Spencer Perceval - recently assassinated Prime Minister
no longer available to defend Wellington
Weeks 17 and 18 of my solo Peninsular campaign are in the process of being written up. Without wishing to give away the exciting bits of the plot, let it be said only that the continued run of bad results for the Allied Army has eventually resulted in a motion being tabled to remove
With immediate effect, Sir Thomas Graham, as senior British
officer with the army will assume temporary command of the British and
Hanoverian forces, until a permanent commander is selected and appointed. Here
is a list, in seniority order, of the prominent candidates – some are unavailable through duties in
remote parts of the Empire, many are in dubious physical health, some are
plainly unsuitable for a major field command.
The successful candidate may be any of these, or may be
someone else – the army works in mysterious ways. I have discounted the Duke of
York himself from being seriously considered for the job. With all due appreciation of previous comments on this subject (most of which are reflected in the list) I would be very
interested in any further nominations, applications(!) or comments.
Name
|
Age @ May 1812
|
Rank / date
|
Rating
(1=poor,
3=good)
|
Current job
|
Comments
|
John Pitt, Lord Chatham
|
56
|
General, 1801
|
1
|
Governor of
|
Well connected politically, commanded army in
|
Sir Banestre Tarleton
|
58
|
General, 1812
|
3
|
Governor of Berwick
|
Hero(?) of AWI, was strongly fancied to command in the
Peninsula in 1809, but
|
Sir Eyre Coote
|
50
|
Lt.Genl, 1801
|
2
|
Governor of
|
Another AWI veteran, unpopular
|
Sir David Baird
|
55
|
Lt.Genl, 1805
|
3
|
Highly rated, aggressive commander – was badly wounded at
Corunna – health uncertain
|
|
Sir John Hope, Earl of Hopetoun
|
47
|
Lt.Genl, 1808
|
2
|
Military Governor of
|
Poor health – recently served in
|
Sir Henry Paget, Earl of Uxbridge
|
44
|
Lt.Genl, 1808
|
3
|
Commanded cavalry under
|
|
Sir John Stuart, Count of Maida
|
53
|
Lt.Genl, 1808
|
2
|
Governor of
|
Victor of Maida, but overall lack of experience and not
rated highly – health not good.
|
Sir Thomas Graham, Lord Lynedoch
|
64
|
Lt.Genl, 1810
|
2
|
in
|
Competent commander, but (again) has repeating health
problems
|
Sir John Murray
|
44
|
Lt.Genl, 1812
|
1
|
Very poor reputation – unable to follow orders
|
|
Sir Rowland Hill
|
50
|
Lt.Genl, 1812
|
2
|
Should be in
|
|
William Carr Beresford
|
44
|
Lt.Genl, 1812
|
2
|
Commander,
Portuguese Army
|
How about the fool, General Erskine? Or was he already recalled by this time? He was so bad that without his political connections he never would have been given a field command. He's like General Burnside, just without the charm.
ReplyDeleteBut in dealing with this list, Hill would be my pick, but not likely the pick of the lords. Graham or Baird would be more likely. Graham has the experience and I think perhaps seniority? I do remember reading about this in one of Oman's volumes about who was considered next due to who got the generalship commission first, though can't recall which commander it was. Beresford is good but his duties in dealing with the Portuguese would appear to tie him down I think.
Uxbridge and Paget are good considerations but Paget isn't on the field and I look forward to his capture later in the year (assuming you continue the campaign). We don't have much field experience to judge these two off of but in British commands, politics is more than who is the best.