"Barbaric Brits" Topic

I think that is the opposite of what british bulldog was saying.

Well, britishbulldog will have to let us know, but that's not the way I read his post. To my mind, he seemed to be pointing out that every nation has done some pretty nasty things at some point, so those who delight in focusing on British 'barbarism' specifically should be a little more objective.

I may well be wrong, though – usually am.

Green Leader – Excellent point, just can't quite get to grips with thinking of Gazzola as an "intellectual".

Hi Greenleader,
I agree with your post dated 18th Jan and your are right when interpretating my comments made in my original post. The european countries in particular are quick to 'kick' the the Brits but have a lot to thank us for and are quick to approach for help either monetary or militarily when they need it. If we are such a barbaric nation why is it we have a such a diverse population, many fleeing from their own countries because it is dangerous to live there for one reason or another. Regardless of what has happened in the past, in my opinion, and it is my opinion, we are now one of the most tolerant countries on earth I do not want to divert from the original thread nor do I intend to upset any individual whose opinions differ from mine so I will leave it there.

Gazzola, this is a wargame site ?? you need to go elsewhere for your political rants

I stand corrected. I took it as an argument against complacency on all sides.

britishbulldog,

Many people would say the same of the modern nations around the world most deeply related to British culture. The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – with many false starts, mistakes, and current imperfections – are rather successful inventions.

And to keep this on-topic, one good result of the 1812-1814 conflict in North America was the realization by all involved that it would be just plain wrong to settle differences by armed conflict.

Almost at the same time (from 1795) Immanuel Kant was beginning to develop what became the theory that democracratic governments do not make war on each other. Well, both sides were still *very* imperfectly democratic in 1812. But perhaps the distaste for the war among many of the nations' people showed that Kant's concept was not too far off the mark.

In the long term there has been the "special relationship" between the USA and Great Britain – and the world's longest undefended land border.

No endorsement of Tony Blair is intended, but he makes a perhaps interesting reference :
YouTube link

Hi Le Breton,

Thank you for your comments, the response to my post and the link to Tony Blair on You Tube.

I had no intention of making further comment on this thread, however, I have watched the short video out of courtesy to you for going to the trouble to link it to your post and as a result watched the full version on You Tube. The speech was made on 17.07.2003 and is some thirty odd minutes long.

Again out of courtesy I reply as follows.

You are right when you say Tony Blair makes an interesting reference. In fact during the course of the video he makes many references and observations that go in some part to explain why we have such an interesting pastime in military history. Whilst, like you, I am not endorsing Tony Blair or any other politician, he does make some very interesting observations and I would respectfully suggest some of the other contributors to this thread watch the You Tube video like me in its entirety.
Thanks again for the link and drawing my attention to it

True Grit

My post was Napoleonic related. If you take the time to read the other posts in this thread and indeed, other Napoleonic threads and topics, you will see that politics almost always raises its head at some point. It is part of the 'joy' of TMP. And there are always other topics, more related to wargaming to enjoy.

Greenleader

The problem is that some people don't want to hear that their country may have been equally barbaric and committed atrocities. So they tend to have to stereotype whoever has dared expose the truth as being someone who must obviously hate their own country. It is rather sad and comical at the same time. But I suppose it helps them get through the day.

Supercilius Maximus

Members do not have to be intellectuals to post here. From what I can see from the various postings, there are a variety of types posting here and with different viewpoints. Unfortunately, some spoil it by assuming they are making superior postings and observations and look down on other members.

britishbulldog

The topic is Napoleonic. No one is stating that Britain today is bad or the British people are bad now. But some people have to throw that at those who dare to display the negatives side of a country. I am proud to be British. But I won't shirk away from discussing some of the nasty things they did in the past.

And in terms of money and help, I should think all nations do a fair share of that, not just Britain. But in Napoleonic terms, which is really what we should be discussing here, some people won't accept that a lot of the coalitions and wars against Napoleon, and therefore the resulting deaths and misery, would not have occurred, had Britain not paid them to wage war, even in 1815.

I point that out, so I must hate Britain. LOL

Gazzola,

"a lot of the coalitions and wars against Napoleon …. would not have occurred, had Britain not paid them to wage war, even in 1815."

You wrote "a lot of" – as in "many of" or "a large share of", right?

To which "coalitions and wars" are you referring?

Gazzola

The quote from Orwell which I posted did not mention anything about 'hating Britain'. Suggest you re-read it.

Also, I am not entirely sure which 'truth' you think you have exposed. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not executing someone for (eg) murder or the rape an 8 year old child is 'barbaric', others have already pointed out that the numbers of executions stated in the article are hogwash.

Hi Gazzola,

Thank you for your response to my posting in this thread. Firstly I do not shy away from accepting that the British committed atrocities in the Napoleonic Wars as indeed did other nations.

Now regarding Britains financing of the wars. If I recall correctly Britain was asked by Portugal and Spain to help evict the French from their countries and I cannot remember Britain getting paid for her efforts and from this draw the conclusion that Britain contributed a large proportion of the cost. I do not accept your argument that had Britain failed to provide support there would have been less death and misery. I argue this based on the assumption that I know nothing to suggest Napoleon would not have carried on in his quest regardless of Britains' involvement. Indeed it could be argued that had we not intervened the death and misery may have been even greater.

I am not an acedemic and if I have made any factual errors in the above which you can rectify I bow down to your superior knowledge.

Finally, just because you do not agree with my comments does not lead me to thinking you hate Britain.

LOL?

British Subsidies to Allies 1793-1816 (GBP-millions)

Country		Amt	 %				Ave/Year
Austria		12.1	22.1%	 9 subsidy years	  2.5
Portugal	 9.4	17.2%	10 subsidy years	   .9
Russia		 9.4	17.1%	 9 subsidy years	  1.0
Prussia		 5.7	10.3%	 5 subsidy years	  1.1
Spain		 5.3	 9.6%	 8 subsidy years	   .7
Sweden		 4.8	 8.8%	 7 subsidy years	   .7
Others		 8.2	14.9%
Total		54.9	 100%

Source :
European State Finance Database
"Power with profit: the state and the economy, 1688-1815"
Patrick Karl O'Brien
inaugural lecture, London University, 1991
link

Comments :
Prussia & Russia : good value for the money ?
Sweden : if Bernadotte was a , at least he wasn't a cheap one
Austria : an example of British payments changing policy ?
Portugal & Spain : not cheap thrills

For scale, the annual average military/defense expenditure for Russia in the years 1804-1816 was GBP 30.3 million (converting based on weight of silver in coinage), so that the GBP 1.0 million average annual subsidy was in no way a "make or break" amount. Actually, it seems to have mostly just gone to pay off major noble families or to the Emperor's own domain, as it never shows up in any military/defense accounting I have ever seen.

I am confused when this subject comes up on repeated occasions.

Is it being suggested that subsisiding one's allies in a conflict is somehow not playing fair, while, for instance, using the conscripted youth of neighbouring countries, brought within one's hegemony, to serve as cannon fodder, is entirely sporting.

Have I got that wrong?

42flanker,

I think this is usually when someone suggests that France's "alliance" partners were willing ones, whose own governments implemented the conscription because they saw alliance with Napoléon as in their own interest. Or, it was so great to get the Napoléonic Code and "end feudalism" that the local people themselves were willing.

===========================

Anyway, with the exception of Sweden (and maybe sometimes Austria? – I really don't know the details), the notion of British gold "causing" resistance to Napoléon is pretty silly.

For Russia and Prussia, the amounts paid are really trivial in terms of their total military expenditure – averaging only about 3% for Russia for the years when any subsidy was paid, and a bit over 1% in totalover all the years. It was more "good faith" than necessary. Will anyone argue that Russia did not capitulate in 1812 because the British were prone to send them GBP 1 million per campaign year?

For Spain – they were occupied. The "government" in Cadiz had little revenue from Spain's colonies. But if the "government" folded for lack of British subsidy, would that effect the partizans at all? Would they call it quits, too?

For Portugal, it was a rather small, poor country. The British seem to be paying for the men they inducted into the British/Allied service. Volonteers, if I recall correctly. So, rather like the French Swiss capitulations. The "Others" category is mostly like this also. Britian had a smaller population than the French Empire. Employing foreign national soldiers seems about their only alternative.

I will be happy to admit that Sweden looks pretty much bought and paid for. But it is hard to heap the blame for all the misery and death of the Revolutionary and Napoléonic eras on the Swedes not being a faithful ally to France. Maybe it was the "butterfly effect"? link

So if Britain did not give Sweden GBP 1.4 million in 1808/1809, then they would not have been able to resist a French alliance and so would not lost 1/3 of Finland to Russia and so Russia would have had insufficient reindeer leather to make their bricole handles and would have surrendered in 1812.
But how did the British *know* all this ? Most be one their "perfidious" magic skills.

Portugal & Spain : not cheap thrills

Cheaper than sustaining the effort to recruit, train, transport and supply an army big enough to face the 300,000+ French and Allies operating in the Iberian Peninsula, all by yourself. Thanks to Portuguese and Spanish soldiers was that Wellington could sustain his comparatively small British army in the Peninsula, without being overwhelmed by the French. Portuguese soldiers made up 1/3 of Wellington's armies, while Spanish forces tied up 4/5 of French armies at any given moment. Can imagine how much more expensive would have been to finance a 300,000 strong British army in Spain and Portugal, for 6 years?

the notion of British gold "causing" resistance to Napoléon is pretty silly.

I agree with you that the causality is absurd. However, I don't think that British subsides should be dismissed as irrelevant in the decision process to fight or to continue in the fight, either. In the case of Spain, which is the one I know best, a financial collapse could have lead to the end of organized resistance, and while partisans would have continued active for a while, possibly, the odds are that they would have become nothing more than a nuisance in the long run; a public order issue that could have been controlled by police action and locally recruited forces (without an alternative legitimacy, José I would have had not so many problems to find recruits for his army).

Austrian Subsidies

1795-1797 : GBP 6.22 million
1800-1801 : GBP 1.22 million
1806 : GBP 0.50 million
1809 : GBP 0.85 million
1813 : GBP 0.50 million
1814 : GBP 1.06 million
1815 : GBP 1.80 million

===================

Total GBP 12.15 million

Comments :
--- The subsidies were 61% against revolutionary/consular France and only 39% against the French 1st Empire
--- Subsidies for the 1805, 1809 and 1813 campaigns were trivial, and could not count as more than "good faith" payments.
--- The biggest subsidy, more than 1/2 the total, was paid to keep Austria fighting after the Peace Of Basel in 1795.
--- The subsidy of 1814 was pretty typical, similar to those for the Russians and Prussian – GBP 1 million for the campaign year

I can't find data for Austrian military expenditure.
There overall finances look rather bleak.

For the decade 1793-1802 they were averaging an annual deficit of about GBP 6 million (converting based on weight of silver in coins).
For the years 1803-1808, the Austrians were running about GBP 3 million per year in the red.
But for 1809 and 1810, they spent about GBP 40 million more than their revenues.
After that, for the years 1811-1816, the annual deficits average were around GBP 2 million per year

The total government expenses for 1793 to 1816 was about GBP 378 million.
The total government revenues for 1793 to 1816 was about GBP 239 million.
The total accumulated deficit for 1793 to 1816 was about GBP 139 million, or about 14 years worth of revenues.
So the subsidies covered about 9% of the total deficits.

Comments
--- Other than in 1795-1797, I can't see the subsidies as being anywhere near large enough to effect Austrian policy, and perhaps not then either.
--- Most notable is that the Austrian policy in 1805, 1809 and 1813 could not have result of subsidies
--- In 1814 and 1815, the subsidies accounted for about the government deficit, so they could have been in some sense "enabling" of a better performance by the Austrians, but are unlikely to have been the key driver for their policy

basileus66

I agree with all your comments for whihc also my thanks.

The main use of British "gold"in Iberia was to buy the service of, as far as I know, volonteer soldiers. Having a much smaller army and smaller population than the French empire, I do not think that the British could have placed forces into Iberia commensurate with French deployments using any other method. If so, a complaint against British "gold" is merely a different way of saying that they should have just surrendered to Napoléon, and offered no resistance. The British "gold" was a war resource, just like a larger population or lead for making bullets. The "gold" had, in my opinion, no intrinsically different morality.

"while partisans would have continued active for a while, possibly, the odds are that they would have become nothing more than a nuisance"
I will bow, happily, to your superior research efforts on this.

I know the Russian "partizan" history rather well.

A part of it was rather random acts of theft, reprisal or religious zeal. I do not think these would have changed if central government disappeared. Actually, for this group, I do not think they had more than the haziest idea of what government Russia even had.

An equal part of the "resistance" was rather well organized, supported and supplied by flying columns of Cossacks and Native irregular cavalry (and some hussars) and dependent on local nobles' patriotic feelings. If there was no longer a Russian government, I think most would let it go and start to practise their French.

There was also a substantial ethnic issue : in former Commonwealth lands such as western Belarus and northwestern Ukraine, the people and the local nobility were rather hostile to Russians. This was true to a lesser extent among Baltic "Germans" and Karelian Finns : some were very pro-Russian, others not so much. Only east of the longitude of Minsk and south of the lattitude of Vyborg were the Russians really on home territory.

Perhaps there were such regional differences in Iberia?

One more scalar for the Russians ….

The British subsidy of about GBP 1 million per subsidy year can be compared to the GBP 18.5 million in voluntary donations by Russians in 1812.
These came from major noble families (who might have annual incomes about GBP 0.1 million), and from regions too far away from the front to be asked for militia, and from the Church.

Le Breton

Thanks for the info on Russia's finances. It is very interesting and helps to put in context the relevance of British subsides. A question though: does the numbers you have managed include shipments of supplies? Or is it just money sent to Russia? I ask because in the case of Spain while it is relatively easy to calculate the amount of money sent from Britain, it is much more difficult to find the information on uniforms, weapons or part of weapons, powder, ecc, sent to Spain.

I am confused when this subject comes up on repeated occasions.

Is it being suggested that subsisiding one's allies in a conflict is somehow not playing fair, while, for instance, using the conscripted youth of neighbouring countries, brought within one's hegemony, to serve as cannon fodder, is entirely sporting.

Have I got that wrong?

No, that is the (ludicrous) suggestion.

I think this is usually when someone suggests that France's "alliance" partners were willing ones, whose own governments implemented the conscription because they saw alliance with Napoléon as in their own interest. Or, it was so great to get the Napoléonic Code and "end feudalism" that the local people themselves were willing.

Historian Sam Mustafa utterly crushed such arguments forever here on TMP a few years' back.

Le Breton

£1.00 GBP million in 1800 is equal to about £34.00 GBP million in present days terms.

£1.00 GBP million in 1800 is equal to about £34.00 GBP GBP million in present days terms.

Le Breton is comparing the annual subside to Russia (1 GBP million) against the annual expenditure (30.3 GBP million). If you prefer percentages, the British subside represented, in the best of cases, a 3% of the Russian defence budget. Given that fact, it is understandable his reluctance at putting too much weight in British subsides for explaining Russia's hostility against Napoleon.

britishbulldog

Britain was trying to create her own empire, so obviously wanted nations to keep making war against her main rival, France. They knew to provide finance would lead to war and therefore further deaths and misery.

One cannot say what Napoleon would or would not have done, had Britain not financed other nations. But it is clear that had Britain not financed other nations, they may not have marched against Napoleon, especially so in 1815 when they were almost going to war with each other.

Of course, as we know, Britain obtained her own empire, one way or another. I believe Lord Derby described Britain's foreign policy under Disraeli, fifty years or more after Waterloo, as one of 'occupy, fortify, grab and brag'. I guess that suggests that British (and her allies) saved the world from one empire, only to open door for another one, in this case, a British one. LOL

Still, as we know, empires never last. I guess that is something to be historically grateful for.

basileus66

Payment to support war against a nation would have nothing to with any hostility towards that nation. But such payments would, of course, obviously help fuel any desires for revenge against a nation (any nation in fact) that beat them so often or invaded their country. Finance is a major factor in war and always will be. The less it will cost or the more someone else will pay towards the cost, the more likely war will occur.

Gazzola

That maybe correct, but historians must work with what they have and evidence is lacking that without the subside Russia would have been more reluctant to fight the French. Data, on the other hand, point to a different set of motivations. If Russia fought Napoleon -besides the obvious, naturally- the British subside played a minor role in the best of cases, or at least that is what evidence suggest.

I can agree that without monetary support from Britain, countries like Spain or Portugal, which had their means of production and taxation severely curtailed by being invaded, would have had a harder time at being able to continue in the war against the French. In my opinion, Spain would have found extremely difficult to sustain anti-Bonapartist resistance without British subsides and supplies. It is probable that organized resistance would have collapsed; only partisan bands would have been able to continue in the fight for while longer.

Why should have Britain considered such strategy immoral? Or anyone else? It saved time, lifes (British lifes, at least) and, paradoxically, money. As I argued with Le Breton, to sustain a British army big enough to confront the French unsupported by local armed forces would have been ruinous. Sending subsides and war supplies was a lot cheaper. To be honest, I find that by subsidizing the war effort of her allies Britain was just being sensible, not immoral in any way.

basileus66

"include shipments of supplies"
No, just cash – loan facilities and specie.
For the Russians, they paid for British supplies (including over 100,000 Brown Bess muskets – much enjoyed by Russians, who liked them just as much as their own obr. 1808 muskets)
The British, for their part, bought quite a lot of naval supplies (timber, tar, hemp, etc.)

" a 3% of the Russian defence budget."
3% of the defense budget *in the years when subsidies were sent*.
It was only a tad over 1% cumulatively throughout the period.

"Finance is a major factor in war and always will be"
Not so much under feudalism. It was an advantage for the Russians.
Which is to some extent ironic – we are seeing the dawn of truely modern war, total war, mass armies, some degree of industrialization, etc. …. yet the Russians could fight (and win) with an economic and social system less modern than that of Britain's Henry V.

===================

Whirlwind
"Historian Sam Mustafa utterly crushed such arguments forever here on TMP a few years' back."
Yes

===================

Gazzola

"But it is clear that had Britain not financed other nations, they may not have marched against Napoleon, especially so in 1815"

It is not clear at all.
The amounts of the subsidies are just too small compared to the overall costs of the various nations' militaries, with only the fewest possible exceptions :
- Austria 1795-1797 (that would not be marching agianst Napoléon, of course)
- the Spanish government in Cadiz, whose country (and hence tax base) had been invaded and occupied by Napoleon, and so needed no British influence to decide to resist him
- Sweden, especially under Bernadotte : it really does look like the British bought him off

This is the second round of assertions along these lines that you have made, but you have provided no evidence what so ever to support these ideas.
Would you be able to do so?

"as we know, empires never last."
Clever ones might evolve.

The modern Anglo-American "empire" (or British-North American-Oceania "empire") is much less overt than the British colonial empire of the 1800's.

But …. try banking or investing without London and New York ….use the internet much? GPS? a mobile phone? …. what language does almost everyone in the world want to speak? …. what % of world GDP can be found in this new "empire", vs. what percent of population? …. what % of patents or scientific discoveries? …. what is the benchmark worldwide for a fair and honest police and judiciary? of national representative democracy?….. where is there the greatest amount of individual liberty? respect for civil rights? private property? …. where is there more effort to integrate multiple races, cultures, religions and ethnicities? …. where is there more understanding and regret of past inequalities, agressions and societal mistakes?

A clever "empire" thus structured might just last a while.

Rule, Britannia! rule the waves?
24 commisioned aircraft carriers + 5 under construction + 15 planned for Britain-North America-Oceania ? Is that a start?

Funding / supplying those who are also fighting a common enemy is far from unique. Take WW2 for example.

Le Breton

Excellent and well made points. I would also add the 'Five Eyes' agreement between what might be termed 'the English Speaking powers', an enormous and widespread network of bases all over the world and the hazily defined 'soft power' we keep hearing about these days provided by Hollywood, the BBC etc and a huge percentage of the popular music enjoyed all over the world.

I think the real buy-off for Sweden was the promise of Norway. Bernadotte may have needed the money to pay for military operations but money alone wouldn't have driven him to war. Of course, experts may prove me wrong, it's been a while since I read anything about it. In many ways Bernadotte was the most successful man of the era.

More than Wellington…?

Amicalement
Armand

"More than Wellington…?" I'm going by what they were born with versus what they retired/died with. Wellington started the son of a minor aristocrat and rose to be a duke and prime minister, Bernadotte was the son of an attorney (a lower station than Wellington) and rose to be king (a higher station), so I'd say he did better.

And, of course, Wellington was an Etonian….

But didn't Bernadotte remark, 'I, who was once a Marshal of France, am now merely King of Sweden.'?

Are we really having this conversation :(

Goes back to reading about the Battle of Friedland….

And, of course, Wellington was an Etonian….

…and an Irishman. And a "sepoy general".

Yup. He just got dealt bum hand after bum hand.

Can we find the quote any earlier than 1909?

"his love for his adopted cenntry, he ever remained at heart a Frenchman. When in 1840 the remains of the great Emperor were transferred to Paris, he mournfully exclaimed to his representative : " Tell them that I who was once a Marshal of France am now only a King of Sweden ."
page 92 (wihtout citation)
Napoleon's Marshals
Richard Phillipson Dunn-Pattison
Boston : Little Brown, 1909

Go, Breton!

I know there's a lot of hatred for Bernadotte because he sided with the allies in 1813 and not his old boss, but really all he was doing was following Napoleon's footsteps. Carpe diem.

Bien dit mon ami! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Flanker,
Well, some fo these *will* prove to be contemporary – maybe this one, maybe the next.
:-)

Le Breton

Anyone studying the state and relationships of the so called allies will soon discover that they were almost at each others throats after Napoleon's first abdication. Also, as late as 1815, many Saxons were not happy with their country being cut up and being forced to become Prussians by their so called 'liberators'. Troops mutinied and even old Marshall vorwarts Blucher had to do a runner out a back door at one point to prevent the Saxon troops getting their hands on him.

'One may imagine from this, what danger threatened the Field-Marshal had the rioters got at him. I drew the guard back into the house, caused the door to be bolted, and conducted the Field Marshal out through the back door, where our horses stood ready; his suite rode with him quietly out of the town.' (page 210, The Memoirs of Baron von Muffling)

Blucher had the leaders of the mutiny executed. So much for German togetherness.

Here are further examples of allied togetherness:

'Civilians resented allied troops as much as they had the French occupiers, particularly in Germany, where the behaviour of not only the Russian army, with swarms of ill-disciplined Cossacks, but the Prussian contingents as well came to be loathed within months of the 'liberation'' (page 365. Rites of Peace by Adam Zamoyski)

Is this another hint towards barbaric Prussians? LOL

'As trust broke down between them, there was a growing sense that whatever settlement was finally reached, nobody could be counted on to respect it. (p366)

What, the allies not trusting each other? The very thought!

'Two days later, on 3 January, Castlereagh, Metternich and Talleyrand signed a secret treaty of alliance between Britain, France and Austria. It was crouched in the most anodyne language, and purported to be aimed solely at carrying through the provisions of the Treaty of Paris. But it also stipulated that if any of the three contracting powers were to be attacked or threatened with attack, the other two would immediately come to its assistance with contingents of 150,000 men each. A secret article stated that Hanover, Holland and Bavaria would be invited to accede to the alliance.' (p392)

Now why would they need secret treaties when the so called threat to world peace had supposedly been dealt with? This suggests that they were all as bad as each other and were not too be trusted.

'The former allies seemed so thoroughly at odds that one of Francis's Chamberlains suggested bringing back Napoleon in order to reunite them.' (p403)

The allied relationships were so bad that they needed Napoleon to return to put the fear of god up them. But I thought, as some people seem to want to believe, they were all peace loving, caring nations who did not want war?

'As early as September 1814, the Emperor Francis has assured the ambassador of the King of Sardinia that he would seize the first opportunity to remove Napoleon from Elba and confine him in a more distant island, and Metternich confirmed this. At one of their first meetings, the plenipotentiaries of the four allies had agreed to apply themselves to the means of removing Napoleon from the island of Elba and transferring him to a Spanish or Portuguese island or colony on South America. The Azores and other islands in the Atlantic were mentioned, and on 8 November Eynard was told by the King of Bavaria that the British island of St. Helena in the South Atlantic had been chosen. 'The matter is being dealt with as I speak,' he assured him.' (page 449)

So the allies don't trust each other and they also wanted to break any agreements they made with Napoleon. I should think anyone would want to come back if they had been equally betrayed.

'The Austrians grew nervous when it became clear that while all available troops would be concentrating on the borders of France, a vast Russian army would be massing in their rear. 'However great might be the danger threatening us from Paris, it is not as great as that menacing us from Warsaw', one of the Austrian archdukes was overheard saying by a member of Alexander's entourage.'(p461)

So the allies feared their fellow er, 'allies' more than they did Napoleon.

'While he bragged to Tallyrand that he would himself face Napoleon in battle, Alexander also flatly announced to Wellington that he could not make a move until British cash began to flow, and the plenipotentiaries of all the other powers which had volunteered troops took the same line.' (p463)

So, here we have the wonderful peace loving allies refusing to march against Napoleon, until good old Britain funded the bill again. No money, no march, no march, no war. All Britain had to do was say so, we are not going to pay for you to go to war again and the deaths and misery of 1815 may not have happened. But death and misery never came into it, instead they paid up and people died.

'Fights between Prussian soldiers and French civilians on the streets of Paris were assuming alarming proportions, with deaths on both sides, and on 14th July Wellington warned Liverpool that if they did not manage to restrain the Prussians they might find themselves in the same situation the French had in Spain, with a national guerrilla flaring up. 'I assure your Lordship that all the information I receive tends to prove that we are getting into a very critical state,' he wrote, 'and you may depend upon it, if one shot is fired in Paris, the whole country will rise in arms against us.' (p494)

Imagine that, Wellington fearing that the whole of France would rise up against the er, peace makers?

Anyway, if you (and anyone else) have not already read Adam Zamoyski's Rites of Peace, I highly recommend it. It shows the true nature of the allies, how they could not be trusted and that they did not even trust each other and how the events of 1815 were inevitable and brought on by the allies themselves.

of course the Boney lovers hate Bernadotte, because Bernadotte achieved all this what Boney was dreaming of – he formed a successfull dynasty – still in rule today.

Gazzola,

"But I thought, as some people seem to want to believe, they were all peace loving, caring nations who did not want war"
That's not what anyone here has posted. Who are the "some people" to which you refer?

"So the allies feared their fellow er, 'allies' more than they did Napoleon"
Thank you for the snippets from Zamoyski's book – but it seems you are changng the topic of the discussion. I do not think anyone here has potsulated any sort of view that the Allies had common interests, or any desire to act jointly (as opposed to each in their individual interest) in any matter beyond the conflict with Napoléon. So I really don't understand why you are quoting so extensively on this theme from Zamoyski.

The only part of all the stuff that you copied that appears to be on topic is this bit, quoting the whole paragraph:
"[After reviewing the major powers joint pledge to provide 150,000 men each] …. While he bragged to Talleyrand that he would himself face Napoleon in battle, Alexander also flatly announced to Wellington that he could not make a move until British cash began to flow, and the plenipotentiaries of all the other powers which had volunteered troops took the same line. Wellington assured them that money would be found, and set about haggling with his government in London, which finally agreed to pay up to £5.00 GBP million and another £2.00 GBP million in lieu of its share of 150,000 extra men."
Actually, that is pages 462-463, not just page 463.

So, by cherry-picking the quote, you take it out of context. Each of the powers had promised to provide 150,000 men. Britain could not, due to her small army, and had been allowed to substitute funds, a resource she did have. In context, what Alexander is saying is that Russia would fight Napoléon alone if needed, but if the British wanted their seat at the table among the major powers, and could not pay the price in troops, then they must pay the price in funds. Hei s saying the Britian would not be allowed a "free ride".

Far from casting the British "gold" as *causing* other allies to oppose Napoléon, which was your original assertion, the passage from Zamoyski when not taken out of context, actually casts Alexander as already completely bellicose and committed to fight Napoléon, and setting conditions upon Britian to prove that they are equally committed, conditions that Wellington could not promise until there was this "haggling" "which finally" resulted in a committment of funds.
That would be essentially the opposite of your assertion, for which you have yet to offer any support whatsoever.

Also, you are really missing the strategic and domestic political aspect of the decisions facing the Russians after the autumn of 1813. France was already effectively defeated. Futher damage to her would only lead to one less major power in Europe, and tend to enhance British hegemony, and ease of entry ino thte Baltic and evn Black Seas. A substantial Russian faction, including Kutuzov, had been very wary of paying in Russian blood (and treasure) for aims which did not benefit Russia and might tend to give the British a too powerful position. So, a "free ride" for the British was not going to be acceptable.

Alexander himself was not so wary of the British, being increasingly motivated by the belief that he was acting against the evils of apostasy and atheism in opposing the French and any sort of revolution or modernism, in defense of God' Will. His religious extremism continued to grow until his death in 1825, by which time he was more-or-less insane and more-or-less confined to a monastery where he spent his final days in full time prayer.

"All Britain had to do was say so, we are not going to pay for you to go to war again and the deaths and misery of 1815 may not have happened. But death and misery never came into it, instead they paid up and people died."
These are your words, not Zamoyski's – and you have to cherry-pick quotes out of context to even vaguely suggest that Zamoyski is saying anything like that – which in fact he isn't. That's not very nice – as many people here may not have the ability to check for themselves.

In the event, the actually British subsidies were almost GBP 10 million (alhough some of the 1815 amounts may have been from 1814 promises). Russia got the lion's share, and this money, far from being spent for military equipment (it was till a trivial part of the cost of the Russian military, and they didn't really "pay" the soldiers in actual money anyway), the money went mostly to line the pockets of the major noble families and insure their support for Alexander's vision of himself as a sort of Saint George incarnate, fighting the evil of modernism in God's Name.

		1815		1816
Austria		1.8		---
Baden		---		---
Brunswick	---		---
Ger. Princes	---		---
Denmark		---		---
Hanover		---		0.2
Hesse		---		---
Portugal	0.1		---
Prussia		2.3		---
Russia		3.1		1.1
Sicily		---		0.1
Spain		0.1		---
Sweden		0.5		0.5	
Total		7.9		1.9

Le Breton

it is quite clear that those words were my opinion. The fact you have tried to make out I have stated they were Zamoyski's thoughts is a really low and feeble attempt at diverting the topic and dismissing what I have written.

Nothing is out of context. That is just another one of your absurd statements. And anyone can get hold of the book to read to check out what has been researched and written by the author. It is not hard or costly to do But it is quite clear that the allies refused to budge until Britain paid up. If they were so keen, united and determined to go against Napoleon, they wouldn't need any funding from Britain. That suggests he wasn't such a threat after all. Instead of just marching against him united, they all demanded payment from Britain first. You even contradict yourself. One minute you feebly attempt to support your viewpoint by mentioning that Alexander was boasting how keen he was to go against Napoleon, and the next you state they feared paying in Russian blood. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

But it is clear the facts suggests no money from Britain, no war. To state they stamped their feet and cried it's not fair, you have to pay or we won't play, is quite comical. And in terms of British troops, I think you will find British troops were already in Belgium, so the Russians had no fear of just 'Russian blood' being spilt or for Britain having a 'free ride'. So your statement is quite absurd and hilarious. And relation to funding, if you can get a fool to pay you for doing something you were apparently going to do anyway, why not? No one is going to look a gift horse in the mouth and Britain were well known for their 'gift horses', weren't they?

By the way, the sums you offer do not reflect the true value in todays terms. You have offered them to make them look low.

Your posts suggest you just won't accept anything that might conflict with your viewpoints so I am wondering if it is really worth bothering to post anything at all or reply to your posts?

Anyway, you believe what you want to believe. I will stick with the truth. And no matter what we believe or our conflicting viewpoints, it won't change history. And to be honest, I think, since this is wargaming site, as someone felt they had to remind us, it is much more interesting discussing and debating the actual battles and exploits of the brave troops of all nations that experienced them. Much better than sick and sly politics.

"You even contradict yourself. One minute you feebly attempt to support your viewpoint by mentioning that Alexander was boasting how keen he was to go against Napoleon, and the next you state they feared paying in Russian blood"
I am sorry, but I must not have clear.
Whaty our source says is that the Russians were good to go. However, they did not want Britian to get the benefits of defeating Napoléon without paying a fair share. The British had not enough men, so cash was insisted upon instead.
The question was what was to be Britian's rôle, not whether or not to oppose Napoléon.
You twist the source's meaning utterly by quoting out of context in order to make some sort of "point". I do not know why.

"But it is clear the facts suggests no money from Britain, no war. "
That's not what your source says. Your source says no money form Britian and few troops means Britian has litttle benefit from a victory. But they did pay and received a huge benefit.
Also, the miniscule amount of money Britain paid compared to the total costs of the various powers' militaries does not support "no money, no war".
Indeed nothing you have offered whatsoever supports this idea of yours.
Are you just trying to pick an argument, or will you offer support for your repeated assertions?

"By the way, the sums you offer do not reflect the true value in todays terms. You have offered them to make them look low. "
I have offered the figures of the total military or government expense of the various powers exactly the same way. The British subsidies look low because they are low. Why is that so "shameful"?

"Your posts suggest you just won't accept anything that might conflict with your viewpoints"
On the contrary, I have asked several times for you to offer support of repeated assertions. The only thing I have received so far is one modern secondary source quoted out-of-context in order to twist its meaning. Maybe you can do better? If so, I am all ears.

"I will stick with the truth."
I am glad for you – most of us seek the truth and are never sure when we have it or not.
But maybe you get your truth from some other method that cannot be supported by source material.

" it is much more interesting discussing and debating the actual battles and exploits of the brave troops of all nations that experienced them"
You opened this thread.