Literature Review 4 Evaluate and Compare the Commands of Thomas Picton and Robert Craufurd During the Peninsula War (1807-1814)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Literature Review 4 Evaluate and compare the commands of Thomas Picton and Robert Craufurd during the Peninsula War (1807-1814), which particular focus on the Battle of Fuentes de Oñoro (1811) and the Siege of Ciudad Rodrigo (1812). The framework of my research topic is to compare how successful the commands of Thomas Picton and Robert Craufurd were during the Peninsular War, using the battle of Fuentes de Onoro and the Siege of Ciudad Rodrigo as case studies. The literature available on the Peninsular War is vast, stretching from massive multi-volume works, to smaller biographical works. When approaching the task of selecting the appropriate secondary sources it soon became clear that there were four distinct areas upon which I needed to focus. The four areas of focus are as follows: the battle of Fuentes de Oñoro, the Siege of Ciudad Rodrigo, the command of General Robert Craufurd and lastly the command of General Sir Thomas Picton. I encountered many difficulties in my research, mainly due to the vast quantity of research done into the Peninsular War, however ultimately the framework of this literature review will aim to place my chosen dissertation topic in the appropriate historical context, identify a gap in the current research and introduce the current historiographical debate. In order to show this, this review will begin with a discussion of the general works on the Peninsular War, continuing on the discuss the role that biographies of Wellington play, and lastly finishing with the main discussion of my four chosen areas of research. In order to place my dissertation topic in the appropriate historical context, and also to highlight the potential gaps in research, this review will firstly discuss general histories of the Peninsular War. Initially I read the relevant chapter in the Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army, and was pleased with the background information this supplied on the causes behind the Peninsular War and in particular the period leading up to the appointment of Wellington as commander in the Peninsular.1 Secondly I found the information it provided on the reorganisation of the army, the available technology and the general quality of soldiers and officers to be useful in terms of the kind of men and equipment my two chosen commanders would have been using.2 From here I moved on to read Andrew Uffindell’s book on Wellington’s Armies, which I will be using in greater detail later in relation to Picton and Craufurd, but in terms of background to the Peninsular I found less useful, as it tends to be more focused on the period from Wellington’s take-over from Moore. What is significant is that this books makes reference to the feud between Craufurd and Picton – one of the main reasons I chose the two generals to compare – ‘Picton was clearly anxious to deny any credit for the victory (at Busacos) to Craufurd…(his) relations with Craufurd were notoriously prickly’.3 Overall Uffindell’s account provides a wealth of primary material which situates the two battles I am focusing on in relation to the Peninsular War as a whole, additionally providing far more detail on the individual battles than most other general histories of the Peninsular. In terms of revisionist histories of the Peninsular War, by far the most insignificant for my chosen area of study proved to be The Spanish Ulcer. Although the book itself is very well researched, it’s chosen focus was on what the author saw to be a glaring admission in the literature available – the battles fought against the French by secondary British generals, or those fought by Iberian armies. However, in doing so the author has himself 1 D. Gates, ‘Transformation of the Army 1783-1815’ in D, Chandler, The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army (Oxford, 1994), pp. 136-142. 2 Ibid., pp. 146-147. 3 A. Uffindell, The National Army Museum Book of Wellington’s Armies (London, 2005), p. 83. omitted or relegated to a few lines some of the most significant battles in the Peninsular War – for example Fuentes de Oñoro is assigned a measly 4 pages of the over 500 page tome.4 It is hard to see how Gates justified spending so little time on the crucial battles in the War for, despite the usefulness of the Spanish perspective, the exclusion of the key battles does lead to an overall warped perspective on the war. Lastly, in terms of general book on the Peninsular War, by far the most useful book on the subject I have found is by Charles Esdaile, which is surprising due to how concise yet rich in knowledge it is. In his own words, The Peninsular War is far more than a ‘mere list of battles’, with the perspective throughout the book balanced between key battles and the more obscure war waged by the Spanish guerrilla.5 Despite being revisionist in its approach to the war, the book actually offers some interesting comparisons between the command of Craufurd and Picton – the former being described as ‘a highly efficient soldier’ and the latter, ‘tough and indomitable’.6 Ultimately this book, as will all of the general histories of the Peninsular War discussed, lacks in detail on my chosen battles and commanders, however considering the complexity of the war this is often due to practicality rather than a lack of understanding of their overall importance. In terms of literature on the Peninsular War, general histories are perhaps only overshadowed in number by biographies of the great commander that won it; therefore it is now pertinent to consider the importance of the many biographies of the Duke of Wellington. It is impossible to avoid the towering figure of Wellington when researching into the Peninsular War, as his command had such a huge impact on the British victory. Significantly Wellington was the superior of both of my chosen commanders; therefore 4 D. Gates, The Spanish Ulcer (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 267-270. 5 C. Esdaile, The Peninsular War (Suffolk, 2003), p. 509. 6 Ibid., p. 320. it is pertinent to explore their relationship with him. Although biographies of Wellington hold very little in terms of how the individual commanders performed whilst in battle, they do contain a wealth of useful information. Richard Holmes’, The Iron Duke, highlights an area of comparison between the two men when he comments throughout the book that although discipline in the Peninsular Army was poor, the two men were strong disciplinarians, ‘Picton did his best to restore order’.7 This is a view also shared by Richard Aldington, who also includes a wealth of primary source material on the aftermath of the sack of Ciudad Rodrigo. Aldington goes on to describe how Picton was ‘eccentrically garbed’, arguing that both men were highly unconventional in how they commanded.8 Indeed, the common theme in the two men’s relationship with Wellington can be described using the word unconventional. Philip Guedalla comments that Craufurd’s mistake on the River Coa arose from an, ‘inconvenient aptitude for expensive rearguard actions’, perhaps highlighting a possible flaw in his command.9 Although none of the authors go into any great detail on the two men, they do hint to the importance of them as individual commanders, ‘but Craufurd was dead, and that was a loss Wellington could never hope to make good’ is just one of the blunt statements on the importance of the Light Division’s commander.10 Similarly it is significant that Holmes comments that at the battle of Fuentes de Oñoro Craufurd, ‘rose brilliantly to the occasion, rescued the 7th, and then extricated his own troops in a remarkable display of disciplined minor tactics’, which hints at a valuable area of 7 R. Holmes, The Iron Duke(London 2003), p. 155. 8 R. Adlington, Wellington (Surrey, 1943), p. 212. 9 P. Guedalla, The Duke (London 1937), p. 198. 10 R. Adlington, The Duke, p. 163. research to explore in further reading.11 Ultimately, although the descriptions of the battle tend to be sketchy across the biographies I have read, the multiple anecdotes and descriptions of their relationship with Wellington, are vital to not only understanding their characters, but also highlights further areas of study in relation to their command decisions – for example, when did Craufurd rise so brilliantly to the occasion during the battle of Fuentes de Oñoro and what exactly did he do? This and many more were questions on my mind as I delved into the specific reading on my topic. In terms of command in the Peninsular War generally the concise Wellington’s General’s by Michael Barthorp was a good starting point, giving a basic biography of Craufurd and Picton, as well as some information on their command styles. This along with the corresponding sections from the Dictionary of National Biography was my starting point in research directly related to either Picton or Craufurd. Wellington’s Generals explains Wellington’s attitude towards some of his officers, ‘..when I reflect upon the character and attainments of some of the General officers of this army, I tremble’, interestingly however both Craufurd and Picton are mentioned favourably.12 Ultimately, the author does not give an opinion on command I general, instead keeping to bare facts, interspersed with beautiful illustrations of the commanders themselves. Despite Wellington’s assessment of his General officers, British command in the Peninsular is generally seen as being very good, with the officers that fought in it being thought of as, ‘some of the best Great Britain had available’.13 In terms of the literature available on the command of Thomas Picton, by far the most 11 R.