"How many battles were there in the Peninsular War?" Topic

Will we ever know for sure?

Is there a book that focuses summarizes every battle and siege in the Peninsular War? Just the Peninsular War and every battle and siege.

Nick Lipscomb's "Peninsular War Atlas," recommended time me by folks on this forum, is a pretty good catalogue of actions. It's probably not complete, but it would be hard to catalogue every single action in six years of irregular warfare.

What about Oman? The first four (of seven) volumes are available free on project Gutenberg link

First tell me where "battle" ends and "skirmish" begins, MiniPigs, and then I can try to come up with an answer.

…it would be hard to catalogue every single action in six years of irregular warfare.

The battles of the War in the Iberian Peninsula were not irregular warfare, nor were the sieges.

First tell me where "battle" ends and "skirmish" begins, MiniPigs, and then I can try to come up with an answer.

You don't know the difference?

Is there a book that focuses summarizes every battle and siege in the Peninsular War? Just the Peninsular War and every battle and siege.

I'd start with The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book: Actions and Losses in Personnel, Colours, Standards and Artillery, 1792-1815 by Digby Smith. It is an exhaustive listing and summary of, if not all, then the overwhelming majority of the actions, skirmishes, battles, and sieges catalogued by year of the entire period.

link

139 named battles.
A Dictionary of Battles (1715-1815) by Brigadier Michael Calvert and Brigadier Peter Young.
They're listed alphabetically, but all contained in SECTION NINE: Peninsular War 1808-1814.
Name
Dates
Opponents and commanders
Strength
Aim
Battle
Result

Sadly, Brechtel, I know half a dozen differences, some of which I regard as nonsensical. But to answer MiniPigs question, I need to know what HE regards as the correct answer. Once I do, I can check that against the cutoffs in your recommendation and d88mm's.

Bedraggled column of Frencb infantry straggles down out of the mountains into their regimental billet. One of the "in the rear with the gear" types asks a passing fusilier, "were you in a battle?"

The fusilier turns…

"I'm not sure. Wait here and I'll go back and ask the Spaniard whose head I stove in what he thinks. I'll bet he thinks so."

Hardly any of the slightest significance whatsoever according to many posts on these forums? Quite a few War Crimes committed by those English but they don't count as battles.

I suspect by all sides, Connaught Ranger

Wellingtons Peninsular War by Paget lists quite a few, and those are only the British ones.

A handy wargaming resource as it has maps, OBs and battlefield descriptions fir every single one.

"I suspect by all sides,.."
Except the French – their treatment of the peoples of Europe (the Middle East, the Caribbean…) was, on every occasion, beneficence made flesh.

@Brechtel198

he Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book: Actions and Losses in Personnel, Colours, Standards and Artillery, 1792-1815 by Digby Smith.

If you like this book, that is good enough recommendation for me. Cheers!

Thanks very much.

The book is large and has some errors in it, but for a reference as to how many battles took place and the general statistics, it is more than sufficient.

As long as you keep in mind that the 7-year Peninsular campaign was a trivial sideshow compared to the 3-month Wagram, 6-month Russian and 14-month (including an armistice) 1813-1814 campaigns, you'll be fine.

Trivial? I dont know why you would say that. It's one of the best wargames friendly campaigns ever with a lot of texture to it. In terms of shaping Napoleonic policy, it might have been less important than the mainstream European wars but for wargaming, the Peninsula is a treasure trove of interest.

I see the Peninsular War as one of those immortal periods like the Sudan, The Normandy Campaign and the ACW to be one of those periods that could be a never ending TV series.

Two countries separated by a common language.

As long as you keep in mind that the 7-year Peninsular campaign was a trivial sideshow compared to the 3-month Wagram, 6-month Russian and 14-month (including an armistice) 1813-1814 campaigns, you'll be fine.

No one used the term 'trivial'-that is your term and 'interpretation.'

What was stated was that Spain was a secondary theater. If you can't deal with that evaluation that is too bad.

The question that should be asked was Spain the decisive theater of war? Was Spain the deciding factor in Napoleon's defeat?

The answer to both is no. Wellington and the fighting and campaigning in Spain and Portugal definitely aided in Napoleon's defeat, and was a contributing factor. Was it the deciding factor? Again, the answer is no.

You will undoubtedly disagree, so with that disagreement make your case that Spain was not a secondary theater. If not, then the point is moot.

By that logic, everything but the Waterloo Campaign was a "secondary theater"(sic)?

@ Connaught

You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh at the only theatre being described as the secondary theatre.

By that logic, everything but the Waterloo Campaign was a "secondary theater"(sic)?

No, it was the main theater in 1815 where the war was decided.

You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh at the only theatre being described as the secondary theatre.

So you cannot answer the questions that were put?

Late afternoon 18 June 1815 – "Emperor of the French"
Late evening – Running for his life.
Only one event was the deciding factor in Napoleon's defeat. The rest – by your definition – is secondary?

In late evening on 18 June Napoleon was still Emperor of the French.

He abdicated for the second time on 22 June 1815.

Just for information, Spain was the main theater of war from October/November 1808 until Napoleon left for Paris on 17 January 1809 because of Austria's preparations to invade the Confederation of the Rhine.

Well "Secondary Theater" is a matter of relativity. Certainly compared to these British Napoleonic train wrecks, the Peninsula would be considered primary:

Bergen Op Zoom where Gen Graham took it across the hammies with a cricket bat like he was back at Oxford. link

Walcheren – the debacle

Where the British army was able to conduct a choco-squirt contest using Castlereagh as the dunking target.

link

Oh and the ignominious surrender and evacuation of Alexandria

link

I understand that General Mackenzie-Fraser and his staff had to dress up as harem dancers to escape detection.

"In late evening on 18 June Napoleon was still Emperor of the French." And still running for his life.
"Spain was the main theater of war from October/November 1808 until Napoleon left for Paris on 17 January 1809…" So our definition of non-secondary is now that Bonaparte has to be present?

Emperor of the French.

Was he strictly speaking?

He had abdicated over year earlier. Not sure the British or Prussians acknowledged that title in 1815.

There's a bit of pedantry in another thread that reckons he was emperor of the French, not France (waltz on a pin head to me?).
Don't know about the Prussian view but to the Brits he was General Bonaparte.

Napoleon was crowned Emperor of the French and not Emperor of France. It isn't pedantry, it's historical fact.

Emperor of the French and not Emperor of France.

Out of curiousity, what is the essential difference?

42flanker, I suspect you know exactly. In theory, at least, one is most familiar from a feudal system; the King owns the whole country, and distributes it among his most powerful subordinates who do the same with their holdings among theirs. Henry, King of England, say. The other, again in theory at least, invests Sovereignty in the populace, with the Monarch being "acclaimed" as their ruler. Mary, Queen of Scots, for example.

It's evident why N. was "Emperor of the French". Even that title was a challenge to L'Ancien Regime.

At the risk of going even further off topic, was that really the situation with Mary, "Queen of Scots"?

Semantics.

"Semantics"
The life blood of the TMP Message Boards?

@ConnaughtRanger, I wrote "at least in theory" (in many cases), and really chose MQS because the whole title would be internationally recognised; certainly her reign was particularly affected by internecine strife. I'd have been on much better ground, had it been anything other than a brief response, had I cited the Declaration of Arbroath (towards the end of it the nobles make it explicit that their continued "acclaim" is conditional on King Robert maintaining the rights of Scotland and its people. ["Freedom!"]). By the way, more closely related to the original question, I did like MiniPigs' characterisations of the failed British operations. Good Luck.

If anyone has seen the film Beerfest (2006) a lot of this Brechtel bashing dialog reminds me of the Oktoberfest scene with the dueling drinking songs when the British team didnt like the Americans singing "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall":

British Team: "Are you making fun of us, mate?"

American: "What? No."

British Team: "We're singing the beloved drinking songs of our country…and you sing us that bloody jingo jango?

I reckon you're taking the p*ss out of Oktoberfest."

Yes semantics, what else, at first glance the Peninsular War might be regarded as a secondary war theatre – but what usually ignore is the geo strategical and economical aspect of it – and ignoring the Royal Navy.

Taking all this together – it is obvious that the Peninsular War as such was part of a major struggle.

Boney's first Italian campaign was clearly a secondary war theatre – but it had far reaching results – other than for 1800 – the second Italian campaign had no influence on the outcome of the war- and stayed a secondary war theatre, only be the victory of Hohenlinden by Moreau and the advance into Austrian territory brought the desired peace.

The War in the Peninsula was indeed part of the major struggle of the Napoleonic Wars. It was still a secondary theater, just as Italy and Poland were in 1809, for example.

Napoleon's campaign in Italy in 1796-1797 was initially a secondary theater. However, he made it into the major theater and it was he who dictated peace 100 miles from Vienna.

The Marengo campaign had a definite influence on the outcome of the war, even though Hohenlinden was the decisive action. No Marengo, no Hohenlinden.

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Is it a primary or a secondary pin? Are the angels wearing French uniforms or those of the Allies?

I just love the idea that the main theatre can be one in which there is no military activity because all the potential protagonists are in fact at peace.

On that basis the Spanish Civil War was a secondary theatre of WW1.5.

MaggieC70 Angels always dress like Marian Romans. I read it on the internet sometime, somewhere, in some study in a blog.

Emperor of the French. Was he strictly speaking?
He had abdicated over year earlier. Not sure the British or Prussians acknowledged that title in 1815.

By the Treaty of Fontainebleu in 1814 Napoleon retained the title of Emperor.

Ah, the good old Napoleonic Boards, sometimes I think of it as an abject lesson in condescension for all worthy pupils of the genre out there. I wonder if this period causes more Dawghousing than any other on TMP? It was following the latest culprit's link that brought me to this page after all. Does anyone (Bill?) keep a tally of which periods have the most in the sin bin as this one certainly seems to cause more than it's fair share?

No one really addressed the original question except for Brechtel; who was very helpful.

A few wanted to remind us that Britain saved the world from the greatest evil the world has ever known and anyone who doesn't see it that way is some sort of neo-Bonapartist.

Are there any historians who've written that Britain, and only Britain, saved the world from Napoleon? And, that the Peninsula War was the most important theater of war?

I am not saying they dont exist, only that I havent come across them.

I haven't either, except here and on other Napoleonic forums. And without credible sources or arguments.

Great Britain had to have continental allies in order to fight Napoleon with any hope of success. And the average size of British armies during the wars was not large and had to have allied contingents in order to make up for shortages, such as the Portuguese and Spanish in the Peninsula and also at Waterloo.

Naval powers without substantial land forces cannot defeat strong landpowers.

'No one really addressed the original question except for Brechtel'

Now that's not really true, is it, Minipigs? Nine pound round, John Armatys and d88mm1940 all provided answers to your question. Robert requested clarification which you chose not to address.

As for the issue of the main theatre in the wars? To me it's clear that it's the maritime one, from the Bay of Biscay to the Low Countries. France's inability to usurp British dominance to its north drives the decision-making behind two catastrophic campaigns in terms of Napoleon's fortunes.

"Naval powers without substantial land forces cannot defeat strong landpowers."
Strange that – apparently regimes with substantial land forces can't win global conflicts without effective maritime forces?
La Belle Ruffian – excellent point, well made. Although I think you're a bit restrictive with your Bay of Biscay to the Low Countries limitation?