Battle of Salamanca

'Looking towards Spain, Napoleon saw his affairs there in a better posture than he could have expected, after the battle of Salamanca, and the capture of Madrid. Lord Wellington, indifferently supported by the Spanish army, among whom quarrels and jealousies soon rose high, had been unable, from want of a sufficient battering-train, to take the fortress of Burgos; and was placed in some danger of being intercepted by Soult’s army, who had raised the siege of Cadiz, while engaged with that under D'Erlon, with whom was the intrusive king. The English general, therefore, with his usual prudence, retreated into the territories of Portugal, and Napoleon, seeing that his army in Spain amounted to 270,000 men, thought them more than sufficient to oppose what forces Spain could present, with the regular allied army of perhaps 70,000 at most, under Lord Wellington's command. He withdrew, accordingly, 150 skeletons of battalions, which he meant to make the means of disciplining his young conscripts...'

Arthur Wellesley, then Earl of Wellington, scored a major victory over Napoleon’s forces at the Battle of Salamanca, Spain.  The French were badly defeated, but not destroyed, and ultimately regrouped, as Walter Scott alludes to in the text above, which is from “Life of Napoleon Bonaparte”.  The Battle of Salamanca took place on July 22, 1812.

Joseph Bonaparte Crowned King of Spain

On June 6, 1808, Napoleon Bonaparte made his older brother Joseph I, King of Spain.  Joseph's rule was challenged immediately by revolt against the French, which was the beginning of the Peninsular War.  England and Portugal joined Spanish guerrillas, ultimately throwing off the French yoke.  Joseph abdicated the throne after the Battle of Vitoria (1813), which was led by Arthur Wellington.

Walter Scott covers Joseph in his "Life of Napoleon Bonaparte", including these comments:

"...In accepting the crown of Spain at the hands of Napoleon, Joseph, who was a man of sense and penetration, must have been sufficiently aware that it was an emblem of borrowed and dependant sovereignly, gleaming but with such reflected light as his brother's imperial diadem might shed upon it. He could not but know, that in making him King of Spain, Napoleon retained over him ail his rights as a subject of France, to whose emperor, in his regal as well as personal capacity, he still, though a nominal monarch, was accounted to owe all vassalage. For this he must have been fully prepared. But Joseph, who had a share of the family pride, expected to possess with all others, save Bonaparte, the external appearance at least of sovereignty, ana was much dissatisfied with the proceedings of the marshals and generals sent by his brother to his assistance. Ench of these, accustomed to command his own separate corps d armee, wilh no subordination save that to the emperor only, proceeded to act <>n his own authority, and his own responsibility, levied contributions at pleasure, and regarded the authority of King Joseph as that of a useless and in•effective civilian, who followed the march along with the impedimenta and baggage of the camp, and to whom hide honour was reckoned due, and no obe•dience. In a word, so complicated became the slate of the war and of the government, so embarrassing the rival pretensions set up by the several French generals, against Joseph and against each other, that wlien Joseph came to Paris to assist at the marriage of Napoleon and Maria Louisa, he made an express demand, that all the French troops in Spain should be placed under his own command, or rather that of his major-general; and in case this was declined, he proposed to abdicate the crown, or, what was equivalent, that the French auxiliaries should be withdrawn from Spain. Bonaparie had, on a former occasion, named his brother generalissimo of the troops within his pretended dominions; he now agreed that the French generals serving in Spain should be subjected, without exception, to the control of Marshal Jourdan, as major-general of King Joseph. But as those commanders were removed from Bonaparte's immediate eye, and were obliged to render an account of their proceedings both to the intrusive king and to Napoleon, it was not difficult for them to contrive to play off the one against the other, and in fact to conduct themselves as if independent of both..."

Sir Robert Peel

A recent post covered George Square in Glasgow.  Within the square, one finds statues of famous Scots, including Sir Walter Scott and Sir Robert Peel.  Peel was a statesman; Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during two separate stints covering nearly six years.  Peel was born on March 5, 1788.

Peel was born to an industrialist in Ramsbottom, Lancashire.  His political career began just after the turn of the century, as MP for Cashel, Ireland.  Peel was a Tory, and an ally of Sir Arthur Wellesley.

Scott and Peel were well known to each other, and there are several entries in Scott's Journal wherein Scott records dining with Peel.  On May 17, 1828, Scott enters: "...I went to Mr. Chantrey, and sat for an hour to finish the bust...".  The bust was done by Sir Francis Chantry of Norton, in North Derbyshire, England.  Chantry was one of the leading sculptors of his day, and the bust that Scott was sitting for had actually been ordered by Robert Peel.

Sir David Baird

A contemporary of Walter Scott, David Baird was born on December 6, 1757. Baird made his mark in the military, mostly in India. His first tour of duty was as a captain, with Sir Hector Munro in India. During battle, the whole force Baird was assigned to was destroyed; Baird himself captured, and held for 4 years. Several years after his release, Baird purchased a lieutenant-colonelcy and returned to India. Here, in the battle of Seringapatam, Baird distinguished himself, and was promoted to colonel.

Baird continued successful military actions in India, but was disappointed not to advance further. A command he expected to receive went to Colonel Arthur Wellesley, beginning a pattern of disappointment that would embitter Baird through his career. He was, however, knighted in 1804.

Scott was familiar with Baird, and in a personal letter to his own son Walter, described Baird:

"Respecting David Baird, besides being always a man of courage himself, and a successful general, it should never be forgotten that the army, Britain, and the whole world owe the Duke of Wellington entirely to him."