here the link to listen
Again very worthwhile to listen. I wonder how soldiers could survive such harsh treatment of punishment - like 1500 lashes, even when split into several series and why the officers in general found it quite convenient to do so, to keep it as tool for keeping up the discipline in the Army.
In case I understood correctly sadistic inclined officers could initiate flogging within his company. Did the regimental commander stood aloof?
There must be quite some unjustified floggings as well, which would brake the morale of the affected soldiers.
While beating a soldier - was not uncommon in other armies as well, I cannot find such excessive numbers.
Thanks Hans-Karl. A couple of things: Firstly 1500 lashes was never actually inflicted in the period I looked at. There was also actually a change in the law which meant that in practice, by this point, if a soldier could not take the full punishment in one go, then the remainder was remitted.
Regarding sadistic officers - no, that's really what I'm suggesting - regimental courts martial had to be convened (and their sentences had to be approved by) the regiment's commanding officer. The Company Courts Martial dealt with minor offences (burning food, dirtiness, refusal to wash, etc), and handed out physical punishments short of flogging.
There would, of course, have been miscarriages of justice, as in any legal system, I know of a couple of instances where people ended up taking the blame, but there was a process of appeal - regimental court martial decisions could be appealed to General Courts Martial, and GCM decision were reviewed by the regional commander, or the Judge Advocate General back home, so there were some safeguards in place to deal with it as best they could.
With regards to beating soldiers, I think its worth bearing in mind that we are dealing with something distinct from a casual beating - this is punishment for breaking the law, not casualised violence. While informal punishments did exist, striking a soldier was generally frowned upon as 'ungentlemanly'. Interestingly, the tendency that was more commonplace in the German states of striking a soldier across the backside with the flat of the sword was discouraged by Wellington. The use of flogging varied, of course, but the issue we have is knowing how representative our surviving sources are. The available information for the French army is fragmentary (Michael Hughes mentions this in Forging Napoleon's Grande Armee), so we can't build a complete picture. The French attitude to living off the land was also more lax than in the British army, where it was not tolerated. The Prussian system is often regarded as having been particularly brutal, but Ilya Berkovich (Motivation in Warfare) has questioned this. The issue we have is that no-one has ever done an equivalent for the other armies so its hard to achieve a definite comparison. The impact that a conscription system had on this is open to interpretation.
Thanks for taking your time to explain more and correct some of my misunderstandings.
In case you compare the Prussian system in the Napoleonic time compared to the Brits seems to me human indeed, the alleged brutality stems maybe of the Prussian Army of Frederick the Great or his father, but indeed this has to be questioned.
Though systematic plunder was part of the French warfare under Nabulieone, the British soldier couldn't survive when just relying on this rations when on campaign.
Informal beating and semi formal beating existed I suppose in all armies, the French used the savatte - officers the stick, or the sword or even the fist, I must check on Morvan to see if there is a chapter on this.
Q – Why is a soldier like a mouse?
Oman reckoned that the sentence to 1,200 lashes was delivered ‘9 or 10 times’ during the Peninsular War and 1,000 lashes were administered about 50 times. Peter Burroughs (‘Crime and Punishment in the British Army, 1815-70’ English Historical Review) says flogging in the range of 300 to 700 lashes was usual. Wellington later said, ‘British soldiers are taken entirely from the lowest order of society, … I do not see how you can have an Army at all unless you preserve it in a state of discipline, nor how you can have a state of discipline, unless you have some punishment … There is no punishment which makes an impression upon anybody except corporal punishment. … I have no idea of any great effect being produced by anything but the fear of immediate corporal punishment …’ As late as 1846 Frederick John White died after receiving 150 lashes. In 1828, two NCOs in Ireland were sentenced to 1,000 lashes apiece for “writing deceitful letters.”
Alexander Alexander, a recruit in the Royal Artillery at Woolrich in 1801-2, reported in his memoir “there was scarce a day in which we did not see one or more of the soldiers get from three to seven hundred lashes.” John Shipp an infantry drummer during the same period estimated he inflicted flogging three times a week. (The Early Nineteenth-Century Campaign against Flogging in the ArmyJ. R. Dinwiddy The English Historical Review Vol. 97, No. 383 (Apr., 1982), pp. 308-331)
The British Army not only flogged soldiers, but branded them as well-with a “D” for deserter, or “BC” for bad character. Branding wasn’t abolished until 1871. Flogging was banned in 1881.
A – Because he lives in constant terror of the cat!
Wellington later said, ‘British soldiers are taken entirely from the lowest order of society, …But this is the case for a lot of other armies as well, and what is lowest of society, people who had to get their hands dirty to earn their living?
It seems to be a trend of Anglophone armies to treat their soldiers like crap, even in the ACW - gagging - branding and other tortures - with the pretext to keep discipline.
I wonder how British officers would have coped with large conscript armies - like the French - or in the later Napoleonic armies, other nations as well.
Despite this inhuman treatment, the British soldiers did more than his duty, so the system worked.
The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves
John Shipp:
“It is some consolation to me to be able to say, that my present views are not induced by the remembrance of personal castigation; but from the practical observation of its effect on others, I can most solemnly affirm that, in my opinion, flogging is, and always will be, the best, the quickest, and most certain method that can be devised, to eradicate from the bosom of a British soldier his most loyal and laudable feelings. During the whole of my career, which included a period of upwards of thirty years, and the length and nature of which afforded me opportunities for extensive inquiry and accurate information, I never knew but one solitary instance in which a man recovered self-respect and general reputation, after having been tortured and degraded by the punishment of flogging.”
“If those whose duty it is to form the code of military laws will allow soldiers to possess the common feelings and sensibilities of other men, it must be obvious that degrading a man, by flogging him like some vile miscreant, must be attended with great and irreparable injury to the service. Since I entered the army, the practice of flogging has considerably abated, thanks to the noble advocated, for its total abolition: but, even still, the terrific cries for mercy are heard from the ranks of almost every regiment in the service, especially those which are abroad. If a man deserve such ignominy and debasement, he is unfit for a soldier, and ought to be discharged the service. Often have I been agonized to see the skin torn off the poor sufferer's wrists and legs, by lugging him up to the triangles as you would the vilest miscreant of the land, and afterwards an inexperienced drum-boy flogging him over the face and eyes. I have heard men beg for a drop of water to cool their parched mouths and burning tongues, which has been denied them.”
“While the men abhorred flogging, their real objection lay with the arbitrary and capricious manner in which officers resorted to it as a means of control. At the battalion level and below, punishments were at the whim of the officer in charge. Morris stated that his ardor to be a soldier cooled when he joined the 73rd and found its commanding officer to be a man who lashed anyone for the slightest error. Morris called it ‘disgraceful’ and a ‘gross inhumanity.’ P. 200
“[Edward] Costello, who witnessed the punishment, commented that “Flogging is at all times a disgusting subject of contemplation.” P.201
“[Joseph] Donaldson wrote on the effects of flogging with a simmering resentment. He despised a temporary captain who flogged daily and made the men wear yellow and black patches with holes cut in them signaling how many times they had been lashed. Donaldson made note that the badges and corporal punishment broke the spirit of the men in his unit; some of the men turned openly to crime while others became reckless during encounters with the French. ‘Honour and character were lost,’ Donaldson commented, explaining the change in the behavior of the men. He was much relieved when the lieutenant-colonel returned, stopped the abuse, and had the men remove their badges of shame.” P.202
“Harris also wrote: ‘I detest the sight of the lash, but I am convinced the British army can never go without it.’ Harris, The Recollections of Rifleman Harris, 138. Harris was referring to an incident in which General Craufurd flogged two men for straggling in order to ensure that no men fell out during the last struggles of the retreat to Corunna. Harris’ position, while seemingly odd, can probably be best explained by noting that he had no other frame of reference by which to judge flogging, as such corporal punishment was all he had ever known in civilian and army life. In this case, he saw that hard discipline may have saved lives under these special circumstances. It should be noted that Harris also lamented the tyranny of sergeants and officers who tormented the men with ‘trifles’ and related punishments, a practice ‘very injurious to a whole corps.’ Harris, 102. Officers who could inflict the lash but were immune to ever suffering from it were often more open about advocating its use. Major Hudson, of the 51st, for example, spoke in 1809 about what he saw as the positive effects such treatment would have on one particular soldier: ‘It will do him good, make him grow and make him know better for the future.’ Wheeler, The Letters of Private Wheeler 3.” P.229-230, note 248
“The British use of ceremony to enhance the effects of flogging stands in stark contrast to how Napoleon used ceremonies to enhance morale.” P.230 n. 260
ALL FOR THE KING’S SHILLING. Edward James Coss. Ohio State Univ. 2005 https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1117204657&disposition=inline