"About How the British distorted the Peninsular War History" Topic

La Guerra del Inglés The History as battlefield
Manuel Moreno Alonso

link

Can such an extensive (1,340 pages) and documented book summarize the work you have done for so many years to demystify one of the most important historical "fallacies" that exist about the Spanish War of Independence?
As a historian of the War of Independence, I have been working on this issue for a long time, which is central to both the history of Spain and the United Kingdom. Without this war, the contemporary history of the two nations cannot be explained.

From my point of view, it was a pending task, to which other previous investigations have led me.

What is the British version?
The British have explained "their" war as a fight carried out outside their Spanish allies, as if it had hardly had anything to do with theirs. Which led one of its leading historians to say that Wellington "had fought for Spain, and in Spain, and never with Spain." In the British version of "their" war of his they saw only what they wanted to see. This distorts the reality of a much more complex conflict in which the events as well as the way of narrating them over time require other elements for their better understanding and clarification.

How important was the "peninsular war" for the British?
It was a fight of extraordinary significance for the British that has become a fundamental fact of their historical identity, as if it were their "Iliad". Built around the Duke of Wellington, this war has given rise to a story typically "made in England". The cult of his memory has been so great that there is no city in the United Kingdom where there are not numerous buildings, squares, streets, monuments, schools, institutions, churches, shops and pubs that do not bear the name of his undefeated hero. Even restaurants continue to serve Beef Wellingtons. In the nations of the continent he was presented as the savior of Europe.

You make very surprising theses.
One of them is the concept of the «War of Independence», which, in recent years, some Spanish historians have tried to deconstruct gratuitously in Spain. While I maintain, with period texts in hand, that that was a "war of independence" also for England. That is why she fought and waged "her" war on her in the Peninsula, to ensure her independence. It was even called the 'war of existence', because the own 'existence of England' depended on it.

How did you build a book of these proportions?
It has been a very laborious investigation. I could hardly have done it if I had not lived in England for seven years at the beginning of my career as a historian. Then I realized that the English had constructed a story that was against not only historical reality but also common sense. Therefore, it was a matter of studying in British sources what the war really was like and how it was told afterwards in accordance on many occasions with the prejudices of the "black legend"

English violence
The violence and excesses committed by the English during the war are impressive.
Every war breeds violence. As the politically correct dominates today, in many episodes of the past a thick veil tends to be drawn (however, in others, not). But this was an important aspect that had to be elucidated. The Count of Toreno, author of the best history of the War of Independence, did not want to go into it when he wrote it so as not to disturb the British. Therefore, many atrocious events disappeared from his memory. One of them was, for example, the destruction of San Sebastián, which provoked a huge reaction in Parliament and in the British press. Naturally, it was necessary to return to them.

After using the same topics for 200 years, is it possible to change history?
The past cannot be changed, but the story of that history can. Especially when it has been built on such inconsistent materials against documents that speak for themselves and have no return on the page. We are verifying it every day, today more than ever, with the manipulation of history by our politicians and historians. The solution was obvious: the cat had to be belled, and done from its arguments and with its own sources. Hence the complexity of a job that has been enormous and very long in time.

Anyone know if this is available in English or just Spanish … and where it can be acquired from?
Thanks

The article was written in 2019 and unfortunately it seems that in Spanish online bookshops the book is unavailable. There doesn't seem to be an English language version either.

After using the same topics for 200 years

'topics' Spanish topicos means 'clichés'

When I realized that the English had constructed a story that was against not only historical reality but also common sense.

It's uncanny. Almost as if he posts on this forum.

**Au Pas De Charge looks around around uneasily**

I hope it will be translated into German.

We need to get a copy of this book to Peter Hofschröer.

AFAIK Mr Hofschroer has finished his time in prison, but I think he's now in a mental institution in Austria. I'm sure he would enjoy this book a lot.

We don't know what any of PH's German-language sources actually says because he distorts them.

4th Cuirassier, you can only know he distorts them if you know what they actually say.

Which we do, because several examples have been demonstrated of his claiming a source says X when it says the opposite, or claiming it says Y about matter Z when a check of other sources show it does not discuss matter Z, and so on.

Once somebody does that once, everything else is suspect. As with Hamilton-Williams, probably quite a lot is actually correct but there's no way to know without checking other sources. And if you have to do that, why bother with Hamilton-Williams or Hofschroer in the first place?

indeed one has to read the work – I may learn Spanish to be able to read it – in case it doesn't be translated into German. I hardly think it may be translated into English there this topic may not favour that audiance.

Oh, von Winterfeldt, there's ALWAYS an audience in the English-speaking world for books which criticizes us--with bonus points for outright slander. Mark Twain used to insist that Americans were the only nation on the planet which paid foreigners to come here and run the place down, but the English aren't that different.

There may not, however, be a market for a 1,340 page book on the Peninsular War. I don't think anything's cracked 400 pages since Oman.

It's not as though it were a fantasy series the author was never going to finish, after all.

hum…really…
from Paul Lindsay Dawson, British subject, about planned books :

No UK publisher would touch it: simply answer is no redcoats = no interest to UK market.

My dream of a book on Essling wont happen, as British publishers wont took any Napoleonic subject without redcoats or Wellington as the interest is Britain V France rather than the war as a whole, and importantly what was being fought over, which goes far beyond nationalism: it was war fought by Britain not for national survival for but for the survival of privilige, the right to enslave the working man as I hope my forthcoming book demonstrates, but it wont win any applauds from British nationalists and Wellington lovers.

highly revealing and symbolic is the popular Osprey Campaign Series

Osprey has created this series in 1990, 32 years old, it reaches now 386 titles
this serie is very representative in the way how biased is the view of the French Revolutionary Napoleonic Wars in the english-speaking market

first observation, it can't be said that this period has much interest for the Editor with only 27 titles (~7% only of the total)

second, sadly symptomatic and revealing example is the biased repartition among the various theaters campaigns and wars emphasing the british participation

First Coalition 1792-1797
153 Toulon 1793
340 First Glorious of June 1794

…KO first round……? only that, Toulon and what?

Second Coalition 1798-1802
230 Nile 1798
70 Marengo 1800

Third Coalition 1803-1806
2 Austerlitz 1805
157 Trafalgar 1805

Fourth Coalition 1806-1807
20 Iena 1806

Fifth Coalition 1809
33 Aspern Wagram
56 Eggmühl

Peninsular War
48 Salamanca 1812
59 Vitoria 1813
65 Badajoz 1812
83 Corunna 1809
90 Vimeiro 1808
97 Bussaco 1810
99 Fuentes de Oñoro 1811
253 Talavera 1809 and we could even add Toulouse Bayonne

Russia 1812
246 Borodino
38X Berezina

Germany 1813
25 Leipzig
87 Lützen & Bautzen

France 1814
266 Bayonne & Toulouse

Hundred Days 1815
15 Waterloo
101 Waterloo
276 Waterloo (1) Quatre-Bras
277 Waterloo (2) Ligny
280 Waterloo (3) Mont Saint Jean Wavre

so we have
-9 titles for the first 17 years 1st to 5th Coaltion 1792-1809
-8 titles for the Peninsular, adding Bayonne Toulouse, even 9, one third of the titles
-Waterloo has 5 titles, revised, expanded

both last groups, Peninsula + Waterloo gathering 52% of the period 1792-1815…

I can't find other words than pure distortion of historical reality

if we should rewrite the History of this period according to Osprey's selection
nothing happened troughout the probably very peacefull French Revolution before Napoléon came, not even in Italy with him before 1800 except in a port or at sea

after that you can't be surprised to read some threads on TMP with the anglocentric Wellington's redcoats-in-Peninsular-War-mother-of-all-the-Battles-myth and boats or Saint Georges's golden cavalry replacing large ground Austrian Russian Prussian armies on the main theaters of war while the quite small limited british participation in the Napoleonic Wars on a peripheric theater where the redcoats are depicted as the main great liberators of Spain don't cease to be idealized

but when you know a little about Spain and Spaniards that is the night and day between the British view here and the spanish-speaking world….

La realidad fue que durante más de cuatro años las tropas españolas combatieron en solitario a las francesas

Ni la actuación británica en España fue tan brillante como los ingleses han intentado hacernos creer ni las relaciones entre aliados fueron lo fluidas que deberían haber sido

La presencia del ejército británico fue un elemento muy importante, pero claramente no todo lo decisiva que han pretendido los historiadores clásicos, sobre todo británicos

The reality was that for more than 4 years the Spanish troops fought the French alone

Nor the British role in Spain was as brilliant as the English have tried to make us believe nor were relations between allies as fluid as they should have been

The presence of the British Army was a very important element but clearly not as decisive as they have claimed the classical historians, especially British

PDF link

It can only be expected that Spanish critics would have a bee in their bonnet as usual, the Portuguese are much more amiable, they also fought well alongside the British with a pretty good record. But Britain was in Spain's country beating the French while the Spanish armies were not so very good. Their guerrillas could be effective, but they weren't going to eject the French armies. So it can be understandable why Spain has revisionists coming out of the woodwork with disdain in their words.

Dawson:

it was war fought by Britain not for national survival for but for the survival of privilege, the right to enslave the working man as I hope my forthcoming book demonstrates, but it wont win any applauds from British nationalists and Wellington lovers.

Says the Francofawning, Napoleon worshipping, lefty, self-flagellating, Brit-hating, sour grape sucker.

He should toodle off and find out what conditions were like for the working class in the rest of Europe before making silly statements. He so loves to research so it wouldn't be too hard for him.

Ho! Dawson the Lefty forgot this (when getting all emotive over 'slavery'), which was going on at the time too…

YouTube link

…while banging on Marx-style.

He should stick to Waterloo and Uniforms.

Books are business, redcoats sell. I am sorry not that there are so many on the British but so few on the other countries who fought Napoleon.

Nobody in the other thread seems to have read Lieven on the Russians or Rothenberg on the Austrians, almost the only decent English language sources. It's okay to read tons of books on Spain, Nelson, and Waterloo, but with so many huge, major battles occurring elsewhere, it's too bad we don't get to read more about them except maybe through Chandler.

My dream of a book on Essling wont happen, as British publishers wont took any Napoleonic subject without redcoats or Wellington as the interest is Britain V France rather than the war as a whole, and importantly what was being fought over, which goes far beyond nationalism: it was war fought by Britain not for national survival for but for the survival of privilige, the right to enslave the working man as I hope my forthcoming book demonstrates, but it wont win any applauds from British nationalists and Wellington lovers.

I've always said as much. The idea that the British were the good guys in the Napoleonic wars is about as frightening as it gets.

Britain was fighting to maintain feudalism and globally export it in the form of racial supremacy and colonialism.

British Military Publisher prints Books about British Military subjects …Shock, Horror.

I agree with Tortorella and Lilian, but why shouldn't I – I am no Brit. I won't blame them though writing about their important role they played in the Napoleonic Wars and to forge an Empire. What is sad is the downplay of the rest of the world in their committment to get rid of the ogre who caused senseless destruction and misery. Britain was lucky it was never occupied by Boney, and Spain as such suffered heavily from that. So why I understand that there is to be a British point of view, I cannot understand why there shouldn't be a Spanish one and as soon as another point of view comes up it has to be labeled as slander.

However – and here I am not so negative – there exist well blanced books by British authors who show deep insight and balanced views – outside the scope of the Peninsular War and 1815.

There is plenty of biased writing in modern day Spanish journalism and historical texts too.

The newspaper that published the original interview ABC often publishes bombastic articles on historical events and recycles old Spanish tropes like Bailén was the first defeat of a French Army in the Napoleonic wars

Then you have the case of the 'Leyenda Negra' – basically a theory that Spain was demonized especially by Protestant writers from the Sixteenth Century on. There may be some truth in that accusation too but it gets blown out of all proportion by the media.

There are of course plenty of balanced well researched books in Spanish on the 'Guerra de Independencia' as the Peninsular War is known in Spain. Unfortunately the work of authors like Juan José Sañudo Bayón, Arsenio Garcia Fuertes or Álvaro Meléndrez Teodoro have never been translated so are almost unknown in the Anglosphere.

yes I know, I know… the spanish victimization and boasting, poor Spain eternal victim of Britain and France, awful colonial powers unables to recognize how wonderful was the greatest Spanish Empire in comparison to the British and French, the Portuguese don't exist, and Bailen-is-on-the-Arc-de-Triomphe-myth because France never admited it as a defeat, Spain tumb of the Napoleonic Empire, Army and Napoleon, well like for the British Peninsular War a local variant whishing to believe that the so-called Guerra de Independencia (term they deny to the Latin American at War agaisnt Spain 1809-1825) is also the main theater of war between 1792 and 1815, the difference is the british participation is not considered as so positive and crucial than usually presented in the anglospehere

Nobody in the other thread seems to have read Lieven on the Russians or Rothenberg on the Austrians, almost the only decent English language sources.

What makes you think that?

It's okay to read tons of books on Spain, Nelson, and Waterloo, but with so many huge, major battles occurring elsewhere, it's too bad we don't get to read more about them except maybe through Chandler.

Well, if one ignores Petre, Arnold, Goetz, Leggiere, Brett-James, Digby Smith, Gill, Nafziger, Connelly, Schmidt et al, that might be true.

The reality was that for more than 4 years the Spanish troops fought the French alone

And you have the nerve to write about someone else?

I can't find other words than pure distortion of historical reality

after that you can't be surprised to read some threads on TMP with the anglocentric Wellington's redcoats-in-Peninsular-War-mother-of-all-the-Battles-myth and boats or Saint Georges's golden cavalry replacing large ground Austrian Russian Prussian armies on the main theaters of war while the quite small limited british participation in the Napoleonic Wars on a peripheric theater where the redcoats are depicted as the main great liberators of Spain don't cease to be idealized

I think that the more appallingly bad – and frankly xenophobic – the arguments against 4th Cuirassier's arguments are, the more true they are shown to be. Let us recap:

1 – The effort of a nation is not solely measured by having the largest number of soldiers in the field for a short period of time, but by the number of soldiers, sailors, ships, guns and overall industrial and financial effort made over the duration.

2 – Britain was central to Napoleon's strategy, since conflict with Britain had begun the war and Napoleon's big strategic initiatives (Continental System, Russia, Portugal, Spain, Egypt) tended to be aimed at Britain. All Napoleon wanted from Austria, Prussia and Russia was to acquiesce in his previous might-is-right gains.

To argue against 4th Cuirassier's point effectively, one must show that he is mistaken about point 1, or 2, or both.

Lilian,

I do hope that Spanish and Portuguese writing on the Napoleonic era in no way focuses upon the history of the wars in Spain,Portugal and South America but instead concentrates on Jena, Friedland and Wagram. Anything else would be an absolute historical travesty, would it not?

Lilian,

I have really good news for you. I checked Osprey's Men-at-Arms series link

It has 90 books on the Napoleonic period, 10(!) of which concentrate on British soldiers: a further 7 cover both sides (e.g. Irish and British; French and British in Egypt) or cover non-British soldiers fighting for Britain (KGL, Britain's Foreign regiments).

But please, do tell us more about the popular Anglophone Napoleonic history which ignores non-British subjects.

hard to undertand this series of posts, first he is joining two sentences, one of mine and one of a Spanish author, so he didn't undertand at all what he is reading,
the only thing I undertand here is that you are easily accused to be "xenophobic" when you wish to reconsider the very limited and small participation of the British Army between 1792 and 1815 but of course not at all with the bad, vulgar, stupid and usual xenophobic anti-austrian anti-russian anti-prussian anti-continental mentality of the Brex'haters (and anti-french anti-spanish already a second stronger nature) we suffer in several threads are fully welcomed and fully legitimate, of course

1 – The effort of a nation is not solely measured by having the largest number of soldiers in the field for a short period of time, but by the number of soldiers, sailors, ships, guns and overall industrial and financial effort made over the duration.

oh great, the human mobilisation of the continental nations don't worth nothing when it is not considered by the biased view of anglosphere wishing to replace the military efforts of them by the number of years where the british were – officially at war – despite actually in practice they were unable throughouth the period to sent nothing more than small sporadic expeditionnary forces and at the very best on a peripheric theater of war with only 30 to 40 000 men, where they even considered by some authors to have been there most passive than anything else before 1812
that is the usual good anglocentric way to rewrite the History and ignore major armies and major human mobilisation and losses than them on the ground facing the French Army,
…please when the British Army was able to mobilise and sent more men than the Austrians Prussians or Russians in a campaign against the French Army in Europe? Never, never, never
The British Army landed in Flanders in 1793-1795 and the French didn't see it after for a long time
in 1799 the Russians for their first participation sent 82 600 soldiers across Europe, something that never able to do Great Britain in the 7 previous years and never in the 7 following, they even helped the British in Netherlands, that is probably to thanks them that they were sent in the Channel Islands because the British can't suffer to see their Russians allies on the english soil, treating them as auxiliaries…but of course according the anglocentric biased equation as Britain was at war since 1793 and Russia not only before 1799, the Russian doen't worth almost nothing in comparison
when Britain was invaded, when its territory and population was largely and directly involved at war against the French, when has to mobilize 600 000 men like Austria, the militia like in Russia, the Yeomanry Cavalry has ended in French POWs like the German landwehr, this never happened

hard to undertand this series of posts, first he is joining two sentences, one of mine and one of a Spanish author, so he didn't undertand at all what he is reading,

No, you quoted them in your thread as part of your argument. So you can be prepared to be called out on your lack of understanding.

oh great, the mobilisation of the continental nations don't worth nothing when it is not considered by the biased view of anglosphere wishing to replace the military efforts of them by the number of years when the british were – officially at war – despite actually in practice they were unable throughouth the period to sent nothing more than small sporadic expeditionnary forces and at very best on a peripheric theater of war, where they even considered by some authors to be have been most passive than anything else before 1812
that is the usual good anglocentric way to rewrite the History and ignore major armies and major human mobilisation and losses than them on the ground facing the French Army,

Your understanding is at fault again, I am afraid. I strongly advise you to read the quote again, giving full consideration to the meaning of the word 'solely':

1 – The effort of a nation is not solely measured by having the largest number of soldiers in the field for a short period of time, but by the number of soldiers, sailors, ships, guns and overall industrial and financial effort made over the duration.

So I am afraid your rants about the 'biased view of anglosphere wishing to replace…' are just…nonsense.

No, you quoted them in your thread as part of your argument. So you can be prepared to be called out on your lack of understanding.

no at all you don't understand at all, it was a translation from spanish to english of a sentence just above in italic indicating a quote from José Manuel Guerrero Acosta, «La realidad fue que durante más de cuatro años las tropas españolas combatieron en solitario a las francesas» it is a spanish opinion, and precisely why I choose it as British don't cease to serve us the British Peninsular War as if it is something like the definitive argument to be positively credited to Britain while it is an opinion very very very far to be shared by the Spaniards themselves…

Lilian,

You keep on saying that I don't understand which is a – extremely rude and b – simply incorrect. I knew you were quoting it, and you quoted it to support your argument. If you disagreed with it, you were entirely free to do so, but you chose not to.

Perhaps you would like to make clear now that you think that some Spaniards believe this to be the case, but you know that it is a grave error?

I think that the more appallingly bad – and frankly xenophobic – the arguments against 4th Cuirassier's arguments are, the more true they are shown to be. Let us recap

Xenophobia? I dont see any of this except from a subset of pro-British posters.

Such as the comment from this scholar:

Says the Francofawning, Napoleon worshipping, lefty, self-flagellating, Brit-hating, sour grape sucker.

He should toodle off and find out what conditions were like for the working class in the rest of Europe before making silly statements. He so loves to research so it wouldn't be too hard for him.

Is anyone supposed to have respect for this sort of ridiculous outburst?

I mean, xenophobia to the hypersensitive ultra nationalist may be defined as anyone who doesnt swallow their self serving narrative.

OK, let's recap, as you say:

1 – The effort of a nation is not solely measured by having the largest number of soldiers in the field for a short period of time, but by the number of soldiers, sailors, ships, guns and overall industrial and financial effort made over the duration.

Why is effort important? Surely it's results? Or, is it effort to prove one point out of one side of one's historical mouth and results to prove the next point out of the other side?

This isnt quite his whole story though. His story is that the British were the biggest contributors and the main reason for Napoleon getting removed. Far from the Peninsula and British involvement being the sideshow, the British and the Peninsula were the main event, and Waterloo which he says was a non British (but…really British) victory was the cherry on top.

Also, I am sorry, but large amount of soldiers in the field for short periods of time can have enormous consequences. 4th cuirassier continually reverse engineers statistics, data and milestones to suit a narrative he pretends he doesnt hold which is that basically, everything comes up Britain.

2 – Britain was central to Napoleon's strategy, since conflict with Britain had begun the war and Napoleon's big strategic initiatives (Continental System, Russia, Portugal, Spain, Egypt) tended to be aimed at Britain. All Napoleon wanted from Austria, Prussia and Russia was to acquiesce in his previous might-is-right gains.

There is some truth to the first part but it is complex. The second part, that Napoleon's gains were "Might-is-right" is farcical. The great powers wanted to visit a little might-is-right on Napoleon themselves. And the idea that the British are the "good guys" fighting for the rights of man is proof of the deep indoctrination some of the pro British viewpoint suffers from.

Fortunately, the world disagrees with this. The vast majority of books are written about Napoleon and is interested in what he did and that frustration is probably what drives "we lucky few" onto forums to pick fights over what looks to be something awfully close to suggestions of ethnic/nationalistic superiority.

Which we do, because several examples have been demonstrated of his claiming a source says X when it says the opposite, or claiming it says Y about matter Z when a check of other sources show it does not discuss matter Z, and so on.

Got proof for this defamatory remark? I should remind everyone that British and American publishers continue to print and sell Peter Hofschröer's books. Maybe you need to contact them and illuminate them about how it isnt about his less than 100% rah-rah British contribution at Waterloo and all about his prison sentence which drove him to falsify translations.

Once somebody does that once, everything else is suspect. As with Hamilton-Williams, probably quite a lot is actually correct but there's no way to know without checking other sources. And if you have to do that, why bother with Hamilton-Williams or Hofschroer in the first place?

Really, I am reading a book by Nafziger on 1812 and Russia where he gets a battle's dates confused. Did he do it on purpose? Does it undo everything he does?

I don't defend xenophobia of any kind. But the germane point to this discussion is that 4th Cuirassier's arguments have to be treated without xenophobia, regardless of whether someone else is being xenophobic about something else.

The desire for consistency in effort and outcomes must go both ways. But whichever one is chosen then Britain is going to come out as very important in the Napoleonic Wars. If it is overall effort, then the soldiers, sailors, guns, equipment and money over the longest period of time are going to count.
If it is winning battles, then Britain's superlative ratio of winning (mainly mid-sized) battles compared to all the other Allies is really going to count.
If it is French casualties caused and effort/money expended, then Britain's naval campaigns and the Peninsular campaign are going to figure very strongly.
If it is all reduced to large numbers of soldiers in a short period of time for 'the big battle which won the campaign' then Britain is going to do very well for Fuentes d'Onoro, Vitoria and Waterloo.

The second part, that Napoleon's gains were "Might-is-right" is farcical. The great powers wanted to visit a little might-is-right on Napoleon themselves.

Napoleon himself claimed this, he was quite open about proclaiming his rights derived from conquest. An admirer of Caesar, Alexander and Charlemagne would hardly think otherwise. The point here is his self-deception in thinking that he could take some province from another power and then that power could be permanently cowed into accepting his victory – hence every other power joining with Britain when given the chance.

…the idea that the British are the "good guys" fighting for the rights of man is proof of the deep indoctrination some of the pro-British viewpoint suffers from. Fortunately, the world disagrees with this. The vast majority of books are written about Napoleon and is interested in what he did and that frustration is probably what drives "we lucky few" onto forums to pick fights over what looks to be something awfully close to suggestions of ethnic/nationalistic superiority.

Well, not all those books consider Napoleon a positive by any means, although there will nearly always be a positive familiarity bias in published works. Many might agree with Creveld's description of him as the most competent man who ever lived, without agreeing with any of his political actions. Accusations of "pro-British indoctrination" could equally well be countered with accusations of "anti-British indoctrination".

I don't defend xenophobia of any kind. But the germane point to this discussion is that 4th Cuirassier's arguments have to be treated without xenophobia, regardless of whether someone else is being xenophobic about something else.

Oh? But you're willing to remain silent while dibble has a fit about how anyone who doesn't see it the ultra British way is a leftist anarchist?

I didnt see those arguments by 4th Cuirassier in this thread but is true that its hard not to step in one of them on other threads. From what I can remember, most of his analyses are carefully crafted to give him exactly the outcome he wants. I note that he usually shrugs his shoulder and maintains that it isnt him that wants it that way but what can we do when all the "evidence points" that way?

Reminds me of that Commander McBragg cartoon.

Btw, you've been a little bit rude to Lillian yourself. I wont bother to re-post it but you've given me the sense youre talking down to him.

Personally, I like books on the British army and the Peninsular War and will buy whatever I can get my paws on but Lilian isnt wrong, there needs to be more effort on other Nations and other campaigns. The answer cant be it's not Anglocentric but because it is in the UK what do you expect? You like two way streets? Here's your chance to drive on one.

If it is French casualties caused and effort/money expended, then Britain's naval campaigns and the Peninsular campaign are going to figure very strongly.

Those Peninsular battles didnt cause huge casualties. Or rather, if they did, kindly provide statistics.

Napoleon himself claimed this, he was quite open about proclaiming his rights derived from conquest. An admirer of Caesar, Alexander and Charlemagne would hardly think otherwise. The point here is his self-deception in thinking that he could take some province from another power and then that power could be permanently cowed into accepting his victory – hence every other power joining with Britain when given the chance.

You set your original comment down with a spin that Napoleon was the bad guy. Everyone was doing the same thing. Never mind that Napoleon read some books. Now a general cant study prior generals? Is this a wargaming forum?

Every other power joined with Britain? Britain as ring leader? As money bags?

Oh Dear, he we goes againz…

Well, not all those books consider Napoleon a positive by any means, although there will nearly always be a positive familiarity bias in published works. Many might agree with Creveld's description of him as the most competent man who ever lived, without agreeing with any of his political actions. Accusations of "pro-British indoctrination" could equally well be countered with accusations of "anti-British indoctrination".

No they dont but the sheer volume I suspect is what drives a small coterie of Pro British Napoleonic graffiti artists onto a forum to degrade every last discussion about Napoleon with an apparent worry that if they don't squawk about what a bad man he was, the world might forget.

300,00 books on the man suggests they are engaging in a tragically comic, Sisyphean struggle against both reality and world opinion, and getting nasty over it.

I assume you're British and Lillian is…French? I'm an American. I just like the period, couldn't care less who won. But while the Europeans seem to accept that a person can be neutral about Napoleon, Austria, Prussia, Spain etc., it seems like some of the pro British posters think that if you're not all in on Wellington, you must hate the British.

Incidentally, where you might think I got anti British indoctrination about this period from is anyone's guess. With a good, well backed up argument, we can be either pro or anti anything but the incessant, immature comments to degrade Napoleon are a completely unforgivable disruption. Every thread on Napoleon is choked with petty attacks on the man with an aim to ruin the discussion. Thus we can put up with that sort of thread bombing but you cant take a few comments that Britain wasn't the center of the Napoleonic universe? Bizarre.

Oh? But you're willing to remain silent while dibble has a fit about how anyone who doesn't see it the ultra British way is a leftist anarchist?

Well of course he didn't: he accused one very specific author of it; although for clarity, I don't agree with such expressions. On the other hand, the title of this thread is straightforwardly xenophobic.

…there needs to be more effort on other Nations and other campaigns. The answer cant be it's not Anglocentric but because it is in the UK what do you expect? You like two way streets? Here's your chance to drive on one.

On the contrary, I fully expect the historical output of any nation or society to emphasize more the bits it was more directly involved in. However, it should also make some efforts to study the history of contemporaries and opponents. And I have offered specific evidence that this is in fact what has happened in Anglophone histories of the Napoleonic Wars. One could certainly wish for more – and I think that if there is a problem in the period, it is specifically the lack of military history of the Revolutionary War campaigns where Napoleon was not present – but I have seen no evidence at all that the historians of any other nation have done better, or even comparably well. There just isn't the evidence of the biases and absence which some people have claimed.

Those Peninsular battles didn't cause huge casualties. Or rather, if they did, kindly provide statistics.

Well, where to begin? The French lost more at Albuera and Vitoria, for example, than the French lost at Eggmuhl and around the same as at Jena or Auerstadt. They lost more at Salamanca than at Friedland. Added to the attritional losses taken on campaign – Massena's losses in his campaign of 1810-11 (so including two mid-sized battles) lost more than the top end estimate of Napoleon's losses at Eylau. So if 'French casualties' is the point of these operations, then the Peninsular War unquestionably has its place.

You set your original comment down with a spin that Napoleon was the bad guy. Everyone was doing the same thing. Never mind that Napoleon read some books. Now a general cant study prior generals? Is this a wargaming forum?

No, Napoleon referred to it in his decrees and letters. And I didn't say that Napoleon was 'the bad guy', I am not making a moral point at all – I am saying that this was a flaw in his strategic thinking: he couldn't ever bear to give up something to an erstwhile opponent to gain their friendship and loyalty.

…the sheer volume I suspect is what drives a small coterie of Pro British Napoleonic graffiti artists onto a forum to degrade every last discussion about Napoleon with an apparent worry that if they don't squawk about what a bad man he was, the world might forget.

I don't think they do, really. I think they enjoy it, because they get to go on about the British record of success against his armies and navies and then finishing him off for good at Waterloo. And I think that drives those posters who admire Napoleon around the twist.

where you might think I got anti British indoctrination about this period from is anyone's guess.

Well you explicitly state over and over again that you believe the British Empire of the time was uniquely evil and a calamity on the world and it was a pity that it won and Napoleon lost. That might count as indoctrination in some eyes.

…Every thread on Napoleon is choked with petty attacks on the man with an aim to ruin the discussion. Thus we can put up with that sort of thread bombing but you cant take a few comments that Britain wasn't the center of the Napoleonic universe?

I have no idea about every thread. But this thread here right now, the one we are posting on, makes xenophobic statements about British people which are demonstrably completely untrue. I mean, you can literally take standard works written over 100 years ago and see it has never been true.

what petty attacks? That he behaved like a tottering fool in 1812, that he needed scapegoats like poor Grouchy to cover his catastrophic bad command in 1815, that he showed magalomania and suffering from being a narcissist? I won't commend on his police state and sniffling in private papers of trusted subordinates.

Au Pas De Charge

enophobia? I dont see any of this except from a subset of pro-British posters.

Such as the comment from this scholar:

Says the Francofawning, Napoleon worshipping, lefty, self-flagellating, Brit-hating, sour grape sucker.
He should toodle off and find out what conditions were like for the working class in the rest of Europe before making silly statements. He so loves to research so it wouldn't be too hard for him.

Is anyone supposed to have respect for this sort of ridiculous outburst?

I don't ask for respect, especially from the other side, you know! Those pot-shaped, 'Bounaparte' adoring, black kettle callers.

As for "rediculous outburst" Perhaps you could post a comparison of the living standards between the working classes of Europe?

I counter a Bounapart fawning Author's lefty outburst. So what? If he wishes to trash, then it's OK by me, and the person who posted it in this thread should expect nothing less than a strong reply to that Dawson diatribe. Or should I cower in a corner so as not to offend 'La gloire de Bounaparte'?

Such as the comment from this scholar:

:
Well! I do so hate to fly in the face of popular belief…

Whirlwind, the books you listed are small in number compared to Waterloo. Arnold and Gill are the best of this bunch. Nafziger is a tough slog, lots of info, though. Petre is more entertaining but not modern. Digby-Smith, personal accounts dominate. I have asked about Leggierre before, have not read him, would like to know more. We will not speak of PH.

Honestly, I am looking for modern narrative accounts not so dry, with a little more dramatic flair. Barbero did this in The Battle. He's an Italian, but he made it a story, made Waterloo fresh. No easy task after so much has been written. Sims also, I think it was The Longest Afternoon. Great account of the defense of La Haye Sainte. What about Wagram? A tremendous clash. Borodino? Plenty of drama. Leipzig – the scope and scale are mind- boggling for the era. Nafziger as a writer of prose does not put us there to feel the tension and drama.

So yes, I want to be entertained.I like gaming. I like reading. I like the British, but perhaps it was 4th C on the related thread here something about them always winning. Not as much fun, that.

Here's a book for you guys:

Wellington's Victories: A Guide to Sharpe's Army 1797-1815 Hardcover – Illustrated, August 1, 2004
by Matthew Morgan

link

A fascinating collection of miscellanea about Wellington's never-defeated forces that fought in more than sixty battles in India, Denmark, the Peninsula, France and Belgium. Linked to Bernand Cornwell's bestselling series of novels about Richard Sharpe, and officer in the elite 95th Rifles, this is an essential guide to one of the most successful- and important- armies that Britain has ever fielded.

Ya cant make this stuff up folks…

You will believe that British soldiers can fly!

The best that I've read about Waterloo come from first hand accounts that have helped hugely to put units in many cases, correctly in the right order of battle, their movements, their timings, locations and even what formations they were in, by modern authors like Gareth Glover, Erwin Muilwijk Andrew Field and the bloke I castigated 'above' Paul Dawson Who together, go towards a much better, more accurate account and understanding of what happened over those three days, than any authors like Barbero Hussey, Hofshoerer etc.

I find that the older and modern 'overview' accounts, are in the main, misleading, non-contextual, repeated sourcing of inaccurate data, myths, hearsay etc.

So, I personally don't like to have some allied or French leaning author telling me what they think happened on the day for the sum of £30.00 GBP and my time in reading their take on it.

I admit that my last reading of the campaign was Hussey's two huge volume account when it was published but I took nothing away from it where the clashes are concerned and I won't be reading any other 'account' in the future.

On the other hand, the title of this thread is straightforwardly xenophobic.

Now you know how many of us feel most of the time.

Well you explicitly state over and over again that you believe the British Empire of the time was uniquely evil and a calamity on the world and it was a pity that it won and Napoleon lost. That might count as indoctrination in some eyes.

Does that bother you? It wasnt evil? Do you think the British Empire was awesomeness? What exactly do you think it accomplished?

I only ever bring this up after one of the usual suspects howls about Wellington's soldiers crushing Bonaparte's guard using nothing more than steely looks and cutting repartee. And as a result the world should thank Britain from delivering them from the antichrist, so we could all bask in the sunshine of Britannia's subsequent global exploitation, mass killing and racial laws.

Interestingly, I dont seem to bring it up in the 19th Century forums. Gee, I wonder why?

In any case, if you want to compare how many times Ive brought that up compared to the usual suspects degrading Napoleon and the French, I am happy to get into it with you.

I don't think they do, really. I think they enjoy it, because they get to go on about the British record of success against his armies and navies and then finishing him off for good at Waterloo. And I think that drives those posters who admire Napoleon around the twist.

I think they enjoy it too. Just like any of the judgment proof might enjoy vandalizing property. Their and perhaps your definition of admiring Napoleon appears to be not degrading him 100% of the time.

OK, so you admit they're purposefully being pests. Then you shouldn't be shocked when they get treated like pests.

Well, where to begin? The French lost more at Albuera and Vitoria, for example, than the French lost at Eggmuhl and around the same as at Jena or Auerstadt. They lost more at Salamanca than at Friedland. Added to the attritional losses taken on campaign – Massena's losses in his campaign of 1810-11 (so including two mid-sized battles) lost more than the top end estimate of Napoleon's losses at Eylau. So if 'French casualties' is the point of these operations, then the Peninsular War unquestionably has its place.

Eggmuhl? Is this really where we are? Was causing casualties the point? Wouldn't the British have achieved that better and faster with a larger army?

Oh, I forgot, if they had beaten Napoleon quickly, then 4th cuirassier couldn't claim that Britain was at War with Napoleon the longest which equates to the real reason he got defeated. There's that plumbo jumbo logic machine again.

I have no idea about every thread. But this thread here right now, the one we are posting on, makes xenophobic statements about British people which are demonstrably completely untrue. I mean, you can literally take standard works written over 100 years ago and see it has never been true.

Oh yeah?

Salamanca 1812: Wellington Crushes Marmont
Book by Ian Fletcher

Vittoria 1813: Wellington Sweeps the French from Spain (Campaign) Aug 20, 2012
by Ian Fletcher

And his upcoming titles

Waterloo: Wellington smashes the French forever

Waterloo part deux: Wellington kills 1000 Old Guardsmen with the jawbone of an ass.

Au pas de Charge

Ya cant make this stuff up folks…

But Bernard Cornwell did!

You will believe that British soldiers can fly!

Of course us Folk don't. But they, the b******'s sons, could arf' fight and spank the French…

@dibble

It's a good think you think you're so clever because everyone should have at least one fan. :)

Au Pas de Charge

I think they enjoy it too. Just like any of the judgment proof might enjoy vandalizing property. Their and perhaps your definition of admiring Napoleon appears to be not degrading him 100% of the time.

So! Nappy is now akin to property? who's? The only owner I know of was Wellington. He didn't vandalise Nappy. He saved his bacon.

In any case, if you want to compare how many times Ive brought that up compared to the usual suspects degrading Napoleon and the French, I am happy to get into it with you.

Oh, I hope you do! There's countless diatribes coming from both sides on this site. Feel fee to post a graph after you are finished.

OK, so you admit they're purposefully being pests. Then you shouldn't be shocked when they get treated like pests.

Well, I don't see you as a pest. I see you as an avid contributor to the site. That you see 'others' as pests is all down to your frailties.

Do you think the British Empire was awesomeness?

I do! Do you think that Nappy's Empire was "awesomeness"?

I only ever bring this up after one of the usual suspects howls about Wellington's soldiers crushing Bonaparte's guard

Surely you mean 'Napoleon's Chocolate Fireguard'? It's tippy-tapping on the keyboard, not "howling"

using nothing more than steely looks and cutting repartee.

Did they? Well I'll be damned!

And as a result the world should thank Britain from delivering them from the antichrist

One or two, yes!

so we could all bask in the sunshine of Britannia's subsequent global exploitation, mass killing and racial laws.

The British saved hundreds of millions of lives. Perhaps up to and including, your forefathers.

And as I posted before:

YouTube link

mass killing and racial laws.

He who is without sin…

@Tortorella,

Well, Duffy has done Austerlitz and Borodino too; Mikaberidze has done Borodino and the Berezina. Rothenberg did Wagram. There is an Osprey Campaign book on Wagram. Bowden did the Wagram campaign as well, didn't he? Honestly, there is a pretty reasonable set of stuff out there.

I like the British, but perhaps it was 4th C on the related thread here something about them always winning. Not as much fun, that.

IIRC Charles Grant excluded them from his 'Napoleonic Wargaming' book for that very reason…

Now you know how many of us feel most of the time.

Erm, no. Are there many threads condemning all Americans today? Are all French? Lilian's title is specifically aimed at all Brits from then until today.

Does that bother you? It wasnt evil? Do you think the British Empire was awesomeness? What exactly do you think it accomplished?…we could all bask in the sunshine of Britannia's subsequent global exploitation, mass killing and racial laws… if you want to compare how many times Ive brought that up compared to the usual suspects degrading Napoleon and the French, I am happy to get into it with you.

Bother me? No. But it is pretty clear you have a heavily ideological view of Britain in the early C19, influencing every sentence you write.

I think they enjoy it too. Just like any of the judgment proof might enjoy vandalizing property. Their and perhaps your definition of admiring Napoleon appears to be not degrading him 100% of the time. OK, so you admit they're purposefully being pests. Then you shouldn't be shocked when they get treated like pests.

I don't say they are acting like pests. I say they are acting pretty much like you. And since I have quoted admiring things about Napoleon in this thread , not sure what any of this has to do with me. But perhaps your definition of not admiring Napoleon is to criticize him 1% of the time?

Eggmuhl? Is this really where we are? Was causing casualties the point? Wouldn't the British have achieved that better and faster with a larger army?

You see, you just actually did the thing you accuse 4th Cuirassier of. Your contention had been that the Peninsular battles are unimportant compared to Central European battles. I have shown that to be entirely false on the level of most battles and campaigns. So unless your argument is that Jena, Auerstadt, Friedland and Eggmuhl aren't important, then you really have no argument at all.

…if they had beaten Napoleon quickly, then 4th cuirassier couldn't claim that Britain was at War with Napoleon the longest which equates to the real reason he got defeated. There's that plumbo jumbo logic machine again.

Erm Britain and its allies did defeat him in like 4 days? How much quicker were you expecting? Or you mean in the Peninsular, where they defeated a much, much larger French Army.

(Xenophobia)…Oh yeah?

Salamanca 1812: Wellington Crushes Marmont
Book by Ian Fletcher

Vittoria 1813: Wellington Sweeps the French from Spain (Campaign) Aug 20, 2012
by Ian Fletcher

Yes. Xenophobia is, like racism, when you express something about whole peoples as a national characteristic, as this thread's title does. Saying one specific person does something isn't xenophobic, neither is saying a specific institution is bad.

So! Nappy is now akin to property? who's? The only owner I know of was Wellington. He didn't vandalise Nappy. He saved his bacon.

I think you are missing the point of emphasis. I didn't mean that Napoleon was property, I meant that you are conceptually judgment proof.

Well, I don't see you as a pest. I see you as an avid contributor to the site. That you see 'others' as pests is all down to your frailties.

Why dibble, I didn't know you cared.

And to return the compliment, I see you as a strident fertilizer of the site.

See, we all have our shoes to fill, even if for some they are bespoke and for others, ready to wear.

I do! Do you think that Nappy's Empire was "awesomeness"?

I think it's more awesome than listening to your virulent opinions about him.

The British saved hundreds of millions of lives. Perhaps up to and including, your forefathers.

What do you mean my forefathers?

He who is without sin…

Again, what do you mean?

Bother me? No. But it is pretty clear you have a heavily ideological view of Britain in the early C19, influencing every sentence you write.

Answer the question please. What exactly are the British Empire's contributions to humanity?

You see, you just actually did the thing you accuse 4th Cuirassier of.

OK, now you're getting nasty.

Your contention had been that the Peninsular battles are unimportant compared to Central European battles. I have shown that to be entirely false on the level of most battles and campaigns. So unless your argument is that Jena, Auerstadt, Friedland and Eggmuhl aren't important, then you really have no argument at all.

I dont know that my contentions have any place here until we can all figure out what 4th cuirassier and now you ultimately think is important with regard to British involvement; is it casualties inflicted on Napoleon's armies or length of time at war?

You've shown the Peninsular battles to be more important than central European ones? Was there a plumbo jumbo time warp? I must've missed this.

Erm Britain and its allies did defeat him in like 4 days? How much quicker were you expecting? Or you mean in the Peninsular, where they defeated a much, much larger French Army.

Yes, I thought we were talking about the Peninsula? Were the French armies always much larger at the battles? I dunno about that claim.

Yes. Xenophobia is, like racism, when you express something about whole peoples as a national characteristic, as this thread's title does. Saying one specific person does something isn't xenophobic, neither is saying a specific institution is bad.

You know what else is like racism? Ultra nationalist fanaticism because it possesses no quality of self introspection. It also tends to be hyper sensitive and self pitying.

I don't say they are acting like pests. I say they are acting pretty much like you. And since I have quoted admiring things about Napoleon in this thread , not sure what any of this has to do with me. But perhaps your definition of not admiring Napoleon is to criticize him 1% of the time?

OK, then you'd have to produce proof that on every thread about Wellington or the British army I'm in there attacking him and them. You got those receipts?

Well I wasnt talking about you, except that you did insult Lillian. Please dont be hyper sensitive or self pitying!

Answer the question please. What exactly are the British Empire's contributions to humanity?

Really not interested in talking about it on a wargaming/miniatures website. But the point is: you have a bee in your bonnet about it.

I dont know that my contentions have any place here until we can all figure out what 4th cuirassier and now you ultimately think is important with regard to British involvement; is it casualties inflicted on Napoleon's armies or length of time at war?
You've shown the Peninsular battles to be more important than central European ones? Was there a plumbo jumbo time warp? I must've missed this.

This thread was about whether the Peninsular was an unimportant sideshow, and in which the British involvement in that sideshow was overblown. I have shown that it was as unimportant as Jena, as secondary as Friedland and as much of a sideshow as Eylau.

Yes, I thought we were talking about the Peninsula? Were the French armies always much larger at the battles? I dunno about that claim.

Well, you mentioned Napoleon – the British couldn't have defeated Napoleon in the Peninsular, because (his choice) he never fought them there.

You know what else is like racism? Ultra nationalist fanaticism because it possesses no quality of self introspection. It also tends to be hyper sensitive and self pitying.

I wouldn't know. Perhaps the xenophobes and any ultra-nationalists can talk about it amongst themselves.

OK, then you'd have to produce proof that on every thread about Wellington or the British army I'm in there attacking him and them. You got those receipts?

Well you would have to prove that people attacked Napoleon or the Imperial French army on every thread too. But you haven't and didn't.

Well I wasnt talking about you, except that you did insult Lillian. Please dont be hyper sensitive or self pitying!

No, he was being xenophobic and insulting and I called him out on it to make him accountable for it.

Really not interested in talking about it on a wargaming/miniatures website. But the point is: you do.

You did bring it up, you know? But I accept that you cant come up with anything either.

This thread was about whether the Peninsular was an unimportant sideshow, and in which the British involvement in that sideshow was overblown. I have shown that it was as unimportant as Jena, as secondary as Friedland and as much of a sideshow as Eylau.

It was a sideshow but not unimportant. I didnt read this thread to say that, only that as a sideshow, the British assume the lion's share of the credit and ignore or downplay the Spanish effort.

Well, you mentioned Napoleon – the British couldn't have defeated Napoleon in the Peninsular, because (his choice) he never fought them there.

I did but only because I imagine Britain's every effort everywhere was calculated to somehow, eventually defeat Napoleon the monarch.

Well you would have to prove that people attacked Napoleon or the Imperial French army on every thread too. But you haven't and didn't.

But with a possible exception or two, I could. It's tempting.

No, he was being xenophobic and insulting and I called him out on it to make him accountable for is.

I'm sorry, did he say he was going to sweep the British away? That would be xenophobic.

So please au pas de charge don't be hyper-sensitive or self-pitying, or people will read your post above and wonder if you fall into those camps of being xenophobic, racist or ultra-nationalist. Don't be that person!

Are you buying that Sharpe's army book?