History of the war in the Peninsula and in the south of France from the year 1807 to the year 1814, vol. 6

by William Francis Patrick Napier

The edge of the table-land or tongue on which the light division stood was very abrupt, and formed a salient angle, behind the apex of which the forty-third and fifty-second were drawn up in a line, the right of the one and the left of the other resting on the very edges; the artillery was at the apex looking down the descent, and far below the Caçadores and the ninety-fifth were spread on the mountain side as skirmishers. Ney employed only two columns of attack. The one came straight against the light division; the head of it striking the right company of the fifty-second and the left company of the forty-third was broken as against a wall; and at the same time the wings of those regiments reinforced by the skirmishers of the ninety-fifth, who had retired on the right of the forty-third, advanced and lapped over the broken column on both sides. No other troops fought with them at that point. In this I cannot be mistaken, because my company was in the right wing of the forty-third, we followed the enemy down to the first village which was several hundred yards below the edge, and we returned leisurely; the ground was open to the view on the right and on the left, we saw no other column, and heard of none save that which we were pursuing.

When we returned from this pursuit the light division had been reformed on the little plain above, and some time after several German battalions, coming from under the convent wall, passed through our ranks and commenced skirmishing with Ney’s reserve in the woods below.

General M‘Bean says he saw no German infantry, and hence it is clear that it was not at this point his charge had place. But it is also certain Ney had only two columns of attack. Now his second, under the command of general Marchand, moved up the hollow curve of the great mountain to the right of the light division, and having reached a pine-wood, which however was far below the height on which the light division stood, he sent skirmishers out against Pack’s brigade which was in his front. A part of Ross’s troops of artillery under the direction of lieutenant, now colonel M‘Donald, played very sharply upon this column in the pine-wood. I was standing in company with captain Loyd of my own regiment, close to the guns watching their effect, and it was then I saw the advance of the Portuguese regiment to which I have alluded; but general M‘Bean again assures me that the nineteenth regiment was not there. Two suppositions therefore present themselves. The enemy’s skirmishers from this column were very numerous. Some of them might have passed the left flank of Pack’s skirmishers, and gathering in a body have reached the edge of the hill on which the light division were posted, and then rising behind it have been attacked by general M‘Bean; or, what is more likely, the skirmishers, or a small flanking detachment from the column which attacked the light division, might have passed under the edge of the descent on the right of the light division, and gathering in a like manner have risen under general M‘Bean’s line.

Either of these suppositions, and especially the last, would render the matter clear to me in all points save that of attacking the enemy’s position, which as I have before observed, may be only a loose expression of the general’s to denote the ground which the French opposed to him had attained on our position. This second supposition seems also to be confirmed by a fact mentioned by general M‘Bean, namely, that the enemy’s guns opened on him immediately after his charge. The French guns did open also on that part of the light division which followed the enemy down the hill to the first village, thus the time that the nineteenth charged seems marked, and as I was one of those who went to the village, it also accounts for my not seeing that charge. However considering all things, I must admit that I was so far in error that I really did not, nor do I now possess any clear recollection of this exploit of the nineteenth regiment; and in proof of the difficulty of attaining strict accuracy on such occasions, I can here adduce the observation of general M‘Bean viz. that he saw no Germans save the artillery; yet there was a whole brigade of that nation near the convent wall, and they advanced and skirmished sharply with the enemy soon after the charge of the nineteenth would appear to have taken place. Very often also, things appear greater to those who perform them than to the bye-standers, and I would therefore ask how many men the nineteenth lost in the charge, how many prisoners it took, and how many French were opposed to it? for I still maintain that neither by the nineteenth Portuguese, nor by any other regiment, save those of the light division, was any charge made which called for particular notice on my part as a general historian. I am not bound to relate all the minor occurrences of a great battle; “those things belong to the history of regiments,” is the just observation of Napoleon. Yet general M‘Bean may be assured that no desire to underrate either his services or the gallantry of the Portuguese soldiers ever actuated me, and to prove it, if my third volume should ever come to a third edition, I will take his letter as my ground for noticing this charge, although I will not promise to make it appear so prominent as your lordship would have me to do.

Your lordship closes this subject by the following observation. “As colonel Napier represents himself as having been an eye-witness of a gallant movement made by a certain Portuguese regiment,—which regiment he does not profess to know,—but which movement took place a mile distant from the position given to the nineteenth regiment, it is evident he could not also have been an eye-witness of what was passing a mile to the left. Nor can he therefore negative what is said to have occurred there. It is extraordinary that the historian should not have perceived the predicament in which he has placed himself.” Now your lordship does not say that the two events occurred at the same time, wherefore your conclusion is what the renowned Partridge calls a “non sequitur;” and as general M‘Bean expressly affirms his charge to have taken place on the right of the light division, it was not absolutely necessary that I should look to the left in order to see the said charge. Hence the predicament in which I am placed, is that of being obliged to remark your lordship’s inability to reason upon your own materials.

Your next subject is captain Squire, but I will pass over that matter as having been I think sufficiently discussed before, and I am well assured that the memory of that very gallant and able officer will never suffer from your lordship’s angry epithets. Campo Mayor follows. In your “Further Strictures” you said that colonel Colborne was not near the scene of action; you now show in detail that he was actively engaged in it. You denied also that he was in support of the advanced guard, and yet quote his own report explaining how he happened to be separated from the advanced guard just before the action, thus proving that he was marching in support of it. You refuse any credit to the statements of captain Gregory and colonel Light; and you endeavour to discredit and trample upon the evidence of the officer of the thirteenth dragoons who was an actor in the charge of that regiment, but with respect to him a few remarks are necessary.

1º. The accuracy of that gentleman’s narrative concerns my Justification very little, except in one part. I published it whole as he gave it to me, because I thought it threw light upon the subject. I think so still, and I see nothing in your lordship’s observation to make me doubt its general correctness. But it was only the part which I printed in italics that concerned me. I had described a remarkable combat of cavalry, wherein the hostile squadrons had twice passed through each other, and then the British put the French to flight. Your lordship ridiculed this as a nursery tale; you called my description of it a “country dance,” and you still call it my “scenic effect.” Did the hostile masses meet twice, and did the British then put their opponents to flight? These were the real questions. The unusual fact of two cavalry bodies charging through each other, was the point in dispute; it is scenic, but is it true? Now my first authority, whom I have designated as an “eye-witness,” was colonel Colborne; my second authority colonel Dogherty of the thirteenth dragoons, an actor; and when your lordship so coolly says the latter’s statement does not afford “the slightest support to my scenic description,” I must take the liberty of laughing at you. Why, my lord, you really seem disposed to treat common sense as if it were a subaltern. Colonel Dogherty bears me out even to the letter; for as the second charge took place with the same violence that the third did, if the hostile bodies had not passed through to their original position, the French must have fled towards the allied army; but they fled towards Badajos. The English must therefore have passed through and turned, and it was then that in the personal conflict with the sabre which followed the second charge the thirteenth dragoons defeated the French.

My lord, you will never by such special pleading, I know of no other term by which I can properly designate your argument, you will never, I say, by such special pleading, hide your bad generalship at Campo Mayor. The proofs of your errors there are too many and too clear; the errors themselves too glaring too gross to leave you the least hope; the same confusion of head which prevented you from seizing the advantages then offered to you seems to prevail in your writing; and yet while impeaching every person’s credit where their statements militate against your object, you demand the most implicit confidence in your own contradictory assertions and preposterous arguments. My lord, you only fatigue yourself and your readers by your unwieldy floundering, you are heavy and throw much mud about; like one of those fine Andalusian horses so much admired in the Peninsula, you prance and curvet and foam and labour in your paces but you never get on. At Campo Mayor you had an enormous superiority of troops, the enemy were taken by surprize, they were in a plain, their cavalry were beaten, their artillery-drivers cut down, their infantry, hemmed in by your horsemen and under the play of your guns, were ready to surrender; yet you suffered them to escape and to carry off their captured artillery and then you blamed your gallant troops. The enemy escaped from you, my lord, but you cannot escape from the opinion of the world by denying the truth of all statements which militate against you.

The march by Merida. If you had said at once that the duke of Wellington forbade you to go by Merida, there would have been an end of all my arguments against your skill; yet it by no means follows that these arguments would be futile in themselves, though not applicable to you personally. New combinations were presented, and the duke of Wellington might very probably have changed his instructions had he been present on the spot. But, why was this your justification withheld until now? why was so plain, so clear, so decisive a defence of yourself never thought of before? and why is it now smothered with such a heap of arguments as you have added, to prove that you ought not to have gone by Merida? Have you found out that I am not such a bad reasoner upon military affairs as you were pleased to style me in your former publication? Have you found out that pleading high rank is not a sufficient answer to plain and well supported statements? It is good however that you have at last condescended to adopt a different mode of proceeding. I applaud you for it, and with the exception of two points I will leave you in the full enjoyment of any triumph which the force of your arguments may procure you; always, however, retaining my right to assume that your lordship’s memory with respect to the duke of Wellington’s negative, may have been as treacherous as it was about your own letter to the junta of Badajos.

I have therefore nothing to add to the arguments I have already used in my Justification, and in my History, in favour of the march to Merida; if I am wrong the world will so judge me. But the two points I have reserved are, 1º. That you assert now, in direct contradiction to your former avowal, that the march to Merida would have been one of four days instead of two; and that the road by Albuquerque was the only one which you could use. In answer to this last part I observe, that the French before, and the Spaniards then, marched by the road of Montigo; and that a year after, when lord Hill’s expedition against Almaraz took place, the whole of his battering and pontoon train, with all the ammunition belonging to it, moved with great facility in three days from Elvas, by this very road of Montigo, to Merida; and Elvas as your Lordship knows is rather further than Campo Mayor from Merida.