"Are standards changing on the Napoleonic Boards?" Topic

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

I have quite a few, such as those by Cronin, Dwyer, Broers, Englund, etc. Perhaps you have a citation and page number?

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.

As the French siege of Acre failed, how were civilians 'massacred' there by the French?

Comparing it to 9/11 is a false analogy. The two are not similar in any way. It is both a strawman argument and hyperbole.

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

Metternich attributed that 'remark' to Napoleon when they had their conference during the summer armistice of 1813. The two men were alone in the room, so the remark can neither be proven or disproven. That being said, that type of remark is not typical of Napoleon.

In France there is a reason top politicians no longer mark the victory at Slavkov.

Don't you mean Austerlitz. I was in France this past summer and visited Les Invalides. The battle and victory are certainly 'marked' there.

And we care what politicians 'mark' historically why?

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;).

Ribbe is not a credible historian. If you believe he is, then please show his credentials.

Bourrienne is also not a credible source. Bourrienne did not even write his own 'memoirs.' They were ghost-written and Bourrienne himself was sacked twice by Napoleon for graft and had an axe to grind.

In addition to the volumes already listed in this thread, perhaps the following might help you:

-Aubrey, Octave, Napoleon Soldier and Emperor, JB Lippincott Company, New York, 1938.

-Boulart, , Bon, Memoires Militaires du General Bon Boulart sur les Guerres de La Republique et de L'Empire, Paris, La Librarie Illustree, nd.

-Boycott-Brown, Martin, The Road to Rivoli: Napoleon's First Campaign, Cassell and Company, London, 2001.

-Caulaincourt, Armand. With Napoleon in Russia, William Morrow and Company, New York, 1935.
_____, No Peace with Napoleon, Concluding the Memoirs of General de Caulaincourt, Duke of Vicenza, William Morrow and Company, New York, 1936.

-Connelly, Owen, Napoleon's Satellite Kingdoms, Free Press, New York, 1965.

-Cronin, Vincent, Napoleon Bonaparte: An Intimate Biography, William Morrow and Company, New York, 1972.

-Doisy de Villargennes, Adelbert J., Reminiscences of Army Life under Napoleon Bonaparte, Robert Clarke and Co., Cincinnati, 1884.

-Elting, John R. Swords Around A Throne: Napoleon's Grande Armee, The Free Press, New York, 1988.
_____, The Superstrategists, Scribner's, New York, 1985.
_____, Translator, Military Life Under Napoleon: The Memoirs of Captain Elzear Blaze, The Emperor's Press, Chicago, 1995.

-Fain, Baron, Napoleon: How He Did It, The Memoirs of Baron Fain First Secretary of the Emperor's Cabinet, Proctor Jones Publishing Company, San Francisco, 1998.

-Gourgaud, Gaspard, Napoleon and the Grand Army in Russia, Anthony Finley, Philadelphia, 1825.

-Herold, J. Christopher, editor and translator, The Mind of Napoleon: A Selection of his Written and Spoken Words, Columbia University Press, 1955.

-Holtman, Robert B., Napoleonic Propanganda, Greenwood Press, New York, 1969.

-Howard, John Eldred, Letters and Documents of Napoleon: Volume I The Rise to Power, London, The Cresset Press, 1961.

-Lejeune, Louis-Francois, Memoires du General Lejeune, Editions du Grenadier, nd.

-Luvaas, Jay, Napoleon on the Art of War, The Free Press, New York, 1999.

-Meneval, CF de, Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte, Volumes I and II, PF Collier & Sons, New York, 1910.

-Rapp, Jean, Memoirs of Count Rapp, 1st Aide-de-Camp to Napoleon, Henry Colburn and Company, London, 1823.

-Ropes, John Codman, The First Napoleon, Houghton Mifflin and Company Cambridge, 1885.

I have them in my personal library and would be more than happy to discuss them with you.

The fact that some people have mastered the "Cut and Paste" function is clearly important on this forum?

In my case on this subject, I read the books that I often quote and type the material and add it to my files.

If that is 'cut and paste' then OK, but I don't think so.

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.

Given that you have quoted this passage numerous times, here and there, I am surprised that, it still seems not to have occurred that Murray in this passage is not rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of 'making Denmark howl' but is, rather, citing scruples against the action proposed, which must be overcome, or ignored, if it is to be carried out. THis is the clear eyed outline of the consequences of a regrettable necessity. There was considerable distaste among the British commanders at the prospect of carrying out the bombardment; Wellington's objects being well known.

Not only did the population of Copenhagen have time for the majority to evacuate before the bombardment, but there was a considerable degree of indignation among them that the authorities had declined the British invitation to come to terms, thereby subjecting the city to an attack of which the outcome was inevitable.

Some time might be saved by referring to a recent previous outing of the Copenhagen topic here. A certain sense of déja vû:
TMP link

Regarding the alleged 'million man' remark reported by Metternich in 1813, see the refutation of the remark by Jozef Grabowski in his book, Memoires Militaires, 95-96.

THis is the clear eyed outline of the consequences of a regrettable necessity.

Really?

Targeting the civilian population of Copenhagen for force their surrender was a 'regrettable necessity'?

The entire operation was not necessary at all since Denmark was a neutral country and only after the unprovoked British attack did Denmark turn to Napoleon and become an ally.

It looks as if Britain cut off their nose to spite their face, so to speak.

In short, it was not only inhumane, it was stupid.

The entire operation was not necessary at all since Denmark was a neutral country and only after the unprovoked British attack did Denmark turn to Napoleon and become an ally.

So Napoleon and the Czar hadn't agreed to seize the Danish fleet and use it to further the Continental Blockade (thus ruining Britain commercially) and/or invading it then? If that is the case, why was the Danish army unable to defend Copenhagen from the British because it was positioned further south to halt an invasion by Napoleon (or are you now going to tell us that they were just there to form an honour guard and cheer him all the way to their capital)?

Without its navy, it didn't matter whether Denmark was an ally of Napoleon or not, since its army was (a) tiny, and (b) trapped on the Continent. Alternatively, what is the point of having an ally whose fleet is no longer under their control, but being used by your enemy to invade you?

Anyone who cannot see that is either completely ignorant of Napoleon's own strategy, or thinks that everyone else is.

Oh, and what are Munch-Peterson's sources for 2,000 dead, because the Danish government statistics, published in 2013, SIX YEARS AFTER HIS BOOK, says 195?

1807.dk/tabstal%20civile.htm

"THis is the clear eyed outline of the consequences of a regrettable necessity."

Really?

Really. The word 'necessity' is Murray's.

Regarding the use of 'statistics' an age-old axiom ought to be remembered: 'There are lies, damned lies, and then statistics.'

Statistics can be manipulated to say anything that person wants it to say.

what are Munch-Peterson's sources for 2,000 dead

You don't have the book? And you're criticizing a work that you haven't seen? If that is the case I would highly recommend that you get the book and look up Munch-Peterson's sources yourself. That's what I do if I need to see material that I disagree with. That's also one of the reasons my personal library keeps growing. I've already listed Munch-Peterson's credentials as an historian. And it is quite evident that he did archival research for his book. His bibliography is excellent using material from the British National Archives and the PRO, along with the Granville Papers, the Francis Jackson Papers, the Edward Thornton Papers, the George Canning Papers, the Second Earl Grey Papers, the George Murray Papers, the National Maritime Museum, the British Library, the Danish National Archives, the Archives of the Danish Foreign Ministry, various other Danish Governmental Departments, the Swedish National Archives, the National Archives of Finland, the Archives of the French Foreign Ministry, and the Czartoryski Library.

As for your various questions regarding the Danish fleet and its use by other powers, we'll never know about that because of British actions against Denmark, not once, but twice. What is known is that Denmark became Napoleon's ally because of the unprovoked British attack against a neutral power.

The word 'necessity' is Murray's.

The question is of the 'necessity' of the operation in the first place and the use of a terror bombardment against a civil population to attain that 'necessity.'

Anyone who cannot see that is either completely ignorant of Napoleon's own strategy…

Perhaps you can outline Napoleon's 'strategy' regarding Denmark and the Baltic?

"The word 'necessity' is Murray's"

The question is of the 'necessity' of the operation in the first place and the use of a terror bombardment against a civil population to attain that 'necessity.'

Your question. You don't have to agree with the man's assessment to undestand what he is saying. And you'll notice that at no point does he advocate a 'terror bombardment.'

However many times you repeat that phrase, it will not make it any more apt. Any bombardment is doubtless terrifying to those in the target area, and the purpose will always be to persuade those commanding the fortified place to capitulate. As other have pointed out this is the grim business of any military siege.

Perhaps you can outline Napoleon's 'strategy' regarding Denmark and the Baltic?

Sorry, I've got better things to do. Napoleon wanted the Danish fleet – the British knew it and so did the Danes (or else why did they have their army positioned where it was?). You seem to be the only person who doesn't.

And if Munch-Peterson had credible sources for his casualty figures, wouldn't you (who have the book) be the first to lay them out for us (as you normally do)? I'm certainly not going to waste good money buying a book just because you can't be bothered to quote from it. I set out my sources (one of which post-dates his book). Over to you…

@SM,

Napoleon outlines his strategy on Denmark as follows:

To Talleyrand, 31st Jul 1807:

The same courier will continue on to Copenhagen and will be the bearer of a letter to my minister, by which you will make him known my dissatisfaction with the promises made by Denmark, which have had no effect, and its correspondence with England continues. You will order him to confer with the Danish minister on the need to cease such communications, and what Denmark must do if England refuses to make peace on reasonable terms. You will suggest that, in such a case, it is possible that all the ports of Europe will be closed to England and that the mainland powers will declare war upon her.
By Sunday, at the latest, you will have a conference on this subject with M. de Dreyer. You will tell him that whatever my desire to spare Denmark, I cannot help but feel that it has suffered the violation of the Baltic, and that, if England refuses the mediation of Russia, he must necessarily choose to wage war against England, or to wage it on me; that friendship that the Prince Royal has shown me and the interest of Denmark make me hope he will not hesitate in his choice.

To Marshal Bernadotte, 03 Aug 1807

My Cousin, you must have arrived in Hamburg now. All the Spanish troops must be under your orders. The Dutch troops must be united on the side of Emden, on the left of the Elbe; they amount to 12 or 14,000 men. In the course of August, a body of 20,000 French will have joined you.
I do not hesitate to inform you of my intentions, that you have to keep secret until the last moment.
If England does not accept the mediation of Russia, Denmark must declare war on it, or I will declare it on Denmark. In the latter case, it will be your duty to seize the whole of the Danish continent. As you are on the borders of this country, send me reports on the obstacles with which Denmark can oppose you and the resources it furnishes for sustainment. Your language must be like so: remonstrate that Denmark has opened the passage of the Sund and allowed its violation by sea which, for the Danish, must be as inviolable as their territory.

I am obliged to you, sir.

I'm certainly not going to waste good money buying a book just because you can't be bothered to quote from it. I set out my sources (one of which post-dates his book).

I did give you his sources and if you can't be bothered getting the book and finding out material for yourself, that begs another question. I would expect anyone who is interested in the subject to do as much as possible to find out from the material.

Enjoying this thread.

It's very interesting that "Are standards changing . . . ?" has morphed into an argument about how many Danes the British killed, and that by way of another about whether or not Napoleon was a monster.

So does that mean the answer is "No, they haven't"?

Supercilious Maximus

Perhaps you should try reading some of the debates concerning the siege of Copenhagen 1807 on this site. During the research and debates it was mentioned that Wellington argued against the bombardment. Why would he disagree with the bombardment of a fortified city, if that was their intention? The British needed the siege to end as quickly as possible before the winter freezing took place and their ships became stranded. They also decided to bombard the civilians because they did not expect such a determined resistance against the mass of British ships and troops sent against them. Their 'terror' tactics worked and the civilians persuaded the military to surrender.

Also, you appear to suggest that it was fine for Britain to capture the fleet, supplies, and even door handles, belonging to another country because the French and Russians planned to do it? If so, does that mean it was also fine had Napoleon and the Russian beaten the British to it?

Napoleon outlines his strategy on Denmark as follows:…

Snapshots of correspondence without reference or context.

First, France and Sweden were still at war and that has to be taken under consideration with the troops under the command of Bernadotte.

Secoond, the British decision to attack Denmark was made between between 10-21 July before either two of the provided snapshots were written.

Third, the British invasion fleet had sailed from Yarmouth for the Kattegat on 26 July.

Attila
Rien ne change
🙄

dibble

You must have missed it because the link does indeed say about the killing of man, woman and child. But to see it you need to click on the 'read more' thingy, which offers extracts of what the soldier wrote.

But the link was to the memoir was that of a British soldier from the period. I thought you would be interested in it because I was under the impression that you lay of lot of faith in British memoirs. Are you now suddenly dismissing this one because it dares to say something negative about the British and the atrocities they committee and, if we are to believe the soldier's own words, ordered to commit? Come on, be fair, you can't just accept those that paint a rosy picture of the Brits and dismiss those that doesn't!

Also, you appear to suggest that it was fine for Britain to capture the fleet, supplies, and even door handles, belonging to another country because the French and Russians planned to do it? If so, does that mean it was also fine had Napoleon and the Russian beaten the British to it?

All's fair in love and war. The scenario you posit was precisely why the British went to Denmark in the first place. Also, the British actually offered to keep the Danish fleet safe (and pay the Danes a substantial sum for being allowed to do so) and then return it to them once hostilities were ended. So had the Danes accepted that they were stuck between a rock and a hard place from the off, they would have done a lot better out of the situation than they would if Napoleon had seized their fleet.

The point about Wellington is a fair one, and I confess that I do not know why he objected. Perhaps he thought that the Danes would hold out for longer and more damage would be done?

All's fair in love and war.

Unfortunately the overall situation prior to the British invasion wasn't war because Denmark was not a belligerent. It only became war because the British decided to make it war.

The point about Wellington is a fair one, and I confess that I do not know why he objected. Perhaps he thought that the Danes would hold out for longer and more damage would be done?

Perhaps Wellington didn't agree with the decision to invade Denmark…

Wellington would later 'politely' refuse to take command in North America during the War of 1812 and it was Wellington's opinion on the British idea of retaining American territory taken during the War of 1812 after serious British defeats in 1814 that forced the British negotiators to agree to sign a treaty that kept the territory as it was before the war.

the British actually offered to keep the Danish fleet safe (and pay the Danes a substantial sum for being allowed to do so) and then return it to them once hostilities were ended. So had the Danes accepted that they were stuck between a rock and a hard place from the off, they would have done a lot better out of the situation than they would if Napoleon had seized their fleet.

As Copenhagen is on an island, how would the French seize the Danish fleet stationed there?

Supercilious Maximus

Britain was not at war with Denmark when they sent their massive fleet and army there, so no, it wasn't a case of all's fair in love and war. The act of doing so cannot be seen as anything other than an act of war itself. And offering to buy the fleet or else, is basically a military threat against a neutral country.

The British threatened a neutral country and lay siege to Copenhagen based on false evidence that the Danes had a substantial fleet that Napoleon could use against them, should they side with him. However, the reality proved the exact opposite and the British had to stay far longer than they desired in order to make the ships seaworthy, which many were not at the time, so were not a threat after all. That was also one of the reasons they decided to bombard the civilians, because they needed the siege to end quickly so they could repair the ships unmolested, and steal the supplies of course.

During the past debates it was also shown that British politicians were contemplating an invasion, more than a mere 'raid', as some people see it. The size of the fleet and number of infantry, cavalry and field artillery tends to support this.

I think the result that Denmark became an ally of France, and that they still managed to wage a gunboat war attacking and sinking merchant ships, suggests the tenacity of the Danes was quite remarkable, considering they had just had their fleet and supplies stolen.

Oh man, I got deleted. I feel all tingly. Did I cross onto the Dark Side?

The point about Wellington is a fair one, and I confess that I do not know why he objected. Perhaps he thought that the Danes would hold out for longer and more damage would be done?

He thought there was an alternative that would induce the Danes to surrender without a bombardment: the occupation of Amag and the storming of the Crown Battery. link

The force engineer had informed Cathcart that the place was too strong for a regular siege with the British forces present, which is why he went for bombardment instead.

@Chad47,

C'est vrait!

As Copenhagen is on an island, how would the French seize the Danish fleet stationed there

The country of Denmark is an archipelago of three large principal islands and hundreds of minor ones, plus the Jutland peninsula. Anyone wishing to attack the capital on Sjaelland would have to bring their army across water.

It would of course be necessary to cross water to seize ships in any anchorage in the world, ships by their nature being mostly afloat (unless the water had frozen which might be a temporary advantage).

Napoleon had presumably considered these facts when he ordered:

"Denmark must declare war on [England], or I will declare it on Denmark. In the latter case, it will be your duty to seize the whole of the Danish continent."

England is on an island, too.

Gazzola

You must have missed it because the link does indeed say about the killing of man, woman and child. But to see it you need to click on the 'read more' thingy, which offers extracts of what the soldier wrote.

So, what do you think I did? Like I said, there are better memoirs out there. Because I say that, It doesn't mean that I am somehow in denial. Recounts by eyewitnesses, records and historians endorse what happened.

But the link was to the memoir was that of a British soldier from the period. I thought you would be interested in it because I was under the impression that you lay of lot of faith in British memoirs. Are you now suddenly dismissing this one because it dares to say something negative about the British and the atrocities they committee and, if we are to believe the soldier's own words, ordered to commit? Come on, be fair, you can't just accept those that paint a rosy picture of the Brits and dismiss those that doesn't! Deleted by Moderator

It's not evidence of who gave the order.

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.

But the letter writer shows nothing other than hearsay. That he received the order may be true and he probably did. But who issued it? His General? His Colonel?….Major?….Who? It could even have been anyone who out-ranked him, officer or NCO.

To quote the quote in your link:

"Parker describes, for example, the storming of San Sebastian on 31 August 1813 when they "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…")."

"Received an order to Put both man Woman and Child to Death at the Point of the Bayonett" Is still hearsay unfortunately.

Don't accuse me of 'painting rosy pictures' unless you have evidence that I do. I've posted plenty on this and other sites, It shouldn't be difficult to post where I have been what would be tantamount to being dishonest.

Still! All the bad things the British did throughout the entire Napoleonic and Revolutionary wars was tiny in comparison to what Napoleon and his French meted out both to their own and others. But as usual, all that people can do is try to hold aloft, the one or two handfuls of rotten apples (British) in an orchard of rotten (French) pears.

When I post Accounts, I post as many as I can of a certain incident. Again, a cursory search of my postings will attest to that fact.

Just to add:

The reason for a refusal to post the sources in Munch-Petersen's book, is because Munch-Petersen's sources come from those that were posted in 2003 on the Napoleon Series website and those, that were bandied about in British tomes etc.

link

I'm sure that if People can reel off reams of quotes, authors etc, they might want to quote the sources of Munch-Petersen's but it wont be forthcoming because there are no sources in his book that are as solid as the official document compiled in 1807 by the Danes themselves and released in 2013, five years after Munch-Petersen released his book.

I think Munch-Petersen is dead now so It's not possible to discuss his views on the latest evidence pertaining the casualties, with him.

But anyway. The latest Danish casualty estimates are per the 1807 report, so no amount of denial of this fact matters.

Paul :)

@ Gazzola/dibble,

Is this the guy from the 20th Foot? My first reaction was "that's interesting, I wonder who gave that order?" as I'd never read of such an order in this context in any other memoir of the period. With some experience of reading "memorials" of people applying for pensions (albeit in the AWI), I tend to operate this process:

1) When was the memoir written? Age will always affect the accuracy of someone's memory.
2) Who gave the order? (I understand that the writer himself does not say – as dibble points out, it could have been anyone from the C-in-C to a more senior corporal to the writer.)
3) Do other similar documents support the writer's assertion? In this case, I have not found one, but I don't have the extensive reading of Napoleonic memoirs that you two both do.
4) Is it possible the writer is mistakenly remembering an order from "on high" that actually said something vaguely similar, but about another incident?
5) Is the writer actually reporting something someone else told him, either at the time, or afterwards? If so, this third party version is susceptible to the same caveats as above, but one might also add this:
6) Is the order "made up" in order to justify an orgy of violence that the author himself feels ashamed to have taken part in?

I have no problem acknowledging that San Sebastian (and probably also Badajoz) is a stain on the British Army's reputation. However, as dibble points out, it was an "out of character" event (given the "rougher" nature of society at the time) as opposed to a matter of general policy, directed from higher up.

@ dibble,

Thank you for clearing up the position on Munch-Pederson; I was trying to get the other poster to admit that there is actually NO specific authority for the higher casualty estimate (based on a quote from M-P by someone else in a previous thread on this), beyond the author surmising (and my recollection may be faulty here) how many of the destroyed buildings had cellars that weren't properly investigated before the area was redeveloped.

Hopefully that puts this issue to bed (in spite of the attempts to "muddy the water" by pretending Napoleon wasn't trying to seize the Danish fleet in order to help him either bankrupt the UK or actually invade it).

Supercilius Maximus

I don't know if this has been linked already:

Part of Rory Muir's tome Wellington

link

The John Parker of the 20th foot memoirs were written around 1828.

Paul :)

Very interesting, thank you. For all the comments on "attacking a neutral" it appears that there was plenty of time for the Danes to evacuate all non-combatant civilians and the British were prepared to allow this. There are, of course, considerable similarities with the bombardment of the French fleet at Mers-El-Kebir, in terms of denying the enemy several capital ships that could have influenced the future course of the war.

I am late to the party. I did comment on the original post. I will say again, I did not see anything wrong with the banned post. I like a little snarky with my wargaming. But I didn't see anything snarky about it.

dibble & Supercilius Maximus

I forgot, when anyone accuses the British of committing or being ordered to commit an atrocity, it is obviously hearsay or just a 'lack of discipline' on the part of the rank and file. LOL

I don't think the soldier would be brave enough to mention who gave the order but I see no reason for him to mention it if it had not been true? What could he benefit from it? perhaps he wanted to put the record straight, without naming anyone, in an attempt to counter the accusations that is was simply just the rank and file out of control. But you can't just dismiss it because it says something negative about the British which you may not want to hear.

Supercilious Maximus

Are you saying that the Danes, not at war with Britain when they arrived and made their demands, should just roll over and let them take everything and evacuate their city, just because the British showed up and said surrender, take the money or else? It was very brave of the Danes to stand up to the provocative threat of a mass of British military might. And the British obviously expected them to roll over so had to resort to plan T, terror bombardment.

Gazzola:

No matter what, Parker's statement was hearsay. You can say what you like, moan all you like, but hearsay it is! Anyone who out Out-ranked Parker could have given him the order, that is, if he did receive such an order.

His statement wouldn't hold up in a Georgian court of law, let alone any western court today.

example: As for your assumptions. Counter assumptions are just as valid. Perhaps he imagined it, had an axe to grind, heard it from a fellow veteran so incorporated it into his memoir.

All those assumptions posted by you, me and Supercilius are the reason why no-one Legal, Academic or layperson, take hearsay as evidence.

So it's best if you stop trotting out that I and others are somehow in denial…..I refer you to my rotten apples and rotten pears quote above, and the statements I made within my posts that clearly shows that it isn't me in denial; It's you!

Paul :)

I forgot, when anyone accuses the British of committing or being ordered to commit an atrocity, it is obviously hearsay or just a 'lack of discipline' on the part of the rank and file.

Please either indicate where I said it was "obviously" anything, or else apologise for misquoting me. I gave several scenarios, all equally plausible in the absence of any other evidence. Perhaps you could come up with another memoir that mentions this order? Or better still the order itself? Sorry, but given the bouts of "hair-pulling" that went on between British generals during and after the wars, I find it barely conceivable that delicacy would have prevented an order of this nature being exposed by somebody.

Supercilius Maximus

Sorry, you are correct, what you actually said in your posts 18th Feb 2018 5.39am, was that you agreed with what dibble claimed in that those committing British atrocities were acting 'out of character' LOL

dibble

I am not moaning or assuming anything. I merely mentioned what was written by a British soldier of the period, and one who was involved in the atrocity.

It does not mean because he does not mention the name of whoever gave the order, that it did not happen and was not given by superior officers and commanders. Indeed, the order may well have been given verbally to prevent any future comeback, should it be exposed at a later date.

Perhaps he was lying and wanted to divert the shame of what the British troops did and blame it on orders? But then again, perhaps he just wanted to set the record straight and did not like the way they were getting the total blame for , er, acting 'out of character' LOL

I guess we will never know, unless something else pops up supporting what he wrote or not.

But, as we well know, atrocities happened and the British did indeed do them, as Badajoz, San Sebastian and even Copenhagen 1807, displayed. And indeed, Wellington was quite fond of ordering villages to be burnt and men hung when he was in India. But the past is the past and sadly we can't change it.

By the way, I noticed in your link of Muir on Munch-Petersen, which was a very interesting read, that he had nothing but praise for the author and his research.

Nothing wrong in praising an author for his work. That Munch-Petersen got the death toll wrong doesn't make his book bad, he was using information that was at hand up to 2003.

Anyway, Muir's first volume of Wellington came out in 2013, the same year of the new Danish evidence of casualties and destruction.

I'm sorry Gaz' but you are assuming, and you do it all the time.

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

I don't think the soldier would be brave enough to mention who gave the order but I see no reason for him to mention it if it had not been true? What could he benefit from it? perhaps he wanted to put the record straight, without naming anyone, in an attempt to counter the accusations that is was simply just the rank and file out of control. But you can't just dismiss it because it says something negative about the British which you may not want to hear.

Which is full of assumption.

Like I said above, I post multiple first hand accounts on a given incident. If I only have one account of an incident and I use it on a forum (Something I try to avoid doing) I will caveat it. Until any account is corroborated, it should be treated as hearsay until such time new evidence is found.

And seeing as you wish to bang on about atrocities; I will refer you to my answers I gave pointing you to the few rotten apples in a pear orchard full of rotten pears. Or the fingers on one's hands to that of the fingers of one's regiment. Which in deed puts the British atrocities into sharp perspective where the French are concerned.

Paul :)

dibble

I guess we are both 'assuming' to a certain degree. And you are certainly 'assuming' that what the British soldier stated is incorrect. You can't prove it is wrong just as I can't prove it is correct, as yet anyway. LOL

In terms of the number killed at Copenhagen 1807, the actual number killed seems to be changing all the time.

eg: We have Munch-Petersen's figure and we have the figure of 195 offered by Supercilius Maximus, 16 Feb, 11.35pm, which is based on a 2013 source.

But a much higher figure is offered in the 2014 publication of The Experiences of War and Nationality in Denmark and Norway, 1807-1815, by R. Glenthoj and Morten Nordhagen Ottosen.

On page 45, they state that due to lost registers, the figure may well be higher than 186 civilians and 183 military recorded. Combined, that is a figure of 369.

The book further goes on to state: 'Where the number of wounded is concerned, the figure remains unknown, but according to the director-general of the Royal Surgical Academy those maimed by grenades, bombs and collapsing buildings were chiefly women, children and the elderly.'
(page 45)

The point, I think, is the killing of women, children and elderly, as well, of course, of the action turning a would be ally into an enemy.

Anyway, part of the book is available online, and it includes page 45. Who knows, maybe further figures will be offered at some point?

link