The Napoleonicist: Plunder, Provost & Punishment - Discipline under Wellington

Thanks Hans-Karl. This is another one of those where different layers of the army's command structure viewed things differently. Wellington seems to have taken a 'no excuse' attitude, although we do have occasional anecdotes of him turning a blind eye. They obviously can't be corroborated, and you can't assume too much from them, but it at least shows that the troops believed that the 'live and let live' approach to plunder for subsistence went to the top of the military heirarchy. Lower down, officers were much more inclined to turn a blind eye to it, partly due to an appreciation of the hardships the troops faced, but also because they quite often received a cut for themselves! This ultimately was part of the problem when it came to discipline, as it blurred the line between the acceptable and the unacceptable. Some plundered for food. Others plundered for money to buy food (the army was months in arrears), and others just plundered for its own sake. Since going on a 'foraging' expedition could lead to any one of those three eventualities, it ultimately led to inconsistencies.

I agree, that officers on the spot, who must maintain a fighting strength must have judged - at least plundering for food - very differently than the high command.

Still - too many must have experienced it first hand - to deny that it happened on a regular basis, so it seems to be strange that Wellington had - at least officially the no excuse attitude, on the other hand he must have seen what was going on.

I agree, Wellington would have known, but he couldn't afford to have the local population alienated by plundering. He witnessed in real time the impact that an insurgent local population had on the French army, and knew he had to keep the locals on side. He therefore had to take an unequivocal stance, and followed through on it (most of the time - listen to my podcast on Wednesday to hear about an exception to that rule!)