"French Soldiers Behaving Badly" Topic

Navy Fower Wun Seven

It wasn't just a French commander who was in despair of their troops. The same went for the British. And I fear the Duke of Wellington does not support your view, since he wrote in July 1813-

'It is quite impossible for me or any other man to command a British Army under the existing system. We have in the service the scum of the earth as common soldiers; and of late years we have been doing everything in our power, both by the law and by publications, to relax the discipline by which such men can be kept in order.' (p37. Scum of Earth by Colin Brown)

'Wellington went on to complain, in the same letter about the desertions from the ranks – in less than a month, he had lost 2,733 men to 'irregularities' including 'straggling and plunder'. (page 37)

And did the British really pay for everything as some suggest? Not so it seem. An example being Captain Mercer. It seems that Wellington 'put him on a charge for 'borrowing' forage from the French farmers without paying for it.' (page 40)

And again on the army-
'The Duke said that the only way of tackling plundering by his army 'is to have plenty of provosts to hang and flog them without mercy, the devils incarnate'.
(page 40. Scum of the Earth by Colin Brown)

This suggests the British troops were just as capable of plundering as any other troops, otherwise there would be no need for such 'fear' tactics.

Thank you, Gazzola. That letter serves as an example that plundering and mistreatment of the civil population was not condoned in the Britiish army, but considered abhorant. Thus, those at the highest level treated it as a crime.

As Sparker wrote, it's the implications of a general approach logistics, ie what is then considered crime and how that affects military behaviour – you reap what you sow.

Yes. Also note British plundering is punished by hanging, flogging and being put on a charge. How can the French punish their men for plundering when the top brass partake in it and profit from it? Also I see Mercer did not murder said French civilian to get his forage…. quite different to what Spanish and Portuguese could expect if a Frenchmen or Polish Mercanary came looking for food.

I'm not sure we can blame the Spanish for reacting to outrages and provocation. The Ftench armies had been brutes in Egypt, Haiti, against the Emigres and the Vendee before that. I think it's because, maybe, they killed off or purged the old gentlemanly class of officers?

janner & Edwulf

As I proved in an earlier post, Napoleon did not condone bad treatment of the population either. But it happens and he still gets the blame.

And the revelation that Mercer, an officer, took forage without paying for it, suggests there were probably many more occasions that such a crime occurred. But I would not be surprised if such events were played down in order to prevent the populace from reacting the way they did to the French.

But my post proves the British still plundered (as well as deserted) despite the fact the British tried to impose a 'fear' factor to stop them. The 'fear' factor was there throughout the Peninsular War, yet it obviously failed, otherwise Wellington would not have written such a letter in 1813.

As for the Spanish reacting to outrages-how about troops, any troops, but in this case the French, having to suffer the barbaric and medieval act of pouring boiling water over them? And this occurred before the shootings of prisoners on the 3rd May.

As I proved in an earlier post, Napoleon did not condone bad treatment of the population either. But it happens and he still gets the blame.

The one containing the comment from Berthier is inconclusive. So in which earlier post did you think that you proved that?

In fact the contents of Napoleon's correspondence indicates quite the contrary, such as in his urging the eradication of villages showing resistance to French occupation, M. Vox, Correspondance de Napoléon: six cents lettres de travail (1806–1810) (Paris, 1943), pp. 312–14, 7 February 1806. However, Baz alluded to this earlier.

Now we have plenty of data showing British attempts to curtail soldierly criminality, including floggings and executions. Indeed, you've generously supplied much of it yourself. What do you have on Napoleon's attempts to do likewise?

As an aside, do you have data for the boiling water claim, such as French casualty rates or is it anecdotal?

Also note British plundering is punished by hanging, flogging and being put on a charge. How can the French punish their men for plundering when the top brass partake in it and profit from it? Also I see Mercer did not murder said French civilian to get his forage…. quite different to what Spanish and Portuguese could expect if a Frenchmen or Polish Mercanary came looking for food. I'm not sure we can blame the Spanish for reacting to outrages and provocation. The Ftench armies had been brutes in Egypt, Haiti, against the Emigres and the Vendee before that. I think it's because, maybe, they killed off or purged the old gentlemanly class of officers?

Please show where British troops were punished in Moore's retreat to Corunna, the allied withdrawal to Torres Vedras, and in the sacks of Badajoz, Ciudad Rodrigo, and San Sebastien (and those were against a friendly/allied population).

Please show where allied troops were punished for looting and pillaging, etc., during their campaigns. You've mentioned it twice without demonstrating it.

The French emigres were pardoned by Napoleon and brought back to France. I would suggest that the officer 'class' of the Grande Armee was greatly superior to the old 'gentlemanly' class of the old Royal Army. Those that stayed, at considerable risk to their lives, were veterans of the old royal army, such as Berthier, Davout, Grouchy, and others.

Now we have plenty of data showing British attempts to curtail soldierly criminality, including floggings and executions. Indeed, you've generously supplied much of it yourself. What do you have on Napoleon's attempts to do likewise?

Where were the punishments for looting and the sacks of friendly cities and civilians in the Peninsula?

Your 'examples' are considerably one-sided and don't forget the British looting and pillaging in the Chesapeake in 1813-1814 which was not only not punished, but encouraged by the senior British officers, both naval and army.

Please show where allied troops were punished for looting and pillaging, etc., during their campaigns. You've mentioned it twice without demonstrating it.

and

Where were the punishments for looting and the sacks of friendly cities and civilians in the Peninsula?

Such as those flogged in the aftermath of the storming of Badajoz – you mean?

Your 'examples' are considerably one-sided and don't forget the British looting and pillaging in the Chesapeake in 1813-1814 which was not only not punished, but encouraged by the senior British officers, both naval and army.

Side-stepping your usual name calling, for a snapshot, might I suggest the findings of King William IV's commission, "for the purpose of inquiring into the several modes of Punishment now authorized and in use for the maintenance of discipline and the prevention of crime" in the British army. However, data on summary dealings are readily available at the Public Records Office, PDF link

As to Chesapeake, do you have anything to support your suggestion by using the terms 'looting and pillaging' that an attack on the economic infrastructure of a hostile state is illegal?

Napoleon's letters show that he wanted to terrorise the people of Spain into submission, the Cheasapeke raids were arguably intended to damage the economic stability of the US and thus impede their ability to continue a war of aggression against the Canadian territories. As a former professional officer, I am certain that you can also appreciate the conceptual difference between the two approaches.

Besides. The worst pillagers in Chesapeake were…. FRENCH and other Europeans in the Independent Companies of Foriegners.

Wellington and Moore both mention the hangings of thieves, looters and other outragers in their dispatches.

William Lawrence saw a man hung in Spain for pinching flour.

Rifleman Moore stopped during the retreat to Corunna and witnessed two men being hung. (I can't remember what they did).

Napoleon's letters show that he wanted to terrorise the people of Spain into submission.

That's quite correct. The French had learnt a lot about fighting insurgencies. It doesn't come as a surprise that many of the theoreticians on la petite guerre were French. However, it would be a mistake to believe that before the Revolution they thought that fear to retaliation was the only, or even the most important, part of fighting successfully an insurgency. Actually, Old Regime France showed herself very capable at defeating insurgencies. They applied a policy of attracting local elites, protecting them from the insurgents, and focusing violence on those who clearly couldn't be won over. They used that policy against the Camisards (1702-1703), in Savoia (1745?) and in Corsica (1769-1772). Suchet tried to apply it in Spain, although his success was limited as he hadn't enough troops to protect pro-French elites from the partisans from extended time periods.

It changed with the Revolution. The war against insurgents became ideological; a laicist crusade rather than a pacification. While Napoleon didn't fight at la Vendée, he adopted the same tactics used there: creation of military tribunals -with few, if any, legal guarantees for the accused-; burning of villages as punishment; hangings or shootings of local authorities as retaliation; forced exile of relatives of suspected partisans; looting used as punishment against communities whose loyalty was suspected, ecc. He ordered the same blueprint to be employed against the Spaniards and Portuguese -it had been tested in Calabria and Egypt, already, with moderate success-. Though I can't be totally sure I suspect that in the case of the Peninsula his ruthlessness was tinged by xenophobic disdain -may be also ideological- against the Portuguese and Spaniards.

Fear to retaliation could have worked if Napoleon would have been strong enough. Although he had 350,000 men deployed in Spain at its peak, they weren't enough to sustain such kind of campaign on the long run. They had too many tasks to accomplish for too few men -to fight against the regular armies; invest fortresses; protect lines of communication; launch search and destroy ops against guerrillas. Moreover, neither Spain nor Portugal had a communications that allowed fast movement, which only served to compound the problems of the French.

King José tried to convince his brother to allow him to recruit a really independent Spanish army that could have helped him to fight the partisans at least, if not against the regulars. Napoleon was wary, though, and with good reason. Spanish units had shown scant if any reliability. His brother's kingdom hadn't the revenues needed to rise and equip those troops, which meant that the bill should have been paid by France. Napoleon had intended for Spain being a net contributor to his war effort; now it was a drain for his resources in money and men; he wasn't particularly fond of the idea of sinking more resources than strictly necessary. Finally -and his brother suspected that much- he didn't want for his eldest brother to have the means at his disposal to make an independent policy from France (and the Dutch case shows that he didn't shy from taking radical actions if he thought they were needed, even against their own brothers). Actually, as he was planning to make of some Spanish provinces French departments, he didn't want that José could have opposed the action, not matter how improbable that could be.

I am not convinced that José would have been successful in rising a Spanish army strong enough to actually support his brother's army operations in any significative way, but in any case his brother never was enthusiastic about it.

Best

janner

'and still others hurled stones, pieces of furniture and kitchen utensils from the balconies, where they were joined by women armed with cauldrons of boiling water.' (page 11. Peninsular Eyewitnesses by Prof Charles Esdaile)

What do you think the women were going to do with the boiling water, wash the rioters clothes? By the way, I believe it is a Spanish eyewitness.

Why do you think there had to be such fear factors (hanging and flogging) against the British troops? And why were British soldiers still being flogged and executed? Think about it!

What do you think the women were going to do with the boiling water, wash the rioters clothes? By the way, I believe it is a Spanish eyewitness.

Thank you, that is useful context. It was clearly of a different scale and more haphazard than the medieval siege practice a friend is currently researching. That aside, do you have no indications that any French troops were actually injured by this and, if so, do you consider the odd scolded soldier justification for mass civilian executions?

Why do you think there had to be such fear factors (hanging and flogging) against the British troops? And why were British soldiers still being flogged and executed? Think about it!

The thought comes that there are two basic reasons for a law: to encourage or to deter. I'd suggest that the threats of hanging and flogging were there because commanders believed them necessary to deter actions considered criminal. They were then employed to punish those that committed said crimes, ie law makers considered certain behaviour abhorrent and reacted accordingly. That's not to say that I consider corporal punishment the best way to establish and maintain a disciplined army and some British commanders were capable of fostering good discipline without recourse to flogging. However, British elites of the time seemingly resorted to the stick far more than the carrot – plus ça change

Do you intend to present anything to show that Napoleon sought to control the excesses of his troops or to balance the evidence that he directed his troops to terrorize the Spanish population, which is somewhat more than merely condone casual violence?

Regards,

That's the difference. The French were allowed to do it. Ordered to frequently.

All armies loot, steal and occasionally murder and abuse. The French were ordered to and allowed. The British did it and, if caught, hung as they should be, as criminals… and while San Sebastien, Badajoz and to a messed extent Cuidad Rodrigo went unpunished the troops were DISOBEYING orders and officers tried to reign them in.

This is why the French were worse. They were not acting out of a breakdown in discipline, not disobeying orders BUT doing what they were allowed to. With everyone else it was a crime, for the French it was a habit they couldn't break. What was, as proven by quotes from Austrian, Russian and Prussian commanders, deplored by the allies, the French saw as normal.
The French troops at Jaffa…. puts pretty much everything in Spain to the shade. Wide spread sexual slavery of Egyptian girls and women followed by their slaughter and the mass murder of POWs. Even as late as Waterloo the imperial guard murdered Landwher POWs. It was deeply ingrained in the military culture of France since the revolution… He brave Swiss guards, betrayed and attacked by the people and carried of to be butchered by the mob. The revolution didn't just purge the aristocracy but decency and humanity to France…. Not to return until 1815…

It's one of the main reasons I'm glad we crushed them in 1805… The thought of that horde of rapists and POW killers slaughtering my countrymen… shudder. Greatest evil of the time. That's not the Asahi Super Dry talking.

Speaking of outrages ….. I left the 87th foot on the Kitchen table. Only to find my daughter found them too…. Tomorrow night is a repainted night.

The revolution didn't just purge the aristocracy but decency and humanity to France

I wouldn't go that far. War was brutal long before the Revolution. Actually, the Revolution brought back the concept of war as part of an existential struggle, as in the wars of Religion of the 16th and 17th Centuries. It also recovered the idea of Louis XIV of using scorched earth policies to force the oponents into submission. Napoleon, in that regard, was more akin to Louis XIV than to any of his contemporaries.

What made the Revolution different was the nature of the struggle itself. It wasn't religion but political ideology what served as justifier of any action, regardless of its brutality. In the case of war in Spain, French memoirs are almost unanimous in their conviction of fighting against obscurantism and religious barbarism. They didn't understand the rol of Catholicism in the common day life of the Spanish peasantry. For them, religious practices were a symptom of the backward nature of the Spanish people. That, in their minds, justified to treat the Spaniards with comptempt tinted by feelings of racial superiority. It justified their behaviour and their brutality. Spanish were inferior. The Spaniards returned them the feeling, casting the French as avatars of the Devil, dehumanizing them and justifying the use of any measure, no matter how brutal, against them.

And yet, the actual practice of war was more complicated than a cursory glance could make us believe.

I can't continue now -my lunch hour is almost over!- but I will try to elaborate my argument, later.

Interesting.

How did they reconcile that view with the fact their allies were heretical heathens? France being close allies only a few years previously?

janner

I will search out immediately the lists of casualties caused by falling boiling water, chairs, tables and of course, kitchen sinks. LOL

You asked for proof that they used boiling water. You got it and from a Spanish source. But it seems you are never satisfied.

Rebellions are brutal, and reprisals equally brutal. I'm sure you will agree with that. So please don't put words into my mouth or make any further dumb statements as to the cause of the executions.

Again, why would the British need to 'deter' their troops, if they did not have the fear of how they would behave. And that, I suggest, would be a fear based on events, reported or not.

And we must remember that the French were not fighting a normal war against soldiers in Spain, they were fighting a brutal rebellion and often by people the Spanish themselves feared and were forced to suffer by. In this case you can't expect the normal and usual rules of war to be employed.

Rebellions are brutal, and reprisals equally brutal.

Not necessarily true.

Again, why would the British need to 'deter' their troops, if they did not have the fear of how they would behave.

What part of "state sponsored violence" compared with "uncontrolled looting" you do not understand?

And we must remember that the French were not fighting a normal war against soldiers in Spain,

Says you. That the Spanish Army would field more soldiers than the combined Anglo-Portuguese Army and that fought more battles and sieges than them is something that you conveniently forgot.

they were fighting a brutal rebellion

They were fighting a rebellion of their own making. It was Napoleon who caused it. He turned Spain from an ally -perhaps not very effective, but an ally nonetheless- into an enemy. If he would have stuck to his own side of the frontier, he would have avoided a lot of pain to his soldiers, his treasure and, of course, to the Spanish population.

often by people the Spanish themselves feared and were forced to suffer by

Not the Spanish as a whole. Some Spanish did, and in some particular situations.

In this case you can't expect the normal and usual rules of war to be employed.

That is the usual excuse used by murderous armies when trying to justify their barbaric behaviour. Nihil novum sub solem.

You asked for proof that they used boiling water. You got it and from a Spanish source. But it seems you are never satisfied.

You provided an anecdote, not evidence. You should learn to differentiate between them. For example: a list of wounded by boiling water is evidence; a tale from a witness (any lawyer or policeman can tell you how reliable witnesses are) is an anecdote, particularly when you do not provide the full quote nor the name of the witness.

By the way, I have seen the lists of French wounded admited in the Hospital General de Madrid on May 3rd (AHN. Consejos. Sala de Alcaldes. Libro 1.399) If memory serves me well there were 20+ soldiers, all of them with stabbing wounds, concussions from blunt instruments and at least two wounded by buckshot (at least one soldier died from subdural hematoma that same night). Probably, those soldiers hadn't been engaged with the Spanish regulars at Monteleón -in whose case it should be expected more wounds from cannister or bullets- but in running battles against Spanish civilians (the wounds are consistent with the improvised weapons commonly used by civilians: knives, sticks, stones and fowling guns)

Of course, this is just anecdotical evidence and wounded by boiling water could have been admitted in military hospitals or in other hospitals in Madrid -it is not probable that being attacked by boiled water by a housewive would have caused mortal wounds-. Still I found it highly doubtful, as for being able to wound a man with boiling water the amount needed would have been in orders of magnitude greater than a typical house pot could hold. More probably the women used pots in which case the only wound the French would have suffered would have been to their pride and sense of smell!

basileus66

I think you being petty minded because I have not provided you with a casualty report that states someone was wounded by boiling water. I doubt the reports would state men had been injured by other items dropped or poured on them either. So just because you have been unable to find a report that states it directly, it does not mean it did not happen. After all, it was reported by a Spanish eyewitness. What reason would they have to lie, which is what you are implying?

But nice to see that you agree with me that some Spanish did not like their fellow Spanish guerrillas. I believe some of the famous paintings of Goya depicted the famine Madrid suffered caused by the blockade of supplies enforced by the guerrillas. Even the Duke of Wellington frowned upon them. 'It is very difficult to know what to think about the guerrilla groups. It cannot be denied that some of them have been greatly useful throughout the course of the war (…). They doubled the number of calamities inflicted on the French. However, the inhabitants had to feed the enemy with one hand and the guerrilla with the other. They plundered many villages with such little mercy that the guerrilla groups took everything that they could find, even in places where the French had already preceded them. With the excuse of serving against the enemies, many of them converted openly into bandits and decided to live off plundering the country.' (page 44. The Guerrilla Wars 1808-1814 by Miguel Angel Martin Mas)

It might be nothing 'new' in your opinion, concerning not considering rebellion and guerrilla warfare as normal warfare. But it is not an excuse either. But if you knew your military history you would know it is a different type of warfare and a far dirtier one than normal field army against field army warfare. Perhaps you should read up on it? I'm sure you would learn a lot.

But you really should try to stop putting words into people's mouths and thinking you know what they think. In that area, you know nothing and it is plain arrogance to think so.

For a start, I am well aware of the Spanish field armies combats against the French. I have researched and written up several magazine article covering them. But I gathered we were talking about atrocities and rebellion here, not the actions of one field army against another field army. I would, of course, much prefer to do that. Like I say, I have admired the Spanish will to resist, although not their methods, and I have certainly admired the way the Spanish armies kept having a go.

As for those committing atrocities, the British are usually thrown up as being deterred by fear of hanging and flogging. But the point is, they still undertook atrocities right up until the end. And Wellington was totally frustrated by the fact his troops kept committing them. See the attached. It includes one British soldier who killed a Portuguese man and was charged with being 'disorderedly'. The Frenada 1813 letters section is very interesting, it depicts Wellington complaining that his officers were just as bad, that he is finding it hard to keep up with the atrocities workload and receives two or three cases every week, and in note 78 we see he makes the excuse for them by blaming their actions on drink.

So, despite the fact that people throw up the British command did not allow atrocities, and despite the fear factor of execution and flogging, the troops of the British Army still committed atrocities. The prefect example is what happened at Badajoz in 1812, and then, a year later in 1813, what happened at the Siege of San Sebastian. And, unlike the French, this was against their Allies.

link

link

I suggest you stop putting horns on one nation while placing false halos over others. Hypocrisy is not a good trait for an historian or anyone else

Commited them yes… Nobody has said they didn't.
The difference is in doing so they were DISOBEYING orders and could be punished. The French commited them more often, more violently and WITH PERMISSION. I also feel confident that MOST British and Spanish the "atrocities" will be random acts by soldiers and stragglers on random targets of opportunity… and mostly acts of theft/ theft of violence. Also remember that the violence at Badajoz et al was still against orders.

Quite unlike the general March into a village, murder and torture and rape that the French would do as punishment for being the same nationality as some querillas that shot at them before. Premeditated, calculated terrorizing of civillians. The French had a clear history of civilian abuse far worse than any nation in this period.

I'd be interested to see exactly how many Spanish and Portuguese villages, towns and cities were burned and destroyed in the war… and how many
were burned and destroyed by the Anglo-Spanish-Portuguese and how many were burnt, wiped out by the French?

Rather than putting Devils horns on one and halos on another I think it's far worse to excuse French brutality and cruelty as being "normal" and desperately trying to bring down the armies fighting for the liberation of Europe from tyranny to the same base level.

If we look at other wars…. WW2 for example, the U.S.,French and British all commuted atrocities, yet we can safely say the Japanese and Germans were worse. No question. You wouldn't say it was devil horns and false Halos there would you?

Baz has picked up most of this,

Again, why would the British need to 'deter' their troops, if they did not have the fear of how they would behave. And that, I suggest, would be a fear based on events, reported or not.

British troops could behave very badly indeed, which was contrary to the wishes of their commanders. So those commanders sought to deter such behaviour with corporal punishment – with mixed results. I'm not sure what's not to get here.

I suggest you stop putting horns on one nation while placing false halos over others. Hypocrisy is not a good trait for an historian or anyone else

Agreed, one should endeavour to keep an open mind. So one should be open to a consideration of varying military cultures and the systems in place to curb potential soldierly excess in each one. In this case, there are two military cultures in which the soldiers are recorded as being violent towards the civil population. In one, there is evidence that this was actively encouraged by field commanders and even the head of state. In the other, there is evidance that commanders sought to punish it as a crime, as it was considered abhorrent. However, such violence remained an issue, ie corporal punishment was an incomplete approach to the problem.

So please don't put words into my mouth or make any further dumb statements as to the cause of the executions.

I asked you a question, which exposed the weakness of your position. At no stage did I put words into your mouth and accusing me of making dumb statements reflects poorly on you. Perhaps you're just having a bad day, which has impacted upon your conduct. I hope that everything is okay with you.

Regards,

I suggest you stop putting horns on one nation while placing false halos over others.

My English skills must be rusty, because no matter how many times I read my posts I can't see where I have put halos over any nation. Or horns, for that matter.

How did they reconcile that view with the fact their allies were heretical heathens? France being close allies only a few years previously?

At the top level of government, first Floridablanca and then Godoy didn't make too much fuss about it. Britain was a bigger danger for Spanish interests up to the point Napoleon ordered his troops enter Spain. As usual, the government turned a blind eye to the less "pleasant" peculiarities of the French while it served them well. Also Godoy was afraid of Napoleon. He knew that the French army was stronger and better prepared than the Spanish army, and that provoking Napoleon wouldn't have been a good idea.

However, neither the Spanish people nor the Church had many contacts with the French before December 1807. That changed when the first French troops entered Spain. At first, according the documentation available, incindents were few or non-existent. Things changed when new forces were sent to Spain and discipline started to collapse. All documents point that the moment when Spanish-French relations started to unravel was February 1808, when French troops occupied the Spanish fortresses of Montjuich, Barcelona and Pamplona.

Since that point onwards, French soldiers started to show less and less restrain in their dealings with the Spanish population. Incidents multiplied. Some of them were political in nature -Spanish students shouting abuse at the French guard at the fortress of Pamplona, as mentioned in an earlier post-; others were typically related to soldiers acting like bullies trying to rob from civilians, as in Burgos, in late March, when some soldiers from the French garrison tried to steal some muleteers at the gates of the town and started a riot; others, finally, made public mockery of local traditions -particularly processions- causing incidents.

The Spanish patriotic propaganda made good use of the contempt that the common French soldier showed towards local religious traditions, convincing many Spaniards that the war was not only for the independence but also for the Catholic soul of the country. It is interesting to notice that while Polish soldiers were also considered invaders they weren't considered heretics and the propaganda directed to them to incite them to desert was constructed around the idea of a shared religion -Catholicism- that put them apart from the French.

Still, I do not want to go too far. Not yet, at least. I am working on the topic for an article and I have not enough evidence yet. I need to make more research. For the moment, it is just an hypothesis. And there are some contrary evidence that points to a more complicated picture: for instance, local parish priests showed in many ocassions sympathy for the French, even to the point of protecting isolated French soldiers from the anger of the locals. On the other hand, though, it seems that Religion formed a vital part of the patriotic discourse; in an incident in January 1812, for example, three jurados (Spanish in the Bonapartist ranks) were captured by a patriot party; before being shot they were offered to confess with a priest, but they answered (approximated translation): "We do not want to confess; when we joined the French was to stop being Christians; no, we do not want to confess" (IHCM. CDF. Vol. 136. Gazeta de la Junta Superior de la Mancha. Elche de la Sierra, January 4th 1812). It suggest that the conscience of fighting a war for Religion had permeated both the discourse of the patriots and the Bonapartists. But it is not enough, though, to reach a conclussion yet.

Edwulf

I don't intend to get into discussion of later wars, that is not really for this board. But those you mentioned were armies against armies. But there was and have been cases of atrocities carried out by ALL sides against civilians. I am sure you are aware of that. And here are a few BRITISH examples for you.

link

But let's try to stick to Napoleonic topics. Iam not making excuses for anything. The British committed atrocities TO THEIR ALLIES. And of course the French committed them, that can't be denied, but at least they were against their enemies. This was a war in which anyone could be your enemy, man, woman and even children.

But you (and others) should really stop making the usual excuses of 'random acts' and 'lack of discipline', when it comes to the Allies committing atrocities, as if that explains everything and therefore excusable. It happened whether they were commanded to or not, and the fear factor of punishment did not work, as Wellington's obvious frustration with the continual actions of his troops proves.

janner

You obviously don't get it! Even with the so called fear factor of punishment and execution, they still committed atrocities.

In one, we have armies fighting French armies. In the other, we have armies fighting everyone, man, woman and child. In one, the enemy was known-the French. In the other, the enemies was unknown and likely to be everyone. Simples!

I think asking if I considered the odd soldier being scalded as cause for executions is a pretty dumb question. If you don't, then perhaps that is the problem?

Gazzola's answer:

I think you being petty minded because I have not provided you with a casualty report that states someone was wounded by boiling water. I doubt the reports would state men had been injured by other items dropped or poured on them either. So just because you have been unable to find a report that states it directly, it does not mean it did not happen. After all, it was reported by a Spanish eyewitness. What reason would they have to lie, which is what you are implying?

My message about casualties:

By the way, I have seen the lists of French wounded admited in the Hospital General de Madrid on May 3rd (AHN. Consejos. Sala de Alcaldes. Libro 1.399) If memory serves me well there were 20+ soldiers, all of them with stabbing wounds, concussions from blunt instruments and at least two wounded by buckshot (at least one soldier died from subdural hematoma that same night). Probably, those soldiers hadn't been engaged with the Spanish regulars at Monteleón -in whose case it should be expected more wounds from cannister or bullets- but in running battles against Spanish civilians (the wounds are consistent with the improvised weapons commonly used by civilians: knives, sticks, stones and fowling guns)

Of course, this is just anecdotical evidence and wounded by boiling water could have been admitted in military hospitals or in other hospitals in Madrid -it is not probable that being attacked by boiled water by a housewive would have caused mortal wounds-. Still I found it highly doubtful, as for being able to wound a man with boiling water the amount needed would have been in orders of magnitude greater than a typical house pot could hold. More probably the women used Bleeped textpots in which case the only wound the French would have suffered would have been to their pride and sense of smell!

I would like you notice that in the parts in bold case I emphatize that:

a) Nature of wounds was stated in some admission lists;
b) I agree that being incomplete (anecdotical) means that there could be wounded by boiling water admitted in other hospitals

Some questions:

1) Why using boiling water to fight against armed soldiers is more akin to an atrocity than using, say, a fowling gun?
2) Why Gazzola insist in selective reading of other people's messages?
3) Why I am losing my time debating with someone whose principal argument is name calling?

You obviously don't get it! Even with the so called fear factor of punishment and execution, they still committed atrocities.

I think that you should revisit my last post, Gazzola, as that was precisely my point about the limitations of corporal punishment in addressing criminality. However, the intent was to deter behaviour considered criminal by the British, but encouraged by Napoleon and many of his commanders.

In one, we have armies fighting French armies. In the other, we have armies fighting everyone, man, woman and child. In one, the enemy was known-the French. In the other, the enemies was unknown and likely to be everyone. Simples!

You seem intent on side-stepping the point that the insurrection in Spain was, in part, of France's own making due to their treatment of the local population. It was a particularly vicious cycle, one which Napoleon arguably exacerbated with his instructions that his men terrorise the indigenous population.

Baz,

2) Why Gazzola insist in selective reading of other people's messages?
3) Why I am losing my time debating with someone whose principal argument is name calling?

I know the feeling on both counts, my friend.

'The guerrilla groups could not always rely on volunteers, hence some occasionally recruited country folk by force. Many of them, tired of the endless war, feared the guerrilla fighter as much or even more than the French.'
(page 14. The Guerrilla Wars 1808-1814 by Miguel Angel Martin Mas)

But I doubt they all fought against the French for religious reasons alone, some had no choice, such as those who preferred to join the British Army, as 95th Rifleman Edward Costello explains-
'But the mystery of the success was soon revealed from the very mouths of the recruits, who by joining us led us to understand that they only had three alternatives to choose from, serve the British, serve Don Julian, or be hung. The despotic domain of Sanchez and his threatening treatment meant that they feared enlisting in guerrilla groups, so they fled to the forests in fear of being captured by them and were later happy to join the British Army.'

Anyone know of any studies concerning those that did fight for the French, similar to the three mentioned by basileus66?

basileus66

If you can't understand why pouring boiling water over someone is more of a barbaric act and atrocity than being shot at by a fouling gun, then there is no hope for you and it will be a waste of time debating anything with you.

janner

Your post is really comical. If it was meant to deter, why did it fail to do so? It did not work, whatever the intention.

I am not side stepping anything – you are. You (and others) are trying to throw the notions of field army warfare into a war that was barbaric and completely different, with no rules given or obeyed on both sides.

The point is that I find some of your points (and others) worth commenting on and replying to, while other bits I do not. There is no rule that says I must be interested in everything you or anyone else posts and must reply to everything written.

Your post is really comical. If it was meant to deter, why did it fail to do so? It did not work, whatever the intention

At least you seem to have finally got the point as to British intentions

I am not side stepping anything – you are. You (and others) are trying to throw the notions of field army warfare into a war that was barbaric and completely different, with no rules given or obeyed on both sides.

No, but this is an excellent example of someone misrepresenting another's position, which is indicative of someone who is either distracted or frustrated and seeking an escape from an untenable position.

As I believe others here can see, what I am actually doing is throwing notions of the higher commander's intentions and social control mechanisms into consideration of military culture and soldierly conduct.

I've managed to participate in a number of counter insurgency operations against opponent's with histories of torturing captives, as well as murdering them, without resorting to rape, pillage, or the like myself (and without the threat of flogging ). So, it is clearly not the nature of fighting an insurgency per se, but the social controls and culture of the troops engaged in that struggle.

The point is that I find some of your points (and others) worth commenting on and replying to, while other bits I do not. There is no rule that says I must be interested in everything you or anyone else posts and must reply to everything written.

It is, however, only sensible to ensure that the counterpoint one makes isn't actually part and parcel of argument one is responding to, such as the efficacy of corporal punishment.

If you can't understand why pouring boiling water over someone is more of a barbaric act and atrocity than being shot at by a fouling gun, there is no hope for you and it will be a waste of time debating anything with you

So are you simply distracted or is this clumsy response actually deliberate misrepresentation? I hope it's the former, but the steady flow of insults suggests otherwise. Hey ho!

I've managed to participate in a number of counter insurgency operations against opponent's with histories of torturing captives, as well as murdering them, without resorting to rape, pillage, or the like myself (and without the threat of flogging wink). So, it is clearly not the nature of fighting an insurgency per se, but the social controls and culture of the troops engaged in that struggle.

I can't agree more, Janner. Well explained, my friend.

I've managed to participate in a number of counter insurgency operations against opponent's with histories of torturing captives, as well as murdering them, without resorting to rape, pillage, or the like myself (and without the threat of flogging wink). So, it is clearly not the nature of fighting an insurgency per se, but the social controls and culture of the troops engaged in that struggle.

That is very interesting.

Where and when, and against whom?

janner

A shame you do not get the point that, despite British 'intentions', as you put it, it made no flaming difference. It is far too easy to attack one side for doing something while dismissing the Allies for doing it because they had a 'failed' deterrent in place.

But really, what you decided to do in the present day has nothing at all to do with what the French and Allies did 200 years ago. And there may well have been no threat of flogging, but there was the threat of media and modern technology. If people committed atrocities the world can find out a lot quicker nowadays, as we all know.

And it is the very nature of the unconventional war in Spain that caused the unconventional events. As David Gates says -'Inevitably, atrocity gave rise to counter-atrocity and, in six years of war, thousands of people who officially were non-combatants were butchered.' (page 36. The Spanish Ulcer)

But yes, I apologise over the boiling water bit. That was meant for basileus66. Sorry about that, but it is hard sometimes to see the pair of you as different. LOL

A shame you do not get the point that, despite British 'intentions', as you put it, it made no flaming difference. It is far too easy to attack one side for doing something while dismissing the Allies for doing it because they had a 'failed' deterrent in place.

It is true that I struggle to get a position that doesn't appear to match the data. In one, we have data for periodic criminality due to a break down of social constraints, such as in the aftermath of a successful breach or the actions of a criminal minority. In the other, the data shows that it is not even considered criminal by the head of state and his senior commanders and it was a feature of the military culture. There is actually quite a difference there, flaming or otherwise.

But really, what you decided to do in the present day has nothing at all to do with what the French and Allies did 200 years ago. And there may well have been no threat of flogging, but there was the threat of media and modern technology.

I'd suggest that comparison is part and parcel of valid analysis, especially in regards to consideration of the relative conduct of troops in other counter insurgencies. Your example is a useful case in point, if the threat of media etc. was influencing my behaviour, then it is clear that it did not influence the behaviour of the opposition in a similar way. Indeed some used it to publicise their acts of torture and murder. Rather, I would argue, media served to intensify the impact of the respective social norms that actually control behaviour, which takes us back to why French soldiers were behaving 'badly'. Soldiers of all nationalities, including the UK, have also collectively behaved badly during counter insurgency operations, eg when such behaviour was acceptable to the military culture of the day or when a group considered they were outside controlling norms. This isn't a question of horns and halos, but a straight forward appraisal of the impact of certain policies, such as living off the land and being ordered to terrorise noncombatants, on military culture.

But yes, I apologise over the boiling water bit. That was meant for basileus66. Sorry about that, but it is hard sometimes to see the pair of you as different. LOL

No problem, Baz and I do not agree on everything, but we often find common ground when the evidance points a certain way

That is very interesting.

Where and when, and against whom?

As a former professional soldier, you'll be familiar with the importance of not sharing unnecessary data. That said, I have seen a former member of the U.S. army intelligence branch put his whole military résumé up on here. So maybe we're back to military culture (and respective legislation). However, the joys of old colleagues putting photos up on Facebook means that one of my tours of Northern Ireland is already out there, as is my last tour in Sierra Leone. The remainder is not, but I'm sure you know many members of the USMC, as well as other parts of the US military, who also managed to make it through counter insurgency operations without raping or murdering noncombatants, or pillaging their homes.

You brought the subject of personal military service up in this context. I was merely both curious and interested.

Counter-insurgency is difficult, at best, in any situation.

I did and it's a conversation best had over a beer or two sometime

As Janner has pointed, military culture is fundamental to understand how wars are fight. At the start of the wars of the Revolution and Empire, France was one of the European countries with more experience in fighting insurgencies. French manuals on petite guerre were readed and translated into English, German and Spanish. All of them insisted in the idea of control. Punishment and retaliation should be used as a last resource, not as the primary response. Prevention rather than cure was the byword of the day (see Le Cointe "Science de les posts militaires" [1759] or Sandrine Picaud "La petite guerre au XVIIIe siècle" [2010] for a modern analysis of the topic).

That doesn't mean that the French were unwilling of using brutality when it suited them. In 1688, for instance, Louis XIV ordered for the Palatinate being devastated with the double goal of creating a belt of scorched earth between France and her enemies and of forcing them into starting a campaign before they were ready (see: John LYNN. "A Brutal Necessity? The Devastation of the Palatinate, 1688-1689" in GRIMSLEY, Mark; ROGERS, Clifford J. (2002) Civilians in the path of War.)

The Eighteenth century was a period characterized by a drive to rationalize the surrounding world. Everything and anything could be explained through human reason. All could be reduced to formulae. Irregular warfare wasn't an exception. Since the War of the League of Ausburg, military thinkers had looked forward to integrate the irregulars into an ordered system of war. It was known in France, -the hubbub of Enlightenment in Europe-, as la petite guerre. From French, the expression was translated into German –kleine krieg-; English – small war- and Spanish: guerrilla, literally "small war". One of the first theoreticians to include la petite guerre into a military system was an Italian in the service of the Austrian emperor, Raimondo Montecuccoli. It's difficult to assess how seriously were taken his musings on the petite guerre; however in 1809, more than one hundred and thirty years after his military treatise that included the guerrilla war would have been published, the Spanish general Grimarest mentioned Montecuccoli's works as examples of how to manage the increasing activity of the bands of partisans that were harassing the French.

I increasingly see the Revolution and the uprisings in the Vendée as the turning points on how insurrections were dealt with. I strongly suspect that it was the experience at Vendée what defined the military doctrine of the French army for the years to come. It's not surprising that Napoleon dealt with rebellion using the same methods tested at the Vendée.

As Janner has correctly pointed it was the change on military culture what lead to the brutality of the war in Spain, rather than mere ideas of retaliation.

janner

You can't so easily dismiss crimes and atrocities by the British as 'periodic behaviour'. As Wellington himself showed in the links I provided, it was happening all the time and he was getting fed up with it.

And I think you may be having a problem because you are not separating the different types of warfare. One side, while fighting a conventional war against the French, is committing crimes and atrocities AGAINST THEIR ALLIES. The other side, while fighting a conventional war against the British and Spanish armies, is also fighting a brutal rebellion.

No, I disagree with you completely in thinking it is okay to throw modern day morality and mindset onto events of 200 years ago. That is a biased viewpoint based on the luxury of hindsight. And by the way, I was not implying that you may have considered undertaking atrocities had the power of modern technology and media not been available, so please don't think or suggest that. I was reflecting that the same technology spreads word of any atrocities quite quickly nowadays, which would deter some, whereas, 200 years ago, some events may have occurred that we will never know about. But as you probably know yourself, modern day atrocities still occurred anyway.

basileus66

Really, if you are going to start travelling back into the past to support your argument, then perhaps we should bring up how the British in the Cromwell period treated the Irish and how earlier in the days of Wallace etc, the English treated the Scots.

But I was pleased to see you describe the uprising in the Vendee as an insurrection, which it was. Even so, I doubt that it had defined the French military doctrine, as you put it. The French fought conventional wars in a conventional way, and they fought insurrections in the same way it was fought against them.

Gazzola

Don't bother. I do not write for you nor care for your opinions on the subject.

You can't so easily dismiss crimes and atrocities by the British as 'periodic behaviour'. As Wellington himself showed in the links I provided, it was happening all the time and he was getting fed up with it.

The description of certain behaviour as periodic is not the same as dismissing it. It is merely, what I consider to be, accurate.

As an aside, your first link does not describe endemic behaviour, but that which resulted from a loss of discipline following an entry through a practical breach – as I have already covered. link
In the second, the author refers to abhorrent behaviour as 'exceptions', i.e. is was periodic link
The third provides an interesting example of what you consider credible enough to share here.

And I think you may be having a problem because you are not separating the different types of warfare. One side, while fighting a conventional war against the French, is committing crimes and atrocities AGAINST THEIR ALLIES. The other side, while fighting a conventional war against the British and Spanish armies, is also fighting a brutal rebellion.

No, I think that you are seeking to create artificial distinctions in lieu of data to support your position. Napoleon's brother was the king of Spain and Spanish troops served as allies to Grande Armée. So the French also committed crimes and atrocities against their allies, but they did it under Napoleon's direction. Indeed, the French made such a hash of things that they turned a natural competitor to the UK into a reluctant ally.

No, I disagree with you completely in thinking it is okay to throw modern day morality and mindset onto events of 200 years ago. That is a biased viewpoint based on the luxury of hindsight.

This is yet another misrepresentation of my position. In fact, anyone reading my argument properly would have noted that I wrote earlier,

This isn't a question of horns and halos, but a straight forward appraisal of the impact of certain policies, such as living off the land and being ordered to terrorise noncombatants, on military culture.

To close,

Really, if you are going to start travelling back into the past to support your argument, then perhaps we should bring up how the British in the Cromwell period treated the Irish and how earlier in the days of Wallace etc, the English treated the Scots.

I think that your choice of examples indicates what your real bug bear is

I did and it's a conversation best had over a beer or two sometime grin

Agree.

And that being the case the subject should not have been brought up here.

And that being the case the subject should not have been brought up here.

I can understand why Gazzola finds it inconvenient to demonstrate that violence against the civil population is not a requirement to the conduct of counter insurgency operations, but what's your excuse?

I can understand why Gazzola finds it inconvenient to demonstrate that violence against the civil population is not a requirement to the conduct of counter insurgency operations, but what's your excuse?

You have misunderstood my reply to you. I am not against anything being discussed that is relevant to the topic as long as both sides are covered adequately, which isn't the case on this forum.

My 'objection' was that you inserted what is your personal experience and then when asked cared not to discuss it. My reply had nothing to do with the topic at hand for the period.

I would have thought that was quite clear.

Besides. The worst pillagers in Chesapeake were…. FRENCH and other Europeans in the Independent Companies of Foriegners.

And who employed those put ashore?

And the Royal Navy and Royal Marines were also involved, so your excuse for the British is nonsense.

Put them ashore. How unreasonable of them to expect French troops to refrain from rape and murder. Caused much consternation among the British I believe.

I'm not much of one to research campaign the British weren't in but how were the French marching in an out of Russia? I know the bullied and abused the Germans with out resorting to the officially sanctioned depravity they showed in Egypt, Vendee, Spain and Portugal.