"Are standards changing on the Napoleonic Boards?" Topic

Le Breton

I, for one, believe that you have been unjustly wronged.

TMP link

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian 10 Feb 2018 4:18 p.m. PST
Since the author provides no footnotes or sources, why would anyone believe him?

In other words our Esteemed Editor is demanding….
Oh, forget it. Pointless.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
—-Emerson

+ basileus66

As to changing standards.if you think the Napoleonic Boards are bad now, remember the days of "Mad Hoffy"? anyone. Or the time we had 42 doghoused on one thread?

Think this is bad? You've never been to the Ultra Modern Boards.

As to Snark, this is pretty much me IRL:

link

@138SqnRAF,

As to changing standards.if you think the Napoleonic Boards are bad now, remember the days of "Mad Hoffy"? anyone. Or the time we had 42 doghoused on one thread?

Yes, but at the standards of the time. If the standard had been "asked for something reasonable in a slightly snarky way" there would have been 420 in the dawghouse.

I think the ‘three paragraph' rule was broken there somewhere!

I think we might have to accept that in this instance that rule is 'moot'…

The fact that some people have mastered the "Cut and Paste" function is clearly important on this forum? I regularly read only a small percentage of the TMP output but my simplistic view would be that the Napoleonic Boards contain a degree of bile, pointless aggression and xenophobia that I have not seen elsewhere.

Brechtel198
"Anytime the subject of Napoleon comes up on any forum, the epithets of ‘monster', ‘little', ‘butcher, ‘criminal' and others always are attached to his name. The problem is that none of them are accurate. Perhaps the following material will be of some assistance in giving a fair assessment of Napoleon as a ruler, statesman, soldiers and man."

Let's be fair to his record by all means. He was an inspiring general.

But one of his first acts as a commander was to shoot unarmed civilians coming out of church. He had a political opponent murdered. He committed civilian genocide at Jaffa and Acra. And he re-introduced slavery.

So let's not pretend he wasn't a monster.

Will you?

Lets also consider the actions and decisions Napoleon took ultimately cost hundreds of thousands of lives across Europe – including civilians. Maybe in the context of his time not unusual in outlook but certainly in scale.

Here we go again

Let's be fair to his record by all means. He was an inspiring general.
But one of his first acts as a commander was to shoot unarmed civilians coming out of church. He had a political opponent murdered. He committed civilian genocide at Jaffa and Acra. And he re-introduced slavery.
So let's not pretend he wasn't a monster.

Yes, let's be 'fair.'

What are your sources, and are they credible or not?

Lets also consider the actions and decisions Napoleon took ultimately cost hundreds of thousands of lives across Europe – including civilians. Maybe in the context of his time not unusual in outlook but certainly in scale.

The problem with studying this period and Napoleon is that all of the major European nations were expanding empires. War was unfortunately an inevitability.

France was attacked in 1805, 1806, and 1809. Great Britain shared responsibility for breaking the Treaty of Amiens with France. Alexander chose war against France in 1810, tried to get Poland to join her, which led to the 1812 French invasion.

If anything, the crowned heads of Europe, including Great Britain, were as responsible as Napoleon for the wars of 1803-1815. Blaming Napoleon solely for the wars and deaths is not historically supportable.

What are your sources, and are they credible or not?

So, does that violate the new 'snarky' rule that snared poor Breton?

I've always thought that Napoleon was too bad to be considered truly "good", but too good to be considered truly "bad". I use neither, because I think "interesting" is more apt.

Of course, comparisons with Hitler are facile.

The actual importance of a 'thing' is inversely proportional to the vitriol of the arguments surrounding it.
Thus arguments about Napoleon go beyond the pale…

QED: the DHing above seems quite conclusive…

The late David Chandler (British, unfortunately, but not a bad historian nonetheless) described Bonaparte as "…a great, bad man…."
As we all have to detail our sources these days, I got it from the horse's mouth during a Peninsular War Battlefield Tour in 1995.

Since this argument is now in its 103rd year (yes, I know that's debateable, too), I'm guessing it is by its very nature essentially immune to resolution, and will no doubt fill a great many threads yet.

For my money, it's really very simple: they called them the Napoleonic Wars because they were, in essence, about whether Bonaparte would rule France, and some to-be-determined part of Europe.

Whatever you think of him, it's hard to separate that fact from a fair degree of personal responsibility for the tremendous casualties and suffering that ensued.

I believe I am starting to appreciate what the citizens of Verona experienced and felt with the ongoing drama of the Montagues and Capulets!

Where would Shakespeare have been without a little drama?

The Globe, making up a big one?

Paul :)

+1 rmcaras.

(Nice one mate!)

"Two houses, both alike in dignity…"

Cacadore s

The only monster at Jaffa was the leader of the defenders who was well known for his cruelty. He also chopped off the head of the messenger sent by Napoleon before the siege requesting they surrender. And many of the prisoners turned out to be those who had already fought against the French but when captured had agreed not to fight them again. They did not keep their word. Would you trust them not to kill more of your own men?

And in terms of 'monsters', considering what the British did to allies civilians, men, women and children, at Badajoz and San Sebastian, plus the deliberate bombardment of civilians at Copenhagen, do you consider the king of England or Wellington as monsters? Also, do you consider Richard the Lionheart a monster because he killed his prisoners?

Slavery in the past and the banning and re-introduction of it, is not a simple as you might think. For example, in terms of slavery, it was not banned within the British Empire until 1833. So it continued everywhere and by most nations, and in one form or another, even though you seem to just want to throw it at Napoleon. And even in terms of the 'freed' slaves of Haiti, 'enforced labour' was still happening under Toussaint's rule, with armed troops he put there to enforce it.

In short, it is no good basing a 21st century viewpoint on complex events that happened hundreds of years ago. People thought and acted differently then.

I was going to add to the debate but on second thoughts I'm going to paint toy soldiers instead.

Brechtel198 In the TMP Dawghouse 12 Feb 2018 3:14 a.m. Re:

Let's be fair to his record by all means. He was an inspiring general.
But one of his first acts as a commander was to shoot unarmed civilians coming out of church. He had a political opponent murdered. He committed civilian genocide at Jaffa and Acra. And he re-introduced slavery.
So let's not pretend he wasn't a monster.
Yes, let's be 'fair.'

"What are your sources, and Deleted by Moderator are they credible or not?"

Er… Yes. Just pick up a general biography of Bonaparte. I haven't found one yet that didn't have them.

Gazzola

You wrote 'And many of the prisoners turned out to be those who had already fought against the French but when captured had agreed not to fight them again' – is there any credible evidence of this and how were they identified? Also, what about the others?

Having said that, I agree with your general point about applying modern standards, or double standards to excuse/vilify supposed heroes/villains – as you say it's all much more complex.

Re: Bonaparte's Massacres of Civilians.

Eg the massacre of up to 4,000 souls at Jaffa and Acre. This included chasing women and children into the surf and slaughtering them with knives to save on bullets. This was a bigger atrocity than 9/11.

It's not as if this isn't common knowledge outside of the American hero-worshipping bubble. A poll published in Le Figaro in 2005 found that nearly 40 per cent of Frenchmen regarded Napoleon as 'a dictator who had used all means to satisfy his thirst for power'.

In America you can find plenty of references to Bonaparte massacring civilians. Just about every biography has it and more: Bonaparte's Corsican church massacre, his Piedmont Terror Decrees, the Guadaloupe genocide, his extra-judicial executions and the Carabbean ethnic cleansing. Talk about living in denial.

In France there is a reason top politicians no longer mark the victory at Slavkov. In this age of Human Rights, they no longer wish to be associated with a mass murderer who re-introduced slavery. Yes, after it had been made illegal, Bonaparte re-introduced it.

Other references are;
Napoleon, Herold, 2016.
Guerre d'Orient: Campagnes de Égypte et de Syrie.
"Memoirs of Napoleon", completed by Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne
History of the French Expedition to Haiti, Antoine Metral, 1825.
Le Crime de Napoleon, by Claude Ribbe (Editions Priv & Egrave;).

Metral details the use of gas chambers and writes of piles of dead bodies everywhere, stacked in charnel-houses.
In a letter to Napoleon, his brother-in-law Leclerc wrote: 'It is necessary to destroy all the negroes of the mountain . . . do not leave children over the age of 12.'

Jaffa: For three days Bonaparte kept the 4,000 mostly Turkish prisoners with their arms tied behind their back; then the massacre of the town's population began. Children's bodies were found. Women chased into the surf and knifed. Somewhere between 2,500 and 4,000 were slaughtered.

There's an interesting article on some of these events here:
link

Paul Demet 15 Feb 2018 12:04 a.m. PST
'Having said that, I agree with your general point about applying modern standards, or double standards to excuse/vilify supposed heroes/villains – as you say it's all much more complex'.

Unbelievable. This is AFTER the enlightenment. Around the time of the American War of Independence. Did Washington or Clinton or Howe put hundreds of civilians to death in cold blood? Did they order genocides?

No, it was not normal. The proof is in the fact Bonaparte tried to hide the truth. And the fact his supporters are doing the same today. Hide or dismiss it? Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

This moral relativism does no one any favours.

one doesn't have to apply modern standards, the soldiers in Jaffa were promised not to be killed when surrendering, this they did in good faith, after that – coup de baionnette, because ammunition was precious, this was heinous also in the 18th century.
Boney of course didn't give a damn.

Sorry that I didn't make myself clear

1) I don't think the massacre at Jaffa was justified – it was barbaric by the standards of the day, and I meant to suggest that the notion that they had broken their oath not to fight again looks to me more like a smokescreen than the real reason

2) Unfortunately atrocities were committed by all sides then and continue down to the present day – not just by 'Boney' or the British, depending on the point someone is trying to make.

3) I still think it is too simplistic to characterise Napoleon as a monster – in the end I think he got what he deserved, but he was in many ways a man of his time, doing what he thought necessary to establish a dynasty (and god help anyone who got in his way) – in many ways like the other established ruling houses of Europe

@Paul Demet,

"2) Unfortunately atrocities were committed by all sides then and continue down to the present day – not just by 'Boney' or the British….."

Can you kindly point me to a reference to any British Napoleonic General field Commander ordering civilian massacres, civilian genocide, or extra-judicial civilian killings?

You've got Wellington, Beresford, Hill and The Duke of York.

You can include the AWI commanders like Clinton and Howe if you need to. Stick King George and the Prince Regent in there too – why not? I'd be genuinely interested.

Read what I wrote – I was pointing out that atrocities were not just committed by Napoleon, or by the British who always get dragged into this 'who was the worst' debate. I never said that British generals ordered massacres like Jaffa, but there are plenty of examples of behaviour by British troops that fall far short of acceptable standards. The sacking of captured fortresses in Spain and the suppression of the 1798 Irish uprising spring to mind.

By the way do you really think that Ribbe's comparison of Napoleon to Hitler in the link you gave is valid?

The laws of war at the time regarding sieges: when be besiegers first make a breach they offer the garrison a surrender. If the garrison refuses and forces an assault the city can legitimately be sacked. This is both a reward for the assault troops performing the most dangerous act and a punishment to discourage needless bloodshed. Both sides did it during the Napoleonic period. It pretty much fell out of use when city walls did.

And how about the deliberate British policy of using Indian allies during the Revolutionary War, knowing it meant murder, torture, mutilation, and carrying women and children into captivity for civilians? And, a couple decades earlier, you had Amherst distributing smallpox-infected blankets to Indians.

Paul Demet had it right. Historically, no nation comes off very well, although some have somewhat better records than others. I do not except my own country, the United States.

Napoleon was not a demented monster like Hitler, but he was a ruthless opportunist devoted to his own ambition, in my opinion. There is no evidence that he was out to exterminate any particular group, provided they did not oppose him, but he seemed not to care how many died in the name of expediency. He had a lot of company in that regard, but few others had the opportunity to practice on such a scale.

A small point – the civilians in the Spanish cities that were sacked were allied subjects not enemies – why did they deserve to be punished for being garrisoned by an occupying power?

This has been discussed elsewhere, but since it comes up fairly regularly, it is worth clarifying that General Amherst did not distribute infected blankets to Indians.

It was proposed by a subordinate and Amherst certainly did not object. At the time when he was incensed by new Indian depredations on the frontier and what he viewed as treachery, and he entertained any means of extirpating a people characterised in his view by vicious savagery. We can discuss the contradictions and limitations of Amherst's attitude but there is no evidence that the subordinate in fact carried out his own suggestion.

That is irrelevant, however, since the tactic appears to have been tried earlier in the summer of 1763 by the commander at Fort Pitt who, besieged by the Shawnee etc, saw it as a means to avoid his command being slaughtered. As it is, the smallpox virus was already loose in the Amerindian population. By c.1770-80 it had reached the High Plains tribes and caused devastation.

Just sayin'

People should recall how Picton almost lost his career over his authorisation of the use of torture to get a theft confession from a free 'mulatto' girl. If he had ordered the shooting or murder of civilians, he would have been open to being cashiered or even hanged for his offence.

If you were French, you got a slap on the back or a tut and wagging finger.

The British did brutal acts but it was mainly the rank & file/Captain & crew that did it.

The French on the other hand would even march through their own towns, on their way to campaign, loot and rape with their commanders turning a blind eye. And of course, what they did in other countries was a lot worse. Even during their advance at the start of the Waterloo campaign, they reverted to type.

Could you imagine what would have happened had a British regiment had done the same?

Like I have said before:

The amount of atrocities committed by the British army could be counted on the fingers of ones hands. The atrocities committed by the French could be counted on the fingers of ones regiment.

Also, do you consider Richard the Lionheart a monster because he killed his prisoners?

Yeah! And what about Boudicca? Or Henry V even?

Paul :)

…and the suppression of the 1798 Irish uprising spring to mind.

Just for the record, the massacres committed against Rebel forces were done by other Irishmen (ie Loyalists), not by regular British Army units. Both Moore and Abercromby peacefully disarmed several counties prior to the outbreak of the main rebellion. In the aftermath, just 82 Rebels were tried and executed for their parts in the rebellion – all of them were responsible for the murder of civilians, or of non-military Government officials.

Cacadore s

This is comical from someone who uses newspaper articles as a source, especially Le Figaro, the French equivalent of the British Daily Mail silly rag and Le Figaro has a circulation of less than 400,000 out of a population of 65 million French.

The civilians killed at Jaffa were the victims of the horrible unwritten rule of siege warfare, actions of which today we would certainly call atrocities. However, although you seem quite keen to accuse Napoleon of being a monster for such an action, I don't hear you calling the British monsters for the same treatment towards 'allied' men, women and children' during the sieges of Badajoz and San Sebastian? Why is that I wonder?

Slavery continued the world over. Like I said, it was not banned in the British Empire until 1833. And I believe the ban did not include the territories of the East India Company. Slaves were also reclassified as 'apprentices', which meant they carried on as they were until 1840. The slave owners were also 'compensated' millions of pounds. Slavery is a disgusting business and unfortunately it continued throughout the world for some time. eg: I'm sure you have heard of the American Civil War?

Yes, Napoleon reintroduced slavery, but in the French colonies, which was exactly the same as slavery continuing in the British colonies. By the way, Napoleon abolished the slave trade entirely in 1815. So rightly condemned for one and praised for another, eh?

In terms of the reintroduction of slavery in Haiti:
'There was yet another reason for Napoleon in 1801 to prepare the greatest invasion fleet of all time. The former planters, members of the resurrected Club Massiac, had convinced him that there was only one chance for a restoration of the economy in Haiti: the reinstatement of slavery. With France's prized colony under the control of an ex-slave who, while pledging allegiance to France, meanwhile signed treaties and conducted independent negotiations with the British and Americans, the need for a reassertion of French power was clear.' (page 153. Night of Fire by Martin Ros)

'England, in a secret agreement made earlier during the negotiations for the Treaty of Amiens, agreed to let the French invasion fleet cross the Atlantic unmolested. Napoleon knew that the British had no objections to his dealings with the upstart black nation. The continued independence of Haiti under Toussaint's leadership could unleash a dangerous new wave of slave rebellions in the Caribbean region, and both the British and the Americans feared such a wave.' (page 154. Night of Fire by Martin Ros)

What the white French did in Haiti was horrible, although I have not seen any evidence that Napoleon ordered any form of gassing and even the source you linked states 'allegedly' concerning being ordered by Napoleon. But the slave owning whites were well known for their cruelty, as was the French commander Rochambeau who replaced Leclerc. He was certainly a monster.
'His coming to power meant that the war had openly become a racial war, fought without pity. As far as Rochambeau was concerned, the blacks were no longer even to be subdued back into slavery, but were rather to be liquidated one and all.' (page 192: Night of Fire by Martin Ros)

And the blacks retaliated in equal cruelty.
'Dessalines decided that there was a simple solution for the problem of the remaining whites in Haiti. All had to be killed. His hastily formulated draft for a constitution did not allow for the possibility of whites to live in the new nation. Again gallows were erected. The executions lasted from January through the middle of March. Approximately five thousand whites-men, women and children-were killed.' (page 197 Night of Fire by Martin Ros)

The disgusting attitude towards blacks during the Napoleonic period was widespread and cannot just be laid at one nation or leader. It also remained for some time, as history shows, hence the American Civil War.

dibble

'The British did brutal acts but it was mainly the rank and file/captains and crew that did it'

I loved that bit. I suggest, if you really believe that, that it was the same for the French, in that Napoleon did not actually do it, it was the lower ranks 'that did it'.

But, as you well know, the British commanders did order the bombardment of the civilians at Copenhagen in 1807. And there is even a suggestion the guilty 'rank and file' you are happy to accuse of doing the dirty deeds, were ordered to do so by their superiors: In the diary of the British soldier linked, part of it reads, concerning the siege of San Sebastian 1813.
'Received an order to Put both man Woman and Child to Death at the Point of the Bayonett.'

link

Was Boudicca a monster? I think, like any other historical character and whatever is being thrown at them, it depends on the situation and reality of events. To the Romans she was, for what she did to them, but to the tribes of Britannia who revolted, it was the Romans who were the monsters for what they did to them. We, of course, have the luxury of hindsight and can pick sides or call them both monsters if we wish. I think that is true with almost any historical character and you can't simply say he or she or this or that nation was good or bad. The reality of history is far too complex for such an easy way out.

"A MAN LIKE ME CARES NOTHING FOR THE LIVES OF A MILLION MEN!"

If that's not monstrous, what is?

Paul Demet

Concerning the executions of the prisoners at Jaffa, I can only go on what other historians/authors have stated in numerous titles, of which I have offered a few examples below.

'Napoleon's treatment of the prisoners at Jaffa, of whom some, though not all, were men who had given their word at El-Arish and then broken it, was extremely weak.' (page 189. Napoleon the Great by Andrew Roberts.)

'Account must also be taken of the presence in Jaffa of soldiers who, having capitulated at El-Arich, had violated their promise never again to serve against France; but these were only a very small part of the garrison.' (page 75. Footnote 4. Guns in the Desert, translated by Rosemary Brindle)

'He could execute those among them who had violated the oath taken at El Arish by joining the Jaffa garrison and either turn the others loose, which would allow them to reinforce Djezzar, or send them back to Egypt under a guard that he could ill afford to spare. Or he could execute the lot in compliance with the (Western) rules of war, the commandant having chosen to fight after the wall was breached.' (page 303. The Rise and Fall of Napoleon, Volume 1 by Robert Asprey)

Today, the reasoning that the Western way of war condones the execution of prisoners, would naturally not be acceptable. However, the western mindset of the period was very different to today. I think this is more so at the time towards those in the east and against blacks.

The late David Chandler offers another viewpoint, which is certainly worth considering, since this was a new area of warfare against non-western opponents:
'There is little doubt that his real motive was to impress Djezzar Pasha, whose own nickname was "The Butcher," with an example of French ruthlessness, but by any standards the massacre was a horrible business.' (Page 236. The Campaigns of Napoleon by David Chandler)

Nine pound round

Metternich offers this alleged saying in his memoirs, which he claims occurred during a lengthy and heated meeting seeking a peace treaty and terms in 1813.

'What precisely happened during the eight hour – some accounts say nine-and-a-half-hour – meeting in the Chinese Room of the Marcolini Palace in Dresden on June 26, 1813, is still a matter of speculation, since only Napoleon and Metternich were present and they gave contradictory accounts.' (page 657 Napoleon the Great by Andrew Roberts)

'Napoleon has been heavily criticized for this line about the million lives, which was taken as prima facie evidence that he cared nothing for his soldiers, yet the context was critical-he was desperately trying to convince Metternich that he was perfectly willing to return to war unless he received decent peace terms. It was bluster, not the heartless cynicism it has been represented as being. If indeed he ever said it at all.' (page 658 Napoleon the Great by Andrew Roberts)

'Prince Metternich's memoirs were ghosted too, as well as being immensely self-serving' (xxxii. Napoleon the Great by Andrew Roberts)

David Chandler described Metternich as 'the wily and unscrupulous' (page 899. The Campaigns of Napoleon)

But, as you well know, the British commanders did order the bombardment of the civilians at Copenhagen in 1807.

No they did not. They ordered a bombardment of a fortified city, much as Frederick the Great had done 50 years earlier at Dresden, and much as the French did at Ciudad Rodrigo in 1810 (when eyewitnesses recorded that not a single civilian building was not destroyed or badly damaged).

The British actually adhered closely to the provisions of this convention signed at The Hague 100 years later:-

PDF link

This article, written by a Danish historian, puts a more factual view on the matter (and also disposes of the "thousands" of deaths proclaimed by Munch-Peterson (who your mate Brechtel is very fond of quoting):-

PDF link

The discussions on the Napoleonic board are often the most interesting on TMP. Unfortunately they sometimes devolve into who was more evil, Napoleon or the British. Napoleon & the French combined with Wellington & the British is what makes the period so interesting. And this is somewhat ironic, considering that without the two sides there would be no Napoleonics board on this forum. If not, the period would instead be combined with the rest of the 19th century.

The simple fact is that all sides in the war(s) did bad things and stupid things. Both Britain and France tried to be the dominant power in Europe. Nothing new there. In the end, motives are difficult to assess two hundred years later.

Yes, they did. One of the reasons that they targeted civilians was because of the lack of skill of the British engineer officers in the conduct of a siege. And this would become more evident in the Peninsula.

'I should have suggested several improvements that appeared to me from my own experience and reflection to be essential…I considered the British Army…to be incapable of succeeding in a siege…without either having recourse to the barbarous measure of incendiary bombardment, or without an enormous sacrifice of the lives…in sanguinary assaults…which might be rendered unnecessary by a more efficient organization of the Royal Engineer department, and especially by forming a well-instructed and well-disciplined body of engineer soldiers…The better instruction of the junior officers of the Royal Engineers appeared no less essential, for at that time they were not even taught the theory of the attack of fortresses…and the examination for commissions were merely a matter of form, and no genuine test for proficiency. As for practical instruction, they had none, for they were sent on service without ever having seen a fascine or gabion, without the smallest knowledge of the military passage of rivers, of military mining, or any other operation of a siege, excepting what they may pick up from French writers, of which a striking proof occurred in Sir John Moore's retreat, when all attempts to blow up stone bridges…made by officers of the Corps, myself amongst others, failed…with the exception of only one, which Lieutenant Davy, a very promising young officer, succeeded in completely destroying, but at the expense of his own life, which he lost from not understanding the very simple precautions necessary to insure the safety of the person who fires the train of the mine. For my part, I should not have even known how to make a battery in the attack on Copenhagen, the first siege in which I was employed, but from the information I derived from a French book on the subject.'-Charles William Pasley RE, 1811.

Further, the British deliberately targeted the civilian population of Copenhagen in order to force the city's surrender:

'If it is found by experience that the destruction of the fleet is actually not within the power of our mortar batteries, we must then of necessity resort to the harsh measure of forcing the town into our terms, by the sufferings of the inhabitants themselves. But to give this mode of attack its fullest effect, it is necessary to completely invest the place, and oblige by that means, all persons of whatever description, to undergo the same hardships and dangers.'-Lieutenant Colonel George Murray, deputy quartermaster-general of the Copenhagen expedition.

And I agree with the comments and statistics in Munch-Peterson's book on Copenhagen in 1807, regardless of the comments in the supporting article. The level and intensity of the British bombardment, as well as its length, supports the idea of 2,000 Danish dead, not the 200 cited in the article.

The British actually adhered closely to the provisions of this convention signed at The Hague 100 years later.

Does the convention allow or support an unprovoked attack on a neutral nation?

This article, written by a Danish historian, puts a more factual view on the matter…

Why and how?

There are no sources listed, though some are referenced in the article itself. Munch-Peterson, who is a Senior Lecturer in Scandanavian History at University College, London, has written a well-sourced and well-researched volume which is in much more detail that the subject article. If you don't have the book, I would be happy to list the sources used for the bombardment, most of them Danish.

Gazzola

I posted:

"The British did brutal acts but it was mainly the rank & file/Captain & crew that did it."

read that sentence carefully.

As for Denmark:

Civilian casualties have already been described in his article "Hospital preparedness and medical treatment during the siege in 1807", the former general medical officer and head of the Armed Forces Health Service, (War History Journal 2007).
The number of wounded was 768, died 195, meaning significantly less than previously assumed.

The number of broken property is from Politiken Dansmarkshistorie, bd. 10 p 292 by Jens Vibæk (1964).
1807: Fire and bomb damage on property was calculated to 1071.
1795: Properties burned 900, damaged 75.
1728: 1670 properties destroyed, which corresponded to 2/5 of the total 4087 houses.

1807.dk/tabstal%20civile.htm

but at least other Modern Danish historians get it right

Copenhagen's bombardment has to be seen in this context. There has been talk of the fiercest bombardment of a European city before the First World War. According to one British historian, each of the three nights saw the use of as much gunpowder as at the whole Battle of Waterloo! It looks fairly clear that the figure of 1600-2000 civilian victims, often mentioned in historical accounts, is a wild exaggeration. More recent research puts the figure closer to 200.

JENS RAHBEK RASMUSSEN.

Though even 200 is too many for anyone to be proud.

Copenhagen is nothing to be proud of even if the RN had 'cut out' all those ships without hurting a hair on the head of a Dane, Military or civilian. Still pales in comparison to that of invading a defenseless country, pillaging, raping and murdering in it, then demanding a huge fee for their 'troubles'. Then an ally, killing and pillaging in it for the next six and a half miserable years. (Boudicca context?).

And what about HenryV? You dig up long dead kings and leaders for examples, Iv'e just borrowed your spade.

Received an order to Put both man Woman and Child to Death at the Point of the Bayonett", and suffered 2000 casualties before forcing their way into a nearly deserted town ("…the old Quartermaster was in the Stores of the Town … he had his Cocked hat on and he was Scuffed about with the Rest of the Prisoners .. there was no Inhabitants in the Town they had all left it Except A few old Decriped men and Wommen … they were treated Very badly what we found in this Town was all Wearing Aparell and Plenty of french brandy … and the Pots boiling with there dinner…").

By whom was the order given? Not evidence, just hearsay.

There are plenty of better links out there, as the one you give says nothing of actual killing of said "man Woman and Child".

Paul :) Edited.

it is no good basing a 21st century viewpoint on complex events that happened hundreds of years ago. People thought and acted differently then.

I find that people apply that argument very selectively, when it suits them. You don't hear somebody saying,

"Oh well, y'know it was a different time in Hitler's day, there were constant riots in the streets and paramilitary violence, there were mass killings in the Soviet Union, look what the Japanese were doing in China, or what the Chinese were doing to each other, look what the Italians were doing in Ethiopia, or what Franco was doing in Spain, what the Turks had just done to the Armenians, there were lynchings in the American south…. Different times, different standards, so you can't really judge the Nazis by 21st century morals…."

No, generally people only use that argument when they're trying to defend their hero against factual assertions that their hero did some pretty nasty

Possibly, but the assertive poster posts very often, has a strong financial interest in his reputation as an expert, and does often repeat essentialy mythical ideas of modern English language sources, usually the Colonel Elting or another Cold War era American or British writer.

Regarding 'financial interest' in writing on the period, that is indeed a misnomer.

If anyone is attempting to get a boatload of money from writing in the period that goal might be somewhat misguided. And if any author/historian whose interest is in the period 1792-1815 is attempting to support a family on the royalties from anything he or she writes, that person will be sorely disappointed. It just isn't going to happen, except in very narrow circumstances. That person had better have another source of income.

I knew Col Elting for over ten years and I never found any of his work that relied on 'mythical ideas.' He was a skilled historian and taught military history for eleven years at West Point. His research for Swords Around A Throne lasted over 30 years. Anyone who accuses him of mythmaking just has no idea what they are talking about.

As for the British, they committed atrocities on the retreat to Corunna, the withdrawal to the Lines of Torres Vedras (and, along with the Portuguese government, were responsible for the 40,000 deaths from disease and starvation among those who were forcibly moved under pain of death), along with the sacking of Badajoz, Ciudad Rodrigo, and San Sebastien among a friendly civil population.

The British commanders were responsible for those atrocities and excesses.

What can be added are the failed expeditions to Buenos Aires, which were nothing more than plundering expeditions, and the wanton destruction and pillaging that was carried out along the Chesapeake in 1813 and 1814.

And then we have the unprovoked attack on Copenhagen in 1807 which was nothing more than a terror bombardment against the civilian population of the city.

Unfortunately, all of the belligerents of the period 1792-1815 are guilty at one time or another of looting, pillaging, and other excesses. No one is exempt, not even the British.

As an aside, if you read Mercer's book on 1815, he admits to pillaging in order to feed his troops and horses, against express orders not to do so.

When discussing this issue definitions are useful. All commanders are responsible for feeding their troops. How they did it mattered. Looting, pillaging, requisition, foraging, etc., are not synomymous terms.

But one of his first acts as a commander was to shoot unarmed civilians coming out of church. He had a political opponent murdered. He committed civilian genocide at Jaffa and Acra. And he re-introduced slavery.
So let's not pretend he wasn't a monster.

Where is your source for Napoleon having civilians coming out of church shot? I have read quite extensively on Napoleon, including quite a few biographies, and haven't found anything on that subject.

If you found it in Schom's book, then I would dispute it historically. Schom's book holds too many errors in it and is not a reliable or credible source.

Regarding Jaffa, the officer Napoleon sent to ask for the garrison's surrender was murdered by the Turks. The Turkish troops captured there were found mostly to be those already paroled. During the period, breaking a parole made the former parolees subject to the death penalty.

And, yes, the town was sacked. The British usually get a pass when they did it, so the same courtesy should be given to the French. It is noteworthy that neither Wellington nor Napoleon was in favor of captured cities and towns being sacked.

Evidence has been given to you in this thread that Napoleon most certainly was no monster. And to state such is ahistorical.