Note 156 — SIEGE OF CIUDAD RODRIGO.

General Craufurd entered the army at an early age, and had seen much and varied service. In the short interval of peace, he visited the Continent to improve himself in the scientific branches of his profession, and afterwards served in two Indian campaigns under Lord Cornwallis. After some unimportant employments on the Continent, he joined the disgraceful expedition against Buenos Ayres, and subsequently served with the army of Sir John Moore, in command of the light brigade. After the retreat, he joined Sir Arthur Wellesley the morning after Talavera, and became most deservedly a favourite of that commander.

Craufurd’s military talents are admitted to have been of the first order. An enthusiast regarding martial glory, he sought every opportunity to distinguish himself. In the affair of the Coa—at Busaco and Fuentes d’Onoro, he established an undying reputation. Wellington’s despatch contained his well-earned eulogy—and the breach before which he fell was fitly chosen as a last resting-place for the fearless leader of the gallant light brigade.

The following very able sketch of the respective dispositions and abilities of Craufurd and Picton, places their characters in a striking light. We agree with Colonel Napier, in awarding to Craufurd the possession of higher military talents than Picton ever exhibited—and we are convinced, had both lived, and both been employed in active service, that Craufurd would have shewed himself the abler officer. To compare either to Wellington, is nothing but egregious folly. Both undoubtedly were brave, ready, and intelligent—but to name them with the master-spirit of the age, is an act of very injudicious friendship.

“Picton and Craufurd were, however, not formed by nature to act cordially together. The stern countenance, robust frame, saturnine complexion, caustic speech, and austere demeanour of the first, promised little sympathy with the short thick figure, dark flashing eyes, quick movements, and fiery temper of the second; nor, indeed, did they often meet without a quarrel. Nevertheless, they had many points of resemblance in their characters and fortunes. Both were inclined to harshness, and rigid in command; both prone to disobedience, yet exacting entire submission from inferiors; and they were alike ambitious and craving of glory. They both possessed decided military talents—were enterprising, and intrepid; yet neither were remarkable for skill in handling troops under fire. This, also, they had in common, they both, after distinguished services, perished in arms fighting gallantly, and being celebrated as generals of division while living, have since their death been injudiciously spoken of as rivalling their great leader in war. That they were officers of mark and pretension is unquestionable, and Craufurd more so than Picton, because the latter never had a separate command, and his opportunities were necessarily more circumscribed; but to compare either to the Duke of Wellington, displays ignorance of the men, and of the art they professed. If they had even comprehended the profound military and political combinations he was conducting, the one would carefully have avoided fighting on the Coa, and the other, far from refusing, would have eagerly proffered his support.”—Napier.