Dispatches
Letters to the Editor
from First Empire Readers
 |
On British POWs Dear Dave, I read with interest the request from Kevin Clark for information on British POWs during the Napoleonic Wars. I can add further information to that supplied by Wendy Atkin. The Public Record Office does hold the records for these men in Class ADM103. While this is the general classification of these records, to find out detailed information it is necessary to look through the different documents within this Class. ADM103/441 onwards covers all the British POWs in foreign hands (i.e. in France, Spain, Holland and the USA). ADM103/467 and 468 are alphabetical lists of Britons held in France, and there are separate records for British POWs held in particular years. These lists include details of where the captives were held. ADM103/474 to 480 list all British prisoners released from France from 1793 to 1815. ADM30/63/12 to 63/17 contain the pay lists of British prisoners of war held at the various depots in France, such as Givet, Verdun, Valenciennes, Arras and Bitche. These boxes contain hundreds of returns of payments made to these prisoners (many naval), who were given their pay whilst in captivity. A very good book on the subject of British POWs is Napoleon and his British Captives by Michael Lewis (London, 1962), which describes the conditions in which they were kept and includes lists of some of them. I suggest that an reader wishing to research their ancestor who may have been a POW visit the PRO at Kew and work through these records, using all the lists available. Good luck! In my own research on the subject of Napoleonic POWs, I have come across records of French privateer crews who were captured in 1803 and not released from the Portsmouth Hulks until 1814. I had always thought that they were amongst the longest serving captives of that time. Not so, however! Recently I discovered a record relating to Private George Webburn of the 87th Foot, who was captured on 23 February 1795. All prisoners of war were subject to the civil laws of the land they were held in, and apparently this soldier was found guilty in a French Court of murdering a French dragoon. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. He was finally released by Russian Cossacks on 21 March 1814! I hope this adds some extra information to that already published on this subject. Best wishes, A decent argument . . . Dear Dave, At last! A decent argument on the letters page. What joy to read that we were crossing swords with the Yanks. Actually that wasn't the only reason for writing, but it's a good start. Taking on Max Sewell first, he seems a touch sensitive to me. Certainly there have been fine works of American literature, but I would guess that it is a fair generalisation that American English is not of the highest standard. We are getting it over here now, and it is sadly apparent what effect it is having on our mindless sprogs. That is not to say that I am anti-American. On the contrary, I love American Football, watching it with a voracious appetite to match anybody, and I revere John Madden and Pat Summerall above any English commentator, including Des Lynam. However, it doe seem to me that American English has become a sporting language, most suitable to the TV screen. Quick example: In Britain, a team is the most successful. In the US, it is the 'winningest'. Not a real word, I don't think. As for George Nafziger, well… I would not wish to step into a bundle between such eminent celebrities as he and David Chandler, who can doubtless defend himself, but reading both letters I fail to see where Mr Chandler calls the French archives 'shit'. I read it as a quite witty pun on S.H.A.T. Perhaps I was wrong. I would also like to see the Oklahoma Bombing quote in context before I condemned it, being as I once told an Irish American IRA fundraiser exactly the same thing, meaning of course that terrorism is terrorism, whoever carries it out. Mind you, on the subject of Scott Bowden (didn't he used to be Scotty?), I've read some of his stuff and he's not big on us in the UK himself, or so it seems. Not that I am one to criticise for being a literary lightweight, being firmly one of those myself. No, what this argument really needs is some serious Peter Hofschroer input. I was gutted that peter wasn't in the last issue. I'm sure an angle on American involvement in the Waterloo campaign would work, although I hear that his script to Steven Spielberg, entitled 'Shooting private Ryan' was rejected. One bit that I did agree with was the excellent comment by Major Andrew Field about our 'warrior spirit'. Spot on. I can't imagine our lads were too quiet when the Old Guard was coming up the hill. They wouldn't have been the first 'elite' troops to get an unpleasant surprise when it comes time to mix it with us. A Short Reply to Messrs Sewell and Lawrence Dave, I cannot answer for either Griffith or Chandler, only myself, though I am bound to say that had either Max or George Nafziger been alluded to in similar vein, their reactions would have probably been equally indignant. I have no prejudice, negative or positive, in the context of Americans or America. Like most reasonable people I try (though, being human, I am sometimes unsuccessful) to avoid gratuitous prejudice against anybody. I also have no hang-ups (clearly) with 'Americanization' of the English language, either written or colloquial. Indeed, there are aspects of American-English which were exported with the Pilgrim Fathers, and other settlers, that have not changed, whilst those same aspects have changed in their country of origin. So what? If the complaint is the use of the notation (sic) against the word 'English', which Bowden uses incorrectly throughout his book, usually in contemptuous vein, it was merely to point out that this is inaccurate and that the correct word is 'British' in this context. It would be helpful if Max was more specific about the "offhand remark" he objects to in my review of Bowden's book, as it was quite a long piece. George Nafziger already took issue with me in private correspondence about my allusion to US slave owners. If that is the remark in question, let me say what I said to George. I have no objection to the accurate and dispassionate relation of historical facts, however unpalatable they may be. The point I was making here was that Bowden was neither accurate nor dispassionate, and that it is a good idea to be without sin if you are going to use rhetoric to throw stones. In summary, I did not pick on Bowden because he was American. Large parts of his book are just rubbish and, in my opinion, it is sold on the false premise of original research. He could be a Martian for all I care. Finally, Phil Lawrence may well be right. I did not dispute the possibility that Britain played a principal role, perhaps even the leading role, in the tripartite alliance. The point is that Peter says that Britain did, but just leaves it at that, with no collateral to validate his statement. This is important if the issue was, as it seems to have been, the root of the mistrust between Prussia and Britain. Furthermore, it was only anti-Prussian insofar as they had sided with the Russians over the latter's claims in Poland, in the hope that the Russians would support them over their claims in Saxony. So the Prussians only had their own ambitions to blame, not the members of the tripartite alliance. It is a question of 'horse and cart '. As a matter of interest, however, according to Charles Breunig in The Age of Revolution and Reaction 1789-1850, the tripartite alliance was the suggestion of Talleyrand initially and, far from being secret, the details were deliberately leaked in the expectation that the prospect of European war would make the Russians and Prussians back down, which they did. Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #43 Back to First Empire List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1998 by First Empire. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com |
