Prisoners of War
Earlier this week in the comments to her fic The Deafness of Angels eglantine_br kicked off a discussion on prisoners of war. eglantine_br asked:
Obviously Archie's escapes failed. I am thinking maybe he was not part of a team, which appears to be really essential. If not, why not? Why didn't the other prisoners like him....
I've read a little bit about the experiences of of POWs during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, but not as much as I would like as it's a topic that fascinates me. eglantine_br recommended reading Escape from France: A Narrative of the Hardships and Sufferings of Several British Subjects Who Effected Their Escape from Verdun. I haven't read this one but it sounds fascinating and it's available from googlebooks :) I've also just got my paws on another account Escape from the French: Captain Hewson's Narrative 1803 - 1809, I haven't read it yet but it has several contemporary etchings and illustrations of the fortress of Bitche which I'll post later.
My main sources when I wrote Flotsam were George Vernon Jackson and William Henry Dillon's accounts of repeated escape attempts from various French prisons including Verdun and Bitche and their trials and tribulations at the hands of the French and British authorities following their release. Jackson and Dillon's accounts are included in an anthology of first hand accounts from the age of sail, which sadly isn't available online but I've already written a couple of summaries of their experiences: Damn 'em Jackson, They Spoiled My Dancing and Every Man Will Do His Duty.
There were many factors that influenced how POWs were treated, most notable of which was rank. There is no comparison between how officers and "common seamen" were treated. Jackson writes of officers held at Bitche ordering clothes and suites of furniture from Paris while the "lower class of English prisoners" were
"placed in the souterraines, where they reigned supreme and legislated for their community upon principals of their own, administering reward or punishment to all who deserved one or the other"
A 1789 Parliamentary report on the treatment of prisoners of war describes the awful conditions common seamen were held in at Pontanezan prison near Brest. Up to a thousand men were crammed into a room only thirty feet wide and three hundred feet long and provided with meat rations that were "nothing but carrion". However the officers, including those of the Amazon frigate, were held in a separate hall and provided with "good fresh beef, white bread and a bottle of good claret daily". They were also allowed to visit town in the morning and return in the evening.
Status or designation also seem to have been critical. Dillon was not officially classed as a POW and was denied the privileges that were afforded to captive officers. Both the French authorities and the British Admiralty refused to award him the pay he was due as they viewed him as an illegal detainee rather than a POW, despite the fact he was detained while on Admiralty business. Dillon did eventually get the money he was owed but not before his family had to sell an estate to cover his prison expenses.
Parole was also an important factor. Many paroled officers seem to have lived relatively comfortable lives at large in the community. nodbear can tell you all about Captain Bergeret's extended stay with his captor, a certain Sir Edward Pellew. And Lieutenant Ben Littlehales of the Amazon was accommodated by Raymond de Lacrosse, captain of the Droits de L'Homme, the French 74 driven on shore and wrecked by the Amazon and the Indefatigable. Jackson's many escape attempts are variously helped and hindered by numerous paroled officers some of whom viewed his behavior as risky at best. Officers who broke parole were seen as being quite beyond the pale. Dillon refused to acknowledge a fellow POW on their return to England as the man had broken his parole. When Jackson is accused of breaking parole by a French officer he is affronted and argues that he has never been paroled and therefore is quite entitled to continue trying to do his duty to escape.
Jackson is also aided and abetted by numerous French citizens during his repeated escape attempts. Their motivations for assisting "the enemy" are many and varied. Some, both common and aristocratic, are clearly in opposition to the revolutionary government, others have motivations closer to home. One man who helps Jackson has a son in prison in England and he hopes that if he helps Jackson to make it back to England he will plead for this son's release. However many people appear to have provided assistance to these escapees simply on the grounds of common humanity and desire to help a fellow man in need.
You also have to wonder about some of the guards though. Jackson writes of guards selling prisoners alcohol, opium and uniforms, all of which proved very handy when trying to escape!
Those who did break parole or who repeatedly attempted to escape were classed as deserters who had all the privileges afforded to POWs withdrawn, regardless of rank. Deserters were habitually chained and seem to have been treated as little more than common criminals.
eglantine_br noted that successful escapes usually involved groups of prisoners working together and Jackson's story certainly backs this up. However one man who escaped with Jackson was advised by friends to abandon him as they considered Jackson's ideas of escape as "too romantic”.
In order to deal with the increasing numbers of prisoners held on both sides of the channel the British and French set up cartels to facilitate their exchange. In Britain these exchanges were managed by the Transport Board. Prisoners were exchanged for others of equal rank and nodbear and I have seen short but moving letters written from Quimper prison by Robert Carthew Reyolds, captain of the Amazon where he talks of his despair that no suitable French prisoner has been found to enable his exchange.
The circumstances of capture also had a significant impact on prisoners' chances of release or exchange. Those who were captured in brave or gallant action or who helped to save the lives of enemy crews at sea were often granted early release. This is essentially what happened to the officers and crew of the Amazon which was wrecked alongside the Droits de L'Homme.
In addition to exchange, I also believe that some POWs, particularly wealthy and aristocratic ones, could be ransomed by their families but to be honest I have no source for this.
So in answer to eglantine_br's original question I think it's quite likely that if Archie made repeated attempts to escape he may have been classed as deserter. This would have resulted in the withdrawal of privileges and parole and it's likely that his name would not have appeared on lists of POWs put forward for exchange. Also if Archie's escape attempts were seen as being reckless or "romantic", which I'm sure after four attempts must increasingly have been the case, then it's quite possible that fellow prisoners would have wanted nothing to do with him. Poor Archie :( Thank goodness Hunter came and sat on him!
Sorry this was supposed to be a short post but it got a bit out of hand :}
References
Anonymous, (1811), Escape from France: A narrative of the hardships and sufferings of several British subjects who effected their escape from Verdun. With an appendix, containing observations on the policy and conduct of Buonaparte towards British subjects, Vernor, Hood and Sharpe, Edinburgh.
Brett-Jones, A., Ed., (1981), Escape from the French. Captain Hewson's Narrative 1803-1809, Hodder and Stoughton, Exeter.
King, D. and Hattendorf, J.B., (1997), Every Man Will Do His Duty: An Anthology of First-hand Accounts from the Age of Nelson 1793 - 1815, Conway Maritime Press.
Report On Treatment of Prisoners of War, House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century, Land Revenue, Prisoners of War, Fisheries, 1797-98, (118) 105 - 106.
Obviously Archie's escapes failed. I am thinking maybe he was not part of a team, which appears to be really essential. If not, why not? Why didn't the other prisoners like him....
I've read a little bit about the experiences of of POWs during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, but not as much as I would like as it's a topic that fascinates me. eglantine_br recommended reading Escape from France: A Narrative of the Hardships and Sufferings of Several British Subjects Who Effected Their Escape from Verdun. I haven't read this one but it sounds fascinating and it's available from googlebooks :) I've also just got my paws on another account Escape from the French: Captain Hewson's Narrative 1803 - 1809, I haven't read it yet but it has several contemporary etchings and illustrations of the fortress of Bitche which I'll post later.
My main sources when I wrote Flotsam were George Vernon Jackson and William Henry Dillon's accounts of repeated escape attempts from various French prisons including Verdun and Bitche and their trials and tribulations at the hands of the French and British authorities following their release. Jackson and Dillon's accounts are included in an anthology of first hand accounts from the age of sail, which sadly isn't available online but I've already written a couple of summaries of their experiences: Damn 'em Jackson, They Spoiled My Dancing and Every Man Will Do His Duty.
There were many factors that influenced how POWs were treated, most notable of which was rank. There is no comparison between how officers and "common seamen" were treated. Jackson writes of officers held at Bitche ordering clothes and suites of furniture from Paris while the "lower class of English prisoners" were
"placed in the souterraines, where they reigned supreme and legislated for their community upon principals of their own, administering reward or punishment to all who deserved one or the other"
A 1789 Parliamentary report on the treatment of prisoners of war describes the awful conditions common seamen were held in at Pontanezan prison near Brest. Up to a thousand men were crammed into a room only thirty feet wide and three hundred feet long and provided with meat rations that were "nothing but carrion". However the officers, including those of the Amazon frigate, were held in a separate hall and provided with "good fresh beef, white bread and a bottle of good claret daily". They were also allowed to visit town in the morning and return in the evening.
Status or designation also seem to have been critical. Dillon was not officially classed as a POW and was denied the privileges that were afforded to captive officers. Both the French authorities and the British Admiralty refused to award him the pay he was due as they viewed him as an illegal detainee rather than a POW, despite the fact he was detained while on Admiralty business. Dillon did eventually get the money he was owed but not before his family had to sell an estate to cover his prison expenses.
Parole was also an important factor. Many paroled officers seem to have lived relatively comfortable lives at large in the community. nodbear can tell you all about Captain Bergeret's extended stay with his captor, a certain Sir Edward Pellew. And Lieutenant Ben Littlehales of the Amazon was accommodated by Raymond de Lacrosse, captain of the Droits de L'Homme, the French 74 driven on shore and wrecked by the Amazon and the Indefatigable. Jackson's many escape attempts are variously helped and hindered by numerous paroled officers some of whom viewed his behavior as risky at best. Officers who broke parole were seen as being quite beyond the pale. Dillon refused to acknowledge a fellow POW on their return to England as the man had broken his parole. When Jackson is accused of breaking parole by a French officer he is affronted and argues that he has never been paroled and therefore is quite entitled to continue trying to do his duty to escape.
Jackson is also aided and abetted by numerous French citizens during his repeated escape attempts. Their motivations for assisting "the enemy" are many and varied. Some, both common and aristocratic, are clearly in opposition to the revolutionary government, others have motivations closer to home. One man who helps Jackson has a son in prison in England and he hopes that if he helps Jackson to make it back to England he will plead for this son's release. However many people appear to have provided assistance to these escapees simply on the grounds of common humanity and desire to help a fellow man in need.
You also have to wonder about some of the guards though. Jackson writes of guards selling prisoners alcohol, opium and uniforms, all of which proved very handy when trying to escape!
Those who did break parole or who repeatedly attempted to escape were classed as deserters who had all the privileges afforded to POWs withdrawn, regardless of rank. Deserters were habitually chained and seem to have been treated as little more than common criminals.
eglantine_br noted that successful escapes usually involved groups of prisoners working together and Jackson's story certainly backs this up. However one man who escaped with Jackson was advised by friends to abandon him as they considered Jackson's ideas of escape as "too romantic”.
In order to deal with the increasing numbers of prisoners held on both sides of the channel the British and French set up cartels to facilitate their exchange. In Britain these exchanges were managed by the Transport Board. Prisoners were exchanged for others of equal rank and nodbear and I have seen short but moving letters written from Quimper prison by Robert Carthew Reyolds, captain of the Amazon where he talks of his despair that no suitable French prisoner has been found to enable his exchange.
The circumstances of capture also had a significant impact on prisoners' chances of release or exchange. Those who were captured in brave or gallant action or who helped to save the lives of enemy crews at sea were often granted early release. This is essentially what happened to the officers and crew of the Amazon which was wrecked alongside the Droits de L'Homme.
In addition to exchange, I also believe that some POWs, particularly wealthy and aristocratic ones, could be ransomed by their families but to be honest I have no source for this.
So in answer to eglantine_br's original question I think it's quite likely that if Archie made repeated attempts to escape he may have been classed as deserter. This would have resulted in the withdrawal of privileges and parole and it's likely that his name would not have appeared on lists of POWs put forward for exchange. Also if Archie's escape attempts were seen as being reckless or "romantic", which I'm sure after four attempts must increasingly have been the case, then it's quite possible that fellow prisoners would have wanted nothing to do with him. Poor Archie :( Thank goodness Hunter came and sat on him!
Sorry this was supposed to be a short post but it got a bit out of hand :}
References
Anonymous, (1811), Escape from France: A narrative of the hardships and sufferings of several British subjects who effected their escape from Verdun. With an appendix, containing observations on the policy and conduct of Buonaparte towards British subjects, Vernor, Hood and Sharpe, Edinburgh.
Brett-Jones, A., Ed., (1981), Escape from the French. Captain Hewson's Narrative 1803-1809, Hodder and Stoughton, Exeter.
King, D. and Hattendorf, J.B., (1997), Every Man Will Do His Duty: An Anthology of First-hand Accounts from the Age of Nelson 1793 - 1815, Conway Maritime Press.
Report On Treatment of Prisoners of War, House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century, Land Revenue, Prisoners of War, Fisheries, 1797-98, (118) 105 - 106.