History of the war in the Peninsula and in the south of France from the year 1807 to the year 1814, vol. 5 — John Shaqi
History of the war in the Peninsula and in the south of France from the year 1807 to the year 1814, vol. 5Napier, William Francis Patrick
History
History of the war in the Peninsula and in the south of France from the year 1807 to the year 1814, vol. 5
Napier, William Francis Patrick
Peninsular War, 1807-1814
3º. On the negative proofs afforded 1º. by the absence of any quoted
voucher in my work, 2º. by the absence of any acknowledgement of such
a fact in general Anstruther’s manuscript journal, which journal
may or may not be garbled, the reviewer asserts that the English
ministers never contemplated the appointing of a military governor
for Cadiz. Against this, let the duke of Wellington’s authority be
pleaded, for in my note-book of conversations held with his grace
upon the subject of my history, the following passage occurs:—
“The ministers were always wishing to occupy Cadiz, lord Wellington
thinks this a folly, Cadiz was rather a burthen to him, but either
general Spencer or general Anstruther was intended to command there,
thinks it was Anstruther, he came out with his appointment.”
Now it is possible that as Acland’s arrival was also the subject of
conversation, his name was mentioned instead of Anstruther’s; and
it is also possible, as the note shows, that Spencer was the man,
but the main fact relative to the government could not have been
mistaken. To balance this, however, there undoubtedly is an error
as to the situation of general Anstruther’s brigade at the battle
of Vimiero. It appears by an extract from his journal, that it was
disposed, not, as the reviewer says, on the right of Fane’s brigade,
but at various places, part being on the right of Fane, part upon
his left, part held in reserve. The forty-third were on the left of
Fane, the fifty-second and ninety-seventh on his right, the ninth
in reserve, the error is therefore very trivial, being simply the
describing two regiments as of Fane’s brigade, when they were of
Anstruther’s without altering their position. What does the public
care whether it was a general called Fane, or a general called
Anstruther, who was on the right hand if the important points of the
action are correctly described? The fighting of the fifty-second and
ninety-seventh has indeed been but slightly noticed, in my history,
under the denomination of Fane’s right, whereas those regiments make
a good figure, and justly so, in Anstruther’s journal, because it
is the story of the brigade; but general history ought not to enter
into the details of regimental fighting, save where the effects are
decisive on the general result, as in the case of the fiftieth and
forty-third on this occasion. The whole loss of the ninety-seventh
and fifty-second together did not exceed sixty killed and wounded,
whereas the fiftieth alone lost ninety, and the forty-third one
hundred and eighteen.
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