"Who's more obsessed Waterloo or Gettysburg devotees " Topic

if its not British the British don't seem to want to write on it

Actually, the British wrote some good books on the ACW.

Well I know one who is about to start a three year doctorate on some obscure aspect of the ACW……..and he loves the field of Waterloo too and has been there three times with his dad….me.

He would say that few ACW obsessives confine themselves solely to what happened in July 1863. Many a Napoleonic nut does however confine themselves almost exclusively to one day in 1815 (I admit it……….)

I don't really understand the points from Happyhussar.

If Waterloo loses out in interest terms because Napoleon never had a chance what with all the Prussians, Austrians and Russians approaching in overwhelming strength even if Wellington was beaten- it's hard to see how Leipzig could be so much more interesting when those Prussians, Austrians and Russians are actually all there on the very battlefield in overwhelming strength. If Napoleon really didn't have a chance at Waterloo- how did he have a better one at Leipzig??

It's undoubtedly true that British historians have written more about Waterloo than Leipzig, but I think that's also true of French historians.

Back to the OP- I can't answer any more authoritatively than anyone else- but personally I've met more Americans (wargamers and non-wargamers) with a really deep knowledge of Gettysburg and other Civil War battles, than I have Brits with really deep knowledge of Waterloo and say the Peninsular War.

Spain was a sideshow for the French

The sent out the "B" practice squad and kept the Iberian army, with British support troop far from Paris until the real war was over.

If you're referring to the French Army of Spain, the first army of invasion was made up of second line troops, new conscripts along with some excellent units.

After Baylen when Napoleon led the second army of invasion, it was made up of veterans of the campaigns of 1805-1807 in central and eastern Europe.

Napoleon would later withdraw units from Spain, especially when preparing for the invasion of Russia and especially in 1813-1814.

Spain may not have been the main theater but France lost a good million men there. Not exactly sideshow casualties! LOL

FYI – didnt mean to offend any Brits here and in their defense they have written books on Austerlitz, et al. Its just me stewing over the 80th book to come out on Waterloo that's all LOL

Re: Leipzig … well I am talking more in terms of sure size. Its always amazed me how little coverage Leipzig gets in contrast to the other big battles of the era. And Napoleon did have a chance to win the battle. Had Ney remained with Marmont and the VI Corps in the north and fought Blucher I believe he could have won. Get Blucher out of the way for the next few days of battle and Napoleon turns to fight Schwarzy with good numbers. If he can beat him on the 18th then Bernadotte turns and runs away.

Having Ney march south to try and intervene in the battle in the south vs. the Army of Bohemia was a mistake.

The sent out the "B" practice squad and kept the Iberian army, with British support troop far from Paris until the real war was over.

I have never understood how this idea gained currency. The troops that Napoleon brought with him into Spain in late 1808 were the Grande Armee of 1805-7 fame. They all stayed in Spain and were all defeated in the field by the British Army.

They all did not stay in Spain as already noted. And it should be remembered that Suchet and his army withdrew from Spain undefeated.

It should also be remembered that Spain hurt the French much more than Russia did. By invading Spain and not finishing it in 1808-1809, Napoleon saddled himself with a continuous second front, although it took Wellington six years of campaigning to finally win in Spain and Portugal.

And it should be remembered that Suchet and his army withdrew from Spain undefeated.

Not entirely undefeated – they were defeated at Castalla by a small British/KGL/Italian/Spanish force, despite it being commanded by the incompetent ditherer Sir John Murray.

But their otherwise undefeated status at the end of the war was largely a consequence of Suchet's repeated refusals to bring them to Soult's aid in 1813 and 1814.

Not entirely undefeated – they were defeated at Castalla by a small British/KGL/Italian/Spanish force, despite it being commanded by the incompetent ditherer Sir John Murray.

Yes. And they had been beaten by the Spanish at Alcaniz too. Few of Suchet's troops had of course been part of the Grande Armee – they had originally come from the Provisional regiments in 1807, plus some troops from the (French) Army of Italy.

However, my point remains that Napoleon brought into Spain the majority of his Grande Armee of 1805-7 and left the great majority of it there – all of which forces were beaten at some point or another in the field: the claim that the British fought the French "B Team" in Spain is without foundation. In fact, if one really wanted to press the point, one might point out that in 1809 at least, it was the British and Portuguese that were fielding their "B team" and they still enjoyed great success over the French.

So what – undefeated?

the whole campaign in Spain was a mess, first overstretched low quality troops (led by an incompetent cic – Boney himself hundreds of miles away from the desk top) which led to huge disasters, Chintra, Bailen etc, then an inconclusive campaign by Boney himself with high quality troops which were worn out by wear and tear in the next few years.

Hmm, I begin to see what you mean about Waterloo obsessives.

Maybe somebody could help me out here. As far as I can remember, for most of the peninsular war, the biggest battles had less than 50K a side and the last battle Vitora was the largest with 79K/60K a side. …. Meanwhile Borodino was 130K/120K and Leipzig was 198K/370K. Weren't they much bigger?

Yes, they were. But what's your point? That the bigger a battle, the more interesting it is? You're not from Texas, by any chance? :)

Maybe somebody could help me out here. As far as I can remember, for most of the peninsular war, the biggest battles had less than 50K a side and the last battle Vitora was the largest with 79K/60K a side. …. Meanwhile Borodino was 130K/120K and Leipzig was 198K/370K. Weren't they much bigger?

Yes, some of the battles were much bigger. OTOH, the campaigns weren't necessarily bigger. There were more Imperial troops in Spain than fought on the Danube in 1809 for instance, or in the 1805 campaign. So given the longer duration of the Peninsular War, that adds up to a lot of conflict, casualties and effort for the Imperials.

'then an inconclusive campaign by Boney himself'

I don't know. Being able to hand the job over to Soult and forcing the British army into a devastating retreat, resulting in them having to evacuate Spain and having to be rescued by the British navy, could be considered as pretty conclusive, for a short while anyway.

could be considered as pretty conclusive, for a short while anyway.

?? conclusive for a short while only isn't a bad definition of 'inconclusive'!

It was a conclusive victory…for the British.

Moore was clear that his operational aim was to delay the French by raiding their communications, forcing Napoleon to pursue his army rather than send it against the retreating Spanish armies and Portugal. This was achieved superbly and fatally dislocated all Napoleon's plans of conquest. His defeats of Soult during the retreat, culminating in the fine victory of Corunna, topped off an exceptionally important campaign at the moment of greatest danger for the Allied cause.

Geez, that sounds like General Moore's publicist.

Fatuus Natural

I disagree. The French, without Napoleon, forced the British to retreat and have to be evacuated by their navy and taken back home out of harm's way.

The British Army has a habit of winning battles, but losing campaigns.

Moore's army was driven out of Spain by the French at Corunna. Further, Moore's army was falling apart during their retreat and began to loot and pillage on their way to Corunna.

The only French corps pursuing Moore were Soult's and Ney's.

Junot and Mortier's two corps, under Lannes, were engaged in reducing Saragossa.

Madrid had been retaken and Victor's corps was near San Clemente. Lefebvre's corps was near Espinar on the northwest side of the Guadarrama mountain range.

French communications ran from Bayonne to Vittoria, to Burgos, through Somosierra and to Madrid. It was not endangered by Moore's army who retreated north from Salamanca to Benavente to Astorga and then to Corunna. That line of retreat ran somewhat parallel to the French line of communications and was about 100 miles to the west of it.

The French line of communications was not endangered by Moore's retreat.

Napoleon's plan of campaign was not 'fatally dislocated' by Moore's operations.

What forced Napoleon to leave Spain early was Austrian preparations for a new war and the impending invasion of Bavaria, not British operations in Spain.

It was a conclusive victory…for the British.

You don't win campaigns by running for the coast and being evacuated by sea.

Spain may not have been the main theater but France lost a good million men there.

As the French army in Spain usually numbered, at best, 300,000 I don't see them losing 'a good million men there', unless, of course, you have a good source for French casualties from 1807-1814 in the Spanish peninsula.

And the combined allied casualties (Spanish, Portuguese, and British) for the period undoubtedly either were similar to what the French lost, or were greater since the Spanish armies were repeatedly defeated by the French.

Fatuus Natural

I disagree. The French, without Napoleon, forced the British to retreat and have to be evacuated by their navy and taken back home out of harm's way.

You're disagreeing with the wrong person – I think you probably intended to reply to Whirlwind. I did not comment on the military issues, merely on your misapprehension as to the meaning of the word 'inconclusive'.

You don't win campaigns by running for the coast and being evacuated by sea.

But the British did win the campaign for Spain.

And, with their allies, the entire war. Twice.

And some people on here have trouble accepting that.

I think you intended to reply to Whirlwind.

I hope not. Both Kevin and Gazzola know that I have had them on stifle for ages.

I disagree. The French, without Napoleon, forced the British to retreat and have to be evacuated by their navy and taken back home out of harm's way.

Two facts here:

1 – The French did not force Moore to retreat. He intended to retreat at a specific point in his plan and did so. This is a matter of record.

2 – Napoleon did take part in the pursuit (as far as Benavente), which failed.

You don't win campaigns by running for the coast and being evacuated by sea.

You might, it depends upon what each side was trying to do. Since again, as a matter of record, Moore was trying to:

1 – Gain time for the Spanish to reform after Napoleon had beaten them

2 – Not be destroyed in the process

In both of which he was successful.

Whereas Napoleon was trying to:

1 – Successfully complete the conquest of Spain & Portugal

2 – Destroy the British Army

And in neither aim was he successful.

Whirlwind

You may want to consider it a success but I think you'll find that Moore's so called diversion was not the full plan and only a part if it. The idea was to inspire the Spanish into activity. This failed miserably and he HAD to retreat and as quickly as possible.

In fact, he actually believed himself that his campaign was a failure, which he blamed on the Spanish, as stated in his letter to Castlereagh, 31st December:
'Abandoned from the beginning by everything Spanish, we were equal to nothing by ourselves. From a desire to do what I could, I made the movement against Soult. As a diversion it has been answered completely: but as there is nothing to take advantage of it, I have risked the loss of an army to no purpose. I find no option now but to fall down to the coast as fast as I am able…The army would, there cannot be a doubt, have distinguished itself, had the Spaniards been able to offer any resistance. But from the first it was placed in situations in which, without the possibility of doing any good, it was itself constantly risked.' (note 2, pages 555-556: A History of the Peninsular War, Vol 1 by Sir Charles Oman)

Had the British not quickly retreated Napoleon or a more aggressive commander than Soult, would have probably defeated them and that would have been a far bigger psychological factor than any concern for any Spanish Armies, who could be and were dealt with later on.

And I am sure you are not going to claim that the terrible retreat the British army endured, due to er, Moore's successful 'diversion' plan, plus the plundering and murder of allies along the way etc, 'topped off' an exceptionally important campaign? LOL

Whirlwind

You may want to consider it a success but I think you'll find that Moore's so called diversion was not the full plan and only a part if it. The idea was to inspire the Spanish into activity. This failed miserably and he HAD to retreat and as quickly as possible.

I hope not. Both Kevin and Gazzola know that I have had them on stifle for ages.

LOL

foxweasel

I hope you were not referring to me, because, to pinch a line from dibble, one should not assume things, especially when you get it wrong.

Yes, the British, aided by their allies, eventually forced the French out of Spain. That is history. That is a fact. I don't hear anyone disagreeing with that? But it is also a fact it took them several years to do so, even without the presence of Napoleon to contend with, while it only took a few months for the French to walk all over Spain. LOL

foxweasel

Funny how those who say they have people on stifle, seem very clear on what those people have posted. Perhaps someone is informing them on what is being said? LOL

Gazzola

I hope you're not referring to me. LOL

But the British did win the campaign for Spain.

I was under the assumption that it was usually called 'the war in Spain' and was a series of campaigns.

If it was actually only one campaign it was certainly a long one…

And, with their allies, the entire war. Twice.

Twice? If you mean the the War of the French Revolution from 1792-1802 concluded by the Peace of Amiens, then I submit that the French won that round. The British were forced to the peace table with their continental allies repeatedly defeated and all of their continental expeditions defeated.

Well, you know what assumption does.

Yes. And they had been beaten by the Spanish at Alcaniz too. Few of Suchet's troops had of course been part of the Grande Armee – they had originally come from the Provisional regiments in 1807, plus some troops from the (French) Army of Italy.

Alcaniz was fought soon after Suchet took over Junot's neglected III Corps which was short of nearly everything needed to operate. After Alcaniz, Suchet reclothed, resupplied, and retrained his newly-christened Army of Aragon and proceeded to conquer Eastern Spain.

Castalla was indeed a defeat for Suchet, but he won the campaign and the British reembarked for Sicily. Nick Lipscombe has an excellent book on the operations in Eastern Spain which I highly recommend.

Actually, the British wrote some good books on the ACW.

John Keegan's is terrible.

However, my point remains that Napoleon brought into Spain the majority of his Grande Armee of 1805-7 and left the great majority of it there…

That is incorrect.

The first French army of invasion which amounted to about 130,000 was largely second-line units, new conscripts and a few solid units. After the disasters culminating in Baylen 30,000 of those were either dead or prisoners, 20,000 were sick or wounded, and 26,000 were being repatriated in British ships.

The new army in the second invasion was of much higher quality and numbered about 130,000. Of the veteran Grande Armee, 90,000 were left in central Europe under Davout, which included the heavy cavalry, and didn't go to Spain but instead faced the Austrian invasion of Bavaria in 1809. Of the 130,000 only two corps were veterans of 1805-1807 (I and VI Corps commanded by Victor and Ney, respectively) and the Guard formations that went into Spain with Napoleon were also veterans. About one-fourth of that army were foreign troops and many of the French regiments had been reinforced with new conscripts.

After Wagram, more veteran troops were sent into Spain, but many were withdrawn for the invasion of Russia and on into 1813-1814.

So the idea that Napoleon took the veteran Grande Armee into Spain in 1808 is wrong.

There may not be many good books on the ACW by British authors, but I'm glad to say that some of the books on the Napoleonic period by American authors are pretty good, and I own several.

France (and Allies) lost 250,000–300,000 in Spain during 1808-14. I stand corrected. Still its a lot of men to lose ;)

Contrast that with the Russians who lost 400,000 and French/French-Allies 500,000 during the 1812 campaign.

Yes, Britain ALONE won the campaign for Spain. Here we go again. Guess the Portuguese and Spanish were just roasting weenies on the sidelines.

Spanish armies may have not had the best success rate but without them Wellington doesn't win because these men tied down significant groups of French forces in the Peninsula.

Sure is a good thing the Spanish and Portuguese decided to show up. (whistles)

Speaking of Corunna .. did you hear that the British won the Battle of Norway in 1940? … ;)

Yes, they invaded Norway, which pissed that country off, then proceeded to tie down a number of Hitler's elite parachute and infantry units. On top of that the Kriegsmarine had to intervene and lost some ships.

Next up: Galipoli where the British tied down a good number of Turkish troops and thereby won the Western Front singlehanded.

Yes, Britain ALONE won the campaign for Spain. Here we go again. Guess the Portuguese and Spanish were just roasting weenies on the sidelines.

That is an interesting point of view Happy Hussar, I don't think I have ever heard that before. What makes you think that?

Speaking of Corunna .. did you hear that the British won the Battle of Norway in 1940? … ;)

Do you really think that analogy works in any way?

If the British and French in 1940 had planned and fought the whole thing as a diversion for a much larger number of German troops, then there might be something to be said for it. Of course, they didn't, so there isn't.

Contrast that with the Russians who lost 400,000 and French/French-Allies 500,000 during the 1812 campaign.

Well, Napoleon had just lost more men than any general in the whole of history before him in 5 months – that is a hard record for anyone to match (he didn't quite manage to break his own record in the next campaign). That is a difficult standard for anything else to meet. But the French casualties were much greater than in 1805 or 1809 for instance.

But the French casualties were much greater than in 1805 or 1809 for instance.

So were those of the allies…and they needed Austrian manpower to win in 1813. The Austrians supplied the needed cannon fodder.

French and Russian losses in 1812 were about even, and there's no way to figure out how many Russian irregulars and Cossacks were lost as records were not kept.

The British Army in the Peninsula had to have Spanish and Portuguese allies in the field as Britain didn't field the numbers necessary to win, as Moore had found out.

The British reorganized, reequipped and retrained the Poruguese Army and supplied it with uniforms and weapons. Without the excellent Portuguese artillery, for example, Wellington would not have had enough artillery units to even begin having artillery parity with the French armies he fought.

Then the German units that fought for the British, along with other allied/mercenary units that fought in Eastern Spain, helped with the numbers he needed in the field. The excellent King's German Legion was part of the British Army.

A good number of the troops that were evacuated at Corunna ended up in the Walcheren expedition where they died in large numbers from disease. The peripheral British operations usually were not too successful-Bergen-op-Zoom and Buenos Aires among them.

And they were fought to a draw in North America in 1814 with two strategic failures (Plattsburg and New Orleans) and a draw on the Niagara where they lost one battle, fought to a draw in another, and lost heavily attempting to take Fort Erie. And the Americans were not driven out of the Niagara, they chose to withdraw because of the logistics in maintaining their army over the winter of 1814-1815.

You all forgot how the British drove the Germans out of Greece in 1940. And kicked the pants off the Japanese when they tried to attack Singapore. These were as big victories as driving Napoleon out of Spain.

Moore's army was driven out of Spain by the French at Corunna.

It was unfortunate for Moore that the combined Anglo Spanish strategy in 1808-9 failed. Very sensibly, he made for the coast.

Further, Moore's army was falling apart during their retreat and began to loot and pillage on their way to Corunna.

But it didn't fall apart.

The failures of discipline on the march, while a grievous burden on the communities that suffered worst, were (a) hardly unique to the British in that theatre (or any other) and (b) irrelevant to the outcome of the campaign.

Moore's men pulled itself together at the prospect of dealing a blow against the French- (it was the retreat that created the unrest as it would again in 1812),stopped feeling sorry for themselves, held the French off and the bulk of the army got off safely.

Er, sorry, what was the question?

Moore's army was driven out of Spain by the French at Corunna.

No it wasn't. The embarkation had already begun before Soult turned up. When he did so, he was roundly beaten. Then the embarkation resumed, with no French interference. These are all matters of fact. So "driven out" is incorrect.

Further, Moore's army was falling apart during their retreat and began to loot and pillage on their way to Corunna.

No armies retreated well in the Napoleonic Wars. But the retreat to Corunna, given the weather and situation was no worse than any other – and rather better. Further, the French Corps following were in a pretty bad way too, the only difference being that Soult was able to recover his stragglers in due course.

You all forgot how the British drove the Germans out of Greece in 1940. And kicked the pants off the Japanese when they tried to attack Singapore. These were as big victories as driving Napoleon out of Spain.

That is an interesting and unusual POV. The more typical views is that the British were beaten by the Germans and Japanese in these campaigns in WW2, but defeated the French in the Peninsular War.