Relations between officers of warring armies and some other questions.

Again, I was watching some Sharpe movies and I started to wonder...

How did relations between English and French officers really look like? Were POW officers really allowed to carry their swords? If officers met in no mans land without their soldiers would they really exchange only some witty remarks and then go their ways? Didnt they have this "Kill all French/English on sight" altitude?

Were soldiers not supposed to target enemy officers, as it was in "bad taste"?

How did really look all those spying and reconnaissance operations we can see, for instance mayor (or colonel) Hogan performs? He basically goes by himself in civilian clothes. Didnt they have spotters or recon squads and intelligence officers only stayed in headquarters processing information?

How big of a factor was desertion and rogue companies? Does anyone know any stories about that?

Originally Posted by Tomislawus

Again, I was watching some Sharpe movies and I started to wonder...

How did relations between English and French officers really look like? Were POW officers really allowed to carry their swords? If officers met in no mans land without their soldiers would they really exchange only some witty remarks and then go their ways? Didnt they have this "Kill all French/English on sight" altitude?

Were soldiers not supposed to target enemy officers, as it was in "bad taste"?

How did really look all those spying and reconnaissance operations we can see, for instance mayor (or colonel) Hogan performs? He basically goes by himself in civilian clothes. Didnt they have spotters or recon squads and intelligence officers only stayed in headquarters processing information?

How big of a factor was desertion and rogue companies? Does anyone know any stories about that?

"The Peninsular War - Aspects of the Struggle for the Iberian Peninsula" edited by Ian Fletcher, has a 15 page chapter (Chapter VI pages 115 to 130) by Philip J Haythornthwaite entitled "Carrying on the War as it should be: Fraternisation".

As he says it seems strange that compared to the ferocious fighting, there are numerous contemporary accounts describing fraternisation and at times friendly relations between the British & French Armies.

These friendly exchanges were not just restricted to the Peninsula e.g.the French Chasseur Jacques Chevillet recalled sharing a drink & exchanging pleasantries with an Austrian Hussar whom he met on an island in the Brenta River near Vicenza in 1809. The Hussar recalled a victory over the French and Chevillet pointed out thecaptured Austrian belt he was wearing, before they parted on the best of terms, and perhaps most significant neither man was campaigning on his home territory.

At Sahagun, Alexander Gordon saw a memeber of his squadron cut down a Frenchman who was trying to surrender. 'I hallooed to the fellow to sapre him, but before I could reach the spot the villain had split the Frenchman's skull.... It was fortunate for him thathe got out of my reach, for, in the indignation I felt at his conduct, I should certainly have treated him in the same manner.......'

On occasion even helpless wounded would not be spared, but rank could help e.g. Harvey Jones at San Sebastian lay helpless in the breach, when his attention was aroused by a cry "Oh, they are murdering us all!". A number of French Grenadiers were stepping over the dead and stabbing the wounded, Harvey's companion was despatched as just as they were about to do the same to him, a Sergeant intervened - mistaking Harvey as a Colonel because of his gold bullion epaulette. Harvey was dragged into the Fortress & tended to.

Best known of such incidents invlves Charles Napier, who was incapictated at Corruna,and his life was saved twice by a French drummer named Guibert, who forcibly restrained an Italian soldier from stabingNapier to death. Napier was subsequently well treated, and the kindness Marshals Soult & Ney bestowed on him, caused him to hold them & Napoleon in the highest regard.

An Officer of the British 51st Foot told of how some of his wounded men fell into the hands of the same numbered French regiment. Pointing to the number, the French said that they all belonged to the same regiment and that the British would be treated the same as for their comerades. The Brits were fed, and had their wounds dressed; and they were not plundered. The wounded who could not be moved away were left well tended for & spoke on the highest terms of their treatment when the Brits recovered them upon their advance.

Targeting enemy Generals was certainly seen as bad taste. Even shooting a gallant enemy officer was frowned upon - as shown by Moyle Sherer's account of the death of a gallant French Officer who made himself conspicious in late skirmish trying to bring on his men. Numbers of his men expressed their admiration for the fellow, and expressed their sorrow to see him drop, while another said I couldn't miss him as he came so close. "By God, I could not have pulled a trigger at him. No; damn me, I like fair fighting and hot fighting; but I could not single out such a man in cold blood".

An exchange of fire between a garrison & its besiegers could also be regarded as unjust if there was no chance of an imminent attack!

Charles Parquin recalled ameeting with British Officers - he was sent by his commanding officer to invite a party of Englishmen to enjoy a bottle of brandy. A group of fellow officers shared the drink with a similar number of British officers of the 10th Light Dragoons, who reciprocated by sharing their rum, and arranged for the transmission of a letter to a British Officer held in France. In subsequent encounters Parquin found the British to be very good company if possessed by a sarcastic sense of humour, and prepared to exchange jovial banter even in combat.

Most contact occured at outposts - the picquets between the two armies generally maintained an attitude of mutual existence. One British officer supped with his opposite picquet commander and to his eternal disgrace got drunk and was brought back at midnight to his own men on the backs of four unarmed French soldiers, laughing & enjoying the joke most heartily!

In the moonlight a French sentry was seen to fall asleep against a tree; Colonel Alexander went quietly upto him & took possession of his musket & awoke him; the Fremnch sentry was much frightened to find himself disarmed, but Alexander gave him his musket back saying that it was fortunate that he had found him asleep at his outpost, instead of one of his own officers. The poor fellow expresed the greatest gratitude. The favour was returned when Alexander on a dark night missed his way and his horse & himself tumbled over near a French sentry who instantly challenged. Hearing the "Qui vive" and the click of a musket, Alexander was expecting the musket to fire, and called out "C'est l'officier du poste Anglais - ne tirez pas!". "Non, non, mon Colonel", replied the sentry "J'espere que vous n'etes pas blesse!"

There are several passages in Urban's book on the Rifles which confirm that senseless killing was considered poor behaviour by both sides in the Peninsula. Pickets for example rarely exchanged anything other than food, drink and tobacco. The accepted behaviour being that there was no point making each others lives any harder than they needed to be, and that if either side was about to advance it was only fair to warn the other sides pickets so that they could get out of the way. One new recruit to the 95th who ignored this rule and in his excitement fired on a French sentry was made to go and apologise after being chastised by his comrades as a scoundrel.

As with the incident involving Alexander Gordon recounted by PofE there are several incidents where the lives of men on both sides were saved by the intervention of others in the heat of battle. The general impression being that there was little personal hatred between the English and French soldiers, then as now the English soldier seemed to have a practical attitude towards warfare e.g. it was just a job that had to be done as efficiently as possible, but there was nothing to be gained by making it harder on everyone by making it personal.

I'm not sure if that attitude extended to other armies such as Spain and Prussia, whose recruits tended to have more of a personal commitment behind their reason for enlistment. There are a few examples of English soldiers witnessing brutal the behaviour of foriegn troops and expressing disgust at their barbarity. So, the general impression is that some armies were less tolerant of each other.