"Napoleon as Psychopath / Balanced study deflates..." Topic

The British and the foreign corps that fought alongside them, lost on average about 22,500 casualties per year and a total of about 250,000 from the period of 1803 to 1815, 200,000 being British. The Militia would furnish the regular regiments with about 115,000 men and over the period there would be 1,000,000 men of all branches serving and many of then beating the living daylights out of Nappy's hoards when and wherever a setpiece battle occurred on sea and land.

How many British militia units deployed to combat zones during the period?

As Britain was under threat of invasion, all of the British militia were in "combat zones".

How many Prussian, Austrian and Russian warships deployed to combat zones during the period?

As I posted above, the supposed "secondary theatre" of Spain was no such thing:

…in the latter part of 1807, and in all of 1808, 1810, and 1811, and in the first half of 1812, the Peninsula was the only theatre in which France faced military opposition. For half of 1809 the Austrians joined in, at which point Britain opened a tertiary theatre with the Walcheren expedition. So in 4.5 years of the seven (that's more than half, Kevin) between Tilsit and Fontainebleau, the only theatre where the French were being confronted on land was the one where the British army and its Iberian allies were doing so. In one of the other years, British troops were fighting in two of three theatres. And throughout the entire era, the only navy confronting France at sea and meting out defeats was the Royal Navy.

As Britain was under threat of invasion, all of the British militia were in "combat zones".

Britain was not a combat zone. If they had been invaded, they would have been, but since that didn't occur, since the Grande Armee had to move east in September 1805 to face another Austrian threat, the invasion never materialized.

…in the latter part of 1807, and in all of 1808, 1810, and 1811, and in the first half of 1812, the Peninsula was the only theatre in which France faced military opposition. For half of 1809 the Austrians joined in, at which point Britain opened a tertiary theatre with the Walcheren expedition. So in 4.5 years of the seven (that's more than half, Kevin) between Tilsit and Fontainebleau, the only theatre where the French were being confronted on land was the one where the British army and its Iberian allies were doing so. In one of the other years, British troops were fighting in two of three theatres. And throughout the entire era, the only navy confronting France at sea and meting out defeats was the Royal Navy.

What is the source for this statement?

"What is the source for this statement?"

4th Cuirassier 01 Oct 2019 4:16 a.m. PST

Kevin, have you ever stopped to think. All these millions of books that you claim to have read, own and endlessly quote from. Are actually just someone else's opinion, with dates thrown in. They're no more credible than anything else on here.
I do actually have a source for that statement – The Ladybird book of "How to annoy pendants on the internet" Isiah publishing 1996, chapter 7.

That is a gross understatement and an undervaluing of valuable source material.

And yes, good primary and secondary material is much more credible than a good portion of what is on the internet, including the online forums.

Otherwise, material that cannot be sourced is merely opinion. Historical inquiry is the process where facts are assembled and a conclusion drawn from those facts.

As I outlined above Kevin, 115,000 Militia, Yeomanry and Artillerymen fought the French in the regular army. Be aware that the militia at this time were not weekend warriors but men who were fully trained and able to take their place in the regular regiments which of course, they did, right up to and including the arse-kicking Nappy got at Mont St Jean

Historical inquiry is the process where facts are assembled and a conclusion drawn from those facts.

That's the definition of opinion, that is why history is constantly revised (generally reflected in the politics and attitudes of the author) the only constant is the dates.

Britain was not a combat zone. If they had been invaded, they would have been, but since that didn't occur

In 1805 the forces available for the defence of Great Britain were

…a total of 9310 artillerymen, 15684 cavalrymen, 50138 infantrymen, 55818 militiamen and approximately 212,500 volunteers (rank-and-file effectives only) available in England, Wales and Scotland on 1 September 1805, or 343,000 men all told.

PDF link

Among the non-volunteer formations, the breakdown between regulars and militia was

Regular infantry 38%
Regular cavalry 12%
Regular artillery 7%
Militia 43%

There were only 75,000 regulars in Britain. Meeting an invasion by 180,000 French meant the involvement of the militia in fighting them was essential. The threat of invasion was conclusively lifted only when Napoleon was deposed.

Now let's return to why the Austrians, Russians and Prussians were determined to fight to the last British sailor.

As I outlined above Kevin, 115,000 Militia, Yeomanry and Artillerymen fought the French in the regular army. Be aware that the militia at this time were not weekend warriors but men who were fully trained and able to take their place in the regular regiments which of course, they did, right up to and including the arse-kicking Nappy got at Mont St Jean

Those numbers paled against the Prussian Landwehr and French National Guard. And those troops deployed into combat zones and fought.

And when British militia were drafted into regular units, they became de facto regulars.

The question remains-how many British militia units deployed to combat zones?

You're making it up as you go along, Kevin.

I don't make anything up historically. However, you are mistaking preparation for a French invasion into something is wasn't and isn't-the British Isles were not a combat zone as there was no invasion.

Perhaps you can name the battles that took place?

That's the definition of opinion, that is why history is constantly revised (generally reflected in the politics and attitudes of the author) the only constant is the dates.

No, that's the 'definition' of valid historical research. Historical revision has two definitions: the first, and valid, definition is the finding of 'new' factual material that may or may not change the conclusions of previous historians.

The second definition of revisionism is the attempted negation of historical fact by people who have an agenda.

The definition of 'opinion' is what you are doing in your postings on the subject.

What I found most helpful is the course on historiography I took as part of my history masters program.

The definition of 'opinion' is what you are doing in your postings on the subject.

No, that's just your opinion. There's absolutely no reason you're opinion on any of these subjects is more valid than mine. Because that's all it is, opinion. Reading books, most of which were written many years after the events, is still just reading books and coming to your own conclusions about what was written. That's called an opinion.

"As in fight against Napoleon to the last Austrian, Prussian, and Russian?"

Sure, why not? Every nation was ultimately acting in its own best interest, even when allied against a common foe. And the Austrians, Prussians etc thought it better to continue to accept British payments and suffer casualties rather than come to terms with Napoleon.

Similarly, the only reason the British Militia/volunteers were not deployed in great numbers to a ‘combat zone' was because they simply didn't need to – itself, in turn, thanks to the Channel and the RN command of it – victory was achieved without them.

Kevin also believes that the manpower of the Royal Navy should be ignored.

The discussion, if you recall, was about the armies, not the navies, and when I brought up the British it was regarding the army.

Further, please don't assume you know or understand what I may believe or not.

Actually, wasn't the OP asking whether Napoleon was a psychopath or not?

But it doesn't seem unreasonable to include the British equivalents of the landwehr or national guard in any discussion about the ‘army' of each nation, given that it's only lucky coincidence that Britain was the only major protagonist of the Napoleonic Wars not to be invaded in a wholly defensive way by the French Emperor.

"…it's only lucky coincidence that Britain was the only major protagonist of the Napoleonic Wars not to be invaded in a wholly defensive way by the French Emperor."

Brilliant! ROFLOL! Bravo Basha!

The discussion was about the armies only because you decided you wanted to make a wholly fallacious anti-British point, Kevin. So far, it's only you who insists that the measure of military commitment was the size of the regular army, and it;s only you who insists that militia and naval personnel don;t count.

As we have established above, the total British
military commitment including the same troops as other nations was similar, plus there was the navy, plus the merchant fleet (the seas were a "combat zone"), plus there were the subsidies. These British forces contested the main land theatre for a large slice of the time and at sea were the only forces who fought France.

Your assertion that Britain preferred to pay others to do the fighting is laughable guff.

'In practice, surely, no reader comes to a history book naively willing to believe everything it says… Moreover, historians on the whole do not write as if everything they say is absolutely true.'
Richard J Evans, In Defence of History (London, Granta, 1997) pp. 107-8.

Evans is most decidedly NOT a postmodernist, but he recognises that good history teaching should encourage a critical and questioning attitude in students to the books they read.
The historiography course in my history masters degree certainly inculcated that approach.

Brechtel198

« The question remains-how many British militia units deployed to combat zones? »

as precised in my last post the 30th september

a brigade of 3 provisional battalions who didn't participate in any combat in southwestern France

in the same spirit of Peterloo in 1819 the British Militias units fought more against others "British" people like in Ireland in 1798 than against French

I don't know but it seems like something sure is moot around here.

The discussion was about the armies only because you decided you wanted to make a wholly fallacious anti-British point, Kevin. So far, it's only you who insists that the measure of military commitment was the size of the regular army, and it;s only you who insists that militia and naval personnel don;t count.

Your comments above are completely wrong. In my first posting on this subject, I most certainly did mention the militia. And nowhere in any of my postings have I stated that 'militia and naval personnel don't count.' That is a fallacy on your part.

Perhaps this volume will help you:

Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historic Thought by David Hackett Fischer. It will help you clean up the myriad inaccuracies in your postings.

I've used the book for years and it is very helpful.

"What is the source for this statement?"
4th Cuirassier 01 Oct 2019 4:16 a.m. PST

I would not consider Phil to be a source.

Errrr…isn't he the source, simply because he wrote it?

Presumably, you mean "what are the primary facts that back up that opinion/assertion/statement"?

It was opinion without listing any basis in fact or any source material to come up with the opinion.

If he is indeed the source, then it is not one I would use for reference.

…in the latter part of 1807, and in all of 1808, 1810, and 1811, and in the first half of 1812, the Peninsula was the only theatre in which France faced military opposition. For half of 1809 the Austrians joined in, at which point Britain opened a tertiary theatre with the Walcheren expedition. So in 4.5 years of the seven (that's more than half, Kevin) between Tilsit and Fontainebleau, the only theatre where the French were being confronted on land was the one where the British army and its Iberian allies were doing so. In one of the other years, British troops were fighting in two of three theatres. And throughout the entire era, the only navy confronting France at sea and meting out defeats was the Royal Navy.

With which part do you disagree?

The part where you neglected to source the posting.

I'd give up 4th Cuirassier, surely you've realised by now Kevin only believes anything if it's been written down and you can reference it. Doesn't matter if it's utter dog toffee written 100 years after the event. I remember reading they'd found a Lancaster on the moon, must be true, it was written down before the internet was invented. In his world, if you can't reference something your input is worthless and you'll just be reminded about his degree in something.

Regarding army strengths in 1813:

At Leipzig in October, the decisive battle of the campaign the allies fielded approximately 342,000 troops. The British contingent was one Royal Horse Artillery rocket battery.

The French strength was approximately 196,200.

In Spain, Wellington fielded 51,939 at Salamanca. Marmont fielded 49,646.

Of Wellington's troops, there were 5 brigades of Portuguese troops, a Spanish division, the Brunswick Oels troops and the Chasseurs Britanniques.

The Portuguese strength on the field 18,017; Spanish 3,360, Brunswick Oels 797 and the Chasseurs Britanniques 713.

So that's 22,887 out of 49,646.

For Vittoria in 1813 Wellington's army numbered 81,276. Of that total 28,792 were Portuguese. The strength of Joseph's army I have found to be 57,000, but that seems to be short.

Compare those totals with what was fielded at Leipzig in 1813 by both the allies and Napoleon. Wellington had to use Portuguese and other allied contingents. Those numbers of British troop levels in the Peninsula under Wellington tend to substantiate the idea that the British army of the period was woefully understrength compared to the continental armies. I wonder why?

…Kevin only believes anything if it's been written down and you can reference it. Doesn't matter if it's utter dog toffee written 100 years after the event…In his world, if you can't reference something your input is worthless and you'll just be reminded about his degree in something.

So you don't believe in the study of history nor do you believe in education? I find that simply appalling.

What's your point? Battles in central Europe had more participants than battles in the Peninsula. So what, more countries were involved in central Europe.

So you don't believe in the study of history nor do you believe in education? I find that simply appalling.

How do you work that out? Where have I said anything remotely like not believing in study and education. I just don't dismiss people out of hand because they don't have a home library. I've been a professional soldier for 32 years, I've got better things to do than argue on the internet with people who only read about it. The end.

The part where you neglected to source the posting

You dispute that there was a Peninsular War?

Now let's return to why the Austrians, Russians and Prussians were determined to fight to the last British sailor.

I chuckled quite hard at this…

…but the answer is obvious: because Napoleon was fighting to the last German, Italian, Croat and Belgian (amongst others), and robbing their last pennies to do it.

I have already posted about the incredible levels of Napoleon's financial exploitation of his Westphalian and Italian allies. If anyone is interested, there is a useful summary document here: link

The total sums are staggering. Compared to the small percentages generally involved in Britain's financial support to its allies, they aren't even in the same ballpark. Napoleon's personal profiteering from the French state (by loaning his money – 95 million francs worth – at interest) may well be greater than Britain's expenses to some Allied countries.

"I'd give up 4th Cuirassier, surely you've realised by now Kevin only believes anything if it's been written down and you can reference it."

From what I've seen, he's far from being the only person guilty of that.

The British, Spanish, and Portuguese all participated in the Peninsular War against the French.

What is your point here?

The point is Kevin, is that nobody can actually say what they mean as they would be instantly DH'd. Which would be ultimately futile as you would never see what people really want to say to you.

Here's my home email: Boulart198@yahoo.com.

Which I what I said Kevin. Here's your claim from 30 Sep:

The British did not place an army in the main theater of war until 1815. Spain and Portugal were secondary theaters.

Here's my reply again:

…in the latter part of 1807, and in all of 1808, 1810, and 1811, and in the first half of 1812, the Peninsula was the only theatre in which France faced military opposition. For half of 1809 the Austrians joined in, at which point Britain opened a tertiary theatre with the Walcheren expedition. So in 4.5 years of the seven (that's more than half, Kevin) between Tilsit and Fontainebleau, the only theatre where the French were being confronted on land was the one where the British army and its Iberian allies were doing so. In one of the other years, British troops were fighting in two of three theatres. And throughout the entire era, the only navy confronting France at sea and meting out defeats was the Royal Navy.

There you go. You demanded cites for that as though it was opinion or factually questionable. It's neither. It was as noted the only land theatre at those times, so your claim that it wasn't the main theatre fails hopelessly.

Unless you think it's possible for there to be only one theatre, which can somehow be a secondary theatre?

In any sensible reading the land theatre was the secondary one to the sea at all times. It was the Royal Navy's supremacy over the French navy that wrecked France's economy and forced the errors of the Peninsular and Russian campaigns.

Austrian, Russian and Prussian warships were conspicuously absent from this main theatre, presumably because they preferred to get others to do the fighting for them.

How many Austrian ships fought at Trafalgar?

It's a shame that the owners of this site are prepared to allow one individual to make a complete mockery of it.

And where it is the mockery? The British military participation already usually totally overestimated is even more overvalued here counting until the last merchant ship crew and the last militia Yeomanry corps and others Sherwood Rangers of the Nottinghamshire who didn't see the battlefield others than in the british newspapers
A British ship seems to worth more and better than any continental army,
just to keep a sense of proportion and what has to be regarded as "secondary", in the so-called central main theater of operations of the Peninsula, in 1809 there were 13 to 23 000 British soldiers, the British Army never exceeding 48 000 there and most often having only around 30-35 000 men during the period
while the Austrians in 1809 mobilised 630 000 men and the Russians had one million in 1812

Bigger countries had bigger armies, there's a shock. You neglect to mention in your simplistic figures, that Britain also had a global empire to garrison, the world's biggest navy to crew, a secondary war with the States to fight and home troubles to sort out.

But the one million Russians in 1812 were not all in the field army, were they?

This discussion seems to be going round in circles because it can't decide if it is talking about each nation's field army or its total military establishment.

It is difficult to compare military commitment because different countries had different political and geographic situations. Russia, for example, had a lot of territory to garrison a long way from its Western border plus an ongoing intermittent conflict with the Ottoman Empire. This diverted a substantial proportion of its military capability away from fighting Napoleon.

Meanwhile Britain had many overseas territories to garrison and a massive Navy to man.

Even somewhere like Bavaria had competing claims on its military. While nearly all of its regular army was part of the Grand Armee in 1809, it still had to find troops to fight the rebels in the Tyrol. These were cobbled together from a hodge-podge of depot troops and volunteers and any other odds and sods that could be found.

So trying to determine a country's 'commitment' to the Napoleonic Wars just by looking at numbers of soldiers without looking at the global geo-political picture seems like an exercise in futility…

But what on earth is the point of this particular wrangle? I am mystified.

- An assertion that Britain somehow 'shirked its responsibilities'? To who? By whose estimation?
Some contemporary compalaints recorded,from one ally or other, that 'Britain' was not pulling its weight, would be enlightening?

Britain (a generalisation that is of limited use but nevertheless) assigned the resources it had in the way that was seen best to defeat the perceived enemy. By the skin of their teeth and seat of their pants, they succeeded. And were paying off the bankers for generations.

So… what?

Lillian

Who of the European armies was fighting the enemy (France and her allies/USA) abroad? How big were the Navies of those European armies and how many committed to their ships? How many of those troops were committed to garrisons outside Europe?

Britain in 1809 had 950,000 (Which would increase to well over 1,000,000) men to serve around the world not just a small part of it. None of the other Countries had such commitments if they had their armies would have been how big?

Anyway, the fact still was that Nappy's hoards were being beaten regularly on the battlefield where they weren't elsewhere in the world. If you think that the British troops had only minor roles in those battles, then I suggest you read more on those battles rather than drooling over Auerstaedt, Austerlitz, Wagram etc. It may be painful reading but hey, I study the painful episodes of the latter part of Hundred Years War, that long war too is full of glory but ends in defeat.

The fact that Wellington had an almost unbroken record of success in the Peninsula suggests that his army was of adequate size.

I'm still keen to hear more about these Austrian, Prussian and Russian naval victories. If there weren't any, I'm going to have to conclude that they were not "'willing to sacrifice' so many of their own people."