Robert Tait Little and Military Leadership
The diaries of Robert Tait Little – Head Shepherd on Exmoor (1870 to 1907) – and a native of Dumfries and Galloway, are an absolute delight to read. They are a treasure trove of information about the (mainly) Scottish shepherds were working on Exmoor through those years and tell us who was working on which herding, when they came and went and often where, in Scotland, they came from. But the diaries are really a meticulous recording of stock on Exmoor and as Head Shepherd RTL’s records are superb. Nonetheless it is the occasional recording of titbits which shed light on what the shepherds and their wives and their families were up to that are of particular interest in telling the story of Hoar Oak Cottage.
But there was another side to RTL. He was clearly an erudite, well read, and thoughtful and we are sharing here 2 and half pages of his diary through January and February 1880, which take the reader into an entirely different area of RTL’s interests. In these pages he reviews and comments on Captain Napier’s book on military warfare and, it seems, is expressing opinions on warfare, class and leadership.
To try and understand these pages which swerve so far away from sheep and shepherds the Friends asked Military Historian Phil Curme http://www.walkingthebattlefields.com/ to transcribe and interpret the pages. The results are fascinating. We hope you find them of interest too.
Below are first shown images of the two pages followed by Phil Curme’s transcription and interpretation notes.
RTL writes: (Note: …. is used where it is not possible to decipher the handwriting)
From Napier’s Peninsular War speaking of Wellington he says its certain …. exacted the confidence of his soldiers as a leader. It is not so certain that he ever gained their affections.[1] The barbarity of the English military code excited public horror. The inequality of promotion created public discontent, yet the General complained he had no …. reward or punish.[2] And he condemned alike the system and the soldier it produced. The latter were detested for everything but fighting and the officers were as culpable as the men.[3]
Deep unmitigated hatred of democracy was indeed the making of the English forces policy.[4] Napoleon was …. against, not as they pretended because he was a tyrant and usurper for he was neither; not because the invasion of Spain was unjust, but because he was the powerful and successful enemy of aristocratic privilege.[5]
29 Jan 1880
At Paris treason had done its work and Napoleon, the man of mightiest capacity, known for good …., who with minds enlarged with …. avarice and dissolution were at the very moment of triumph intent to defraud the people by whose strength and suffering they had conquered, the only reward they demanded was just Government.[6]
The Battle of Wellington was the making of a battering ram. Down went the walls …. The Battle of Napoleon was the …. and dash of a mighty …. before which the …. yielded and the healing flood poured onwards …. all.[7]
Napoleon the greatest man of whom history makes mention. Napoleon the most wonder commander. The most …. politician. The most …. statesman. Poland …. and Portugal, Spain and France fortune that …. Combinations of infinite …. war waiting for him. And with her aid the designs of man all at …. on a troubled Ocean. [8]
Feb 5, 1880
[1] History of the War in the Peninsula by William Napier, London: Thomas and William Boone, 1835
[2] The author is referring to the system of buying commissions in the British Army. Prior to the Cardwell
Reforms of 1871 promotions were mostly awarded on the ability to pay rather than merit. The inability to punish or reward is, I think, a reference to the inability of a commander to demote or promote based on merit.
[3] At the time of the Napoleonic Wars, Private soldiers in the British Army were generally uneducated and from impoverished backgrounds. Or, as Wellington is reputed to have said, they were ‘the scum of the Earth’.
[4] The author is suggesting that since only the rich could buy commissions, those who supported the system were protecting the interests of the aristocracy to the detriment of the ‘common man’. This is a sentiment that was rife during the time of the French Revolution. Promotion in the Grande Armée was on merit.
[5] The author’s comment resonates with an important strand of contemporary thinking. The British aristocracy were fearful that Napoleonic France would ignite revolutionary fervour amongst the working class. Napoleon was, after all, seeking to export the ideas that had emerged in France during the early days of the Republic.
[6] Here the author’s admiration for Napoleon is very apparent. He says that the it was the ‘common people’ who fought for Napoleon and they did so in order to secure a political voice. Sadly, this proved to be naive in the face of political reality.
[7] The author returns to his theme of Wellington compared with Napoleon. Wellington’s tactics were crude with a reliance on force of numbers whilst Napoleon was a skilled practitioner of warfare. His admiration for the latter is clear.
[8] This is the main point. Purity of thinking and high ideals being undone by hard realities. Despite being an exceptional leader (in the author’s eyes), Napoleon – in the end – disappoints.
Thankyou to Phil Curme for his time and knowledge in understanding these pages. Phil leads walking trips of battlefields throughout the globe and can be contacted through his website http://www.walkingthebattlefields.com
