"French Soldiers Behaving Badly" Topic

@Edwulf,

If you are not in the habit of researching campaigns where the British were absent, then where is your frame of reference for the Vendee and Russia, going in and coming out?

Give me an example--just one!--of the "officially sanctioned depravity" that occurred in the Vendee, and who was/were the government officials who sanctioned it?

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.

The Independent Companies of Foreigners were organized and commanded by British officers, and as such were part of the British army.

If you check the recent book, War in the Chesapeake by Charles Niemeyer, you'll find that both 'red coated' (British regulars) and 'green coated' (Independent Foreigners) both participated in the atrocities in the Chesapeake.

The book is excellent and Niemeyer is the Director of Marine Corps History and the Gray Research Center at Marine Corps University at Quantico.

Charlie and I served together as battery commanders in Okinawa in the late 1970s. He's a good man. I highly recommend the book.

I said I'm not in the habit of it. I didn't say I had not read anything at all on the subject. Perhaps I should have expressed it differently… The Invasion Of Russia is the area I've read about the least. It is the campaign on which I know least about. Hence my being unwilling to comment on that.

My knowledge on the Vendee. I'm not ignorant of what happened there I have being reading about constantly in wargaming magazines since a youth (you probably don't read them not being a Wargamer), especially the old Miniature Wargames and the old Wargames Illustrated but they very often had very well researched articles in them. I have only spoken on subjects I am familiar with and asked a question about the area I know little of.

No need to apologize for your patronizing attitude to me. I'm not offended.

@Edwulf,

I *will* apologize, since I did not mean to be patronizing. I simply asked how you knew about alleged atrocities based on your admission regarding research.

As far as being a Wargamer, I beg to differ. Been doing that, mostly with 25mms and a few 30mm for show, since 1975.

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.

No, what I shared, is that troops are capable of participating in a counter insurgency without recourse to targeting non-combatants. As I suggested that it was likely that you know many similar examples, but you declined to respond to that point – I wonder why

The Independent Companies of Foreigners were organized and commanded by British officers, and as such were part of the British army.

I don't think that is sufficient to demonstrate that they shared British military culture. Like many foreign units, it is probable that they retained aspects of their original military cultures. I would also suggest that you are heading down a rabbit hole here, given our earlier exchange on the intentions of the British commanders.

Maggie.
Terribly sorry. I was responding too Brectal. Not to you. I hadn't seen your post til now and didn't find it patronizing. No apology needed.

Give me an example--just one!--of the "officially sanctioned depravity" that occurred in the Vendee, and who was/were the government officials who sanctioned it?

Some bibliography you can check if interested:

Reynald SECHER. A French Genocide. The Vendée. Notre Dame (Indiana): University of Notre Dame Press, 2003. [1986]. The author put too much trust in Royalist memoirs, so it should be read with that in mind.

Lucas DE LA CHAMPIONNIÈRE. Memoirs d'un officier vendéen 1793-1796.

Comte de QUATREBARBES. Une paroise vendéene sous la Terreur. Angers: Editions Pays & Terroirs, 2003 [1833].

Pierre MARAMBAUD. Les Lucs. La Vendée, la Terreur & la Mémoire. La Motte-Achard: Editions L'Etrave, 1993.

For a more balanced analysis:

David A. BELL. The First Total War. Boston, Nueva York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. Particularly pages 154-185.

Alan FORREST. Napoleon's Men. The Soldiers of the Revolution and Empire. Specially pages 127-131.

Philip G DWYER. "'It Still Makes Me Shudder': Memories of Massacres and Atrocities during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars." War in History. Vol. 16, N. 4. November 2009. Pages 381-405. I found compelling Dwyer's analysis.

Howard G BROWN. "From Organic Society to Security State: The War on Brigandage in France, 1797-1802" en The Journal of Modern History. 69. December 1997. 661-695. This author specifically analyzes the mechanisms of repression that the French governments from Paris ordered to be applied in the Vendée.

As for an analysis on the organic relationship between the experience at the Vendée and the war in Spain and Portugal see:

Jean Marc LAFON. L'Andalousie et Napoleon. Contre-insurrection, collaboration et résistances dans le midi de l'Espagne (1808-1812). Paris: Nouveau Monde Éditions, 2007. Particularly pages 27 and ff.

Also check the memoirs of Roguet and Hugo and the letters of the commissar Lagarde.

janner

'real bug bear' Really? I take from that you believe I hate my country because I disagree with things they did 200 years ago? That is so untrue. But perhaps the real 'bug bear' is that the rosy illusions of Britain 200 YEARS AGO, has been diluted, something some people just can't take.

And no, the French were not committing atrocities against their allies. The French army at the time was an army of occupation. True, many Spanish wanted the French there and joined their regiments and fought with them. But the French fought a conventional war against Spanish field armies and against a people rebelling against the occupation. And of course, against the 'patriotic' guerrillas.

basileus66

I wasn't intending to bring up events further in the past. It was a response to you bringing up such matters from the before the period, which was totally pointless.

Sad you feel that way. You obviously disagree with my opinions. But that's fine. That is your choice and you won't be alone. But believe it or not, I respect your viewpoints, as much as I disagree with most of them.

I wasn't intending to bring up events further in the past. It was a response to you bringing up such matters from the before the period, which was totally pointless.

How is it pointless to the topic to bring up the ideas that shaped insurgent warfare in the period inmediately before the wars of the Revolution and Empire? How is it not relevant to the discussion to see the experience at the Vendée as the turning point when even the same men charged with dealing with the war in Spain were shaped by their experiencies (both direct and indirect) of the war in Vendée?

Either my writing skills are worst than I thought, or you like to misinterpret what is actually written.

Basileus66

Either my writing skills are worst than I thought, or you like to misinterpret what is actually written

I don't know why you bother with him.

I ducked out of the 'Waterloo showed Wellington to be merely competent' thread for the reason that he doesn't quote for quote. A clever game that he plays where he can misquote, prevarcate, and side-step to his heart's content.

Paul :)

+1

Logic will not avail you here.

I don't know why you bother with him.

Don't think I do not wonder the same… ;)

I take from that you believe I hate my country because I disagree with things they did 200 years ago? That is so untrue. But perhaps the real 'bug bear' is that the rosy illusions of Britain 200 YEARS AGO, has been diluted, something some people just can't take.

You clearly do not know what I believe, which is unsurprising given your habit of not reading posts carefully.

And no, the French were not committing atrocities against their allies. The French army at the time was an army of occupation. True, many Spanish wanted the French there and joined their regiments and fought with them.

Given your obvious knowledge of this period, it's odd that you left out those that joined Spanish units that fought as allies of the French under King José I, which is not the same as joining 'their', i.e. French regiments.

But the French fought a conventional war against Spanish field armies and against a people rebelling against the occupation. And of course, against the 'patriotic' guerrillas.

It's illuminating that you now describe the French campaign against Spanish 'rebels' as conventional when earlier it was a 'not a normal war'…

Logic will not avail you here.

Indeed, by their fruit you will recognize them – and all that

basileus66

I don't intend to get bogged down with your posts, since you stated you do not write for me and you are not interested in my opinion. I can well imagine you are not interested in my opinion. I know some people are like that, they don't like opinions of those who disagree with them. Although I am interested in your opinion, as I am in other people's opinions, I don't agree with your opinions or the viewpoints you have expressed so far. I see nothing wrong with that.

But this is a Napoleonic board, and I am more interested in those who post on Napoleonic matters and I feel it best to stick to Napoleonic period factors here, not bring up those from previous wars or those after the Napoleonic period. I know some people like to do so but if we all did that, there'd nothing said about the actual Napoleonic period. There are other threads for discussing other periods and that, in my opinion, is where your recent posts belong.

dibble

quote for quote-LOL

janner

Clearly you are unable to understand my posts. The fighting between French and Spanish Armies I consider as conventional warfare. The fighting between the French and Spanish rebels (civilians and guerrillas) I do not consider as conventional warfare. I do hope that is clear to you now?

Yes, quite correct, I did not mention the Spanish that formed Spanish regiments. Naughty me, eh? But I guess I classed them, rightly or wrongly, as part of the French Army or indeed a French army containing Spanish troops, since I believe that some of Joseph's regiments were all French and that French officers were transferred to the regiments and they were structured along French lines?

not bring up those from previous wars or those after the Napoleonic period.

Naturally, because as everybody knows Napoleonic way of war sprung out in a vacuum and everything that came before was irrelevant.

It's seriously hilarious.

Heaven knows I end up disagreeing with him a lot but I think that Kevin being DH'd for that was pretty harsh.

I agree. It was harsh. But Kevin is a politician who plays the system; who hides his snideness under a veneer of politesse. He pretends to be reasonable but invariably he is insulting. So if occasionally he gets silenced unfairly then frankly I'm not going to lose any sleep about it.

Just so it doesn't get lost in the scrum here, thanks for the reading suggestions, Basileus! I've read a number of them, but it's always good to find more on any subject.

In general, I'm no fan of the Vendeans/Choans because I'm no fan of their cause or their brutality, but on the other hand, the revolutionary government could have--and should have--exercised more restraint.

Clearly you are unable to understand my posts. The fighting between French and Spanish Armies I consider as conventional warfare. The fighting between the French and Spanish rebels (civilians and guerrillas) I do not consider as conventional warfare. I do hope that is clear to you now?

I can only judge your opinion based on what you actually write, gazzola. If you flip between calling the war between French troops and the Spanish population 'not a normal war' and then 'conventional' (as quoted earlier) then you should not be surprised if I call you out on it.

Yes, quite correct, I did not mention the Spanish that formed Spanish regiments. Naughty me, eh? But I guess I classed them, rightly or wrongly, as part of the French Army or indeed a French army containing Spanish troops, since I believe that some of Joseph's regiments were all French and that French officers were transferred to the regiments and they were structured along French lines?

If we follow your line of argument, then that would make the armies of Naples and of Italy also part of the French army, not to mention the Portuguese Army actually being part of the British army. No, I don't think so.

Doghoused? Harsh.
I didn't report him and don't know who did.

basileus66

I think most people here are well aware that Napoleonic tactics, conventional and otherwise, were influenced by the events of the French Revolution, military and rebellion wise, so . People attending this site are more knowledgeable than you think. But they also have their own opinions and viewpoints.

janner

Just spotted where you may have been confused. In my 22nd July 3.57 PST post I missed out the words 'another one' in the second to last sentence. Those two words should have been between-…Spanish field armies and (another one) against a people….

So basically, sorry to disappoint you but I missed out two words, that's all. I have not 'flipped' in my meaning or intentionally called the war against the populace conventional. But just in case it is still not clear – I see the French armies fighting Spanish armies as fighting a conventional warfare, while I consider the French fighting the populace and guerrillas as not conventional. I do hope that is clear now?

The French Grande Army going into Russia contained many nationalities but it was still called the Grande Army, not the Grande army with other nationalities.

Gazzola,

It should have been easy to identify your error straight away because I quoted the passage in question in my initial response. I suggest that is more appropriate to acknowledge that one has made a simple mistake and apologise rather than to label a reader as 'confused'. Maggie and Edwulf's recent posts serve as useful exemplars. By the way, your suggested fix would have meant 'another (conventional) one'. So the addition of those two words wouldn't have improved the clarity of your post. However, you have now made yourself crystal clear

The French Grande Army going into Russia contained many nationalities but it was still called the Grande Army, not the Grande army with other nationalities.

Correct, in 1812 the Grande Armée was a multinational force made of elements drawn from various allied national armies – each with its own military culture. However, I think it would be a stretch to describe elements from separate armies, which would include the Austrian and Prussian contingents, as 'French' – if that was your intention. That some historians describe it as the French (Grande) Army/Armée in place of French army is a useful example of the importance of capilisation in English. Your meaning, however, is unclear because you flip between French Army and French army – sometimes in the same sentence.

Kevin in the doghouse… been a long time coming.

People attending this site are more knowledgeable than you think. But they also have their own opinions and viewpoints.

Indeed.

so we don't really need a biased history lesson from you about it.

How it was biased? Just curious.

janner

If you don't know what I mean by now – tough!

basileus66

Considering you stated that you do not write for me and are not interested in my opinion, why ask?

In other words, that you don't know how to justify your statement. Just what I expected.

If you don't know what I mean by now – tough!

and to think that people warned me that the Napoleonic board was an unfriendly place…

and to think that people warned me that the Napoleonic board was an unfriendly place

Lasciatti ogni speranza voi che entrate! :D

It's not that bad a place…unless you find fault with Bonaparte. … :)

I must admit that sometimes this forum reminds me of a bunch of six-year-olds in a sandbox where name-calling and fistfights break out over possession of the big yellow dump truck and shiny red pail.

On the other hand, I don't mind the anti-Napoleon/anti-French faction because while some posters can be a little heated about their dislike to the extent I wonder if I need a rabies shot, at the end of the day I always learn something.

And that, gentlemen, is a good thing,

I certainly agree about the benefits of having your ideas tested, Maggie.

The problem here seems to be a vocal minority who immediately place anyone who isn't obviously pro-Napoleon/pro-French into the 'anti' camp (and perhaps visa versa), which is not a good thing.

In truth, some of us are in neither camp and simply consider each case based on its merits.

"The problem here seems to be a vocal minority who immediately place anyone who isn't obviously pro-Napoleon/pro-French into the 'anti' camp (and perhaps visa versa), which is not a good thing."

I agree – but seemingly it is a tested tactic – to fall upon when running out (as ever so often) of arguments based on research.

Then it is tried to stigmatise or to attack the person fielding different opinions.

No, it is more a case of if anyone dares to say anything positive about the French or Napoleon or finding faults with the Allies, especially Britain, they are classed either as worshippers of the emperor or hating the country they live in. It is quite comical really.

janner

Apologies. I did not intend to come over as unfriendly. But I was bored with the petty items you kept bring up, especially when you knew the answers to them. But it was fun for a while and even slightly informative Napoleonic wise. But when you get bored, it is not wise to continue posting and you seemed to be looking for faults with my writing than anything else, which was even more boring.

basileus66

It would be pointless saying anything to someone who stated they did not care about my opinion. If you don't care, it means you are only interested in your own opinion and will not entertain that others will disagree with you and that you may be incorrect on some matters or interpret, in this case Napoleonic events, differently.

If you don't respect other people's opinions, then there is no point talking to them, is there?

Apologies. I did not intend to come over as unfriendly. But I was bored with the petty items you kept bring up, especially when you knew the answers to them. But it was fun for a while and even slightly informative Napoleonic wise. But when you get bored, it is not wise to continue posting and you seemed to be looking for faults with my writing than anything else, which was even more boring.

This post is a prime example, gazzola. You claim that you don't intend to come across as unfriendly, but then launch straight into a personal attack. Your very next post is then a personal attack against someone else

basileus66

It would be pointless saying anything to someone who stated they did not care about my opinion. If you don't care, it means you are only interested in your own opinion and will not entertain that others will disagree with you and that you may be incorrect on some matters or interpret, in this case Napoleonic events, differently.

If you don't respect other people's opinions, then there is no point talking to them, is there?

Excuses and only excuses, Gazzola. You can't justify your previous statement and now try to put the blame on me. I don't buy it, mate.

It's easy: how it were biased my commentaries on French strategy for dealing with insurgencies in the period previous to the Revolution?

This post is a prime example, gazzola. You claim that you don't intend to come across as unfriendly, but then launch straight into a personal attack. Your very next post is then a personal attack against someone else frown

Regretfully, that's classical Gazzola. When he can't find arguments to support his opinions, then he goes personal. That's why I find so tiresome debating with him.

I understand, my friend. Unfortunately, Gazzola has seemingly failed to take on board that any lack of respect stems from his own behaviour. You and I can disagree, even vehemently, without similar rancour.

janner

There have been no personal attacks. And I have respect for your views as I do for basielus66. But I disagree with your viewpoints on Napoleonic matters. If you can't accept that, then so be it.

basileus66

I don't need to make up any excuses if I do not wish to reply to a post. Neither does anyone else. But it is hard to consider replying to someone who made the very PERSONAL ATTACK of stating that they DID NOT CARE FOR MY OPINIONS.

We obviously have different opinions and I doubt anything you say will change mine. For example, you have your belief as to the causes of the atrocities caused by both sides, I have mine. I get the impression, although I may be wrong, of course, that you see the struggle against the Spanish people as a war, while I see it as a struggle against a rebellion, an insurrection, and as such, one would be a fool to expect conventional rules of war to apply. They only apply to the conventional warfare between Spanish and French field armies.

Maggie C70
at the end of the day I always learn something.

And that, gentlemen, is a good thing,

Yes indeed, Maggie dear.
Fascinating as this debate about atrocities is, I suspect that quite a few of the participants, particularly those who warn against comparing the behaviors of the Napoleonic wars with the morality of today's soldiers, have not participated in hand to hand combat. Kevin has told us, elsewhere, that he turned a bunch of Iraqi tanker drivers into crispy critters and never lost a night's sleep afterwards, but as an artilleryman, I doubt that he could hear the screams or smell the stench of burning flesh.

I went, in the period of a few months, from being an "egghead" sixth former (16yoa) with my own Bunsen burner to a recruit who had to make a hideous scream while charging a dummy with a bayonet, and learning the advantage of the pig sticker variety over the old knife bayonets which was hard to twist and left a hole that might heal.

I wasn't in a "real" war, merely an "emergency", but killing the enemy was expected. They had, after all, been massacring British women and children (not quite true, we learned later, though a few did munch on Lois Leakey's brother because he was an honorary tribal member).

So it was hard to think of anything that we did -- and we did a lot -- as "atrocities", merely pay back to the rotten bastards who didn't understand that we only took over their country to guide them to civilization and make a little profit in the process.

As for the Spanish, Portuguese, Russians, Native Americans and natives of Britain's colonies, the old rule applies: I am a patriotic freedom fighter, you are a guerrilla, he is insurgent scum.

When you tell your children to go out and fight "for their country" on any pretext which is not demonstrably defensive, don't be surprised if they come back, as I did, still a little boy, as someone whom you don't recognize.
And please, Maggie, take my word on this and don't go out to see for yourself. You are too valuable to the forums!
Cheers,
Phil