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

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

No – you brought up the subject of ideology and other people. I have merely pointed out that you may not be immune to ideological biases yourself.

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

Then fair's fair: Napoleon took equally long to fail to defeat Britain. I don't see where the "Britain should have been faster" line of argument goes.

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

No, he has been going on about the British view: not a British general, not the British Army at the time (neither of which would be xenophobic), not a specific British historian. Saying Wellington swept away the French at Salamanca or that Napoleon swept away the Prussians at Jena is not xenophobic.

Are you buying that Sharpe's army book?

Can't imagine I would, although I don't see why anyone else would care if I did or not. I am suspicious of books which use a fictional character to sell the history, rather than the other way around. I think the last book about the British Army in the Napoleonic Wars I bought was either a history of the 45th Nottinghamshire Regiment, or A Military Transformed, which explores fairly critically the mismatch between the very consistent battlefield success of the British Army and the somewhat less stellar campaign performance.

Lol this thread is hilarious. Never really been into this era, thought about dabbling once or twice, but if you guys are typical of players who like this period I think I'll stick to spaceships and orcs…

Lol this thread is hilarious. Never really been into this era, thought about dabbling once or twice, but if you guys are typical of players who like this period I think I'll stick to spaceships and orcs…

The historiography is…erm, 'disputed'. But the gaming is great!

Lol this thread is hilarious. Never really been into this era, thought about dabbling once or twice, but if you guys are typical of players who like this period I think I'll stick to spaceships and orcs…

I'd never seen this before myself. It appears to isolated to a certain subset of anti French and anti Napoleon persons on forums. They seem to think they're setting the world straight by ruining every conversation on here. Some of us think it might be easily moved minds absorbing too much propaganda about feats of daring-do instilling them with a self-righteous grandiosity to attack and abuse anyone who wont see it their way. Curiously, they seem to have glass jaws.

No – you brought up the subject of ideology and other people. I have merely pointed out that you may not be immune to ideological biases yourself.

I pointed out that a a couple of anti intellectuals who cant control themselves ruin every thread about Napoleon. I explained to you that my comments are the equivalent of spraying a bad dog with with a water bottle.

I dont see how that's possible because i dont dislike the British or their culture. Maybe you think an objective view about the enduring ills of the British Empire is the same as an attack on a people?

Please note also that this is also a matter of frequency. I suppose one can tolerate the occasional attack on Napoleon and disrupt/ruin a discussion because they dislike him and think he's got to be degraded (I suppose) but doing it every time over years? It's unacceptable.

We're talking about degree, and I hope you can finally absorb and understand that?

Then fair's fair: Napoleon took equally long to fail to defeat Britain. I don't see where the "Britain should have been faster" line of argument goes.

Fair would be fair if I cared or subscribed to this. However, this is 4th cuirassier's logic and his alone. I merely point out how flimsy it is because it wont stand up to scrutiny and or when viewed as a "two way street" or viewed another way it breaks down completely.

No, he has been going on about the British view: not a British general, not the British Army at the time (neither of which would be xenophobic), not a specific British historian. Saying Wellington swept away the French at Salamanca or that Napoleon swept away the Prussians at Jena is not xenophobic.

OK, that's not the title, the title is "Vittoria 1813: Wellington Sweeps the French from Spain" which looks like a title pandering to overexcited, not terribly bright school boys who cant keep their shirts tucked in or keep finger smudges off their glasses.

And "Prussian" isnt the same as "French"; substitute "Germans" and see how that then looks.

Right, and now you suddenly get animated but not after the years and years of attacks on people trying to discuss Napoleon? Too late bro.

How convenient to draw this narrowly crafted, self serving line about where someone can become outraged about xenophobia. Incidentally, many of the so called comments about Napoleon, French generals and the french army, not to mention the Spanish, Neapolitan, Prussian, Austrian and Russian carry heavily loaded cultural and ethnic slurs. Why wouldnt posters think its the result of propaganda creating an illusion that Britain saved humanity from a harm it never knew existed and returned us all to feudalism for another 100 years.

But since we are here, are these upcoming titles alright with you?

Walcheren: When the British got the Hershey Squirts

Badajoz: Where the British got blown to smithereens by the cartload and then had to commit atrocities.

New Orleans: Where Wellingtons veterans got their faces beaten in and General Packenham got filled with lead.

@ Prince Rupert

The very very best ones are about Waterloo. No matter what aspect of Waterloo the OP is specifically about, within at most 3 or 4 posts someone will be along to say "The Brits couldn't have won it without the Prussians", exactly as though this is a new insight or rarely-made point. Someone else will then respond "Er, the Prussians couldn't have won it without the British", to which the response is paroxysms of rage.

Someone else will then chip in that "Every time we refight Waterloo in 28mm scale the French win, so ner", to which the response "Every time Wellington fought Waterloo in 1,650mm scale, he won" provokes still more paroxysms.

In a variant on Godwin's Law that I propose should be called "4th Cuirassier's Law", not long after that, someone will say "New Orleans". To put it formally:

As the length of a TMP Napoleonic thread that mentions Britain increases, the probability of someone mentioning New Orleans, the Germans or the disgraceful former British Empire approaches 1.

I'd be genuinely interested in knowing the longest a TMP Waterloo thread has ever got without this happening.

I was going to reply to Au Pas de Charge (the 'Al Bundyesque' Shoe salesman) But seeing as 4th Cuirassier has put it succinctly, I'll 'Pas'

I find this thread wholly depressing, to which I suppose the answer is "So stop reading it then".
The bile and venom over events of over 200 years ago is baffling.

For what its worth, and trying to go back to the original thesis of whether history was deliberately distorted-

In the decades immediately following the war, yes I'm sure Britain focussed on the Peninsula and Waterloo because that was the British experience, there were numerous fascinating memoirs being churned out, and the events were recent memory and reputations had been made and broken, and junior officers went on to being generals, with very varying degrees of success. And I do acknowledge that the authors of some of the memoirs expressed less than complimentary views about their allies [not the first or the last time soldiers do that] and those opinions may well have trickled down the decades thereafter.
Entirely human nature that there would have been this parochial concentration. And even for a long time afterwards it was still being regarded as the baseline against which later events were measured.
As for the present time, well, publishers will tend to go with what is likely to sell in WH Smiths and Waterstones and they will go where the existing interests lie. Not that even those shops are exactly awash with even Anglocentric Napoleonic books.Mostly it's the two world wars. And the SAS !
I very much doubt anyone other than historians or wargamers have even heard of the Peninsula or that the national consciousness is remotely affected by it. Our national myths and identities if we think about them at all I think are based on much more recent events.

I plead guilty to existing in my comfort zone of reading about and painting toys for the Anglo-Portuguese, but this is because I have some knowledge of it, and I just don't have the time and money to know everything and paint everything. I remain fully aware that this is only one part of a huge war and choosing what I do doesn't mean I don't recognise what was happening elsewhere.
I do find myself sometimes drawn towards expending my horizons, so we'll see. It has to be someone who can oppose my mostly pre-Bardin French.

So, I acknowledge the significant part played in Spain by Wellington's army.
AND by the guerrillas, AND by the Spanish field armies which remained in being and caused the French to divide their efforts .

And Austria, Russia, Prussia, Portugal, and anyone else, you did great things too.
And Napoleon was a great general [though he had his off days].

Just hoping I've not said anything to fan the flames.

Forgive the ramble.

I find this thread wholly depressing, to which I suppose the answer is "So stop reading it then".
The bile and venom over events of over 200 years ago is baffling.

It baffles many of us. However, it does lend credence to the OP's premise that at least some portion of the British handling of the Napoleonic wars is responsible for a certain golden age nostalgia.

We can see a the results here with a handful of posters who think it's a crusade of sorts to crash and burn almost every last topic about Napoleon and the French army when they believe values are being discussed.

The fact that they refuse to recognize it and in fact think they're one hundred percent justified to ratchet up the vitriol while maintaining that the slightest push back proves anti Britishness, which in turn produces squeals of outrage, justifies a certain examination about what fuels such myopic zeal. Maybe it is a wake up call to British authors, that the Napoleonic Wars wasn't just an Anglo-French struggle with the British as the "good guys" and that other Nation's need to be properly credited for their efforts. I say that because this forum demonstrates that there are more than a few who believe the British danced around Napoleon and defeated his obviously naughty intentions with never-in-doubt aplomb. To an outsider, this narrative looks decidedly like a "stitch up".

You can detect blind spots in their thinking because they will crow about undefeated British armies/generals, that the end results prove the righteousness of the British cause and that the British rid the world of some sort of global evil ad nauseum. However, ask one question about what enduring good the British Empire produced and it's crickets.

When one realizes that Napoleon's removal from the scene is what finally opened up British Imperial expansion, and considers the constant demonizing of Napoleon for humanitarian violations which British society sometimes seems to encourage, it is a fair question to ask whether his removal really did help mankind or just British mankind and really, just some British mankind?

But you cant have it both ways. It cant be claimed that the British aren't ethnocentric but then immediately say their British contributory focus is to be expected because, well, they're British.

Prince Rupert of the Rhine

Hey, LOL is mine – ask dibble. I don't know, some people have no consideration. LOL

All those who claim they are Napoleonic enthusiasts, should welcome this book. We need narratives and history from all the sides involved, not just one side or some of the sides.

There will always be parts and sections of history that some people don't want to hear or desire others to know about, mainly because it might spoil their rose-tinted viewpoints. Such is life.

In terms of its size, perhaps it could be divided into various volumes covering various years, such as the excellent Oman series?

I just hope it will be published in English. It will certainly be on my list.