[186] There is a good account of the combat of Casal Novo in William Napier’s History, iii. 119-20, and a still more striking one in his biography, pp. 55-7, containing some distressing anecdotes. He was severely wounded, as was also his brother George Napier of the 52nd, whose narrative is quite as interesting as William’s. It is he who describes Erskine’s reckless action best—informed by Colonel Ross that the French were still in Casal Novo ‘he kept blustering and swearing it was all nonsense—that the captains of the pickets knew nothing about the matter, and that there was not a man in the village. Just as he spoke the dense fog began to clear, and bang came a shot from a twelve-pounder, which struck the head of our column and made a lane through it, killing and wounding many. Then came a regular cannonade, but the wise Sir William was sure it was but a single gun and a picket supporting it, and desired Colonel Ross to send my company against its flank,’ &c. Costello of the 95th has also left a very good and lively narrative of the day’s work.
[187] The losses of the 14th (Casal Novo) and the 15th (Foz do Arouce) have unfortunately got mixed in Martinien’s invaluable casualty lists, most of them being credited to the 14th, with the wrong heading ‘Condeixa’—which appears to mean Casal Novo. In some regiments the dates and names have not got wrong, e. g. we know that on the 14th the 27th regiment had 3 officers wounded, and 3 more at Foz do Arouce on the following day. But e. g. in the 39th Ligne Colonel Lamour is down as ‘blessé le 14 mars à Condeixa,’ while he was certainly wounded at Foz do Arouce on the 15th, where he was also taken prisoner. The total of officers recorded as hit in the 6th Corps on the 14th-15th is 22, of whom 10 were certainly casualties of the 14th. This must surely imply more than 55 in all, killed and wounded. At the low rate of 10 men per officer it would give 100—at the normal rate of 20 per officer it would be 200. But the last is probably too high. It was on this day that Marbot had his famous encounter with a rifle officer (officier de chasseurs à pied) and two hussars, of whom (according to his narrative) he slew the first and wounded the other two. It cannot be disputed that he had a fight, for he is down as wounded in the official lists. But he certainly did not kill a rifle officer. The only light division officer slain that day was Lieutenant Gifford, who was killed by a ball in the head at Casal Novo. It is also to be noted that there are no cavalry casualties in the return of March 14, or indeed since Redinha. Marbot’s supposed victims thus disappear!
[188] For details see the diary of Ney’s aide-de-camp Sprünglin (p. 470). It is astounding to find Masséna in his dispatch of March 19 to Berthier stating that between Miranda de Corvo and Foz do Arouce ‘nos équipages et nos malades ne cessaient pas de filer, et rien absolument n’est resté en arrière.’
[189] ‘The most disgusting sight was the asses floundering in the mud, some with throats half cut, the rest barbarously houghed. What the object of this was I never could guess. The poor brutes could have been of no use to us, for they could not have travelled another league. Their meagre appearance, with backbones and hips protruding through their skin, and their mangled limbs, produced a feeling of disgust and commiseration.’ (Grattan, p. 58.)
‘It was pitiable to see the poor creatures in this state, yet there was something ludicrous in the position which many had taken when thus cruelly lamed. They were sitting in groups upon their hinder ends, staring in each other’s faces, as if in deep consultation on some important subject.’ (Donaldson of the 94th, p. 106.)
[190] Napier calls the village Foz de Aronce, and this spelling of it (probably caused by an uncorrected printer’s error) has been perpetuated by every English writer on the War. Yet Wellington has it rightly spelt with the ‘u’ in his dispatch (vii. p. 370) as ‘Foz de Arouce.’ Masséna, in his, calls it Foz d’Arunce, which is incorrect. Delagrave, Fririon, and other French narrators follow him, sometimes with the variants Aronce or Arounce. There is no doubt that the name is spelt with a ‘u,’ and always has been, by the Portuguese.
[191] All Marchand’s division and a brigade of Mermet’s (25th Léger and 27th Ligne) remained behind. Only Labassée’s brigade of Mermet’s division crossed the water, with Loison’s division.
[192] I studied the ground at Foz do Arouce on September 28, 1910. The bridge is only four and a half yards broad, and 107 long. It was approached in 1811 by the road in a sharp turn, which has now been straightened out, so was far more difficult to cross than it is now. The gap between the hills in which the village lies is about 200 yards broad. The heights on the French left are much higher than those on their right.
[193] It was found in the river at low water and sent to London. The loss is mentioned in George Simmons’s diary under March 16. Wellington sent it home in July. (Dispatches, viii. p. 78.)
[194] So both Masséna’s dispatch, and Fririon, who was present with the brigade of which the 69th formed part. Marbot is wrong in saying that it was the 27th. All the narratives on the French side are very confused, and differ widely.