I think the operative thing is that the man was tried and convicted under military law as it was with the Portuguese army. This was a case of personal revenge and one wonders why the court martial did not take that into account and ameliorate the sentence but there you have it.

According to Wellington's evidence at the 1836 Parliamentary inquiry into military punishments, the Portuguese army did not present nearly as many disciplinary problems as the British army in the Peninsula, particularly as to the mistreatment of civilians. He attributed this to the fact that the Portuguese soldiers were not so addicted to drink as were British soldiers and he rightfully thought that drink was the curse of the British army and the cause of many of its disciplinary problems. In other communications he points out, and Fortescue picked up on this, that for perhaps the first time the British army was involved in an extended campaign where wine was freely available and this led to many problems.

As we have established, French military law also prohibited the mistreatment of civilians, enemy or otherwise, on pain of death. The question is why did French senior officers not apply their own military law to their men in Portugal in 1810-1811 in contrast to British senior officers who did. My personal opinion is that they did not give a damn and that is why I think the French army in the Peninsula was, in many cases, nothing more than a gang of thugs in uniform.

And before anyone leaps on me with the matter of reprisals for the death of French soldiers killed by guerillas, what I am talking about is the mistreatment of unoffending civilians who just happened to get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and who, otherwise, were just trying to stay alive.

And, also, before anyone leaps at me shouting, "what about Badajoz, Ciudad Rodrigo and San Sebastis, when British soldiers ran amok and mistreated innocent civilians?", I addressed that in my lengthy post to J. Giscard on another chain in the Forum a few days ago. I cannot find it at the moment.

My basic comment is that noone denies these deplorable incidents took place. However, attempts were made to bring them to end. Furthermore, all three took place during sieges immediately after assaults which incurred heavy officer casualties with the result that the troops got out of control in these places and ran amok, probably incited by alcohol.

However, this misbehaviour was episodic as opposed to the misbehaviour of the French army in the Peninsula which seems to have been constant.

Does someone want to tell me again about the benefits of coming under the rule of Bonaparte's empire, with its advanced legal code, etc. Clearly the Portuguese and Spanish did not believe it.

And neither do I.

dg