Talk:Battle of Waterloo
From Academic Kids
The 106000 men mentioned in the article sound like the entire anglo-allied army under Wellingyons command. I think just 67000 men of the Anglo allied army were fielded at Waterloo.
Cadr, you removed the section: After an hour, in the centre and on the French right flank, he committed general d'Erlons I corps to the assault. Wellingtons habbit of positioning his troops just after the crest shielded them from the worst of the French artillery. Throughout the 18th, Ney assaulted the Allied line with alternating infantry attacks and cavalry charges.
At about 14.00 elements of the Prussian IV and I corps started to arrive at the battle field and put pressure on the French right flank. When at the end of the afternoon, Napoleon ordered an assault of his Old Guard aggainst the battered and exhausted British line, the experienced French Old Guard did not manage
Why did you remove this info? TeunSpaans 05:25 16 May 2003 (UTC)
Reading through this article again, I think it was a good article one or two years ago. But imho it is time for a major expansion. The description of the actual battle is just some 13 lines. I am sure there is much more to sy about this battle. For example, elements which are missing are the wet grass on the morning of the battle, thea map of the battlefield, the position of the French and Allied units at the start of the battle, Napoleons health(stomach), the misunderstanding between Dutch/Belgian troops and Prussian troops, more detail of the fight in the center, which british units which repelled the final assault of the French old guard, Wellintons reverse slope tactics, names of the farms on Wellingtons left, (papelotte, I think, was one of them), and so on.
Also, except for the Prussians, about whose participation has been much debate, the order of battle is pretty clear. This could be added to the article.
Who is willing to undertake a major rewrite of this article? I will not, as I am afrain someone will throw away my contributions again (the previous deletion, without any attempt at explanation, still hurts me)TeunSpaans 06:17 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
Timing
There seems to be some confusion in the sources about what happened when. Part of this may be due to watches being set to the time of the capitals of the combatants and not sun time. However because London and Paris are quite close this should not be much of a problem.
I think all times in the battle shoud be on the 24 hour clock. At the moment it is a mishmash of both 24:00 and am/pm.
There are some other problems. For example in the curren page it says:
- The battle commenced at about 11:20 in the morning and concluded at about
- 22:00 that evening when General Cambronne surrendered to Col Halkett.
and further up the page it says
- When the French artillery eventually opened fire on Wellington's ridge at around 11.35am,
THE START
Yet in Wellington's Dispatches (http://www.wtj.com/archives/wellington/1815_06f.htm) he says "yesterday morning, and at about ten o'clock he commenced a furious attack upon our post at Hougoumont."
Now it is possible that the French attack on Hougoumont for went on for 1:30 before the main artillery opend up but in which case I think that the start of the attack on Hougoumont should be mentioned as the start of the battle.
Afterall a further contributary reason (apart from the weather) for the delay in the main artillery opening up against the centre, could be that Napoleon was trying to get Wellington to shif forces to reinforce Hougoumont before he started his major attack on the centre near the road past La Haye Sainte.
THE END.
The pursuit of the French by the British went on for more 2 hours after the Last Stand and by the Prussians for longer than that.
So the simplest point to say that the battle finished was when Wellington and Blücher met at the inn La Belle Alliance, which was around around 21:00 hours. It was NOT when General Cambronne surrendered to Col Halkett because that was before the French last stand was over [1] (http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/miscellaneous/c_cambronne.html).
Links to more details
I agree with TeunSpaans I think the article needs expanding, and I think this should be done with links to other pages. That way people can read a summary of the battle here and details in the links. Just as happens with the current links of Hougomont, La Haye Sainte and La Belle Alliance. For example some usefull links would be:
- Franco Prussian confrontation.
- The French last stand.
- The persuit
In the conclusion section
The conclusion should mention the decisivness of the battle and its impact on Europe over the next 50+ years. There should also be a link to the Congress of Vienna
I am willing to make some of these changes but if anyone agrees with me I'd be happy to let someone else do them Philip Baird Shearer 00:27, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with you (and TeunSpaans) that this article is inadequate. I had been thinking that Waterloo would make an excellent signature article for WikiProject Battles; it's well known, well documented, relatively short, and shouldn't arouse too much argument (wishful thinking). However, I've got zero knowledge on the subject so can't really contribute much (I can do a map of the movements leading up to the battle; Ligny, Wavre, Quatre Bras and Waterloo, but that's about it). Anyway, you have my support if you want to make the necessary changes. Geoff/Gsl 04:40, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Map
There is a map of the battle, in the battle box on the German page de:Schlacht bei Waterloo. Could someone who knows how to do it, put it into the battle box on this page? Philip Baird Shearer 22:58, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Starting with a quote
Maveric149says "do not ever start articles with a quote". Why not if it is an appropiate one? I think that
- "A damned near run thing" – the Duke of Wellington
is appropriate.Philip Baird Shearer 13:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- No it is not. Quotes go to Wikiquote or inline within the context of the text (if there are enough of them, then a small section can be set aside for them as well - but that is really only done for bios). All articles must first start with a definition. Qutoes are POV. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style. --mav 21:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I looked in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and can not see a prohibition on quotes in the lead section. Where is it? But I did see:
- Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.
I also looked in the Wikipedia:Lead section There is nothing there that says that "All articles must first start with a definition". What it says is The lead should briefly summarize the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text is accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:Summary style and News style). I think the quote is a brief summery of the battle and in creating interest in reading the whole article is appropriate.
This is a very sensitive battle for many Europeans (as you are not one, you may not appreciate it,) particularly Dutch, English, French and Germans, but few of them would disagree with the quote. There are much more contentious quotes which could be used at the start of the article and I would agree with removing because they could be defined as a point of view (POV) e.g.
- "They came on in the same old way and we stopped them in the same old way" – Duke of Wellington
But unless you can make a better case than you have, I would like to restore the quote. Philip Baird Shearer 12:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Sigh. Having to mention plainly obvious things is really annoying: A lead section needs to start with a lead sentence. If you don't know what that means, then read news style. --mav 07:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't think any article should begin with a quote. Put it in a later paragrapgh is you have to. But don't begin the article with it. If you do that we could just as easily argue for starting the article with a quote from Napoleon or Blücher. Mintguy (T) 16:51, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If Napoleon or Blücher had said something which succinctly summed up the battle and is not controversial, then a quote from either or them would be suitable, but AFAIK they did not. Think of as a sound bite about the battle not as quote. If the sentence was included in the lead section without attribution then presumably you would not object to it as it is an accurate summery. Why do you object to it as a quote? As an example of what I mean have a look at the style used by The Economist. For example one of their lead articles published this week 21th July entitled "Alan Greenspan’s testimony (http://www.economist.co.uk/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2940895)", subtitle "your flexible friend" first sentence "The hard times are behind us, says Alan Greenspan." or another article in the business section printed edition 15th July "Stuart Rose and the future of retailing (http://www.economist.co.uk/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2922951)" "A Rose-tinted vision", "Has Stuart Rose seen the future of retailing? 'A BIT boring,' is how Stuart Rose describes some of the products sold by Marks & Spencer (M&S)."
The news section that you highlighted mav is for journalists who can not know how short their article will be edited down too given the changing nature of news in a daily news paper, so they have to use a pyramid style. I my opinion the weekly news magazine style (http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/) is a better guide, as journalists know the number of words they will be allocated and can therefore break out of the highly stylized format of daily papers. There is no need to Sigh mav, as in the words of Keynes "when the facts change I change my opinion, what do you do?" If you can convince me that it is better not to use a quote at the start then I'll happily agree with you, but so far you have not and I hope that I have given you food for thought Philip Baird Shearer 20:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
question
The article says: When Napoleon unexpectedly left the field in the early afternoon. This is new to me - are u certain of it? I always understood that he directed the battle from La belle alliance, leaving the operational issues to Ney, he himself feeling not well.
- He did leave the field for a time. This means that he handed over control not that he went by bus back to Paris! Philip Baird Shearer 17:48, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
On the whole, the article has improved remarkable, though it favours the anglo saxon view - it is ceratinly not written from a dutch or french view. ;)
More on Quotes
As about the quote, i think it can be moved to a seperate quotes section, where the 'merde' of the french imperial guards officer can also be included. No doubt old Nap also made a nice statement. TeunSpaans 06:00, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I do not think that the quote should be moved. As I said before think of it as a sound bite. There are lots of other quotes which could be included in a quotes section but I think thay are better in context. For example under Scots Greys you will find a Napoleonic quote Ces terribles chevaux gris! Comme il travaillent! and you can find the word(s) of Cambronne' in the article on the Imperial Guard both on links from this page. BTW following the link to Cambronne you will see that he almost certainly did not utter the imortal phrase and that if anyone did it was General Michel.
What would be much more useful in this article than a list of quotes, is a detailed descrition of the last stand of the Imperial Guard and the fighting retreat some French regiments made. Philip Baird Shearer 17:48, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I agree on that last one... TeunSpaans 18:31, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Dutch-Belgians at Waterloo
Wellington's hodge-podge command consisted of British, German, Dutch and Belgian troops. Some of these were of very poor quality (some Belgian and Dutch had even fought in the French Army and were thus sympathetic towards Napoleon), and ran away before the conflict began.
Um, this bit is utter nonsense and very POV. Most Dutch and Belgians did not support the occupation and annexation of their country by Napoleon, and liked even less that their men-folk were rounded up to be used as cannon fodder for the Russian campaign. Many Dutch officers were indeed veterans from Dutch regiments in French service, but those same officers led their soldiers with distinction while holding off the French at Quatre Bras (though sadly the Battle of Quatre Bras article also suffers from the same Anglo-centric themes). As this site (http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Waterloo_Cowards.html) mentions, the Dutch-Belgian regiments at Waterloo were only forced to retreat after enduring an artillery bombardment and repelling several infantry assaults. No cavalry charge came to their rescue, unlike what happened when British regiments were similarly pressed.
While English-language popular history texts, movies and television programmes emphasise the British contribution, the British-born were in fact a minority of the total Allied forces at Waterloo - Germans and Belgian-Dutch made up the majority! [2] (http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/8630.html) --kudz75 01:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is true that if one looks at the popular histories of each country that each country fought a different battle! I personally was never happy with the paragraph as it was because it was open to different interpretations. I think that what the original author meant was
- Wellington's hodge-podge command consisted of British, German, Dutch and Belgian troops. Some of these were of very poor quality and ran away before the conflict began.
It does not specify which nation's troops ran and it only states that "some" did. However as it is a slur and the regiments (if any) that ran away ought to be named, or the paragraph ought to be removed. I think perhapse thought, it would be a good idea if you would intergrate the text you have written into the Battle section and not have in in the Conclusion. Philip Baird Shearer 11:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You're quite right, while I was re-writing the paragraph I had a nagging thought that it didn't seem to belong in the Conclusion anymore but since the running-away stuff was already there... I'll have a go at integrating it into the battle section. --kudz75 05:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
painting
I have a 1902 history book with a color painting in it titled The Sunken Road at Waterloo, by Stanley Berkley. It shows a bunch of cavalry running off the edge of a hill above a road. If it seems like it might be useful, please give me a holler on my talk page, and I'll scan it in and post it. (Don't respond here, because the Waterloo article is not on my watchlist.) --Bcrowell 01:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Great picture, can someone put something in the article about the sunken road itself? I keep hearing references to it, but I don't see anything about it here. JHCC 21:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
