"Incorrigible Rogues: The Brutalisation of British ..." Topic

… Soldiers in the Peninsular War 1808-1814.

"This article looks at the behaviour of the British soldiers in the Peninsular War between 1808 and 1814. Despite being allies to Spain and Portugal, the British soldiers committed violent acts towards civilians on a regular basis. Traditionally it has been argued that the redcoat's misbehaviour was a product of their criminal backgrounds. This article will challenge this assumption and place the soldiers' behaviour in the context of their wartime experience. It will discuss the effects of war upon soldiers' mentality, and reflect upon the importance of psychological support in any theatre of war"
See here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting article. There is a problem, though. The brutality of soldiers against civilian population wasn't particular of the British soldiers, but of every armed outfit, regular or irregular, that operated in Spain during the war. While that can be expected from the French and their allies, or even in the part of irregulars (less violent, though, that regulars), there is documentary evidence that shows violent incidents, even to the point of exchange of shots, between regular Spanish troops and Spanish peasants.

Soldiers were feared by the peasantry of all Europe with good reason, regardless the supposed national affiliation of the troops involved.

Not just in Spain but everywhere – the French 'innovation' of living off the land led to numerous popular risings particularly during the revolutionary period and the Russians and Prussian were also notorious (particularly on French soil)

Green Tiger

Actually, it predates the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Remember that one of the most coveted privileges shought by local communities was to be exempted of the obligation of garrisoning troops.

The article has another problems, mainly its excesive trust in recollections and memoirs. There is a truism that you should be aware when reading a memoir: the author will focus on those memories that are more probable to be of interest for his readers. The scandal, the violence are way more engaging for the average pre-victorian reader than a narrative of the day-to-day life of soldiers. We all am aware of the brutal aftermath of the siege of Badajoz, but so far nobody has tried to analyse, to really research, the actual effects of the siege using hard data. How many houses were destroyed? How many civilians were killed? How many women were raped? How big was the booty from the sack? Ecc. I realize it is a difficult task. It is easier for the historian to trust the memoirs and journals, full of anecdotes but short in real information.

Worst than Badajoz was San Sebastian Siege… and it supposed that the Spanish were Allied!…

Amicalement
Armand

Any town taken by assault was "worse" for her inhabitants. It wasn´t like the British were more brutal than any other soldiers in any other country at any other time in history, when taking a city by assault.

it is also interesting that the theoretical provisions didn't cover the necessary calories.

Tango01

Good spot and a very interesting read. I particularly liked the bit where it states that British Officers were taken to court for 'breaches of discipline' in which they permitted men to plunder. (page 46)

The British plunder, never, not the good old Brits, surely? I thought they paid for everything and were the good guys. LOL

Really, Gazzola? Whatever gave you the impression that the British never plundered or who has been using the rather simplistic term, 'good guys'?

Dear me, you've been sadly misinformed I fear.

She is noting that the officers were taken to court for these breaches of discipline (as well as other ranks being punished).

Have court martial records for similar offences have been made available for other nations of the time?

Have court martial records for similar offences have been made available for other nations of the time?

I've seen a few from Spanish court martials. Petty theft, abuses, some rapes and the odd murder; one case of espionage (one accused was shot, the other bought his freedom by paying hard cash to one of the jailers). Also a case against two soldiers that attacked while drunk to a landlord crying "¡Vamos a colgar a los pudientes por los cojones!" ("we are going to hang the rich by the balls!"); they were sent to a penal battalion in Africa, by the way.

Glad you like it my good friend!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Thanks for that Basileus. I assume that all countries had military police or provosts, but it's not something that gets much attention. Do you know whether there was much difference between countries in terms of their treatment of those breaking military law?

Ben Avery

I think you need a larger size of Union Jack Undies, as you sound very agitated.

And you know by various debates, such as Copenhagen 1807, that whenever the British have been mentioned as committing an atrocity or doing something wrong, such as plundering, some people tend to throw a wobbler or fob it off as simply just a 'lack of discipline'.

But here is a record of British officers giving British soldiers permission to plunder. By the way, Alice Parker is referring to what she found in the work of Sir Charles Oman, namely Courts Martial of the Peninsular War 1809-14.

And as I have always been trying to state, ALL nations did something bad or committed atrocities during the Napoleonic period, not just the French as some would have us believe.

Tango01

Good point. Include also the British atrocity of a deliberate bombardment of civilians at Copenhagen in 1807. The whole siege was against a neutral nation. And in terms of the Spanish who were attacked and raped etc, by the British during the Peninsular, they WERE ALLIES. The British were MEANT to be fighting the French soldiers defending the fortresses, not the civilians. There is no excuse for them and fobbing their atrocities off as simply 'a lack of discipline', is just not acceptable, unless of course, any atrocities caused by the French should also be classed as just a 'lack of discipline'. We can't have one rule for one and a different rule for another, can we?

I assume that all countries had military police or provosts

Not in the Spanish Army at the time. Ok, not exactly, I mean. The function of provost was taken by the officer of the guard in each regiment, who would forward the soldiers of the watch to act as military policemen.

Do you know whether there was much difference between countries in terms of their treatment of those breaking military law?

Can't be sure. Regretfully, I don't know the nuances of military law in other armies. For what is worth, in the Spanish army at the time punishments were a matter of the local commander. Sometimes they could go lenient, sometimes they could be harsher. The only pattern I have been able to discern is that much depended on the standing of the defendant in the local networks of patronage and clientele. In other words, individuals outside the networks of patronage, commonly, received harsher sentences than those who could trust in their family or clientele to intervene in their behalf. That made outsiders particularly vulnerable.

Remember that the nature of the war itself precluded the existence of a centralized authority in the patriot side. Local authorities, especially commanding officers, had much leeway to impose punishments, albeit, usually, but not always, they deferred the harsher sentences to the superior authorities (CinCs of armies or civilian representatives of the Regencia or the Junta Central).

any atrocities caused by the French should also be classed as just a 'lack of discipline'

No according the Emperor's Correspondence. Check the relevant letters. He was adamant that civil unrest should be met with extreme prejudice and violence. Actually, I think he was being practical rather than cruel: he was convinced, probably, that it was most cost-effective in lives and resources on the long run to use extreme violence to kill the rebellion stillborn rather than allow for it to fester if a more moderate approach was used.

By the way, that was the COMMON response to every rebellion everywhere. Napoleon wasn't exceptional in that regard. What were odd were proposals like those of Junot to balance force with leniency, trying to tie local elites to the occupiers and use them to subjugate the insurrection. Napoleon, though, was convinced that a inmediate show of overwhelming force would be more effective.

As for the morality of Napoleon's approach to be totally open with you I don't give a damn. Really, I can't care less about it. I am not in the bussiness of allocating blame. If I would I would have become a priest instead a historian.

Thank you very much for that, Basileus. It's nice to learn something new.

Gazzola, as ever, you go for an interesting moral equivalency.

We have one country that spends a lot of money paying for things (no doubt in part at least as it's an allied country they're fighting in). Human nature being what it is, there will be breaches of discipline, but this country also regularly punishes men for them and we have records of those. You do know the courts martial records are evidence of this, don't you?

Another country invaded its ally, deposed the monarchy and had policies of living off the land and regularly carrying out atrocities, following orders from above.

Now, I don't think it's a double standard to say these situations are not the same. Feel free to differ.

By the way, I'm not sure why my underwear is on your mind, but as Basileus says, whatever floats your boat.

basileus66

I don't think napoleon, or anyone else for that matter, expected the Spanish to continue being so stubborn and continue rebelling, especially after so many defeats. But as we know, attempts to put down any rebellious activity quickly only ended up fuelling the fire. It is one of the aspects that makes the Peninsular side of the Napoleonic Wars so fascinating.

And yes, I agree, everyone was as brutal as each other at times. A shame other people could not accept that. As for anyone laying the blame, there are far too many all too willing to do that without knowing or accepting the full facts or the reality of the situation. And as I've said before, far too many use the 'skill' of hindsight to support their 'clever and all knowing' viewpoints.

Ben Avery

I notice you did not say I was incorrect concerning the Union Jack undies? LOL

In terms of country that 'spends a lot', yes Britain did constantly spend a lot paying the other countries to go to war with the French. Proper war mongers they were.

And in terms of 'spending a lot' concerning supplies etc, pray explain, if we consider this was true, why would the British officers give permission for their troops to plunder? Hmmm?

'I'm going to go of on another tangent as I can't respond to what's been posted!'

Carry on Gazzola.

[…]in terms of 'spending a lot' concerning supplies etc, pray explain, […] why would the British officers give permission for their troops to plunder?

Because plunder wasn't just about food?

Seriously, I'm not in the anti-Napoleon camp*, but you're embarrassing yourself here.

(*I'm not in the pro-Napoleon camp either)

Because plunder wasn't just about food?

Not only for that reason. There are other issues to consider. For instance, the collapse of authority when regular supplies failed, as happened during the retreat to Corunna and during the retreat from Burgos in 1813. Also, when a city was taken by assault it was a given that the soldiers would be allowed to plunder the town, not only because it was in the accepted rules of war but also because it was almost impossible to control the soldiers in the aftermath of an assault (see what happened in Tarragona in 1811, when the French captured the town, for example).

Finally, something that many, many modern day readers and historians usually forget is that at the time to receive a pension after being discharged from the army was, for soldiers, the exception rather than the norm. Soldier's pay were ridiculous, even if no additional charges were taken in account. Soldiers couldn't save from their pays. Once you were unfit to work either you had properties or a family that could take care of you, or you would starve to death. Now, soldiers took every advantage they could to improve their lots, either by plundering the dead and severely wounded after an action or by sacking towns, villages and farms (by the way, that was one reason why fighting in Russia, Poland, the Balkans and Spain was unpopular between soldiers; it wasn't just the risks involved, but also the poverty of the regions where they were fighting through). You can't understand the behaviour of soldiers at the time if you forget that back then State-sponsored care for the old, the crippled or the infirm didn't exist. Take a moment to try to fathom what that meant and what would have been your decissions if confronted with the same life prospects.

Perfectly explained Antonio!!

Even that… oficers has the duty to explain their soldiers when they are attaking an "Allied" or "Enemy" town…

Amicalement
Armand

@basileus66

What you've said is exactly what I had in mind. Another example would be the looting of the French baggage at Vitoria, where many pensions must have been secured, at least temporarily.

Another example would be the looting of the French baggage at Vitoria, where many pensions must have been secured, at least temporarily.

Yes, that's a very good reference. Particularly because it is a excellent proof of what we have been discussing so far: that looting was related to lapses in discipline in many occasion. Wellington would have had preferred to have his troops at hand and to destroy the French army after Vittoria, instead watching how a decisive victory was lost because the collapse of discipline.

I think that an analysis about the role that looting played in the Napoleonic Wars is overdue. Things like how loot was shared, spent, how much of it was invested in long-term savings, how it impacted local communities, ecc. I find the topic fascinating.

Me too!…

I wait your book about that Antonio!!…. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Ben Avery

Do try to read the first post before making embarrassing and incorrect posts. The post relates to the British soldiers committing violent acts towards allies and civilians on a REGULAR basis. Officers giving permission to plunder relates to this.

Of course, I am assuming you understand what plundering means, and it certainly would not involve the British soldiers shaking hands and patting the allied civilians on the back before stealing whatever they 'required' or took a fancy to.

holdit

What a silly and wasteful statement to make. Of course plundering wasn't just about food. Just because I mentioned supplies does not mean I think the British only plundered for food.

The point I was making was that British officers gave permission for British troops to plunder their civilian allies and this relates to the first post.

LOL Gazzola.

I think when the subject is Britain paying for its army's supplies in Spain, to then start talking about subsidies to other countries to provide their own armies rather *is* a tangent. I'm sure you'll try to scratch around for relevance though.

I do suppose it's rather inconvenient for you that we have all that evidence of British officers and other ranks being punished for breaking the rules, which is referred to in the linked article in the first post. No one is saying British soldiers never did anything wrong, Gazzola. Looks like you might have to find another strawman.

Ben Avery

No, the first post was about the brutality of British soldiers. My posts relate to the British soldiers plundering. Now perhaps the real problem is that you, and possibly your Union Jack waving buddy dibble, do not see or do not WANT to accept that the British plundering their civilians allies was brutal. See the connection?

Ahhh, you found one (brutalisation, mind you – check the title). She does talk about context. Can you cope with that?

Carry on.

There you go Ben! Typical diatribe from Gazzola. The usual allegations about other posters with absolutely no evidence even though 'if it's there' he could dig up a link.

Makes you wonder why the Duke had bothered to issue an order to the British army about plundering when they invaded southern France, especially when Sam and his musket never did such a thing.

Paul :)

Just because I mentioned supplies does not mean I think the British only plundered for food.

Good, thanks for clarifying.

dibble

I can understand why you are rattled yet again. Funny how it always seems to occur whenever something negative is mentioned concerning your heroic goody goody Brits.

Particularly interesting, and I am sure you will agree, were the following:

Gavin Daly-'…British crimes escalated, on occasion, into full-scale atrocities in which civilians were raped and murdered.' (p42)

Prof Charles Esdaile meanwhile, mentions that what the British did at Ciudad Rodrigo, Badajoz, San Sebastian, should be recognised as war crimes. (p43) They could certainly add what the Brits did to civilians at Copenhagen 1807 to that list.

But to be fair, there is someone mentioned who I am sure you will like because, like you, he attempts to make excuses for what the British did. I am referring to the author Gavin Coss. 'Coss has defended British soldiers' behaviour in light of their privations, and given the inadequacy of food and pay, some forms of plunder were a necessity for survival.' (p43)

So you can now add 'necessity for survival' to the other feeble excuse 'indiscipline' when referring to any atrocities and crimes committed by the British. Not the French, mind you, just the British. LOL

Gazzola, I'd expect an article on the brutalisation of British troops would focus on their experiences.

I did note on p.51 though; 'As the invading enemy, and with an ideological conviction in their own superiority [she does apply this to the British as well], French atrocities went beyond that of the British.'

There you go Ben! Typical diatribe from Gazzola

I have put him in my stifle list. Since, my experience of the Napoleonic board has improved exponentially.

Gazzola

Do me a favour and put up the so called excuses I have made. If you can-not then stop being a silly child. Be sure to quote me in full.

I have Coss' tome. You will I'm sure, be surprised to know that I found it 'different' but that's all.

In comparison with Nappy and his hoards, they were angels.

Charles Esdaile as far as I'm concerned is an excellent author.

Paul :)

Ben Avery

I don't know why you are so defensive about the British. Perhaps you have caught dibbleitis. LOL

And really, you don't have to throw up what the French have done. I have never claimed that the French were angels, only that all nations were equally guilty of committing atrocities and being brutal at times.

So basileus66 has put me on stifle rather than apologise to everyone for making incorrect claims concerning Professor Esdaile's work. That says all we need to know about him and his accusations against other authors.

The fact there was no substance in his accusations, suggests it may well be a case of him being jealous of a superior author who's work will probably attract potential customers over his own.

dibble

I really believe you do not know what you are putting in your own posts.

In your recent post (17th May) you mentioned Welly issuing an order about plundering. But why would he need to make such an order in the first place if the British behaved nicely? And just because he made an order does not mean the soldiers would not do so. Indeed, similar orders were made in the past and ignored.

link

Scroll down a bit and click on the Beehive section, page 29.

One thing we do agree on is that Professor Esdaile is an excellent author.

'Scroll down a bit and click on the Beehive section, page 29.'

Hmmmm. Plunder (by a few) – Plunderers discovered – Plunderers tried.

Carry on.

Gazzola

I really believe you do not know what you are putting in your own posts.

In your recent post (17th May) you mentioned Welly issuing an order about plundering. But why would he need to make such an order in the first place if the British behaved nicely?

Do you get Irony? Are you really an American?

Your link as an example is plainly silly as it proves that plundering was officially forbidden. That individuals, both O.R's and officers did it, and got away with it, is no different to any civil society having criminals within it who 'get away with it'. Criminals within that community are punished if caught, the same applied to those within Wellington's army.

Do a bit of research on other armies and compare.

It is also silly to say that I and others are blind to Allied and British in particular, atrocities. The retreats to/from Corunna/Burgos, Badajoz, St Sebastian, and a myriad of smaller incidents in Spain and Portugal were a disgrace, but at least they are highlighted like no other and rightly condemned, and many a soldier were (apart from the resisted sieges) punished when caught. The French on the other hand were at it from beginning to end, not only in foreign lands but also in their own. Unlike the British army, Nappy's hoards were so wholesale, thorough and the norm with a spits chance in hell of punishment, that an atrocity with them had to be pretty bad to get a sentence in a tome.

Paul :)

Par for the course though – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Carry on Gazzola

dibble

You dare to mention irony. LOL

The whole point is that you suggested that orders were issued that plundering was not allowed. But DESPITE this, plundering continued to occur. Oman even wrote about British officers, DESPITE the official ruling, giving British troops permission to plunder. It does not matter one bit that some were punished for it, the fact remains it occurred.

No need to look up other armies. As I have said before, my point is that the soldiers of all nations plundered and committed atrocities and, as shown, concerning the British, we're even given permission to do so.

Ben Avery

If you want to keep wasting posts, please carry on doing so. Most people just skip what you put anyway.

Ben,

Are straw men stupid too? If so there seems to be one trying its best to show it can be. It does show though that irony is unknown to it.

Paul :)

Gazzola

Ben Avery

If you want to keep wasting posts, please carry on doing so. Most people just skip what you put anyway.

At least you aren't one of them. Perhaps you can name those 'Most people' who 'skip' what he puts?

Paul :)

Irony's certainly not lost on you eh, Gazzola? Back to the personal attacks, I see.

Carry on.

there is no doubt that soldiers of most armies plundered – very often they just had to – to escape starvation, see the calories allowance of the British soldier compared to his need.

With Napoleon and his Armies it was a bit different, the soldiers had made a sort of "contract" they risked their life and by that were granted to plunder on campaign.

I am not aware that organised gangs – like those described in the memoires by Blaze – did exist in other armies, than in those of Napoleon.

That soldiers are brutalized during a campaign shouldn't be a suprise by that what they have to undergo on hardship and exposure to extreme emotional situations.

I am also certainly reading Ben Averys postings and not skipping them.

von Winterfeldt

I am also certainly reading Ben Averys postings and not skipping them.

Ah yes! But that Stupid straw man said 'most' so he has had his bright spark moment without catching his dry 'strawness' alight.

Paul :)