Britain's most scandalous attack?

Does history record the quarter of the city reserved for citizens of Zaragossa who preferred to sit out the siege in peace and quiet?

Yes, come on, this is about having a go at us!

With regard to counter-insurgency and citizens defending their cities I think we must ponder why they were driven to such extremes. Clearly the French soldiers and their allies were unwanted guests in their countries, and while individual acts of terror may not have been explicitly sanctioned by the 'authorities' they must surely share the blame for these were as a result of their chosen foreign policies.

We clearly disagree on the actions of Toussaint Louverture's liberation movement in Haiti. Nothing is black and white of course, but he certainly was not in the same league of horror as the European slave owning class and was treated despicably by the French forces on Napoleon's orders.

No one denies the appalling sackings of the Spanish cities, which were committed by out of control soldiers, not as a matter of policy - which is why I chose Copenhagen, which was.

I wrote previously that having made my contribution I was going to bow out; my apologies for still being here. Thanks for the thought-provoking debate, but I will now....

What about Saxony?

When it was suggested to him to do in Saxony in 1813

Number one - the situations are completely different an cannot be compared.

Number two, Nabulieone, more than any other had to depend on an intact Saxony, as far as possible, to act as main area of concentration for his armies and to feed his locusts, the Saxons hated to see their country devastated anyway, no need to do more harm than ruining their country, and yes ignore cherry picked English sources / translations on that, I suggest reading Saxon memoires of that time.

Number three, what has this to do with the original topic? I cannot see by all stretch that Saxony was scandalously attacked by the Brits but scandalously ruined by their own main ally.

Counterinsurgency is a completely different topic to discuss. And when the civilian population of a city actively participates in its defense, the civilian population will take casualties, as in Saragossa. And in Calabria, the 'rebels' were also made up of lawless elements in the interior of the country which were not 'subdued' until General Manhes conducted a successful counterinsurgency campaign.

And to which 'free' people in Haiti are you referring? Toussaint basically treated the newly 'freed' people the same way that they had been treated previously.

And the civilian populations of Ciudad Rodrigo, Badajoz, and San Sebastien, who were technically allies of the British and Portuguese, were treated to sack and pillage after the cities were successfully stormed and taken from the French.

An interesting comment about Saxony of which I was unaware, thanks.

However, but I doubt that the citizens of Saragoza, the 'rebels' in Calabria or the only recently free people of Haiti thought of their French adversaries as being particularly mindful of their interests. Although not physically present I think that 'Boney' must carry some responsibility for their actions, especially the latter.

I know this buoy has been gone around many times on this forum, so I respectfully bow out of the discussion.

Anyway, I thought the point of this particular debate was to 'dish the dirt' on us Brits. Surely, that's more fun!😁

The French didn't do this, true, but I've little that would convince me that Napoleon was averse to shedding the innocent blood of civilians. I am not qualified to apportion blame for the perpetration of heinous acts during these wars (or any other), but would comment that the armies of no country had a monopoly on such things. Sherman was surely right that war is hell, and it certainly has been for civilians throughout the ages.

I agree entirely. I didn't expand my point for the sake of brevity. It was regarded as a monstrous act by many at the time, both within the UK and elsewhere. But the thinking behind it was surely not only callous, but also muddled for it seemed to justify to the world that Albion was indeed perfidious, with all the negative implications for potential alliance making that went with it. Clearly, this risk was deemed to be worth taking at the time.

Perhaps Britain it was perfidious, but it was a crowded field I think.

Good grief, you've all covered the obvious ones already. I have nothing new to add therefore, although I think that the bombardment of Copenhagen must be the very worst of a number of poor strategic decisions. I think the Cape was probably fair game in the context, although the ridiculous attempt on Buenos Aires received the trouncing it deserved. Lawrence makes a great comment in his memoir about receiving his South American prize money while in the lines at Torres Vedras, and thought it "rather curious". Muddled war planning in the extreme!

Restarting war in 1803 due to buyer's remorse after having badly negotiated the Treaty of Amiens.

Another one would be the Treaty of Ghent and abandoning the Native American Allies to the less than tender mercies of the United States. That was a betrayal

The plundering expeditions to Buenos Aires certainly qualify, though the terror bombing of Copenhagen is at least in the top two.

The ruthless forced evacuation of Portuguese civilians to Lisbon laying waste to an allied countryside in the process caused the deaths of at least 40,000 Portuguese civilians from starvation and disease.

Another option is on St Lucia 1794 where the UK re-enslaved the populace

Sorry you are choking on the Weetabix Zack. I agree entirely that not at all likely Napoleon poisoned; that is why I referenced conspiracy theories.

What about British failure to evacuate navy & army from Malta 1802 upon Peace of Amiens, which I think provided for the island to be returned to the Knights and declared neutral?

It was part of the Anglo Turkish War. The demands placed on Turkey, well no Independent Nation could submit to those Prior the Dardanelles Operation in September 1806, the British government pressured Sultan Selim III to expel Sebastiani, declare war on France, cede the Danubian Principalities to Russia, and surrender the Ottoman fleet, together with the forts on the Dardanelles, to the Royal Navy. 

Ah! La perfide Albion ! Probably depends on whether you are French, Spanish or other; and whether you favour conspiracy theories

Possibilities:

Poisoning of Napoleon on St Helena

Attack on Spanish treasure fleet 5 October 1804 when not at war with Spain

Brexit!

Ah! La perfide Albion ! Probably depends on whether you are French, Spanish or other; and whether you favour conspiracy theories

Possibilities:

Poisoning of Napoleon on St Helena

Attack on Spanish treasure fleet 5 October 1804 when not at war with Spain

Brexit!

Egypt 1807 is one