It would have been interesting if the Spanish had honoured the deal they struck with Dupont and allowed the army home.

From reading Dupont's campaign journals between 1805-1807 I have the impression he was a dedicated professional soldier. Of course he is biased about what his men achieved - what sort of commander would go through the trauma of a battle and not say 'my men were the bravest' - but there is no obvious signs of meglomania and greed. He doesn't write 'still no Marshal's baton - the little, jumped up so-and-so' each evening while recording his actions. His style is very much like Boudet's 1800 campaign journal; factual, informative and surprisingly level headed. When his men suffer from the rigours of the season, he mentions the hardships they faced, confirming he was aware of his men's sentiments.

But everything goes wrong in Spain. The mission was the wrong mission. Napoleon took his eye of the target, which was Portugal and I've had many different debates with people about why Napoleon got involved in Spain, but in my mind, Napoleon got greedy. Dupont's failing was ultimately Napoleon's failing. Napoleon underestimated the Spanish in believing Dupont could parade over the Sierra Morena and take Andalusia with inexperienced 'B list' soldiers. Of course, by 1808 most sources agree Napoleon was not someone to admit his own mistakes, or take bad news well. Dupont's fall from grace is a human tragedy which we should all recognise and learn from.

We should also not forget the treatment of the men who were captured at Bailen. In my book, I tell the story of a Major D'Eslon, who led a contingent of the 9th light's conscripts to Bailen. His suffering in captivity was extraordinary. They were the real victims.

Terry