics, they either had to stop or retreat.

Sweeping statements such as those you've made here are seldom if ever wrong. Perhaps it might be valuable to research the topic before making such inaccurate statements?

"Anglo-French relations were relatively civil due largely to the fact they, in the main, fought neither in Britain nor France.

See what happened in Hartlepool.

Anywhere in Europe invading armies lived off the land (that is to say stole sorely needed food from the peasantry) you will find some atrocity committed by civilians or troops."

My first "sweeping statement", backed up by everything that has been written so far.

Surely the responsibility lies with those who sent troops outside their own borders?

Bob

Surely the responsibility lies with those who sent troops outside their own borders?

Problem is that the discussion is mixing two different kinds of violence: a) unofficial violence, perhaps tolerated but not condoned by the commanders, in the form of looting, unapproved foraging, sacking of towns and wanton violence against civilians, with its concomitant counter-violence by civilians against soldiers; and b) officially approved violence against civilians, with the intent of instill fear and impose compliance with the rule of the invader.

The first type was common to all pre-contemporary armies, particularly when supplies collapsed -a common occurence before late XIXth Century campaings-. Once armies became able to supply their troops in a regular fashion that kind of violence became less common, although never dissappear enterily.

The second type has been the most commonly used policy to deal with rebellions and insurgencies. The idea of trying to win over local elites through a policy of stick and carrot isn't new, though. Romans and Chinese employed it very successfully. In the case of the French invasion of Spain and Portugal, Napoleon applied, or ordered to apply, a policy of ruthless retaliation, arrests, deportation and murder, both judicial murder, through the juntas criminales extraordinarias and military tribunals, and retaliation killings.

The first type of violence was more spontaneus, individualistic in nature and directed to the immediate satisfaction of the needs of the soldiers involved. The second type was organized and implemented from the top; in the case of the Peninsular War by direct orders from the Emperor.

This thread is going to end well……

basileus66:

Quite right.

Noah: Never was going to! :)

Expanding on B66: There are two types of conquest.

1 is when you put a gun to the ruler's head and say "now you pay taxes to me". Pretty straight forward and it doesn't impact your man in the street or field unduly if done correctly. When bungled it ends up being like 2 below.

2 is when you depose the ruler, outlaw his followers, and either put up your own local strongmen or worse yet, put up your own imported strongmen. This is often couched in terms of "Liberation" although often most folks don't want to be liberated.

1 can be done quite successfully with patience.

2 almost never ends well and must involve state sponsored violence unless the liberated population really did want to be liberated. Otherwise its is going to get very nasty very quickly even if executed for the best of reasons .

Bob

It was not French 'policy' to allow looting. Davout and Suchet, for example, did not allow it.

Soult and Messana obviously didn't get the memo…….

I heard different stories about Suchet.
And even Davout's men had to loot – otherwise they would starve to death

basileus66

I'm not upset about anything. Believe it or not, nothing said on this site upsets me, although I there may be people who say things hoping it will. And I am not imposing a present day view on anything. I've argued against such a viewpoint. If anything, it is you who sounds upset. Is it because I found some evidence that Wellington could be just as ruthless as anyone else?

Edwulf

It would not surprise me that a lot of atrocities by the Allies were kept quiet to keep the Allied relationships together.

But some people just like to pick on the troops or commanders of one nation. War is never so simple or so one sided, as some obviously want it to be.

The Cadiz junta passed regulation to stop killing French prisoners to halt the cycle of retaliation. They were conscious the root of the cause was on their side.

If anything, it is you who sounds upset. Is it because I found some evidence that Wellington could be just as ruthless as anyone else?

Man! By Wellington being ruthless? I am Spanish, mate, not British. It's a good joke, though.

(Wellington! Man… it is so so funny… I almost choked in my drink when I read it!)

The Cadiz junta passed regulation to stop killing French prisoners to halt the cycle of retaliation. They were conscious the root of the cause was on their side.

Actually, the opposite is true: the Regency, which replaced the Junta in February 1810 by the way, passed several ordinances regulating how, when and in which circumstances French prisoners should be shot. Those ordinances established quite clearly that it was not only justified but actually obligated when French soldiers were captured in the whereabouts of centers of population where atrocities would have been commited. As I explained in a previous post Spanish commanders needed to justify why they had taken prisoners in those cases, not the other way around.

On the other hand, from 1809 onwards Spanish partisans were more interested in taking prisoners than in killing them. They received a bounty (in gold, when the British were paying, which annoyed the Spanish authorities a lot) for each French soldiers delivered to the Allied armies. Interestingly, in one case the partisans actually helped the defection of a whole battalion of Italian troops that deserted in masse. The commander of the battalion received a prize for bringing up his men, while the commander of the partisan band that escorted his battalion to the Allied lines was promoted to Lieutenant in the regular army and also received a bounty -which he spent in buying powder and weapons for his men-.

And by the way, the 300 Madrileños shot by Murat's orders beg to differ about your peculiar idea about who started the cycle of killings.

I heard different stories about Suchet. And even Davout's men had to loot – otherwise they would starve to death

Perhaps, then, you could give examples for both marshals. Davout permitted no looting and he took great care with his troops, including feeding them.

So, what examples do you have for your two points above?

Yes. Thin!
BREAKDOWNS in discipline. I'm sure that phrase means something. That order was lost and the men no longer listening or obeying their officers.
The French though when they raped, stole and murdered were obeying orders, officers would condone and permit said deeds.

British and Portuguese soldiers WERE hung when caught. At least at the end of the Burgos retreat and Corruna retreats. The seiges, gallows were erected but I concede I think non were hung.

As to Coimbra, Pelet a neutral and unbiased source I guess with no interest in saving some battered French honour. Bishop of Coimbra? Squarely lays the blame on the French for the deaths of civilians and he was around at the time and had is relatively neutral. Well compared to a French or allied soldier.
I think it was inherent in the military culture of the French army to brutalise those who resisted their invasions. Even in the French Indian wars the French would think nothing of wiping out villages of English women and children and non combatant men. And in the war of 1812 it was the Independent Companies of Foriengners who a used the American civillians… Mostly French POWs.

The Prussians were bad… Pay back? Revenge? Maybe if the French had restrained their men in Foriegn territory. Paid for food. Ordered respect shown to women and then the Prussies might have held off.

Edwulf

Yes, that's the spirit. When the French did something it was really, really bad and with the blessings of their commanders. But when the Allies did something, especially the British, it was merely a lack of discipline. There is no other response but to laugh.

basileus66

What has your nationality got to do with anything? But I'm pleased that mentioning Wellington being ruthless amused you. It usually upsets people.

But we are talking about events that happened hundreds of years ago. The French, the Spanish, the British – who knows who first started it – the fact is, that they all did it. But some like to make up excuses for the Allies doing it, while at the same time condemning the French. LOL.

Well can you find any examples of the British being "ordered" to put a Spanish town to flames? Ordered to steal and rob? I can find lots of orders to the contrary. I'm not excusing British or Spanish atrocities but it IS a valid difference. The British did and it was a CRIME, a shame and disgrace but the French were ALLOWED to do it, even ordered to do it.
The best you can do is bring up some rather weak orders requiring the hanging of armed rebels and their leaders, the burning of an empty town and permission to THREATEN a town, not actually do it but threaten into friendly behavior … fid Spanish and Portuguese towns get this warning. As I understand it whole communities would be ravaged regardless of wether they had done anything at a whim with no warning.

I can't help but laugh either at the desperate need of the Francophiles to excuse by far the most brutal army's atrocities. No harm in liking the bad guys. The WW2 baddies have their fan boys, and I root for the English in Braveheart… quite like the empire in Star Wars too.

Bare in mind British officers were shot and killed trying to prevent looting by their own troops.

What has your nationality got to do with anything?

That what an American can think about a British that has been dead for 160 years now is something that doesn't bother me at all.

But I'm pleased that mentioning Wellington being ruthless amused you. It usually upsets people.

First and foremost I am a professional historian (yes, I am paid for writing history, so I qualify as such). The only thing that upsets me is ignorance.

The French, the Spanish, the British – who knows who first started it – the fact is, that they all did it.

It's easy to know who started it and when: 3 May 1808, the mass shootings of prisoners in Madrid. Though the orders to deal with potential mutineers were sent by Napoleon as early as April and required from Murat the use of overwhelming force and ruthless retaliation against any opposition to the dinastic change being implemented by the French(see André Fugier; he makes a compelling case… It has been published in French and in Spanish; don't know if there is an English edition too).

By the way, where did I deny that the Spanish entered willingly in the cycle of retaliation and atrocities? The only thing that I have refuted is that atrocities committed by Spanish peasants were as imaginative and ellaborated as pretended by some French memorialists. Also, I have found no evidence that the British were involved in officially sanctioned atrocities in Spain and Portugal; they did commit what we would call "war crimes", but it was because of breakdowns in discipline rather than to any deliberate orders from the top. If you think that is an excuse, so be it. I just call it a fact.

Soult and Messana obviously didn't get the memo…….

I would suggest that you read Pelet's account of the French campaign in Portugal under Massena as well as Soult's operations in southern Spain.

The French system of "living of the land" has served the French well in Germany, The Low Countries and Northern Italy it is just not sustainable in Spain, Portugal or Russia.

Interestingly, sometimes the British in Spain believed that the French were better-fed.

All armies looted. Sure. Difference was under the French it was policy, permitted by generals… Under the others, it was a hanging offense.

No, it wasn't.

Consider the following material:

Prussian General Yorck's comment on the conduct of his troops in France in 1814: ‘I thought I had the honor to command a Prussian corps, but I find I only command a band of brigands.'

‘If all those gulty of pillage had been shot, Schwarzenberg would have left his whole army at Troyes.'-Pugiat, on the conduct of the allied troops in France.

‘The people are becoming more and more exasperated, and the partisans of the enemy dare not open their mouths.'-General Allix.

‘The people will forget past wrongs and will make further sacrifices if only they can be revenged upon the Cossacks.'-the Prefect of Seine-sur-Marne.

‘The Mesgrignys are lucky enough to have me in their home, a great piece of luck indeed, because I don't eat them. War is an unpleasant thing, especially when 50,000 Cossacks and Baskirs take part in it.'-Metternich.

From the Memoirs of the Invasion of France, 1814 by Baron Agathon Fain:

‘But while the [allied] generals were making their harangues, the soldiers were pillaging and slaying without mercy. Their atrocities roused the utmost degree of resistance on the part of the country people. Prince Schwarzenberg found that it was no less necessary to intimidate than to subdue. He threatened to hang every French peasant who should be taken with arms in his hands, and announced his intention of burning every village that should offer resistance to the invaders.'-43.
‘The allies had behaved most shamefully at Chateau-Thierry; and, on their retreat the inhabitants vented the utmost indignation against them…some, it is said, were seen reeking their revenge by throwing into the river the wounded Prussians who were lying on the bridge.'-103
‘In constant pursuit of the enemy, [Napoleon's] eyes were struck on all sides with devastation and conflagrations. He was surrounded only by miserable inhabitants, who, in their despair, were more inclined to raise the cry of vengeance than the prayers of peace.'-160

‘The Moniteur was filled with all the complaints, with all the lamentations of the wretched inhabitants of Montmirail, of Montereau, and of Nangis, with the sufferings of Troyes, and the still more recent horrors of which the plains of La Ferte-sous-Jouarre and Meaux had just been the theater. All the towns which had been afflicted with the scourge of war, sent deputies to Paris to describe their misery, and demand vengeance. Inquiries were everywhere set on foot, but the calamities were too great to call for exaggeration.'-161.

From Napoleon and the Campaign of 1814: France by Henry Houssaye:

‘…the crimes of the Russians and Cossacks roused the inhabitants of the invaded departments to fury. When the allies crossed the Rhine they published most reassuring proclamations, and for the first few days they maintained good discipline, but very soon the inhabitants were exasperated by the boasting words and the offensive manners of the officers, who announced that they had come for the purpose of muzzling France.'-37.

‘The invading army was fed and even clothed free of cost by means of requisition, but that was not enough to satisfy the soldiers; as the allies penetrated further into the country, and especially after their first reverses, their march was marked by fire, pillage, and rape. The local traditions say that the Prussians committed more atrocities even than the Cossacks, but after a careful study of authentic documents it would seem that there was not much to choose between them; for pillage and violence the Prussians and Cossacks ran a dead heat, the Bavarians and Wurttembergers came in second, and the Austrians and Russian regulars were not much behind.'-39.

‘It must be admitted that the soldiers often acted contrary to the proclamations and orders of their generals, and that their officers made efforts to restrain them; for instance, Blucher in his proclamation of March 13 states that several pillages had been executed, and Pugiat also says that four soldiers were condemned to death, but pardoned at the request of the Mayor of Troyes…Unfortunately the glowing proclamations and stern orders of the generals were printed in French, and the Cossacks and Kalmuks did not understand that language, while the members of the Tugenbund pretended to have forgotten it. Among this crowd of men of different nationalities, also, animated largely by mutual jealousies, written safeguards were of no value, and the authority of officers commanded little or no respect.'-40.

‘The officers of one army attributed all the excesses and acts of violence to the troops of the other armies, and refused to intervene when their own soldiers were not at fault. At Moret the mayor asked an Austrian general to stop the pillaging of the town by the Cossacks and received the answer: ‘They are Russians, I have no authority over them.' At Chaumont the Grand Duke Constantine was moved by the tears of a gardener whose home was being robbed to go and order away the looters; he recognized the Austrian uniform, however, from a distance and remarked with a laugh, ‘Ah, these are the soldiers of your Emperor's father-in-law; I am not in command here.'-40.

‘On occasions, however, towns and villages were looted at the express orders of the generals. The soldiers were told that pillage was authorized for two hours, four hours, or a whole day, and the soldiers, naturally, always took more than their allowance. Troyes, Epernay, Nogent, Sens, Soissons, Chateau-Thierry, and more than two hundred twons and villages were literally sacked. ‘The allied generals,' an eyewitness said, ‘look upon looting as a debt which they owe to their men.'

Pages 40-48 describe the pillaging and murder of French citizens. Some of the ‘highlights' are:

-Houses burned in the following towns:

-Soissons, 50.
-Moulins, 60.
Mesnil-Sellieres, 107.
-Nogent, 160.
-Busancy, 70.
-Vailly, 100+
-Chavignon, 100+
-The towns of Athies, Mesbrecourt, Corbeny, and Clacy were totally destroyed.

Further:

-When the Cossacks burned a town, their first destroyed the pumps so that the fires could not be put out.

-Cossacks burned alive a man named Leclerc at Bucy-le-Long by roasting his legs and then stuffing straw in his mouth and setting it on fire.

-At Nogent a man named Hubert was physically mauled by Prussian troops and then shot and killed.

-At Provins an infant was thrown into a fire in order to get information from his mother.

-In the canton of Vandeuvre 550 civilians were murdered.

-At Sens the pillage lasted for nine days, 11-20 February. The hereditary Prince of Wurttemberg ‘presided' over the pillaging.

So, it seems that the allies were guilty of the same types of offenses that the French are usually labeled with. And it seems that the Prussians and Cossacks were definitely worse.

Seems He knew something about morality and chose to ignore it.

Before coming to a definite conclusion such as this I would suggest researching more on Napoleon's character.

Dwyer is a poor reference.

it is more than living from the land, it is licensed criminality and corruption as to take hostages and holding them at ransom, as for example Kellermann in Spain, otherwise basileus66 set the records straight and he shows competence in contrast to the usual – unable to learn anything lot.

Just like the allied troops in France in 1814 as noted above.

Before you accuse others of being 'unable to learn' perhaps you ought to engage in reflection of your own postings and prejudices.

Sounds like the Cossacks and Prussians were bad. Giving the French a taste of their own medicine?

I noticed again very few examples of allied atrocities … Some 4 towns destroyed compared to how many the French went through in one of their campaigns?
Other things I noticed, the Austrians looting the gardeners house I see left the gardener alone.. How many Spaniards were afforded that mercy? Or more importantly how many weren't.

Blucher had pillagers executed. And your own quotes say that the allied generals did not permit looting and tried to stop it. Your very first quote is of an allied general ashamed of his troops.

600 000 French civilian casualties. Including roughly 200-400 000 Vendeans that they killed themselves and 25 000 that died in Haiti..

In Spain alone they think at least 500 000 civillian deaths. Twice as many as caused by what, 4 hostile armies?

Prussians weren't worse than Russians, or Austrians, B wants to fuel another flame war.

In 1814 the Allies lived from the land as well, in that case, for a change – France.
There were some scores to settle from previous experience of organised plunder and stripping by the French and Allies.

Still the Allied CinCs tried hard to keep it as a minimum.

I am not aware that they permitted Paris to be burned, allthough the Prussians wanted to low up the pont de Jena ;-))

Allegedly, Wellington didn't want for the Spanish troops enter France in 1814 because he feared that the Spaniards would be bent on retaliate against French peasants for the six years of occupation. While that could be a motivation -he did accepted at least two Spanish divisions, though- in my opinion he probably was also wary of trying to supply a Spanish army whose fighting prowess nor discipline he did trust.

Did the French peasantry suffer violent acts from Allied troops? Sure, they did. Was that violence organized from the top down, according to a deliberate policy of retaliation for acts of resistence? The available evidence doesn't support that hypothesis, even if only because armed opposition from French peasants against the Allied armies was uncommon enough to merit extended punitive actions. Actually, French peasantry was so tired from almost 25 years of constant warfare that they tried to sustain a low profile, neither supporting the allies, but trying their best to stay away from the path of the armies. While individuals did actively support the Emperor, the majority followed the old time tested option of fleeing to woods and moors with their livestock and hiding their grain -at least when they had been warned in advance of the presence of troops… Allied or French!-.

So, while locally Allied commanders could have condoned violent acts against French civilians after the fact, there are no reasons to suppose that was an official policy. And that it was what distinguished the invasion of France in 1814 -which, by the way, was over after barely two months of operations- from the invasion of Spain and Portugal.

Prussians weren't worse than Russians, or Austrians…

By the evidence provided, one of them a primary source, apparently they were. Blucher actually encouraged the depredations against the French civilians after the succession of defeats he suffered in February.

If you don't agree, then post something that refutes it.

B wants to fuel another flame war.

That is a false statement and couldn't be further from fact. Perhaps if you actually posted something useful instead of inaccurate one-liners or false accusations, then perhaps the forum as a whole would benefit.

Perhaps it is you that wishes a 'flame war'? If so, please count me out.

Sounds like the Cossacks and Prussians were bad. Giving the French a taste of their own medicine? I noticed again very few examples of allied atrocities … Some 4 towns destroyed compared to how many the French went through in one of their campaigns? Other things I noticed, the Austrians looting the gardeners house I see left the gardener alone.. How many Spaniards were afforded that mercy? Or more importantly how many weren't. Blucher had pillagers executed. And your own quotes say that the allied generals did not permit looting and tried to stop it. Your very first quote is of an allied general ashamed of his troops. 600 000 French civilian casualties. Including roughly 200-400 000 Vendeans that they killed themselves and 25 000 that died in Haiti.. In Spain alone they think at least 500 000 civillian deaths. Twice as many as caused by what, 4 hostile armies?

Perhaps you should read the posting again? It is quite obvious that you have missed most of it.

And if you take a look at the posting, there is reference to more material that I didn't post. One of the more interesting remarks in one of the references was that some wells in eastern France couldn't be used for some time after the fighting ended because there were so many bodies of allied soldiers thrown down them by angry French civilians.

Edwulf

I see the force is not with you. LOL.

But just who is making excuses for anyone committing atrocities? The message offered is that all the nations committed them, and it is pretty hypocritical to pick on one nation, and also to say that when one side did it, was
a crime and a lack of discipline, but when another side did it was under orders. It was a war crime for whichever side did it and for whatever reason. And all the nations were guilty.

And you cannot excuse someone for making a threat to burn down their village or town as acceptable. If the Allies had not been known to carry out such threats, those threatened would have ignored them. I think it is a bit like the slavery issue, in that people spend time searching out and highlighting French atrocities while conveniently ignoring those committed by the allies or making up excuses for them..

The people will forget past wrongs and will make further sacrifices if only they can be revenged upon the Cossacks

And yet the police reports sent to Paris by local prefects were commonly worried by the lack of enthusiasm by the French peasantry. While in 1791 the French revolutionaries were able to mobilize the French population to fight the invading armies -despite having to deal with a yet strong royalist feeling-, in 1814 the dominant tone of the documents was of youngs being aided by their communities to abscond from recruiters -as much as 20,000 absentees just in Southern France (see Forrest)-, even with reported incidents of armed resistence against Army recruiting parties. Also, reports sent from the French commanders expressed their worry for the help given by French communities to deserters that wanted out from the war.

Indeed, French civilians were afraid of soldiers, particularly from Cossacks -probably more due to propaganda than to actual experience- and Prussians, which were infamous for their indiscipline in foraging. However, the same kind of complaints were recorded in representations sent by local communities to the authorities in Paris against the French troops! 1814 was a campaing taken when the winter wasn't still over; supplies collapsed almost inmediately for all armies -weren't that good, for starters, probably with the exception of the always meticulous Wellington-. As soon as that happened, soldiers, regardless of their nationality, engaged in widespread looting, even against their own compatriots.

That, however, is a kind of violence common to pre-industrial warfare. You can find it everywhere in any theater of war during the Napoleonic wars. It happened in Poland, in the campaign of 1807, when French soldiers robbed from Polish peasants and were attacked by them in return. It happened in Spain, of course, with peasantry defending -or trying to defend- their food from the depredations of passing armies, being those French, British or even Spanish (in one ocasion, peasants from southern Lugo routed a company-sized force from the Regimiento de Ribero, which was looting their village)

basileus66

I would suggest ignorance is when someone only sees one side of Napoleonic events and blinkers themselves to the other side. It happens a lot.

But you state that you see things as facts and that it all started by the killing of prisoners. Really? One could quite easily state that it was the fact that the people rebelled and attacked isolated French troops, that was the start? Or doesn't that count in your view?

Rebellion and putting down rebellions is always brutal.

Yes. The force has never been with me. Never more so when rolling dice.
But at least the empire gets the best ships, uniforms and war machines.. Even if they do get roughed up by little teddy bears.

Yes the collapse in 1814 and 1815 were very quick no support of N in France anymore, the Allies didn't alienate the French population – and there was no levée en masse as in 1792 – then men were gone anyway, wasted on a lot of unneccessary battles which did France no good

Gazzola,

Seriously? For someone who claims an interest in Napoleonic history, your grasp of the timeline is disturbingly shallow.

basileus66

Are you saying that I am incorrect that the Spanish uprising in Madrid did not start on the 2nd May, the day before the date you claim, as a Spanish historian, was the start of the atrocities?

Gazzola

I see… You deny that the people had the right to rebel against an unlawful change of regime and therefore that the represalies were justified, do you? Or put it in other words, that the act itself of rebellion was an atrocity and therefore the onus for starting the cycle of repression was in the Spanish for rebel against a foreing power imposing over them a change of regime through force. That, of course, without mentioning the events of February.

Interesting.

"Rebel Scum"

Think the force may have left you too Gazza old boy.

basileus66

I am afraid you have caught 'dibble's disease', in that you are 'guessing' what I think. Not a good trait for anyone, and especially for a historian, which you claim you are. I am saying you statement, in which you say you knew the cause, is your opinion, nothing more. I disagree with it.

And I do not think I have ever stated that the Spanish people did not have a right to rebel. I actually admire and respect the fact that they did so, although I do not admire the guerrillas. And certainly, Napoleon should have given the throne to a Spaniard.

But once atrocities start, no matter who starts them, I am sure you will agree it will always be difficult, if not impossible, to stop them. We can look back in hindsight and say this should have been done or that should not have been done, but the people living during the period did not have that luxury.

Edwulf

The force never leaves you. You should have known that. LOL
And besides, one person's rebel is another person's freedom fighter.

Could someone please name a guerrilla war that didn't have atrocities committed by both sides?

I see… You deny that the people had the right to rebel against an unlawful change of regime

What exactly made the Bourbon regime "legal"?

Monty Python answers all:

YouTube link

Again moving the goalposts… Ok, let's try once more time: are you or are you not arguing that rebelling against an invader is an atrocity and therefore it can be argued that rebelling is the starting point of a cycle of repression?

By the way, don't get confused: I can't care less about the relative morality of an action when analyzing the past. I don't consider it as part of my job description. Determining the morality of what is being narrated is in the purview of the reader.

What exactly made the Bourbon regime "legal"?

What has to do that with anything? Napoleon forced a dinastic change at gunpoint, and that was understood as unlawful at the time.

Polish troops refused to participate in the racial war in Haiti

Its all about logisitics…

If the emperor didn't want his troops to pillage he should have ensured they received enough food to live on from their supply train.

If he really thought they could "live off the land" and not become pillagers, he must not have been as great a thinker as we all believe him to be.

You also should distinguish between looting and foraging for supplies, which all armies also did.

But not all armies did live off the land, with its concomitant contact with the civil population and hence, in an ill disciplined army, subsequent abuse of the unarmed civilians by hungry, scared, and armed youngsters of the army.

There is of course no overall 'moral' difference between French and British soldiers of the time. One army spent most of the time under strict discipline with full bellies, the other was rarely disciplined and left to its own devices to scavenge. It really is as simple as that!

A couple of fast facts in case anybody takes issue with my wild generalisation – the French Armee du Nord's Provost Marshal in 1815 resigned in despair at the total loss of discipline in the French Army.

The good people at the Devon and Dorset Regimental museum undertook a survey estimating the calories and food mix enjoyed by Dorset agricultural workers compared to soldiers serving with the 11th Foot, throughout the Napoleonic Wars. Surprisingly, the soldiers not only had much more food, they also eat beef on a regular basis, a rare treat for the farm boys!

To evidence my scant respect for national differences, take the Spanish question. Wellington famously ordered the Spanish units in his army to be left behind rather than enter France in 1814, as he feared their interaction with the French civilians would cause an armed insurrection. When asked if this order applied to the considerable number of Spanish soldiers locally recruited into British units, he snorted that of course it didn't, they were fine fellows all!

Same nationality, different discipline and administration = different behaviour!

Simples!

basileus66

The start of any atrocities will always be seen from different viewpoints. From one viewpoint, one could see the rioting and sudden attacks against isolated troops, if not starting off the harrowing atrocities that followed by both sides, it certainly set the scene for mistrust and hatred.
And if people rebelled and attacked the occupying troops, they surely must have expected reprisals and brutal ones at that? And they would have to win their uprising for that not to happen.

It does not mean that my viewpoint or your viewpoint is correct. That would be arrogant and biased by either of us to think so. The sad fact is, in the end, it did not matter who started it, both sides employed atrocities in the ensuing struggle.