[11] The battalions were the 2nd and 3rd of Savoya (the last a new levy) the 1st and 2nd of Don Carlos, and the 3rd of Orihuela, this last raw and newly raised like the 3rd of Savoya.
[12] Vacani says that the Teruel column was intended by Suchet as a mere demonstration, and was never intended to follow the high-road Teruel-Segorbe, but to take a cross-route over the hills, such as was actually used by it. But Suchet, in his Mémoires, makes no such statement (ii. p. 152), and speaks as if Harispe had taken the Ruvielos route on his own responsibility.
[13] The complete orders for the attack may be read in the first Pièce justificative in Belmas’s history of the siege, pp. 115-17 of vol. iv of his elaborate work.
[14] Vacani (v. p. 381) contradicts Suchet, saying that there was no Spanish patrol, and that the French pickets fired from nervousness at an imaginary foe.
[15] Vacani makes the losses 360 instead of 247, and it is possible that Suchet has given only the casualties at the main assault, and not those in the distant demonstrations. Vacani says that the Italians lost 52 men in their false attack.
[16] See Mahy’s letter to Blake on pp. 109-12 of vol. xi of Arteche. The General is writing very carefully so as not to speak too ill of his army: but his views are clear.
[17] Blake kept under his own hand in the lines the divisions of Zayas, Lardizabal, Miranda, and the Reserve.
[18] Vacani gives a long and interesting account of the siege (v. pp. 404-13) and attributes the weak defence to quarrels between the commander of the Italians and the French governor, Müller.
[19] Belonging to the 7th Line of Severoli’s division.
[20] Belmas, iv. p. 97.