|
Sir Arthur Welleslley, the Duke of Wellington, was one of the great mulitary commanders in British history. Considering the fact that he played a key role in Napoleon's defeat, the similarities between the two commanders are remarkable. They were born in the same year. For men who are now judged as quissential represenatives of their nations--neither were born in their countries. Rather both were born in modest circumstances on the fringe of their nation's territory, Napoleon in Corsica and Wellington in Ireland. Both attended French military accademies. Both revered Hannibal and Caeser. Both men had mistresses who became legends. [Roberts] Both were loved by their men and grudgingly admired by their foes. There were important differences. The most important accoirding to at least one biographer was that Wellington unlike lacked innate military talent. [Davies] Wellington learned is craft in India. There he learned not only battlefield tactics, but how to plan a campaign, organize logistics, and obtain intelligence. Perhaps most of all he learned the importabnce of politics and managed to master the very complicated Indian political tapestry. These were all skills that Wellington put to work in the Peninsular Campign. And they were skills that the military brilliant Napoleon never fully mastered. And as Wellington demonstrated at Waterloo, he had mastered battlefield tactics. After the Wa, Wellington would play a major role in British politics as a conservative primeminister. The Protestant Wellington's impact beyond the military was less important, but after the War played a vital role in of all things -- Catholic emancipation.
Arthur came from an aristocratic Anglo-Irish family, part of the Protestant accendancy. This was the Protestant minority of mostly English origins that governed the Irish Catholic majority whose rights were restricted by English law. Arthur's father was parents were Garret Wesley, 1st Earl of Mornington. His mother Anne was the oldest daughter of The 1st Viscount Dungannon.
His birthday is a matter of some uncertainty, other nhan it was probably in Dublin (1769). The Duke would report the family estate of Athy. He was the third of five surviving sons. His boyhood revolved around the family's two homes. First was a substnatial house in Dublin. The second was Dangan Castle a fe miles north of Summerhill. His father died (1781). The oldest brother Richard inherited his father's earldom.
Arthur attended three schools as a boy fepending on where the family was. He went to the diocesan school in Trim when at Dangan. And then Mr Whyte's Academy when in Dublin. He also attende Brown's School in Chelsea while in London. He enrolled at Eton College (1781). He was lonely and unhappy at Eton. It is thus unlikely that he actually said, "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton." Not to mention that Eton did not yet have playing fields. He left Eton (1784). After his father died, his mother's financial -09889situation worsened. For some reason they moved to Brussels (1785). The young Arthur exhibited little progress and his mother was concerned with his seeming lack of ambition. She told friends, "I don't know what I shall do with my awkward son Arthur." Arthur enrolled in the French Royal Academy of Equitation in Angers (1786). Here he seems ro have applied himself, becoming an excellent orseman and learning French, both o which would prove useful in his military career. When he return to England, his mother was impressed (late-1786).
His brother got a friend, the Duke of Rutland (then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland), to obtain a commision in the Army for Arthur. He was gazetted ensign in the 73rd Regiment of Foot (1787). He rose in thArmy through competence and the ability to purchase higher commsions. His brother lent him more money and with it he created one of the great purchased a lieutenant-colonelcy in the 33rd (1793). This was nolt a quiet time. The French Revolution created one of the great crisis in British hostory. This the country had a hgreat need fpr soldiers. He had his first experience in battle in the Neterkands (1794)
Sir Arthur Welleslley, the Duke of Wellington, was one of the great mulitary commanders in British history. Considering the fact that he played a key role in Napoleon's defeat, the similarities between the two commanders are remarkable. They were born in the same year. For men who are now judged as quissential represenatives of their nations--neither were born in their countries. Rather both were born in modest circumstances on the fringe of their nation's territory, Napoleon in Corsica and Wellington in Ireland. Both attended French military accademies. Both revered Hannibal and Caeser. Both men had mistresses who became legends. [Roberts] Both were loved by their men and grudgingly admired by their foes. There were important differences. The most important accoirding to at least one biographer was that Wellington unlike lacked innate military talent. [Davies] Wellington learned is craft in India. There he learned not only battlefield tactics, but how to plan a campaign, organize logistics, and obtain intelligence. Perhaps most of all he learned the importance of politics and managed to master the very complicated Indian political tapestry. These were all skills that Wellington put to work in the Peninsular Campign. And they were skills that the military brilliant Napoleon never fully mastered. And as Wellington demonstrated at Waterloo, he had mastered battlefield tactics.
The young Wellesley fell in love with Catherine 'Kitty' Pakenham (1773-1831), the daughter of Edward Pakenham, 2nd Baron Longford (1791). Acually they had known each other since childhood in Ireland. She had met Wellesley in Ireland when they were both young. Wellesley made numerous visits to the Longfords' Dublin home and eventually made his feelings towards her clear. She was an attractive girl and was also apparently attracted by her 'gaiety and charm'. He decided to pursue marriage (1793). Kitty was apparently willing, but Her brother Thomas, Earl of Longford, saw the young Wellesley as a endebted junior officer with few prospects. He was also a yonger son without a title. Kitty's brother (their father had died) refused to give consent. Wellesley who had some musical skill actually burned his treasured violins. He through himself into his military carrer. More than a decade later, after promotions and successes in his military career, and Kitty's continued memories of, the situation changed. Returing from the Hanover Expedition (1805), Wellesley found that the marital prospects had changed. Kitty's family had changed their minds and consented to a marriage. They were married in Dublin (1806). The marriage, however, proved to be a mistake. The two did not get on. Kitty had been ill which affected her appearance and personality. Wellesley's years of campaigning kept them apart. This may have been the root of the problem. Kitty became depressed. Wellesley for his part became involved with other sexual and romantic partners. The couple did produce two sons, Arthur (1807) and Charles (1808). It is notable that this was early in the marriage. As a result, they lived apart for most of the time and occupied separate rooms even when they were together. Another brother, Edward 'Ned' Pakenham, served under Wellesley in Spain, the Peninsular War (1807-14). Wellesley had considerable regard for him. This undoubtedly helped smooth his relations with Kitty for several years. Unfortunately this moderating influence when Pakenham's was killed in of all places New Orleans (1815). [Holmes, p. 20.] Despite their problems, Wellington was saddened when Kitty died two decades before him.
Irish Protestant Wellington is best known as the scourge of Napoleon, defeating French marshals in the Peninsular Campaign and then finally Napoleon at Waterloo (1815). He was a comparitively young man, even at the time of WAterloo. Thus he had a long life after his great battles. He had dabbled in Irish politics even during his military career and reentere politics after Waterllo. This time as a result of the Act of Union, British politics. He proved to be a rare British prime minister who rose to the office chiefly as a military hero. (Presidential politic is more prone to create military leaders than parlimentary politics.) Wellington had a long and close relationship with King George IV who he did not respect. He was one of the conservative leaders who controlled Europe after Napoleon's defeat. He was a staunch Protestant, but eventually yielded on the issue of Catholic Emancipation. It was an issue which could have led to widespread civil disorders if not a civil war. Robert Peel split with him on the issue, but eventually became more moderate on the issue. Peel would also have his primem-ministership rined on a devisive issue--the Corn Laws.
Davies, Huw J. Welligton's Wars: The Making of a Military Genius (2012).
Holmes, Richard. Wellington: The Iron Duke. (London: Harper Collins Publishers, 2002).
Roberts, Andrew. Napoleon & Wellington: The Battle of Waterloo--and the Great Coimmanders Who Fought It (Simon & Schuster, 2003), 350p.
Navigate the Children in History Website:
[Return to Main Napoleonic War biography page]
[Return to Main Napoleonic War page]
[Return to Main Napoleonic War naval page]
[Return to Main decisive battle page]
[Return to Main Royal Navy page]
[Return to Main George William Joy artist page]
[About Us]
[Introduction][Biographies][Chronology][Climatology][Clothing][Disease and Health][Economics][Freedom][Geography][History][Human Nature][Ideology][Law]
[Nationalism][Presidents][Religion][Royalty][Science][Social Class]
[Bibliographies][Contributions][FAQs][Glossaries][Images][Links][Registration][Tools]
[Children in History Home]
