Wellington and the Scum of the Earth

@Hans - Karl Weiß No doubt you will know of it already, but @Ed Coss has literally written the book on this (All for the King's Shilling - its very detailed, and thoroughly worth reading if you don't have a copy already). If memory serves, the figure might have been as much as 4000 calories a day, but don't quote me on that. The reality is that if they got their rations, it wouldn't have covered that. When they didn't...

Hi John,

Sorry you are finding the site slow to load. I tend to find it is geared towards working best on chrome or Microsoft edge, but you are right, there is a lot of 'stuff' in the background, so depending on the processor and wifi connection, it can take a while. The same is also true of the phone app version actually, though if you are really struggling, that can be a little faster.

Always love Josh's work - great bloke.

You are quite right, there is a distinction to be made, though, as I argue in the episode 'The Curious Case of Badajoz' letting the plunder, rape and murder that occurred at Badajoz, and (to a significantly lesser extent) Ciudad Rodrgio and San Sebastian, go left awkward precedents and mixed messages, and actually shows that there were much wider issues with the military justice system, and when it did/did not function. Discretion of officers was paramount in the process, but if you are interested in that have a look at the links in the related posts.

With Vittoria, there's actually often confusion there - There's the initial looting of the baggage train, and then there's the marauding of some men that continued in the region for a few weeks. Its the latter that provoked the outburst, but, as we've seen in other instances on this forum in recent weeks, things get misquoted, misconstrued and unwittingly misinterpreted, and now everyone thinks that 'scum of the earth' is a reaction to the plundering of the baggage train - not the case. In actual fact, we have evidence that some men had their packs searched shortly after Vittoria, and had the loot from the baggage train confiscated. This doesn't seem to have applied to all men, but certainly happened to some.

I'm not remotely surprised the men plundered. As I say in the pod, it was plunder or die, and of course the officers recognised that fact (back to my discretion argument that is such a central part of the thesis I'm writing).

As you say, breakdowns also occurred when the army was in retreat. This is something else that I've looked at, and I have a chapter coming out in the next few months in a book for Helion edited by @Andrew Bamford. I won't spoil it, but my argument would be that morale is a significant issue there - its noticeable how discipline suddenly returns at the prospect of a good fight, or evaporates when it becomes clear that they aren't going to have the chance to prove themselves.

One thing I'd push back on slightly: "outbreaks of mass crime and indiscipline took place against the back ground of fierce discipline and punishment that generally prevailed". Well, yes and no. Nominally, yes there was scope for huge floggings of up to 1500 lashes. Such a punishment was rarely given, and never actually inflicted. Deserters could be shot, 1200 lashes was sentenced and inflicted on a number of occasions, but actually this system isn't one of 'torture as public spectacle' that Roger Norman Buckley characterises it as in his otherwise excellent book on Britain's West India Army. The reality is that many men were never brought to trial. Those who were, often found themselves deliberately tried for more minor offences than those which they actually committed, alternative methods of punishment were applied, illegal types of court were even used to avoid having to call proper courts martial, giving honour based punishments, rather than floggings. There is also a move away from the lash and towards corporal punishment. Full flogging sentences were rarely inflicted. So the system, although brutal, is nowhere near as vicious in reality as the popular perception would have us believe.

As you say though, it was a fragile system, and in many respects was built on mutual trust. When it broke down, it showed just how finely tuned the balance between command, control and disorder really were. Its staggering how effectively it did manage to work, in the end - after all, whilst there were break downs, there was never a catastrophic rout. At the very least, it worked well enough to ensure enough men were in sufficiently good condition to fight and defeat the French on almost every occasion, at least in the context of the Peninsular War.

I agree. The men were between a rock and a hard place. In the circumstances, plunder was inevitable, and, as I've mentioned in other pods, the officers recognised that and often turned a blind eye.

Wellington was between his own rock and a hard place, I suppose. He knew he had to do something. He had to do everything he could to maintain control, and preserve an at least vaguely positive relationship with his allies, however difficult that might be politically. There really was no solution. Often the food just wasn't there, or the men didn't have the money from their arrears to buy things. Wellington did everything within his power, but it was never going to be enough - the food itself was nutritionally inadequate for the tasks they were completing (even if they had received full rations all the time). There's no doubt that he was angry, but I do wonder if making a fuss and example was often a way of signalling to the locals and the army 'look I do take this seriously'.