History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery Vol. 2: Compiled from the Original RecordsDuncan, Francis
History
History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery Vol. 2: Compiled from the Original Records
Duncan, Francis
Great Britain. Army. Royal Regiment of Artillery
The investing troops on the south bank were then withdrawn; but a corps
remained on the north bank to cover the removal of the heavy artillery
to Elvas. Of the duty performed by Major Dickson on this occasion, under
Marshal Beresford’s orders, Napier writes that “the arrangements for
carrying off the stores were admirably executed; ... and that the
transactions were so well masked by the 4th Division, which, in concert
with the Spaniards, continued to maintain the investment, that it was
only by a sally on the rear-guard, in which the Portuguese piquets of
the 4th Division were very roughly treated, that the French knew the
siege was raised.”
The same author visits the failure of this siege, and the heavy losses
attending all the subsequent sieges carried on by the British in Spain,
on the absence of any properly-equipped corps of Sappers and Miners to
assist the officers of Engineers. The want of such a corps, with the
necessary implements, rendered, according to Napier, the British sieges
a mere succession of butcheries. But Sir Alexander Dickson was ready to
accept part of the responsibility of this failure for his own
department. In his diary of the first siege of [Sidenote: Sir A.
Dickson’s MSS.] Badajoz he wrote: “Every praise was due to the
Portuguese Artillery for the activity, zeal, and willingness they
displayed in this service. Indeed, nothing could exceed their personal
exertions; but, from their professional inexperience, Major Dickson has
great doubts whether a satisfactory result would have been obtained
without the assistance of a proportion [Sidenote: Dated Elvas, 22 May,
1811.] of better-trained Artillerymen.” At the same time, however, he
distinctly stated, in a letter to General Macleod, that his wish was not
to begin the fire from any one battery until the whole attack should be
more advanced, and that the Cristoval attack should be supported from
other points. He added that the battery against the Picurina, although
well placed as an auxiliary for general attack, afforded no support to
that against San Cristoval. In these points, he wrote, “my opinions
coincide entirely with those of Colonel Fletcher (R.E.), with whom it is
a pleasure to serve.”
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account