A history of the Peninsular War, Vol. 1, 1807-1809 : $b From the treaty of Fontainbleau to the battle of Corunna — John Shaqi
A history of the Peninsular War, Vol. 1, 1807-1809 : $b From the treaty of Fontainbleau to the battle of CorunnaOman, Charles
History
A history of the Peninsular War, Vol. 1, 1807-1809 : $b From the treaty of Fontainbleau to the battle of Corunna
Oman, Charles
Peninsular War, 1807-1814
[66] Napier (i. 15) says that Daoiz and Velarde were ‘in a state
of excitement from drink,’ a disgraceful French calumny. How
could he bear to reproduce such a libel on these unfortunate
officers?
The whole struggle had occupied not more than four hours: when it was
over Murat issued an ‘order of the day,’ sentencing all prisoners taken
with arms in their hands, all persons discovered with arms concealed
in their houses, and all distributors of seditious leaflets, ‘the
agents of the English government,’ to be shot. It seems that at least a
hundred persons were executed under this edict, many of them innocent
bystanders who had taken no part in the fighting. Next morning Murat
withdrew his Draconian decree, and no further fusillades took place.
It is impossible, in the conflict of authorities, to arrive at any
clear estimate of the numbers slain on each side on May 2[67]. Probably
Toreño is not far out when he estimates the whole at something over a
thousand. Of these four-fifths must have been Spaniards, for the French
only lost heavily at the arsenal: the number of isolated soldiers
murdered in the streets at the first outbreak of the riot does not seem
to have been very large.
[67] The Junta, to soothe the feelings of Madrid, gave out that
only 150 Spaniards had fallen. The _Moniteur_ said that 2,000
criminals had been cut down or executed! Murat reported a loss of
eighty men only, while Napier says that he has excellent French
authority and eye-witnesses to the effect that 750 fell.
Many French authors have called the rising a deliberate and
preconcerted conspiracy to massacre the French garrison. On the other
hand Spanish writers have asserted that Murat had arranged everything
so as to cause a riot, in order that he might have the chance of
administering a ‘whiff of grape-shot,’ after his master’s plan.
But it is clear that both are making unfounded accusations: if the
insurrection had been premeditated, the Spanish soldiery would have
been implicated in it, for nothing would have been easier than to
stir them up. Yet of the whole 3,000 only forty ran out to help the
insurgents. Moreover, the mob would have been found armed at the first
commencement of trouble, which it certainly was not. On the other hand,
if Murat had been organizing a massacre, he would not have been caught
with no more than two squadrons of cavalry and five or six companies
of infantry under his hand. These might have been cut to pieces before
the troops from outside could come to their help. He had been expecting
riots, and was prepared to deal with them, but was surprised by a
serious insurrection on a larger scale than he had foreseen, and at a
moment when he was not ready.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account