"Could Napoleon have won the Peninsular War?" Topic

Why should he have had made it up, what did he say before the battle of Belle Alliance about the Brits?

Yes after the Austrian 1809 campaign he should have gone back and not left the bickering marshal's in charge united the French Armies there and destroyed Wellesley. Then maybe if 1812 had been necessary it might have turned out better.

@ von W

Before Waterloo he had his senior officers to breakfast and what a lot of gloomy defeatist s they all were. Because you have all been defeated by Wellington, he scolded, you think he's a great general. I (as in, I who have been avoiding Wellington for 6 years and never fought British troops) tell you he's a bad general…etc. And how right he was: Napoleon went on that day to rout Wellington utterly.

What's interesting about that little breakfast table rant is his characterisation of Wellington's army. He didn't call it the allied army, or even the British army; he called it the "English" army. He was obviously suffering from preposterous Anglocentrism.

@ RG

He couldn't "destroy Wellesley", neither could anyone else, and he knew it. The British army could simply evacuate and reinvade. Or win.

To get back to the original post, the answer is yes, Napoleon could have won the Peninsular War. I think the battles Napoleon's marshals and generals lost, which naturally increased the reputation of the British Army, may not have happened. For a start, had Napoleon not left Spain due to the increasing Austrian threat, the British may have lost at Corunna had Napoleon stayed in command. And in support of this, we only have to take the 1811 Battle of Fuentes de Onoro in which Wellington himself admitted 'If Boney had been there, we would have been beat'. (Messana At Bay by Tim Saunders, 2021, page 220) Had the British lost further battles and possibly forced to sail back to Britain again, then former allies may not have been so keen to accept British gold so readily to keep fighting against the French. Of course, it is all a what if. Everything is clear in hindsight. LOL

Lillian

no, the main matter here is the usual anglocentric point of view wishing to minimize and devalue to not say purely erase larger partipitations of continental powers such as Austria Russia and Prussia

I will ask again: How many British troops fought in the Peninsula?

Why do you ignore the troops that were fighting outside of the Peninsula? And why the ignorance of the 150,000 sailors?

You are being 'Francocentric'. (I'm 'Angocentric') I'm sure that all the countries that had a military history during the Wars, are 'centric' to their own too.

As has been mentioned in other posts, Britain was not a bit-part player but the most fundamental nation in the distraction of the ogre and his rampaging hoards. A bit like the USA in WWII. but in that case, they came in two and a quarter years later.

Gazzola

Had the British lost further battles

What were the battles lost in the Peninsula that caused you to post the word "further"?

I thought the discussion was about the peninsular war?

I think that Gazzola is referring to further battles following Corunna and Fuentes De Onoro if, as in his scenario, Napoleon had either stayed or returned to Spain.

It's plausible to say that both Corunna and Fuentes might have been turned if Napoleon was in command, although not guaranteed by any means.

How many Austrian troops were actively fighting Napoleon in 1803, 1804, 1806, 1807, 1808, 1810, 1811, and 1812?

The idea of Napoleon keeping Ferdinand 7 on the throne is an interesting one. It would cut the legs out from under the Spanish war effort and without the Spanish participation the whole peninsular war collapses.
Keeping a French general as 'advisor' who is defacto running the country while Ferdinand is at some isolated palace under house arrest would serve Napoleon's purposes.
OTOH he'd have to figure something else to do with Joseph.

I thought the discussion was about the peninsular war?

Nope. It's the directive of, "We few, we happy few", those who know that Britain delivered the world from the antichrist and no one gives them credit for it but are struggling to get the rest of us to "open our eyes".

Pretty soon Napoleon will be uncovered to have led a cannibalistic, child trafficking ring.

The idea of Napoleon keeping Ferdinand 7 on the throne is an interesting one.

It's crazy. The whole idea of invading Spain was that the regime was so corrupt and ramshackle, he couldn't manipulate it. He needed a pliable buffoon on the throne, who could be relied on to do whatever was required.

Au pas de Charge

Nope. It's the directive of, "We few, we happy few", those who know that Britain delivered the world from the antichrist

Yup! Britain most certainly did…

and no one gives them credit for it but are struggling to get the rest of us to "open our eyes"

Ooh! I know. It's so hard to be beholding to a third party who repeatedly gets others out of the **** isn't it?

Pretty soon Napoleon will be uncovered to have led a cannibalistic, child trafficking ring.

Will he?…Gosh! How awful…

dibble

I suggest you read Lapsang's post and all will be clear. LOL

Sorry to dent your blinkered viewpoint concerning the Brits invincibility but they did lose in the Peninsular at the Battle of Fuengirola 1810. Not a major battle, I admit, but still a defeat and they didn't need Napoleon there to do it! LOL

And well done for admitting that Britain was one of the main causes of causing continued warfare, although covering it up with the weak description 'distraction' was funny. Keep it up, we need a good laugh now and again.

Aus pas de Charge

Dibble believes everything negative about Napoleon even if it is not true, but won't accept anything negative at all about the Napoleonic British. It is so comical.

And when he admitted his blinkered bias by stating 'Britain most certainly did', when you posted about the viewpoint that Britain 'delivered the world from the antichrist' He missed a bit out. 'Britain replaced him with the Hell of the British Empire.' LOL

Don't you fellows realise that dibble is just winding you up by making jokey remarks about Bonaparte and Britain's role in his defeat? Rather in the vein of Al Murray's comedy persona of the Pub Landlord.

Or is the Emperor so sacrosanct that one is not permitted to make jokes about him?

Don't you fellows realise that dibble is just winding you up by making jokey remarks about Bonaparte and Britain's role in his defeat?

A thousand snarky Bonaparte posts ago, maybe. At this point, it's more like a cry for help.

Rather in the vein of Al Murray's comedy persona of the Pub Landlord.

I dont know who this is and frankly, dont want to know.

Or is the Emperor so sacrosanct that one is not permitted to make jokes about him?

He isn't but at this point some of these anti Napoleon comments (not just by dibble but by a few others as well) just come across as a form of lowest-common-denominator disruption. Sort of like when you ask a group of rowdy children to stop behaving like animals which only drives them to more barnyard melodies.

Aus pas de Charge

Dibble believes everything negative about Napoleon even if it is not true, but won't accept anything negative at all about the Napoleonic British. It is so comical.

It's a tough line to walk because his behavior shouldn't detract from the actual Napoleonic British contributions, which were many.

Problem is he and others seem to think THEY'RE the ones who made the effort, instead of men long gone! An interesting condition to suffer from.

And when he admitted his blinkered bias by stating 'Britain most certainly did', when you posted about the viewpoint that Britain 'delivered the world from the antichrist' He missed a bit out. 'Britain replaced him with the Hell of the British Empire.' LOL

Or the other one, who thinks Britain being at war for 20 years against proves something positive when it might point to bumbling incompetence.

"Or the other one, who thinks Britain being at war for 20 years against proves something positive when it might point to bumbling incompetence."

But what might that fact also suggest about the enemy who fought Britain for twenty years and lost in the end?

who fought Britain…by this way certainly not a lot of conclusions because it is again pure anglocentric biaised view forgetting that France fought more againt larger armies of Austria Prussia and Russia and the rest of Europe doing the war at their doors on their soil until the sacrifice of their territory and people largely mobilised than never-exposed-UK and British small expeditionary forces who represented a minimal threat for the French Army in 23 years of wars, like mosquitos bites against a buffalo or elephant
les Anglais ne sont pas redoutables (…) those feeble battalions of the Tyrant of the Sea…
N. Emperor of the French

Can I claim my £5.00 GBP? Lilian IS Kevin Kiley.

Gazzola

Had the British lost further battles

Means only one thing. That they lost battles before Fuentes. This makes it all too clear.

we only have to take the 1811 Battle of Fuentes de Onoro in which Wellington himself admitted 'If Boney had been there, we would have been beat'. (Messana At Bay by Tim Saunders, 2021, page 220) Had the British lost further battles

Lapsang only "thought" what you meant. Which isn't what you meant at all.

Dibble believes everything negative about Napoleon even if it is not true

I've posted countless times on this forum so please point to my post that are 'untrue'

but won't accept anything negative at all about the Napoleonic British

Almost correct. I accept historical fact. And like above, I've posted countless times on this forum so please point to the posts where I have rejected anything negative regarding the British. Oh! It's Georgian British.

Sorry to dent your blinkered viewpoint concerning the Brits invincibility but they did lose in the Peninsular at the Battle of Fuengirola 1810. Not a major battle, I admit, but still a defeat and they didn't need Napoleon there to do it!

A botched siege on a castle defended by Polish troops, is not what you were alluding to so don't pretend you were.

Au pas de charge

A thousand snarky Bonaparte posts ago, maybe. At this point, it's more like a cry for help.

In case you haven't noticed. I've been posting regularly since 2008. I've laughed a lot, frowned a bit, but never cried and certainly never needed help. Especially concerning the 'Forwardcombingnepotisticdictatoriallittlefat****er' his hoards and his 'Gard-feu en chocolat'.

Problem is he and others seem to think THEY'RE the ones who made the effort, instead of men long gone! An interesting condition to suffer from.

I have never had a bad word to say about any allied nation (even the Vendee), It's army or individual regiments in any of my posts.

Do you and others know how to use the site's search engine?

arthur1815

But what might that fact also suggest about the enemy who fought Britain for twenty years and lost in the end?

Well pointed out that man!

ConnaughtRanger

Can I claim my £5.00 GBP GBP? Lilian IS Kevin Kiley.

I'll give ya' a tenner if you can guess his sock-puppet.

On a more serious and personal note:

For all our diatribes and vitriol (yup, I at least, will admit to it) on this and other sites, Kevin was nevertheless a great contributor to the Napoleonic topic. He will be sorely missed by me…If you are reading this Kevin, good luck to you and yours for the future…:)

Paul

YouTube link

YouTube link

I feel Kevin went a bit potty recently so I had to stifle him. I don't know therefore what he was posting that got him permastifled by the management, but it clearly wasn't just me who noticed this.

Oh! It's Georgian British.

George I ascended the throne in 1714 and George IV died in 1830. I believe if you wanted to slap an Anglo centric name on the era "Regency" would be more appropriate than "Georgian".

Bill N

Nuh! It's Georgian. It's not the Anglo-centric but the era that counts with me :)

So what you are saying dibble is that rather than focusing on Napoleon's efforts to achieve European dominance over a period of less than two decades we should instead be focusing on British efforts to achieve world domination for over a century? (Being mischievous)

The point is that the reason Napoleon could never have won the Peninsular War is the same reason he could never have won the war against Britain in general, namely British naval power. Given British command of the sea, no British army could be conclusively defeated because it could just evacuate and reinvade. Britain itself could not be invaded at all, which Napoleon the landlubber finally worked out by about the middle of 1805.

Austrian and Prussian armies ran out of territory into which to retreat, so they simply went into the bag. Russia didn't run out of Russia and hence won 1812 even though they lost all of the battles.

So in Spain, Napoleon was forced to try to maintain a field army to confront the various field armies he was faced with, because they weren't going to melt away, while also holding the country down even in areas where those enemy armies were not. This is how you tie up the veterans of 1805-7 and make them lose a further quarter of a million men in casualties, to exactly zero effect or strategic benefit.

That this is so poorly understood among wargamers is probably because wargamers as a breed are completely mislabelled. We aren't "war"-gamers at all, we are battle gamers. We don't start campaigns where we're France and we have to find a way through war – naval, economic, military – to defeat "Angleterre". We go straight to the figure armies we've painted, because we want battles. As a rule, we pay no attention to the wider context of wars.

This is where you get Lilian and others' eccentric posts above, insisting that as Austria got 400,000 men defeated in 6 weeks, and was neutral or on the wrong side for 90% of the time, this was somehow a useful contribution to the struggle against Napoleonic France. The awkward fact is that Napoleon emerged stronger from all these campaigns. He didn't lose 250,000 men in 1805 or 1806 or 1807 or 1809, and in every case, he emerged stronger because the defeated enemy was forced to join his side.

So he was stronger after 1805 because Austria was out, he was stronger after 1807 because Russia and Prussia were his allies, he was stronger after 1809 because Austria was his ally. The only campaigns that actually weakened him were Spain and Russia, both fought because Britain.

Losing 4,000-odd men at Trafalgar, and thereby forcing Napoleon into the Peninsula and Russia, is a pretty elegant way of winning. Putting 50,000 men into the field who are never defeated is another – certainly compared to getting yourself thrashed and bankrupted in weeks.

So, on 07 Apr 2022 at 9:13 a.m. PST the OP posed the question:
"Could Napoleon have won the Peninsular War?"
six hours odd and seven posts later came the first suggestion that the question was irrelevant, as was the campaign, and it has rolled on in familiar tit-for-tat accusations of "Anglocentricism" and 'fanboy,' evolving till a week or so later here we are exchanging suggestions of intellectual and emotional incompetence.

(Well, I say, 'evolving.' I say 'we.')

Curious how the debate has become bogged down (well, I say 'debate') like a stalled campaign.

Are we looking at the 'TMP ulcer'?

@ 42

It is much the same with any discussion of Waterloo, where you can pretty sure that the 2nd or 3rd post will remind us all that Wellington couldn't have won it without the Prussians. If you bring up the opposite point you are instantly accused of Anglocentrism.

It's Hofschroer's fault really. His style and quality of argument reflected severe mental illness, but has nonetheless persisted.

In fact, it's a wargamey assumption in itself that large armies fighting battles were the way to defeat Napoleonic France, and that somehow, if you're doing something else, you're somehow not contributing. What if getting involved in short, doomed land campaigns is the wrong way to defeat Napoleonic France? What if it was always going to take years and the correct way to do it was to force him to overextend and wreck his own economy? In which case, fighting by land but only being able to do so for 10% of the time is under-contributing.

It's as though, counterfactually, the USA had fought Japan from 1941 to 1945 and Japan then got nuked by, say, Russia. In that scenario, how helpful was the USA's contribution given that what was required to defeat Japan was not battlefield victories but nuclear weapons?

It is the world upside down or the the fable of the English frog that wished to be as big as the Austrian Prussian Russian ox to consider my post as "eccentric" from the John Bull's TMP jingoist club wishing to sell us the anglocentric navel-gazing vision that, for example, the (British) degree of effort puts all other nations except Russia to shame to recall a sentence who shocked me a lot, while the minimimal threat from Great Britain who was never really exposed to French intervention thanks to the sacrifice of others nations, the mimimal participation of the British Army thanks precisely to the sacrifice from very larger massive commitment and mobilisation of others continental Armies like Austria, the real first main power at war against France since 1792, of Prussia, of Russia than the smaller british expeditionary forces almost absent from the main theaters of war in continental Europe from 1792 to 1815 should give the red on theirs face assorted to the colour of their uniforms,
I would say that the British soldiers in comparison were rather often only spectators claiming they were "still at war" despite they were far from the main theaters of wars and main battlefields
the crual thruth that it seems hard to recognize for these members is the fact that these 3 military powers were largerly more mobilised against France than British proxy war, them directly fully envolved in the wars against the French, look the number of soldiers from the "Landwehr" in the POW's depots in France, sure that never we can meet a Yeomanry Cavalryman or Militia Volunteer, never Salop or Sussex counties saw the main battlefields of Europe with armies of 300 000 men fighting each other and never this part of an outlying European island was under the threat to be annexed by France nor this insular people directly fighting the French Armies contrary to the Austrians Russians Prussians people and territories

the comparison with the USA is of course all but relevant, in 1941-1945 with until 96 Divisions of which 60 in Europe United States was the second larger ground army against Nazi Germany after Soviet Army, such comparison would reduce US participation to the US Navy and small USMC operations
Great Britain never was the second military power against Revolutionary Napoleonic France in 1792-1815 nor the first, nor the third

Enough of this twaddle. My "Stifle" list increases once more.

Bill N

So what you are saying dibble is that rather than focusing on Napoleon's efforts to achieve European dominance over a period of less than two decades we should instead be focusing on British efforts to achieve world domination for over a century? (Being mischievous)

If I had posted all that you are 'assuming' in your last post, I would have stated it.

we should instead be focusing on British efforts

We? We? You can do what you like. I care not a jot what you or anyone else does. But, where I'm concerned. The anomoly that was the 'Forwardcombingnepotisticdictatoriallittlefat****er' only caused trouble for a couple of decades give-or-take. Significant? yes! Temporary by comparison? Oh yes.

dibble

I think your hatred of anyone saying anything positive about Napoleon and the French or negative about the British really has clouded your mind. We all know the results of actions during the Peninsular War so it would have been silly and incorrect of me to suggest the British lost more battles – we know the results of all the battles. You need to read the previous posts and see in what context my post was made. We were talking about what may have happened, not what did happen. I find it sad you were unable to see or accept that. perhaps you don't want to accept that? Perhaps you prefer anyone who challenges your biased viewpoint has to be wrong all the time? You can never be wrong, of course! LOL

I was referring to Fuengirola 1810. A battle that involved Polish and French troops by the way. And it was a British defeat, although perhaps it should be referred to as an allied defeat since the Spanish lost the battle with them. I really do not know what you 'think' I was referring to. And it sounds like your bias and Union Jack blinkers really are making you very suspicious of even the simplest posts.

Anyway dibble, perhaps you can, er, inform me what you think I really meant? Your post are very amusing so I'm looking forward to a good laugh.

If people are so keep to run to the stifle, perhaps we should have our own boards in which no one else posts? LOL

dibble

I meant to ask is ConnaughtRanger your sock-puppet? Do I win a prize? LOL

To get back to the original post again. Yes, Napoleon could have won the Peninsular War. Sorry but it does not matter how good the British Navy were, it only stopped Britain from being invaded and Napoleon had more important threats from Austria, Russia and Prussia to deal with. The Peninsular is only important to Brit lovers who basically see it all important, because it was the area Britain was involved in directly. That arena only became more important when Napoleon lost at Leipzig in 1813. If the Brits were that much of threat, more than the Austrians, Russians and Prussians, then Napoleon would have dealt with them. They only became a real problem for Napoleon in 1813 because of the need to take away the French troops to tackles the more important threats posed by Russia, Austria and Prussia. Luckily for the Brits his attention was turned elsewhere and the British army was able to increase its skill and winning reputation. Had that not happened, there may not have been a British Empire.

Gazolla

You can rest assured that I 'hate' no one. You can also be rest assured that I quoted you precisely. You tried to sneak one in under the RADAR and got nabbed.

Are you sure that the British army would have run for the ships if there was another defeat like Fuengirola? Even with the help from a few dozen French? That little action was never on your mind in your post anyway,because It was but a insignificant action.

I meant to ask is ConnaughtRanger your sock-puppet? Do I win a prize? LOL

I don't need sock puppets, but I do have marionettes. One even has a habit with LOL, LOL, LOL-ing.

To get back to the original post again.

Yup!

I see the whatifs are out in force again? But anyway. Without Britain, Nappy would have sown up all of Europe under his despotic, nepotistic NWO. But with Britain involved, he was doomed. It was his fault and his alone that his hoards took a battering in the Peninsula. And being beaten by proxy is still a defeat. In Nappy's case, a huge one.

Sorry but it does not matter how good the British Navy were, it only stopped Britain from being invaded

Umm! Just look at the ignorance that statement.

You can be rest assured that I read all three of your last posts and that you inflicted 'by proxy' a bout of sustained and uncontrolled urges to yawn and with some of those urges, you was successful.

That this is so poorly understood among wargamers is probably because wargamers as a breed are completely mislabelled. We aren't "war"-gamers at all, we are battle gamers.

Considering this passage, there seems to be some truth to this all around.

Putting 50,000 men into the field who are never defeated is another – certainly compared to getting yourself thrashed and bankrupted in weeks.

The British were defeated several times but more deeply, the idea that most of the battles in the Peninsula were British victories appears to be "wargamey" cover for the fact the campaigns went nowhere until the quality and number of French troops had to be drawn down. And it's true, from a wargamey POV you cant really game Walcheren unless you just have a gigantic latrine on the table that the British troops head for to alleviate their diarrhea.

Unless one is an outsized simpleton, just because the British ultimately won, doesn't mean their strategy was vindicated. It took them a long time, had many blunders along the way and practically broke themselves and their people. And yes, they had some talented guys and a good, professional army and navy.

In fact, it's a wargamey assumption in itself that large armies fighting battles were the way to defeat Napoleonic France, and that somehow, if you're doing something else, you're somehow not contributing

In this case, "wargamey" assumptions are vindicated because it was indeed large land battles that eventually defeated Napoleon.

No one suggests the British didn't contribute anything, they contributed a great deal. I think it's more relevant to say that none of you contributed anything and you're posting like you should take credit for it.

If we want to take a look at the big-picture, please take a look at the real-big-picture. The British and French were engaged in a battle for a crack at world empire for 150 or so years. The British won that struggle and created a sinister empire. Although it is thankfully dead, to this day its poison endures in the form of global problems. Most of Napoleon's harms were interred with his bones.

Having said that, it is annoying that some of you continue to force the bombing of every thread with your obsession about the man. We understand that you don't like him. However, in threads to discuss him, your comments are mostly an outrageous screed of invective against both the French and Napoleon with no intent to contribute anything but anarchy and no desired result except to feel good about yourselves by attacking and unloading misplaced frustrations on members who want to have intellectual discussions.

More specifically, few of you seem to be here for discussion, just to gang up on posters who dont see it your way and shut them down. Fouling up the thread is as good as making an intelligent point. Now I know, somehow, some of you have turned yourselves into the victims but that's not really going to fool anyone centered.

@dibble

I see the whatifs are out in force again?

We know you disapprove of imagination but can you see my point that you seem to think you get to shut it down in other people?

But anyway. Without Britain, Nappy would have sown up all of Europe under his despotic, nepotistic NWO.

Fortunately, the British monarchy's despotic, nepotistic NWO prevailed? Yay 150 years of white man's burden!

But with Britain involved, he was doomed.

If any of the big allies had changed sides, Napoleon would've remained. Although, I think he did underestimate how nasty the British were, perhaps one of the most hierarchical societies ever created ensuring everyone from top to bottom is perpetually miserable.

It was his fault and his alone that his hoards took a battering in the Peninsula. And being beaten by proxy is still a defeat. In Nappy's case, a huge one.

I spoke with Napoleon this morning and he says that he never heard of you.

Gazzola said: Sorry but it does not matter how good the British Navy were, it only stopped Britain from being invaded

Umm! Just look at the ignorance that statement.

Quite a bit of truth to Gazzola's statement.

@CR

Enough of this twaddle. My "Stifle" list increases once more.

Oh that isnt worth much. Ive had you on ignore for years and I still see your posts. In any case, who are you kidding? You wouldn't give up an opportunity to cathartically howl at posters over a subject you think you have the right to rave at them about…would you?

the minimimal threat from Great Britain who was never really exposed to French intervention thanks to the sacrifice of others nations, the mimimal participation of the British Army thanks precisely to the sacrifice from very larger massive commitment and mobilisation of others continental Armies like Austria…

This is wholly false. No campaign of the continental powers was a 'sacrifice' to protect Britain from 'exposure' to French intervention; it was rather repeated French failures to hurt the UK creating the conditions for the continental powers to try and reverse Napoleon's land grabs.

If any of the big allies had changed sides, Napoleon would've remained.

There is no greater political inditement of Napoleon than this. His addiction to bullying, nepotism and Carthaginian peaces ruled out making any important, meaningful and lasting alliance with a major European power; by comparison, the Bourbon kings were strategic geniuses because they valued useful alliances. And this answers the question of whether Napoleon could have won the Peninsular War – staggeringly unlikely, since he could not have maintained the extra effort required without a more certain peace in central Europe.

Au pas de Charge

Unless one is an outsized simpleton

I don't think you are a simpleton. :)

I have no Idea of your stature and I for one, wouldn't dream of calling you 'outsized'

just because the British ultimately won, doesn't mean their strategy was vindicated.

An oxymoron statement in all its 'la glorie'

We know you disapprove of imagination but can you see my point that you seem to think you get to shut it down in other people?

People can 'whatif' all they like! If it gives a warm feeling in the belly of 'nappyfanbois' they should enjoy it as much they can! The fact that Nappy and his hoards took one hell of a 7-year beating, will still be there, like a XX badged, scarlet cloak, engulfing their hero all the way to St Helena and a wooden box.

you seem to think

I think we all do that. including whatiffers, who need to think of their 'Nappy god' sweeping all before him…Dibble swept into a festering Imperial maw along with the red-coated 'Eeenglisssh'

I spoke with Napoleon this morning and he says that he never heard of you.

Eh! Can you please explain this? I never said I was there. Perhaps I was in another's 'whatif' world? (See above)

Quite a bit of truth to Gazzola's statement.

Be a love and put me right on those 'truths'

(Au pas de Charge Addressing ConaughtRanger)

Oh that isnt worth much. Ive had you on ignore for years and I still see your posts. In any case, who are you kidding? You wouldn't give up an opportunity to cathartically howl at posters over a subject you think you have the right to rave at them about…would you?

Do I smell bird droppings? Oh, sorry! It must be a Twitter, read-only mode episode… :D

Let it be known that I wouldn't dream of stifling anyone. On here or any other platform.

The English war in Spain (1808-1814):
History as a battlefield
English historiography has been the victim of its own propaganda, which has exaggerated the role of its army

link

Moreno Alonso crowns his extensive bibliography on these issues with this monumental analysis of what he calls "the war of the English", a name with which he refers to the great conflict that Spanish historiography knows as the "War of Independence", although among the English it is called the "peninsular war".

Such a difference in names hides the stories and assessments that both historiographies have been making in the 200 years since that catastrophe; some divergences that constitute the main plot of the book, as indicated by the subtitle: "History as a battlefield".

The author Manuel Moreno Alonso focuses on the study of the English version of the war, which has prevailed with few exceptions from the first studies –such as Napier's canonical work, published in 1828– to those of current historians. This justifies the denomination of "war of the English", since the story of the same prevailing in those latitudes has counted it as "own thing", reducing the action against the French troops to the intervention of the British armies, with an absolute oblivion, and even contempt, of the fight carried out by the Spanish. The insistence on his exclusive leading role has been accompanied, from the beginning, by the mythologization of Wellington and the conversion of the peninsular war into one of the great British national myths, sustaining his national pride.

Spanish and British rarely acted together. The misgivings of the former, fueled by the cruelty and the numerous abuses and destructions carried out by the latter, more typical of enemies than allies, joined the contempt of the majority of the English for the Spanish, whom they considered a backward people and uncivil –including Wellington himself, whose "animosity towards Spanishness" is highlighted by Moreno Alonso–.

The English version does not allow us to understand the defeat of the French, since only the fierce popular resistance* explains the successes of
a reduced army, inactive for long periods and in a permanent defensive attitude, such as the British troops displaced to the Iberian Peninsula (around 30,000 men, when the French had 300,000). Hence the "exceptional wave of Hispanophilia" that then touched the United Kingdom, soon distorted by the official versions, which would provoke protests from exiled liberals in Great Britain, such as José Canga Argüelles or Antonio Alcalá Galiano. English historiography has been the victim of its own propaganda, which has greatly exaggerated the role of its army and the genius of its general in chief, turned into a myth against Bonaparte, despite the fact that "none of his decisive battles deserves the consideration of 'great' and not a few of his decisions were wrong, to the point of having been able to turn into resounding disasters".

The book – the result of a long and exhaustive investigation, although excessively long and with frequent repetitions – analyzes the numerous manifestations of English opinion on the war and the Spanish, including the few that were favorable to them, and points out the need to undertake a profound renewal of military historiography on that conflict, not only English but also Spanish, which "has fluctuated between nationalist positions and a liberal Anglophilia, which at certain times sublimated the British role."

*contrary to what seems to suugest a such sentence, Moreno Alonso doesn't exaggerate either the other myth of the guerrilla very far to be a large-scale popular and national uprising , he demostates how the Spanish Church was very far to be against the French to not say more
----------------------------------------------------------

Charles Esdaile
Well, I'm not superpopular in Britain or Spain. There is also the myth of Wellington and for them the war is English and it is the history of Wellington. My work has put the Spanish at the center of the table, because in reality the War of Independence was an Iberian war in which the English intervened, nothing more. Here, my view is revisionist. So I'm in the middle, with everyone pulling against me, to put it a little exaggeratedly.

in Great Britain, where there is a large market for military history, most scholars do not understand Spanish and have had no support or interest in coming to investigate. And here, the peninsular war

@dibble

I don't think you are a simpleton. :)

Why thank you dibble, I am truly touched. Unfortunately, honesty prevents me from returning the sentiment.:)

Au Pas De Charge said: We know you disapprove of imagination but can you see my point that you seem to think you get to shut it down in other people?

People can 'whatif' all they like! If it gives a warm feeling in the belly of 'nappyfanbois' they should enjoy it as much they can! The fact that Nappy and his hoards took one hell of a 7-year beating, will still be there, like a XX badged, scarlet cloak, engulfing their hero all the way to St Helena and a wooden box.

Alright, it seems you are incapable of recognizing and absorbing this limitation.

Let the record reflect that not only does dibble not think anyone can use speculative thought but he seems to think it is his job, nay, right to put a stop to it with the coarsest means available.

Eh! Can you please explain this? I never said I was there. Perhaps I was in another's 'whatif' world? (See above)

I dont know what world you live in or think you do but I am convinced it is dimly lit.

Au Pas de Charge said: just because the British ultimately won, doesn't mean their strategy was vindicated.

dibble said: An oxymoron statement in all its 'la glorie'

Not at all. To make such a connection, one would need to make the erroneous assumption that Britain's strategy was the only contribution towards defeating and ousting Napoleon and that these events ultimately happened primarily because of Britain's strategy.

It took a generation for Britain to get the results it wanted. Which in turn could indicate that it was not employing the optimal strategy available and instead employing its chosen strategy not because Napoleon was a danger but rather a danger to Britain's ambitions. Either something like that or we are all admitting that Napoleon's singular talents were a match for the combined resources of Great Britain for some 20+ years.

Britain also rarely considered alternatives. For instance, it might've achieved the very same results from peace. However, apparently its sense of class, legitimacy, snobbery etc. wouldn't allow her to truly consider that. Feelings that seem to resonate with her fans to this day and hardly to be admired as champions of the free and democratic mind.

@Lillian

Well sourced and from an author who openly dislikes Napoleon personally.

Lilian,

Unfortunately, that is pretty much entirely inaccurate: the standard work for over a century has been Oman, who in no way ignores the Spanish efforts or contribution (and was preceded by Southey, published in 1823 link , who certainly cannot be accused of ignorance of the Spanish language or people). The standard view has been that the efforts of the Spanish regional armies and guerrillas dispersed French effort sufficiently to allow Wellington to beat the French armies individually over a period of years, which, as the numbers you allude to make clear, was the only way that the huge French commitment to Spain and Portugal – larger than any other Napoleonic commitment prior to 1812 – was going to be defeated. The idea that Wellington stood on the defensive is equally unsupportable, being on the offensive in 1808, 1809, 1811, 1812, 1813 and 1814: only in 1810 was he on the defensive against Massena's much larger invasion force (and the high point of French commitment).

Where the historiography is perhaps unkind to the Spanish (but not Portuguese) forces is that in the tactical battles, as a matter of record, the record of the Anglo-Portuguese was superlative and that of the Spanish armies rather less so. But that hasn't meant that that the contribution of the Spanish soldiers, guerrillas and people has been underrated in the historiography generally. The whole thing has unhappy echoes of "the British always under-rate the contribution of Dutch/Belgian/German soldiers to the Waterloo campaign" when again, the standard works simply do not do this. In essence, Napier was pro-Napoleon and anti-Spanish, and so those popular historians most familiar with him have tended to echo his judgements but that is entirely unfair as a summary of the whole.

I don't really agree that Wellington made any mistakes in the campaign that could be reasonably be categorized as disastrous, but no matter: if you do take that view, then your opinion of Napoleon and the entire French Marshalate must be correspondingly much more unfavourable, since not only were their mistakes and their consequences much worse, they committed them against other defeated generals, whereas Wellington beat the lot of them: is that the argument you would wish to make?

Could he not have repudiated Josephine and married into the Bourbons in Spain instead of the Hapsburgs in Austria?
He could always have requested a portrait by Goya.

""*[//])

dibble

In terms of my ignorance of the effect of the British Navy, please let me know if I'm wrong in that their victory in 1805, other than preventing Britain from being invaded, never stopped further warfare? The wars went on for a further 10 years, so in that sense, the British navy was insignificant.

I was going to try and explain that, by further British defeats, I was referring to the British losing against Napoleon's Marshals, rather than their impressive string of victories. And I did not mean further defeats such as they suffered at Fuengirola? But you seem to be confused by my posts, so I guess it would be a waste of time to say whatever suspicions you have inside you head are incorrect. You seem to WANT another reason other than someone disagreeing with you. It really won't hurt to accept the negative side of the British and it won't change history, I promise you. But I feel that because I dared to mention a British defeat the red mist came down and you can't think clearly, if you ever did, of course. LOL. So I think you need to stop inventing absurd and bizarre reasons as to why people dare to have a different viewpoint to the biased one you have.

However, you silly statement -'The fact that Nappy and his hoards took one hell of a 7-year beating' – sums up your biased mind completely. You only see it, or rather, want to see it that way. Others see it as how quick Napoleon and the French took over the peninsular and HOW LONG it took the British and their allies, even with all the British money in the world, to push the French out. And that was not even against Napoleon. Had Napoleon been there at all those battles, the British may not have won any and that would not be attractive to their allies, would it?

For once in your life, dibble, just accept that Britain NEVER won the Napoleonic Wars alone, they NEVER won the Peninsular War alone, and they certainly DID NOT win at Waterloo alone. They needed their allies just as they needed Britain. It was a combined effort.

Whirlwind

The British were fond of bullying – such as they did at Copenhagen in 1807 for example, and that was against a neutral country! But perhaps, for some people, it doesn't count because it was the British doing the bullying and not Napoleon? LOL

Had Napoleon won in the Peninsular, there may not have been a desire by the allies to oppose Napoleon, no matter how much money Britain threw at them. The allies tended to side with whoever they felt were winning at the time and had more to offer. Had Wellington and the British not had such an impressive string of victories, albeit never against Napoleon himself, then events and history itself may well have turned out differently?

The British were fond of bullying – such as they did at Copenhagen in 1807 for example, and that was against a neutral country! But perhaps, for some people, it doesn't count because it was the British doing the bullying and not Napoleon? LOL

Well, you make my point for me: because Britain was perceived to bully Denmark – although as you know, Napoleon was going to invade if the British hadn't attacked – then Denmark was firmly in the Napoleonic camp from that point onwards. Because Napoleon relentlessly bullied Prussia, Austria, Spain and (eventually) Russia, then those countries were more inclined to join in meaningful alliances with Britain.

Had Napoleon won in the Peninsular, there may not have been a desire by the allies to oppose Napoleon, no matter how much money Britain threw at them. The allies tended to side with whoever they felt were winning at the time and had more to offer. Had Wellington and the British not had such an impressive string of victories, albeit never against Napoleon himself, then events and history itself may well have turned out differently?

Well, we already did some of this on TMP previously: with the exception of Sweden in 1813, British subsidies were never, nor could ever, have been the defining factor in a major country deciding to join in coalition against Napoleon. And only Napoleonic France had things which were taken from Prussia, Austria and Russia, so only defeating Napoleon could recover those things. But it is hard to see how Napoleon could have conquered Spain and Portugal and permanently quieted them in order to have sufficient resources and forces deployed in Central Europe to dissuade his continental opponents from attacking, without making himself even weaker in Central Europe in the first place.

Basically he had to have one meaningful alliance of equals in Europe and he was too arrogant to make the political compromises necessary to achieve that.

British subsidies were never, nor could ever, have been the defining factor in a major country deciding to join in coalition against Napoleon

There was a farmer had a dog and WRONGO was his Name-Oooooh.