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
arrived from Santander; on the 18th, another breach was pronounced
practicable, and Wellington ordered a fifth assault. This also was
unsuccessful; the Allies lost 200 men killed and wounded; and the siege
was at length raised--on the 20th--by Lord Wellington, who had received
alarming intelligence of the approach of a French army to relieve
Burgos, and of the movements of Soult.
The siege of Burgos is a blot on the military reputation of the Duke of
Wellington; and revealed an ignorance of what artillery could and could
not do, which every now and then [Sidenote: Sir Hew Ross to Sir Hew
Dalrymple, dated Madrid, 18 Oct. 1812.] manifested itself in his
military operations. If Sir Hew Ross was correctly informed, the error
made by Lord Wellington was almost criminal, as there was no necessity
for attempting such a siege with so inadequate a siege-train. “Why he
should have undertaken the siege of such a place,” wrote Major Ross from
Madrid, “with means so very inadequate appears very extraordinary,
_especially as there was little or no difficulty in augmenting it to any
extent_, either from the guns and ammunition found here, or the ships at
St. Andero.” That Sir Hew wrote with reason seems all the more probable
from the fact that, while the last assault was actually taking place,
two 24-pounders sent from Santander by Sir Home Popham had passed
Reynosa on [Sidenote: Napier.] their way to Burgos. But it may be urged
that the responsibility of undertaking a siege with insufficient
Artillery lay not with the General, but with the Artillery commander.
Those who are familiar with the character of the Duke of Wellington, as
shown in the various narratives of the Peninsular War, will not make use
of this argument. It was not his wont to allow his plans to be altered
by the representations of his subordinates, nor was he addicted to the
habit of consulting them. Besides, in this particular instance, he
officially relieved the Artillery and Engineer officers of the
responsibility. “The officers,” he wrote, “at [Sidenote: To Lord
Bathurst dated Cabeçon, 26 Oct. 1812.] the head of the Artillery and
Engineer departments, Lieut.-Colonel Robe and Lieut.-Colonel Burgoyne,
and Lieut.-Colonel Dickson, who commands the reserve Artillery, rendered
me every assistance; and the failure of success is not to be attributed
to them.” The Duke of Wellington believed in the bayonet beyond any
other weapon; and if a legitimate belief became occasionally credulity,
it is hardly to be wondered at, when one reflects on the gallantry of
the Infantry which it was the Duke’s good fortune to command. What
seemed to be impossibilities, when ordered by him, were proved possible
in the result; and the consequently increased belief in the power of the
bayonet seems but natural. But his creed was supported at a terrible
cost. When we find Napier himself,--Wellington’s idolater,--pronouncing
his sieges a succession of butcheries, the criticism of a more temperate
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