History of the war in the Peninsula and in the south of France from the year 1807 to the year 1814, vol. 6Napier, 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. 6
Napier, William Francis Patrick
Peninsular War, 1807-1814
It is not meant by this to decry entrenched camps within compass,
and around which an active army moves as on a pivot, delivering or
avoiding battle according to circumstances. The objection applies
only to those extensive covering lines by which soldiers are
taught to consider themselves inferior in strength and courage to
their enemies. A general is thus precluded from shewing himself at
important points and at critical periods; he is unable to encourage
his troops or to correct errors; his sudden resources and the
combinations of genius are excluded by the necessity of adhering
to the works, while the assailants may make whatever dispositions
they like, menace every point and select where to break through.
The defenders, seeing large masses directed against them and unable
to draw confidence from a like display of numbers, become fearful,
knowing there must be some weak point which is the measure of
strength for the whole. The assailants fall on with that heat
and vehemence which belongs to those who act voluntarily and on
the offensive; each mass strives to outdo those on its right and
left, and failure is only a repulse, whereas the assailed having no
resource but victory look to their flanks, and are more anxious about
their neighbours’ fighting than their own.
[Sidenote: Official Reports of the French generals to Soult, MSS.]
[Sidenote: Soult’s Official Report to the Minister of War, MSS.]
All these disadvantages were experienced at the battle of the
Nivelle. D’Erlon attributed his defeat to the loss of the bridge
of Amotz by Conroux’s division, and to this cause also Maransin
traced his misfortunes. Taupin laid his defeat at Maransin’s door,
but Clauzel on the other hand ascribed it at once to want of
firmness in the troops, although he also asserted that if Daricau’s
division had come to his aid from the camp of Serres, he would have
maintained his ground. Soult however traced Clauzel’s defeat to
injudicious measures. That general he said attempted to defend the
village of Sarre after the redoubts of San Barbe and Grenada were
carried, whereby Conroux’s division was overwhelmed in detail and
driven back in flight to Amotz. Clauzel should rather have assembled
his three divisions at once in the main position which was his
battleground, and there, covered by the smaller Rhune, ought to have
been victorious. It was scarcely credible he observed that such
entrenchments as Clauzel’s and D’Erlon’s should have been carried.
For his part he relied on their strength so confidently as to think
the allies must sacrifice twenty-five thousand men to force them and
perhaps fail then. He had been on the right when the battle began,
no reports came to him, he could judge of events only by the fire,
and when he reached the camp of Serres with his reserve troops
and artillery Clauzel’s works were lost! His arrival had however
paralyzed the march of three divisions. This was true, yet there
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