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
While on the subject of Anstruther’s brigade, it is right also to
admit another error, one of place; that is if it be true, as the
reviewer says, that Anstruther landed at Paymayo bay, and not at
Maceira bay. The distance between those places may be about five
miles, and the fact had no influence whatever on the operations;
nevertheless the error was not drawn from Mr. Southey’s history,
though I readily acknowledge I could not go to a more copious source
of error. With respect to the imputed mistake as to time, viz. the
day of Anstruther’s landing, it is set down in my first edition as
the 19th, wherefore the 18th in the third edition is simply a mistake
of the press! Alas! poor reviewer!
But there are graver charges. I have maligned the worthy bishop of
Oporto; and ill-used the patriotic Gallician junta! Reader, the
bishop of Oporto and the patriarch of Lisbon are one and the same
person! Examine then my history and especially its appendix and judge
for yourself, whether the reviewer may not justly be addressed as
the pope was by Richard I. when he sent him the bishop of Beauvais’
bloody suit of mail. “See now if this be thy son’s coat.” But the
junta! Why it is true that I said they glossed over the battle of Rio
Seco after the Spanish manner; that their policy was but a desire
to obtain money, and to avoid personal inconvenience; that they
gave sir Arthur Wellesley incorrect statements of the number of the
Portuguese and Spaniards at Oporto, and a more inaccurate estimate of
the French army under Junot. All this is true. It is true that I have
said it, true that they did it. The reviewer _says_ my statement is
a “gratuitous misrepresentation.” I will _prove_ that the reviewer’s
remark is a gratuitous impertinence.
1º. The junta informed sir Arthur Wellesley, that Bessieres had
twenty thousand men in the battle, whereas he had but fifteen
thousand.
2º. That Cuesta lost only two guns, whereas he lost eighteen.
3º. That Bessieres lost seven thousand men and six guns, whereas he
lost only three hundred and fifty men, and no guns.
4º. That the Spanish army had retired to Benevente as if it still
preserved its consistence, whereas Blake and Cuesta had quarrelled
and separated, all the magazines of the latter had been captured and
the whole country was at the mercy of the French. This was glossing
it over in the Spanish manner.
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