"Barbaric Brits" Topic

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

Oh please, oh please, oh please……………

John

Oh, sorry, ‘ahem' LOL

No major combatant country held the moral high ground during the Napoleonic Wars-None. Debating which was "better" is a useless exercise.

British Subsidies to the Allies 1793-1816
‘No Subsidies, No War'

The following material was taken from Guineas and Gunpowder: British Foreign Aid in the Wars with France 1793-1815 by John Sherwig, 365-368.

Sherwig's data in that volume is taken from the following sources:

-King's Warrant Books.
-Declared Accounts in the Audit Office.
-Minute Books of the Lords of the Treasury.
-Army Ledgers of the Pay Master General's Office.
-Foreign Office Correspondence.

The countries that Great Britain sent subsidies to from 1793-1816 (and the years the subsidies were provided) were:
Hanover: 1793, 1794, 1795, 1796, 1803, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1814, 1815.
Hesse-Cassel: 1793, 1794, 1795, 1801, 1802, 1804, 1806, 1807,
Sardinia: 1793, 1794, 1795.
Baden:1793, 1794.
Brunswick: 1794, 1795, 1796, 1797, 1798.
Hesse-Darmstadt: 1794, 1795, 1796, 1797, 1799*.
Prussia: 1794, 1807, 1813, 1814, 1815.
Austria: 1795, 1797, 1800, 1801, 1805, 1806, 1809, 1813, 1814, 1815, 1816**.
Portugal: 1797, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1801, 1803, 1808, 1809, 1810, 1811, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1815***.
Russia: 1799, 1800, 1802, 1803, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1813, 1814, 1815, 1816.
German Princes: 1800, 1801.
Sweden: 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, 1809, 1812, 1813,1814, 1815, 1816.
Sicily: 1804-1807, 1808, 1809, 1810, 1811, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1815, 1816.
Spain: 1808, 1809, 1810, 1811, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1815,
Denmark: 1814.
Minor Powers: 1815.
*Hesse-Darmstadt was paid no subsidies in 1799.
**Austria was paid no subsidies in 1801.
***Portugal was paid no subsidies in 1803.

Total Subsidies Sent (all monetary values are in period British pounds):
Hanover: 2,427, 004.
Hesse-Cassel: 1,206,982.
Sardinia: 500,000
Baden: 26,990.
Brunswick: 140,647.
Hesse-Darmstadt: 258, 496.
Prussia: 5,632,808.
Austria: 13,435,277.
Portugal: 11, 671,279.
Russia: 9,889,904.
German Princes: 1,266,667.
Sweden: 4,657,834.
Sicily: 3,967,555.
Spain: 7,799,218.
Denmark: 121, 917.
Minor Powers: 1,723,727.
Total: 64, 726, 305.

Notes: Of the above totals, the following was for arms and supplies:

Portugal: 210,675.
Russia: 515, 119.
Sweden: 94,023.
Sicily: 340, 060.

-This is not an all-inclusive listing, as the Portuguese Army was entirely rebuilt and equipped from British sources and does not include the amount in arms and material to the Prussians.

-120,000 muskets were were sent to Sweden and Russia in 1812.

-50,000 stands of arms were sent to Russia in 1813 as were 54 guns along with arms, ammunition, and supplies to be shared between the Russians and Prussians (it would be interesting to see how that happened).

-In the spring and summer of 1813 the Prussians received 100,000 muskets with powder, accoutrements, and flints. The same amount was sent to the Russians in addition to 116 field pieces with 1,200 tons of ammunition and shells.

-Sweden received a further 40,000 muskets with powder and uniform cloth. The Prussians also received uniforms/uniform cloth.

-The supply depot in Stralsund in the summer of 1813 received a shipment from England which consisted of 2,000 barrels of powder, 5,000,000 musket cartridges, carbines, pistols, and flints, as well as 20,000 muskets.

-By November 1813 1,000,000 muskets had been sent to Britain's allies in the Spanish peninsula.

Subsidies Paid to Russia, Prussia, Austria 1813-1816:

Russia: 6,739,525 (out of 9,889,904)-67% of total subsidies paid during the period.
Prussia: 4,245,195(5,632,808)-75% of total subsidies paid during the period.
Austria: 3,711,111(13,435,277)-28% of total subsidies paid during the period.
Total: 14,695,831.

Notes: Without these subsidies in cash, supplies, and weapons, Russia, Austria, and Prussia would not have been able to take the field against the French in 1813-1814.

Between March and November 1813 alone the following subsidy payments were made:

Sweden: 2,200,000.
Sicily: 400,000.
Spain: 1,000,000
Portugal: 2,000,000
Prussia: 666,666.
Russia: 1,333,334
Austria: 1,000,000
Total: 8,600,000

Note: During this same period 2,500,000 in Federative Paper was given to the allies as an additional subsidy. During the last five years of the war almost half of the subsidies to England's allies was paid to finance the allied war effort.

Subsidies Paid to Spain and Portugal 1807-1814:

Spain: 7,799,218-100% of total subsidies.
Portugal: 11,360,604-92% of total subsidies.
Total: 19,159,822.

Subsidies paid to Austria and Russia, 1805-1809:

Austria: 2,687,500.
Russia: 964,183.
Total: 3,651,683.

Comments:

Total 54.9 100%

You're shy about 10,000,000 pounds. In point of fact, compared with the data from Sherwig's book, the numbers you have shown are less than actually appear in the data. As for accuracy, however, Sherwig does comment that they are not completely accurate. However, I'll take Sherwig's numbers over the ones you have provided. Bottom line on the Russians is that any and all data supplied by them, as well as after action reports from commanders such as Bennigsen, Wittgenstein, and Kutusov, are suspect unless verified from reliable and creditable source material. Further, I would be careful of material solely supplied on the internet.

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.

See Sherwig's book. He makes the case quite convincingly that the allies needed the British subsidies to take the field, especially in 1813-1814.

Total GBP 12.15 million [for Austria].

You're off by over 1,000,000 pounds.

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.

Check the totals and figures above. The Austrian received over 3,000,000 pounds in the later years which most definitely was an inducement to declare war against France after the summer armistice of 1813.

"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.

Yes, it most certainly is clear. If the allies didn't need the money, then why did the British furnish it, along with supplies, weapons, and uniforms? Again, see Sherwig and check his sources if you like.

You have provided many opinions, but your numbers are incorrect as are your conclusions.

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

Where did this come from?

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.

Source?

And I don't believe that the British subsidies were intended to pay the allies' troops. The intention was to give bankrupt allied governments enough funding to continue the war against France. And Austria had the largest total of British subsidies during the period 1793-1815.
Sherwig makes the following comments regarding the financial state of the allies:

‘The economic weakness of the continental powers in 1793 made their war with France less of an unequal struggle than it appeared. Prussia was on the verge of bankruptcy, while Austria had to borrow heavily abroad to meet her current expenses. Thanks to Catherine the Great's wars with Turkey, Russia's economic health was even worse than her neighbors'. The Tsarina staved off disaster only by massive loans from Dutch bankers and by flooding her country with paper money.'-11

‘By the end of the first year of the war, the resources of the continental allies began to dry up and they turned to Britain for help.'-11

I don't believe that the overall economic ‘health' of the allied powers increased substantially, if at all, during the period. They began broke, and ended up broke. Their governments were both inefficient and corrupt. Great Britain alone had the economic resources to continue financing the wars. However, by 1810 the French franc was the most stable currency in Europe, not the British pound.
‘Prussia's abrupt entry into the war was soon followed by her conclusion of an alliance with Russia at Kalisch in February 1813. This enlargement of the coalition improve the chances of victory, but it presented Castlereagh with a new set of problems…Prussia naturally expected British subsidies. For Britain to furnish them and, at the same time, satisfy the Tsar's demands would prove particularly difficult…Castlereagh had to act immediately to insure that the Swedes, the Prussians, and the Russians had all the arms and ammunition they required to crush the enemy…'-287.
Chapters XII, XIII, and XIV of Sherwig's book definitely demonstrate that the British subsidies kept the allies in the field against the French. Without them, there would have been no alliance and no final victory in 1814.

Presumably M. Brechtel is also against Lend Lease to Britain to allow her to continue the war against the Axis, and the aid the USA gave to Russia, during WWII?

And I don't believe that the British subsidies were intended to pay the allies' troops. The intention was to give bankrupt allied governments enough funding to continue the war against France.

And why would they have needed that funding, if not to cover the pay and other forms of subsistence for their massively expanded armies?

Did you not see the posting with the subsidies and what was sent in addition to cash? Arms, artillery, supplies, and uniforms were part of the subsidies.

Lend-Lease while being the support of allies already engaged with a common enemy, it was a different case altogether.

Great Britain asked for aid from the US. Aid was sent to the Soviet Union/Russia after she was already engaged against the Germans. And, it should be noted, without the massive aid sent to the Russians, they would have lost.

Great Britain subsidized allies in what was essentially two parts. The first was organized by Pitt and initially at least was a continuation of British policy in hiring German mercenaries as she had done in 1745 and 1776-1783. That was normal British practice.

Castlereagh's subsidies were to ensure that allied armies could take the field against the French. And, again, without British subsidies in 1813-1814 the Russians, Prussians, and Austrians could not have put armies in the field. And, if they couldn't do that, the French might well have chased Wellington out of Spain.

Regarding material support to Russia in War II, the following might be helpful as well as enlightening:

link

By the way, have either of you read Sherwig's book or do you have it to hand?

It is very well done and researched and full of excellent information.

And that dust-up in New Orleans, after the final whistle, was a bit unseemly.

The war wasn't over yet and wouldn't be officially until February 1815.

And it was the British who invaded and attempted to take New Orleans…

Le Breton

What I posted was not out of context. And you must surely accept that one cannot simply place every word from a well researched title into a post. In terms of context, you would have to post the whole chapter, if not the whole book. LOL

But I think most readers would recognise that words within the commas, followed by a page number, indicate what the author wrote and those outside were what the poster wrote. Obviously you did not. But I hope it is clear now and prevent you from making the same mistake in future.

And the fact still remains, no matter the reasons offered by yourself, that the allies refused to budge unless Britain paid them. It is all very well saying they were determined to do so, but they still refused to march until funded by Britain. Britain of course, as with the allies, did not consider the death and misery the funding would bring. Britain paid up and the rest is history. However, one does wonder what would have happened, had Britain not paid up as demanded?

Yes, you are correct, I did bring the original topic up. That fact is not rocket science. I did so because I felt it was an interesting article, the contents of which might surprise people. The organisation who posted the article also thought it was interesting. I'm not surprised it appeared to upset some people but one gets used to that because there are those who do not want to hear about the negative side of the allies, especially concerning the British and just can't cope with it.

If I do come across any other items that I feel might surprise people, I will still consider posting them. After all, no one is forced to read them or indeed, debate and discuss them.

By John 54

I imagine you do not like reading about the negative side of the allies. But pretending or hiding them is nothing but a blinkered truth. So sorry, but if I do come across further negative items concerning the allies, I will still consider posting them.

Also sorry that my using LOL also seems to be upsetting you. You don't come over as such thin skinned? Anyway, if my posts do upset you, as you posts suggest, you do realise that you do not have to read them. Simples! LOL

le Grande Quartier General

Good post. But it is not really debating which nation was 'better' during the Napoleonic period, that is the problem. The problem is that there are those who want to believe that only one nation or leader was the worse and cause of all the wars and misery, rather than it was in reality a collective cause with all sides and leaders being guilty.

Interesting thread.

All nations should play to their own strengths.

At the time in discussion Britain had the treasure to hand. Others the blood, others the territory, others the ambition and desperation.

In the end the money flowed in the direction of efficiency.

I can't help compare the British subsidy of that time with the UK contributions to the EU today.

Anyhows, perhaps Boney-boo would have been better served to get in line behind all the others and got into the pay of the Brits.

"You're shy about 10,000,000 pounds. In point of fact, compared with the data from Sherwig's book, the numbers you have shown are less than actually appear in the data. As for accuracy, however, Sherwig does comment that they are not completely accurate. However, I'll take Sherwig's numbers over the ones you have provided."

You can "take" anything you like.

However, if you had reviewed the source material I linked at the European State Finance Database project, an EU-funded initiative to obtain a common databse for policy analysis and decisions, including the contributions from numerous authors, you would have noticed that the higher figure used by your Sherwig was the "pledged" amount, and I reported the actual delivered amounts. This is also why the data I reported exe=tends in 1816.

The difference lies both in Britian literally over-promising, but mostly in the creation of credit facilities which were not completely used. These typically were for the purchase of British goods – soemthing like modern US FMS (ForeignMilitary Sales) program for allies.

Now, you could argue that the promises were the "motivating" factor, and so report the higher amount. But still, the amoutns paid were – with the noted exeptions – utterly trivial in comaprison to the overall military/defense expenses of the Allies.

Sherwig was an important early researcher on this topic. I have read his book, and the original works that summarized his data collection :
John M. Sherwig, "The Imperial Loans: A Study in Financial and Diplomatic History" The Journal of Modern History 39, no. 1 (March, 1967).

and the exhibits from his dissertation :
Subsidies as an instrument of Pitt's war policy, 1793-1806.
John Martin Sherwig
Harvard University 1948

You will note that Sherwig did his data collection working alone 55-75 yeara ago – before (i) modern digitized archives, and (ii) before he could have access to documents in the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union.

John Martin Sherwig taught history at the State University College at New Paltz in upstate New York. Other than his dessetation and the one book, his only other books published were scattered chapters in textbooks.

So, if you want to "take" this source as preferable to a modern multi-national state finance databse, you of course are free to do so.

If it is a choice between what you post and Sherwig, I'll take Sherwig.

Again, one of the questions put was that if the allies were financially sound, why did they 'need' British subsidies?

Would the European State Finance Database be more intersting to you if some other Colleague posted a link to it?
???

"Again, one of the questions put was that if the allies were financially sound, why did they 'need' British subsidies?"

In nearly all cases, they didn't "need" the subsidies. They took the money because (i) taking it was better than not taking it, and (ii) because Britian did not have a large enough army to match the contribution of men form other powers (i.e. "no free ride" for Britian).

I am not sure what "financial soundness" has to do with the issue of the Allies motivations for fighting Napoléon.
And I am completely unclear as to what you think "finanacial soundness" is.

Indeed, France kept debt relatively low compared to national output and did not use paper money. They attempted to loot/tax/etc. conquored territories, but that really did not equate to the costs of the campaigns. And so, they were unable to invest in sufficient technological and industrial development to match the prodution and logisitics capabilities of their opponents. This condition, augmented by exaction of indemnities by the Allies, left France a crippled power for generations.

On the other hand, Britain and Russia ran budget deficits that were funded by debt and issued paper notes for internal use (transactional in Russia, as investment bonds in Britain). They thus could afford production efforts (naval and land-forces, respectively) and logistics arrangements commensurate with their war-fighting strategies. Both economies flourished in the decades following the peace, the British economy augmented by increasing income form colonial possessions, the Russian by export of foodstuffs to a rapidly increasing European population.

Was the French approach "sound" and the British and Russian method "unsound"? Which more nearly equates to modern states' policies? Is the US "unsound" due to paper money and substantial national debt? Or is the debt servicable and the debt-driven expenditures useful for investment in US economic growth and national security?

Le Breton

Thanks for the effort. I, for one, appreciate the information that you are providing.

Thank you, Basileus.
I suppose that trying to take a fresh, neutral, detailed, contemporary-source driven look at these topics is bound to rub some people the wrong way. You must have run into the same problem when trying to communicate your excellent research on Iberia.

Seconded. Most illuminating

Breton, Bailieus et al. Gentlemen- enough of the factual analysis and sourcing scrutiny already. Britishplotgate was killed off last month in a rather humiliating fashion. Now you're sawing away at the foundations of Britishfinancegate with your forensic data.

Don't you care about the rich heritage of Napoleonic stories we've all grown up on??

I have a well stocked library of 19th and 20th century English language secondary sources on the Napoleonic era and I want to be able to rely on them without wondering if there is some contemporary material in German or Russian or Spanish about to be produced which will confound my assumptions.

LOL

Agreed! LOL

42flanker & dibble

One minute people are moaning and complaining about my using LOL, the next thing they're using it themselves. There's a word for that. LOL

Another interesting article. I particularly liked the bit where it states:
'Britain paid its allies £66.00 GBPm, chiefly Austria and Russia, without which they would have been unable to stay in the war.'

link

Enough said, me thinks. LOL

Too many LOLS here… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Tango01

Well spotted. Apologies. All in good fun, although, at the same time, it could be a case of it just being so brilliant an addition to my posts, that some people could not resist copying me. LOL

In war between nations, the is a measure of culpability on every side, which combined, totals to tragedy, particularly for the innocents.

Between the C17th the C20th, every nation developed with a sense of its particular virtues, as often as not with the addition of God on their side, and the notion of progress was assessed in that light. A degree of militarism was part of the mix, with results that we know.

In the course of the C19th and C20th, various strands of liberal, extending to radical, thought, also with their roots in the Enlightenment of the C18th, have scrutinised those nationalistic and militaristic impulses, and in the light of successive, increasingly destructive conflicts, come to view them with understandable scepticism. To the nationalistic and militaristic, we might add ideological totalitarianism of the 'Left' and 'Right' and, now, a return to religious obscurantism.

Some might argue such scepticism is essential if our political, social,and economic organisation is to evolve beyond the post-imperial dispensation of the C20th.

For my part, I tend to share the view that fundamentally "il faut cultiver notre jardin."

War brings out mankind's baser nature, but in attempting to apply morals to warfare it must be recognized that the nation that discourages and punishes heinous acts is better morally than the nation that encourages or even orders it. Heinous acts will always happen in warfare, but simply declaring "Everybody does it" is a copout.

War brings out both the worst and the best of human nature.

Murvihill, you are correct, of course. That being said, everybody does it is a true statement- It is of course, the extent to which they do it that is the variable.

Executions in Britain were done by law, according to a jury trial. Our legacy is a comparitively peaceful nation where the regular police don't carry guns. The Vendee, on the other hand was genocide… Bonaparte was a dab hand at massacre. The Corsican church shootings, the whiff of grapeshot, the Acre and Jaffa massacres of women and children with knives… The man was a monster.

Cacadore S

Your post suggests you have not actually read the article offered in my first post, which clearly describes the legal process during Napoleon's rule.

Cacadore s

Since you seem to have not understood the legal system during Napoleon's reign, I feel your other Anti-Napoleon statements also need addressing.

The Vendee was a rebellion put down by the French Revolutionary Government. Napoleon was not in charge. I also doubt, as horrible as the atrocities were, that the charge of genocide can be thrown at anyone, since both sides were guilty of atrocities. Such treatment of civilians is not new, of course, we only have to look how the British treated the Scottish and Irish civilians after their rebellions? I'm not sure they, or indeed India and Africa, would view us as a peaceful nation. In fact, it is hard to discover of any nation Britain has not had a war with. LOL

Again, concerning the 'The Whiff of Grapeshot' event, this was an action against a Royalist rebellion. And again, Napoleon was only a commander of the Revolutionary troops, he was not the ruling French government.

In terms of killing prisoners, I am sure you are aware that the English king Richard the Lionheart executed his prisoners. But yes, Jaffa was indeed a terrible event. Many of those killed however, were enemy soldiers who had accepted parole and agreed not to fight the French again. Would you trust them to keep their word? Also, beforehand, their leader, well known for his cruelty, also cut off the head of the messenger sent by Napoleon requesting they surrender. This is no way condoning the executions or what the French troops did to the civilians, but these terrible affairs did happen, and by the British you so openly boast about, such as Badajoz and San Sebastian. Do you consider Wellington or the king of England or even Richard the Lionheart as monsters?

There have been horrendous things done throughout history by all nations and leaders. Unfortunately, we cannot change the past and history remains as it is – history.

Hi Cacadore s

I don't know much about the Corsican church shootings or the Acre and Jaffa massacres, so I will not comment on these. But why would you include the "whiff of grapeshot" in your evidence against Napoleon. As far as I know the "whiff of grapeshot" episode happened during a stand up fight in Toulon against the Royalists.

Frankly I do not think Napoleon was the monster that enemy propoganda made him out to be, especially when you look at his deeds in historical context.

I was born in Malta. Napoleon took Malta from the Knights of St John and installed a French governor. He also gave the Maltese full French citizenship with all the rights and responsibilities that carried with it. His mistake was to miscalculate the Maltese to the Catholic religion, a mistake he was to make again in Spain. The Maltese rebelled and started slaughtering the French when they relieved the churches of gold and silver articles to pay for the garrison's needs. And sure, at one point the French executed Maltese when they were caught conspiring to aid the rebellion. But those Maltese were French citizens found guilty of treason in a court of law.

On the other hand, when the French were eventually kicked out of Malta, the Maltese had a choice to invite back the Tsar (as patron of the Knights of St John) or the ruler of the Two Sicilies to which Malta belonged before the Knights. And yet they invited the British to become protectors.

This must go some way to show how well regarded the British were in terms a fairness and stability by standard of those times. However, that does not mean that the British were beyond reproach. In Malta British troops fired and killed civilians who were demonstrating without violence against a price hike on bread.

I also read somewhere about the first concentration camps being a British initiative in South Africa where thousands of Boer civilians died of starvation and disease.

And yet, even by the 20th century standards of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, and the more recent events in the Balkans, Rwanda and Syria/Iraq, British misconduct pales somewhat.

Ultimately history cannot be studied with 21st century glasses. I will go further and say that for a study of history to be fair and free of conceit it must be made with a full understanding of the times and the pressures which the protagonists were subjected to at the time.

Love you all.

'Concentration camp' is an emotive term to use, because of associations with the Nazi regime in Germany, which used the term euphemistically to describe institutions where those deemed undesirable or expendable were worked or starved to death, or simply murdered.

In South Africa, concentration camps were just that; centres where Boer civilians were moved to allow British forces to act freely in districts where Boer commandos were still operating. The failure of supply and sanitation in the camps was the result of management shortcomings and logistic difficulties, not malign intentions. Meanwhile, British troops were dying of similar causes.

Flanker, the term "concentration camp" may be emotive but it is also the correct one to use. The concentration camps of Nazi Germany also started out as being a way to segregate the undesireables of that particular regime. Only later did they turn into extermination camps. And I absolutely agree that the extermination carried by the Nazis was deliberate and calculated, whereas I don't think that the British started were so "barbaric".

However, I am sure that British policymakers would have excused the death toll in their concentration camps in South Africa as an unfortunate consequence of war while at the same time basking in the knowledge that decimating the Boer population will go a long and, I daresay, easy way to ensure a strong and undisputed British hold on that part of the world.

HairiYetie

I also read somewhere about the first concentration camps being a British initiative in South Africa where thousands of Boer civilians died of starvation and disease.

Nah! Spanish/Cuban

pbs.org/crucible/tl4.html

Even the US had them in 1899. the Philippines was the US equivalent of South Africa.

link

However, I am sure that British policymakers would have excused the death toll in their concentration camps in South Africa as an unfortunate consequence of war while at the same time basking in the knowledge that decimating the Boer population will go a long and, I daresay, easy way to ensure a strong and undisputed British hold on that part of the world.

Any evidence of this?

Have you researched what the British public and members of parliament thought of this tragedy?

In Malta British troops fired and killed civilians who were demonstrating without violence against a price hike on bread

Not strictly true is it. The crowd were in full riot mode breaking into buildings and homes, smashing them up and looting from them whilst assaulting a British officer and stoning the troops.

"Ten soldiers, led by Lieutenant Shields, approached the offices of the Chronicle, which were surrounded by a crowd which then began to throw stones and other objects at the soldiers. The same happened in Strada Forni, where six soldiers were trying to stem a crowd of thousands. Ritchie sent Ferguson to bring reinforcements. With his revolver stolen and his uniform torn"

Opening fire was wrong, but the protestors weren't as innocent as you make out either.

Paul :)

As far as I know the "whiff of grapeshot" episode happened during a stand up fight in Toulon against the Royalists.

It happened in Paris against a pro-Royalist, or at least, anti-Republican mob, in 1795.

No Dibble, I did not research the British policy makers but even if I did I would not get a straight answer would I. Anybody who would do that sort of thing would not readily admit to it. They would hide behind excuses and tut tuts. But it does not take much imagination to see them behind closed doors in heavy leather sofas drinking brandy, smoking cigars and chuckling over their clever machinations to wipe out the Boer opposition once and for all.

What about you, sir? Have you got any evidence to support your claim that as many British soldiers died of disease and starvation as the Boer civilians in the British concentration camps?

It happened in Paris against a pro-Royalist, or at least, anti-Republican mob, in 1795.

It was a revolt, pro-Royalist in nature, against the Republican government with the object of overthrowing the government. Napoleon, a general officer, was asked to serve under Barris to counter the armed revolt, where the Royalists outnumbered the government troops.

Napoleon found and employed artillery against the insurgents proving that musket-armed people usually don't win against well-served artillery.

The Royalists brought muskets to an artillery fight with predictable results.

HairiYetie

.No Dibble, I did not research the British policy makers but even if I did I would not get a straight answer would I. Anybody who would do that sort of thing would not readily admit to it. They would hide behind excuses and tut tuts. But it does not take much imagination to see them behind closed doors in heavy leather sofas drinking brandy, smoking cigars and chuckling over their clever machinations to wipe out the Boer opposition once and for all.

I'll ask again! Who were the first with concentration camps.

Seeing as you have a chip on your shoulder, It's not surprising that you make such statements without any evidence.

What about you, sir? Have you got any evidence to support your claim that as many British soldiers died of disease and starvation as the Boer civilians in the British concentration camps?

Umm! Unless you have an excuse of not being able to read English properly, I made no such claim.

But here are some statistics:

link

= 14300.

PS

Perhaps if the British army had brought their women and children with them, that figure would have been much higher. As it was, many of their children and wives left back in Britain, probably died of disease thus would not count anyway!

PPS

link

Paul :)

I tend to think that if the Second Boer war a century later is being discussed on a Napoleonic thread in the context of 'Barbaric Brits', then probably the thread has been derailed. One might as well argue that the behaviour of the Napoleonic Empire can be adduced from a study of the French in Algeria.

No Dibble, I did not research the British policy makers but even if I did I would not get a straight answer would I. Anybody who would do that sort of thing would not readily admit to it. They would hide behind excuses and tut tuts. But it does not take much imagination to see them behind closed doors in heavy leather sofas drinking brandy, smoking cigars and chuckling over their clever machinations to wipe out the Boer opposition once and for all.

It is obviously difficult to prove what people thought in secret if they never spoke of it or never wrote of it publically, although one would expect this attitude to surface in private diaries and letters, if that were the case. However, since the British government did permit social workers to visit the camps and then ordered the Fawcett Commission to report into the conditions, then that probably reduces the suspicion that deliberate knavery was at work.

I suggest that the discrepancy here may come from perspective: the British military, which was suffering large losses in the field and on campaign*, may have considered that their treatment of civilians was basically good and reported as such to the government in the UK; the outside civilian observers felt strongly that it wasn't. This at least accords with what everyone actually said.

*I know of no figures that I would trust overall.

Turning nasty, Paul?

No chip on my shoulder friend. Just wanting to point out that it was a different time with a different standard of morality. Napoleon was no saint that is for sure. In fact he had an imperial sized ego with a mental capacity and drive to go with it which made him very dangerous to any who opposed him. But that does not make him a monster. Everyone was in it to further their own or their country's interest. And the British were no exception. I do not think anyone, including the British, can claim to hold the moral high ground.

And yes, my apologies. My comment about the concentration camps was supposed to be directed at Flanker. Your link does not provide and evidence to equate the rate of death of Boer civilians in British concentration camps with similar causes of death among British troops in South Africa as Flanker was suggesting as an excuse for death of the civilians in captivity.

I really do not care who were first with concentration camps. The British ones certainly pre-dated the Nazi camps. Also, I am not surprised that the Yanks also did the dirty in the Philippines. But all that is beside the point, namely that the British did their fair share of nasty. They stand in the same glasshouse and should not be throwing stones.

Incidentally, bravo! You quote a British report of events in Malta when the British army fired on Maltese civilians. So the Maltese civilians threw stones? Thousands of Maltese rioting and looting? Revolver stolen and uniform torn? Mister, that area of Valletta is tightly built up with very narrow paved streets. There is nowhere in those streets to gather stones from or for a crowd of thousands to gather. And as far as looting is concerned, Malta is a very small country; even today, everyone knows everyone else, let alone back then. Rioting yes. Looting no. And rioting with good reason. When you have a population on subsistence economy and you randomly raise the cost of the staple food, that is what you get. Remember, back then people were not accustomed to inflation the way we are now and neither did they have disposable income. They are going to see the colonial authorities going around indulging in the good life while they find it harder to feed their family.

Were the Maltese innocent of atrocities? Hell no. In the time of the Knights of Saint John the Maltese did a roaring trade as privateers preying on Muslim merchant shipping in the Mediterranean. They took slaves and booty and probably only refrained from outright murder in open water because a living slave was worth more than a corpse.

Again, my point is that every nation has dirty laundry. Denying it or hiding behind self serving accounts changes nothing. It merely demonstrates conceit.

Regretfully, it was in Cuba where the first modern concentration camps were created, during the war of 1895-1898. And nasty they were! Through neglect, callous disinterest in the fate of the Cuban civilians detained in those camps, and a lack of resources thousands of them died of starvation and disease. It is one of the most shameful episodes of the Spanish rule in Cuba. That the Spanish guards were almost as badly treated as the Cuban civilians doesn't excuse the Spanish authorities. It makes them even more guilty. I have seen photos that made me sick. I knew they were taken in Cuba in 1896, otherwise I could have been forgiven by thinking that had been shot in Auschwitz after the liberation of the camp.

as Flanker was suggesting as an excuse for death of the civilians in captivity.<q/>

I suggested no such thing.

"I really do not care who were first with concentration camps.The British ones certainly pre-dated the Nazi camps."

There you go again.

HairiYetie

Turning nasty, Paul?

That is a reply I expect of someone who has been found out and my assumption of that chip on your shoulder is a correct one.

Well! Not only are the Victorian British precursors of the Nazis, you also seem to have a habit of ignoring evidence and assuming that what those people thought (especially all those nasty cabinet ministers at Westminster) was a lust for barbarity. Not forgetting a point that what the British reported was all lies, that of any other report was all true.

The Boer civilians lost a total of 27,924 people in the concentration camps, mainly but not exclusively, to disease. That's men women and children. Some would have died of natural causes apart from starvation. The British army alone lost 14,300 able bodied men to disease in South Africa. If they had had their families with them; mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children wives etc, etc; then the death toll would have been much higher among them too. As it was, they were back in Britain and the commonwealth, many dying whilst going about their normal lives. So some context should be used but not as an excuse.

Were the concentration camps bad? Yes, very bad. If they were to be used, they should have been organised and catered for properly. Even so, I bet that even if those camps were, there would still be many thousands of deaths because having many people living in one area leaves them open to epidemics and disease, so not a good idea to do what was done. But then, it was an expediency that was 'carried out on the hoof' with shameful consequences but there was no doctrine to work those Boers to death or enact mass extermination.

Denying it or hiding behind self serving accounts changes nothing. It merely demonstrates conceit.

Who's that then? Perhaps you are making it up as usual?
I suppose assuming what people thought 117 years ago is good debate?

Paul :)

42Flanker,
"In South Africa, concentration camps were just that; centres where Boer civilians were moved to allow British forces to act freely in districts where Boer commandos were still operating. The failure of supply and sanitation in the camps was the result of management shortcomings and logistic difficulties, not malign intentions. Meanwhile, British troops were dying of similar causes."

Moreover, once this situation in the camps became known in London, a Parliamentary commission was sent over to begin the process of alleviating the inmates's plight. Africaaner historians are quite willing to admit this.

Only someone with a huge chip on their shoulder and a malign intention could compare this with Hitler.

Cacadore, Flanker, Dibble

Have a look at this link …

link

In my book if it looks like a dog and barks like a dog …

Also, Dibble

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said Victorian British were precursors of the Nazis. I just said that they both set up concentration camps and the British concentration camps pre-dated the Nazi ones. In fairness I should have added that there was also a difference in scale by around 3 orders of magnitude.

And once again you persist in missing my point which is that every nation has dirty laundry and no one nation holds the pinnacle of moral high ground in history. Some are certainly at the bottom end and some are somewhat higher up in the historical morality score. But Napoleon with all his flaws does not deserve to be called a monster and by the same token the British in history were not beyond moral reproach.