We can go on with this compare and contrast for quite some time. Comparing the small British army in Spain with a much larger French army in the Peninsula is akin to comparing apples and oranges. Atrocities occurred on both sides. Some French commanders punished, some did not. The British were fortunate in having Wellington in command in Spain. Someone else would not have fared as well, witness Moore's defeat and the British failures in eastern Spain.
All this seems to me in the end, based on some of the postings is that some are straining to 'prove' that 'a squat little Corsican bounder named Bonaparte misbehaved until he finally met his overdue comeuppance at the immaculate hands of that trueblue English gentleman, the Duke of Wellington.' That isn't history, that is propaganda.
If we're going to be serious about this topic, not only does the French army have to be taken into consideration, but the associated armies of the Confederation of the Rhine, the British allies the Spanish and Portuguese, and the other members of the various coalitions. Narrowing it merely to the Peninsula is, again, comparing a very small English army under one commander to a very large French army, multinational in makeup, under a variety of commanders. And it is not a study in discipline, but a study in command.
Sincerely,
Kevin