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

Thank you, con Winterfeldt, but it's just another attempt to compensate for him getting into an argument that was never there.

I did think it was interesting to look at the criminal percentages, although I'd always assumed Wellington's comment was hyperbole. I'm not sure about her calorific figures – I'm pretty sure it's 2500 for an adult male today (and I suspect we need more as we're bigger than 200 years ago). I'm sure there wasn't enough food at times though and what there was probably wasn't the most varied and fresh.

I'm also wary of reading too much into vagrancy and considering the effect of PTSD, rather than economic circumstances 200 years ago. I think it plays a factor in the large number of homeless ex-service personnel today, but the society they live in is considerably less brutal than the early 19th century, with a welfare state and greater appreciation for military personnel. I also suspect that a tour of duty in Afghanistan, for example, has longer periods of high stress, with less non-combat zone time than in the Napoleonic era.

I agree with you, Ben. I also think that present-day historians are caught in the fashion of diagnosing PTSD to every ex-serviceman that was involved in felonies. I am not convinced. The evidence is too sketchy, for starters, and there are not any research than I aware of that compares criminal records of ex-soldiers with those of civilians from their own social class. I would expect a higher percentage of ex-servicemen involved in petty crimes, like vagrancy or petty theft, particularly between those that came crippled from the wars; but we must remember also that one of the most common cons at the end of the Napoleonic Wars was that of a crippled trying to pass for an ex-soldier, while he had never been near a battlefield.

Except in the case of assaults into cities, most violence against civilian populations appear to be related to, effectively, food and drinking. The majority of the complaints against soldiers and partisan bands were related to the looting of food and heavy spirits, followed in many cases by complaints related to the loot of cloth (linen was very appreciated), shoes and/or leather, both manufactured and raw (to repair shoes, belts and/or shakos). Rape wasn't unknown, but it is less common that you would suspect.

Ben Avery

Argument? I thought this was a discussion, inbetween insults towards me, concerning the very interesting article highlighted in the first post.

It's theme in many ways could be considered for any soldiers of any nation and I think the term 'war can change the mentality of men', page 56, is a very strong one. Also that the Brutal actions of British soldiers cannot be fobbed off as mere indiscipline or the 'lowly class of recruits', especially when officers were reported to have committed crimes or given their men permission to plunder, despite the ruling not to from their superiors.

Interesting is the line – 'Given the British propensity for plunder and drink' (page 56) What, the British, never! The very thought.

Perhaps the real problem is that we are discussing (not arguing) about the British here and their association with crimes committed, their brutal acts and atrocities, rather than the French. And we know that does not settle well with you and dibble. LOL

Ummm, orders issued and not followed IS indiscipline, Gazzola. Doesn't matter if it's officers or other ranks. It's not rocket science.

Carry on.

Ben Avery

Firstly, I ma pleased you did not argue against the British committing crimes. Seems you are learning at last.

Secondly, yes it does matter if it is officers or other ranks. That is the point the article was making. Are you sure you read it?

Lol. Two straw men now. Capital.

Carry on.

Does two straw men equal one Aunt Sally? Or does it equal one large steaming pile of straw ladened Bull4#1t?

Paul :)