Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would suppose that if the prisoners were relieved of their weapons and most of their supplies, it would take them months to get back on foot to where they could be re-accoutered and returned to the battlefied, even if they were inclined to do so and not just become deserters. Removing a soldier from the front for a few months and confiscating his arms was better than nothing, and he did not have to guarded or fed. In those days, a soldier's "homeland" was likely to be occupied by a foreign emperor in any case, and they were fighting for their own life, as much as for the flag of their standard-bearer,, so allegiances were fluid.
While doing research about Worcester UK, I discovered that Lucien Bonaparte was a Prisoner of War, he was a younger brother of NB, was captured in the Mediterranean before arriving in Plymouth where he was then taken to Ludlow in Shropshire where he lived at Dinham House beside the castle. He was then allowed to Purchase Thorngrove House while on Parole 4 miles from Worcester where he stayed until 1814 when he was released. A condition of his parole was that he was allowed to travel up to 10 miles away from his house were as ordinary French Officers were only allowed to travel 1 mile from there quarters. French Officers were kept in fifty designated parole towns such as Oswestry, Welshpool, Montgomery, Brecon, Abbergeveny, and Tavistock. Usually in groups of no more than 150 - 300 men.
Ordinary soldiers and sailors were kept in prison hulks in the Hamoaze (near the Sound) at Plymouth and other-such areas. Normans Cross outside Peterborough is regarded as the site of the first POW camp but Princetown on Dartmoor was originally built as a POW prison.
Not knowing, I would guess there was alot of prisoner exchanges or just plain releasing them under some sort of gentleman's agreement that they would not take up arms again.
They did this often in the American Civil War, at least during the first few years. During the American War of Independence the British would keep the American POW's on barges kept on the water - very primitive and raw conditions with understandably high death rates.
I remember reading that the American rebels used a salt mine in Connecticut as one of their camps, probably not a great environment either.
I remember reading that the American rebels used a salt mine in Connecticut as one of their camps, probably not a great environment either.
During a civil war (and to the British that is what it was) treatement of the other side is often more brutal. Feelings and scores build and are paid back on the weakest you can find. The barges in NY harbor were literally death sentences. So I suppose the rebels felt justified in payback.
The untold history of the American Revolution is that it was also one of personal terror for civilians as revenge was taken that way as well. Officers have always been given better treatment than privates. It was expected to be reciporated on the other side your your officer elite was also given better options.
Napoleons treatment of POW's varied greatly depending on how much resistance was given, or another way, the cost of the victory for Napoleon. Therefore his treatment ranged from granting the Prussian generals their swords and allowing them to return home with their army minus their arms to essentially enslaving people like at Saragossa in Spain. At Saragossa Napoleon offered liberal terms to the 12k Spanish defenders and then upon the surrender violated all the terms and sent the Spaniards as forced labor to France. Only 6k made it across the Pyrenees where they basically became slave labor in France. Something like only 1k made it back to Spain when peace was declared. In general Napoleon wanted the prisoners to be treated well so that they could be incorporated into his armies or sent back to their home nations who would be friendly to him.
To see how Napoleon viewed it, you actually need to go back to the Treaty of Westphalia. In 1648 this treaty outlawed the enslavement of prisoners and called to have all prisoners released without ransom upon the conclusion of war. About 100 years later the philosophers Montesquieu and Rousseau put forward the idea that all prisoners should be treated humanely as wars were between states and not individuals. As long as a man had been relieved of his arms and no longer posed a threat they should be treated as humanely as possible.
These ideas were applied with various differences by all nations. One of the more interesting cases is that the British prided themselves on their treatment of European POW's, but acted with extremely harsh treatment to American prisoners during the Revolution. This was based on their view that the Americans were not foreign combatants, but instead traitors to the crown. They also viewed the harsh treatment as a way to convince the American prisoners to take up arms for King George.
The 17th and 18th Centuries also saw the rise of ransoming as the practice dujour. Since soldiers were not regularly paid, the taking or prisoners for ransom represented a valuable source of income. A scale evolved wherein officers were worth one years pay, while inferior troops were worth 3 months. It even went so far that by the end of the 18th Century France and Britain had agreed to a tarriff system with an exchange rate. Common soldiers were worth 1 pound sterling while marshals, generals or admirals were worth 60 pounds.
The big changes happened during the French Revolution and the wars that followed. This marks the time when wars were about national identity and ideology and were not "limited" as they had been previously. Additionally the idea of prisoner exchange during a conflict morphed into the idea that prisoners were to be held for the duration of a war, which greatly increased the numbers of prisoners being held.
The French revolutionaries set aside the former protocols that had been followed during the previous limited dynastic wars. In decrees from 1793 and 1794 the ransoming of prisoners was forbidden and then they declared that no prisoners were to be taken. The justification for this was that if they were to show no quarter to opposing French officers and men, none should be given to foreigners. At first the orders mainly pertained to Royalist emigre troops, but was quickly expanded to include regular British, Hanoverian and Spanish troops. Massacres were common during this time as was ill treatment of prisoners.
During Napoleons ascendency he tried to rectify this (even though he himself had committed atrocities during the sack of Jaffa). From 1805 to 1811 there was a steady "bettering" of the treatment of POW's. For instance, Russian prisoners taken at Zurich were billeted in Parisian homes and treated quite well. After Jena Napoleon released the Saxon troops to return to their homes and after Tilsit he re-equipped and gave fresh uniforms to the Russians and sent them home, hoping to impress the Tsar with his chivalrous nature. All of this calculated to help him win the affection of his conquests.
However, in Spain it did not go so well and the fault rested on both sides. Napoleon imprisoned the Spaniards and sent them as forced labor to France, while the French prisoners were treated horribly and confined on prison barges at Cadiz or sent to the Balearic Islands where many died. This led to the French purposefully surrendering to the British who still treated prisoners well.
The impact of that led to overcrowding of the British prisons and that coupled with the fact that prisoners were no longer ransomed led to deteriorating conditions for French troops in Britain, although the conditions were still much better than could be found elsewhere. In France, Napoleon didn't trust the British prisoners, so while other nationalities had a little bit of freedom, the British were often kept under close supervision in forts far away from population centers.
Overall, the Napoleonic Wars saw a great shift in the treatment of POW's. No longer where they a commodity and asset to be sold back, but were instead treated as enemies that must be held until the war concluded. This change was brought about solely by the French revolutionaries policies and even though Napoleon tried to reverse some of it, the damage had been done.
Additionally, this era also saw the break down of chivalry within battles. When the wars commenced classical values such as not shooting at officers and officers exchanging information, giving quarter to fleeing troops, etc. still occurred. As the war progressed this slowly eroded. From the French at Austelitz who gave no quarter and loosed the cavalry on retreating troops to the Portugese riding down surrendering French troops in the Peninsular campaign. Generally only the British are considered to have maintained the more formal and chivalric rules. For instance, an English gunner at Waterloo asked Wellington for permission to targer Napoleon and his staff directly and Wellington's reply was, "one cannot conduct war if generals shoot at each other."
So, in addition to the changes regarding POW's, a shift in the way wars were conducted occurred during this time. This is the moment that marked the change from "limited" dynastic wars to full on national/industrial wars that apexed with WW2 and you can directly thank the actions of the French revolutionaries for re-writing the rules of warfare and creating the idea of national mobilization.
NJGoat thank you for that wonderful post. This subject in general (treatment and abuse of POW's) is an interest of mine. The turning point is very interesting and the differences in treatment and how much of it was payback is also fascinating.
NJGoat thank you for that wonderful post. This subject in general (treatment and abuse of POW's) is an interest of mine. The turning point is very interesting and the differences in treatment and how much of it was payback is also fascinating.
Can you suggest any books on the subject?
Here are some things you can look for:
"History" The Journal of the Historical Association had an excellent article by Gavin Daly, "Napoleon's Lost Legions: French Prisoners of War in Britain, 1803–1814". He charted many of the changes that led to internment versus exchange and the impact this had. It was published in Volume 89, Issue 295, pages 361-380, July 2004. It may be available online.
One of my favorite books on this time is "The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon" by Gunther Erich Rothenberg. He deals with the changes to how wars were fought that made the Napoleonic era such a pivotal time period and includes treatment of prisoners as part of that. The nice thing about this book is that while it is detailed it is an easy read. This also may be available through Google books.
"History" The Journal of the Historical Association had an excellent article by Gavin Daly, "Napoleon's Lost Legions: French Prisoners of War in Britain, 1803–1814". He charted many of the changes that led to internment versus exchange and the impact this had. It was published in Volume 89, Issue 295, pages 361-380, July 2004. It may be available online.
One of my favorite books on this time is "The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon" by Gunther Erich Rothenberg. He deals with the changes to how wars were fought that made the Napoleonic era such a pivotal time period and includes treatment of prisoners as part of that. The nice thing about this book is that while it is detailed it is an easy read. This also may be available through Google books.
I appreciate your initial post regarding the treatment of British POW's under Napoleon. I have been doing some research for a book and am looking for particular prisons used to house British prisoners. Many common British soldiers and sailors seem to have been housed at Clairvaux the former abbey transformed to a prison in the early years of Napoleon. I am having more difficulty finding where officers might have been. My understanding is that the British were housing so many French POW's and that Napoleon so needed his soldiers as the axis of powers arrayed against him grew (particularly after the defection of Bernadotte) that he was generally unwilling to make the exchanges, when they could be worked, were often one British Officer to three French. Common soldiers and seamen often spent the duration of the war in prisons. I do know that the famous La Force in Paris did house some British Officers. I have not spent much time on this yet, but it's always nice to find clues before spending hours in the archives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
