Talk:Grande Armée

message: The numbers do not add up and contradict the french wikipedia page 
Probably 350,000 Frenchmen is more accurate
680,000 men:
• 550,000 Frenchmen
• 95,000 Poles
• 35,000 Austrians
• 30,000 Italians[1]
• 24,000 Bavarians
• 20,000 Saxons
• 20,000 Prussians
• 17,000 Westphalians
• 15,000 Swiss
• 9,800 Danes and Norwegians[2][3]
• 4,000 Portuguese
• 3,500 Croats  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.12.25 (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: The Grande Armée is consisted of seven corps:
*1st Corps: Commanded by Marshal Bernadotte, 2 divisions, each of 3 regiments(9 battalions), 1 light calvary division of 4 regiments;
*2nd Corps: Commanded by General Marmont, 3 infantry division and 1 light calvary division;
*3rd Corps: Commanded by Marshal Devout, 3 infantry divisions and 1 light calvary division;
*4th Corps: Commanded by Marshal Soult, 3 infantry divisions and 1 light calvary division;
*5th Corps: Commanded by Marshal Lannes, 3 infantry division and 1 light calvary division;
*6th Corps: Commanded by Marshal Ney, 3 infantry division and 1 light calvary division;
*7th Corps: Commanded by Marshal Augereau, 2 divisions of nine battalions each (This Corp is the reserve). 
Twejoel, I assume this is the OoB for the 1805 campaign.  Which would be fine if that section were only about that, but it deals with organization in general. Maybe if you add a section on that campaign at the bottom of the article, this information can be readded there. I'm trying to get this article up to FEATURED status and your edits, while well meaning, are not really helping.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed the following: 

message: It seems that is almost done here, great job man, but let me know if ya need something about --Philx 06:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Bro! Why sure you can help if you want. If you know half as much about Napoleonic warfare as you do about Roman history you are more than welcome...even if you don't, you are still welcome.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I help ?? 

message: Hi There,
I've just fleshed out the section on Line infantry, and will be doing the same with the Light Infantry. Adding some more detailed information, as well as fixing some inaccuracies 
(e.g. Tirailleurs were not a part of the Infanterie Légère(which was Carabiniers, Chasseurs and Voltigeurs), but rather seperate foreign formations [Tirailleurs Corses and Tirailleurs du Pô] or part of the Jeune Garde [the Tirailleurs-Grenadiers and Tirailleurs-Chasseurs])
Hope this helps
--ansbachdragoner 01:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bienvenue! I was intending to flesh out some of the complex differences between different Légère types, but you, Sir, not only humbuged me to the march but did a FAR more elaborate and eloquent job of it than I. You are correct too, Grenadiers, were technically, Ligne units. Even though they were often separated into their own regiments and (until 1809) divisions. Tirailleurs, were separate too, and it seems were generally used as ball fodder. Thanks for your great contributions to both the article and the images! Again, VERY well done! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work on Infanterie de Ligne and Légère 

message: Why isn't this article featured so far? Halibutt 03:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel it is quite done yet. I need to add one more section to sum up the G.A.'s history and legacy. Ansbach has also expressed the desire to expand upon other already completed sections. And after the brilliant job he did with the infantry, how could I refuse him. Then we will turn it over for not peer review but project review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. I figure we will get a much larger and more knowledgable response there than at regular peer review. Once the project deems it worthy, THEN we will cast it out into the FAC storm:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured 

message: I believe more info on the client state armies is necessary as well as info on the French navy of the napoleonic wars. Also Im making a article called French Soldiers. it is being made right now and help with the article would be VERY MUCH APPRECIATED!!Philippe Auguste 04:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions, help, and questions 

message: Hi There,
I'm in the middle of expanding on the Guard. The Cav Needed a mention, and a little expansion of the Young / Middle Old Guard.--ansbachdragoner 05:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Up with your heads gentlemen, those are only bullets, not turds. Priceless;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dont Panic 

message: People STOP messing with this section; it is generally agreed that the glory years of the Grande Armee were from 1805 to 1807, when their victories permitted an end to bloodshed on the continent at Tilsit. Friedland was Napoleon's second most decisive victory, so calling it a "hard-won triumph" makes no sense; the Russians were thoroughly destroyed. 
Eylau was a bloody draw, but presumably when we're talking about crowning glories we're covering the period, not just individual battles. For the Grande Armee, Eylau was a catharctic moment, since it was the first time they did not have a decisive victory. Nevertheless, the epic charge by French cavalry and the horrible snowstorm do elevate the battle to some sort of 'crowning glory,' semantics aside. Friedland was not a costly victory; you'd have to be joking to say that. The Russians lost 20,000, about 1/3 of their army, while the French only 8,000, a very very low fraction of their entire force in Poland (1/8 of the men that were at the battlefield). At Austerlitz, the French lost nearly 9,000 and the Allies about 25,000, yet you're not saying that was a costly victory now are you? Logically, you'd have to! But of course it makes no sense, just like calling Friedland a 'costly victory' makes no sense either. 
Just as a matter of history, however, the great years of the Empire's armies do include 1807. And by "history" I mean the vast collection of literature; books by historians, military enthusiasts like you and I, and others are all most likely to include 1807 as part of the glory years. Furthermore, the army did not fight in 1804, so I don't know why you're including that year. It was formed then, but had no actual glory in that year. Please do not make any further changes here; history should not be sacrificed for your personal views. User:UberCryxic
:UberCryxic, your claim that the treaty of Tilsit is completely accepted as the end of the 'Glory Years' is incorrect. In fact, I was of the opinion that in the majority of histories (Etling, Chandler etc) were of the opinion that the Glory years ended in December 1806. Just going from Chandler's authoritative work 'Campaigns of Napoleon', Chandler claims that Iena-Auerstadt was the height, and that December 1806 was the beginning of Napoleon's (and therefore La Grande Armée's) decline. He gives the following reasons for this. 
:* While the twin victories of Iena-Auerstadt were unargueably complete (with 70% of the Prussian army becoming either casualties or prisoners), Napoleon had failed in his efforts to bring a swift conclusion to the war. Königin Louise of Prussia had managed to persuade her husband not to sue for peace. This meant that the Tsar's army was now also drawn into the war, an eventuality which Napoleon did not desire. Instead of a 'blitzkreig' style campaign (as at Austerlitz), he was now forced into an unwanted winter campaign in Poland, and while his victory at Friedland was spectacular, It was merely the conclusion to an unwanted and costly campaign.
:* The introduction of the Continental System with the Berlin Decree of November 1806 was to lead to the Invasion of Portugal in 1807 and of Spain in 1808, so therefore to the Peninsular War (The Spanish ulcer ruined me). This was also the reason for the disastrous Russian Campaign of 1812. 
:* Finally, from this point Napoleon was no longer seen as invicible. Although Imperial publicity painted Eylau as a great victory, the true nature of the battle was leaked out, and this dent in Napoleon's invincibility hardened the resolve of those fighting Napoleon, particularly Britain, to 'stay the course'. Also, for the first time La Grande Armée was discontent and suffering from poor morale (It was during the 1806-7 winter campaign that the Grenadiers a Pied received the nickname 'les grognards' for openly voicing their concerns to the Emperor). 
:In conclusion, to state that Friedland is the end of the Glory Years ignores the equally popular school of thought that December 1806 saw the end of this period.--ansbachdragoner 23:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Points, taken. But most historians, along with Ansbach and myself, judge an army's quality by its performance. In evaluating this, also, one must distinguish between brave and brilliant. The fact is that due to many factors, the Armee's performance is 1807, while brave and, ultimately triumphant, was not as brillant as that of the previous two years' campaigns. Another factor that needs mention-Their opponents were better as well. The Russian army of 1807 proved far more formidable than its predecessors, and it was a taste of things to come. Even Davout and Ney were surprised and somewhat disheartened by their aggressiveness and tenacity. So the question here is not the Armee's quality, which I conceed was as good as 05-06 (Afterall it was the same Armee) but how well that quality matched up against changing circumstances. To do otherwise, is to risk going not only against historical consensus, but leads to favoring opinion over facts and entering the realm of PoV. However much we admire the Armee, we must try and be objective in our evaluations and presentations. You may "spin" it any way you wish, but the fact is, while the Armee was the same, the 1807 campaign was very different.
On another note, it should be pointed out that the time, energy and intellect we are expending in this arguement, could be better spent improving and expanding the actual article itself. I regret I started those headers before I wrote the actual sections which would go under them and explain the rationale for the dates.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So basically you are saying "Dude! They won! Glory years Dude!". Most of the empirical evidence for your case is made by various casualty figure ratios. This can be a misleading metric. You also seem incapable of distinguishing between a brillant victory (IE Austerlitz) and a decisive but unbrilliant one (Friedland). Cannae is argueably the most brilliant victory in military history...but it was not decisive. Gettysburg was decisive, but it was hardly a brillant victory. Austerlitz was BOTH. Now look at...Friedland again...go on...LOOK at it. See? Not the same. A triumph?, oui, decisive? oui encore, but brilliant?...mais non! It is the difference between an enemy making a costly blunder by their own accord which may or may not be fully exploited but still costs them the battle, OR...MAKING them make a costly blunder then fully exploting it, whether strategically/politically decisive or not. Est-ce-que vous comprennez maintenant, monsieur? A blunder can cost lots of lives and ramp up the casualty ratios, but it hardly means the other side won a great victory merely because they made fewer mistakes and thus suffered fewer losses.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If I may interject, there seems to be a problem here caused by the adjectives.  Can't we just leave them out, and say, for example, "Victories, 1805-1807"?  Unless we can find references for the adjuectives, we will in any event be as risk of infringing WP:NPOV or WP:NOR.  Alternatively, perhaps a simple timeline would be the best idea? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glory Years (to 1806 or 1807?) 

message: There's no need to deny it, this page rocks. It's well-researched, informative, and has plenty of pictures. It's gotta become a featured article!UberCryxic 22:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh - that new history section is excellent.  Unfortunately, I think it is now a bit too long for this article: it could usefully be copied to somewhere like Napoleonic Wars or History of the Grande Armée and summarised (even more) ruthlessly here. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In terms of WP:FAC, the article could do with more citations for specific facts (numbers etc), but otherwise is looking great.  It may be worth trying WP:PR for a week or two first, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who added 1812: Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow, Adam Zamoyski,  to the references list (for a very very early version of this article), so if you want numbers/page refs for anything specific from that book let me know on my talk. Pcb21 Pete 11:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with ALoan, perhaps a week or two on WP:PR would be an idea. Otherwise it's fantastic. Bravo UberCryxic for adding a concise, neutral and informative history of LGA.--ansbachdragoner 01:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We have no problems with our sources. They are numerous, clearly listed, in depth and varied. In-line citations are NOT a requirement yet for featured articles and I'd rather we avoid having too many in this one. I believe it works much better as a cohesive, well-ordered narrative, than a Franken-Article of citations strung together or a virtual Ibid. As for peer review, might I suggest giving our new Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review a test run by submitting it there instead? Regular PR, does not seem to be working properly.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Starting to add in some footnotes and extra refs for my edits.--ansbachdragoner 02:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Are we ready for FAC yet? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mais Non, mon soldat! We still have some work to do-Regardez Voici! Especially on the intro and the final section. I'll get the intro, see if you and Uber can get the latter. We also need some more strategically placed inline cites. On this you can be a GRANDE help to our Armee, Monsieur.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article?

message: The highest "rank" in Napoleon's army was Général de division.  Maréchal de l'Empire or Marshal "was not a superior military grade but a personal title of honor to be granted distinguished generals of division, along with higher pay and privileges." Elting, John R.:"Swords Around A Throne.", page 124. Da Capo Press, 1997.  There was no such rank as Général de Armee or Général de Corps. Idem.  G.de Dv. could be appointed to command a corps, or even an army, but this was an operational designation, not a rank.
The original entry for Train d’artillerie was completely wrong.  That organization militarized the teamsters responsible for hauling the artillery, ending the previous reliance on civilian contractors. Elting, John R.:"Swords Around A Throne.", p. 250, 254. Da Capo Press, 1997.
--Paco Palomo 23:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction of factual errors 

message: This article has been rated on 7 criteria:
#Well-written: Pass
#Factually accurate: Pass 
#Broad: Pass 
#Neutrally written: Pass
#Stable: Pass 
#Well-referenced: Neutral
#Images: Fail
This article is long. Really long.  Which is good, but: there are only 20 referrences.  While that might be enough for most GAC's, in this one that means that there screen-pages pass without a single reference, sometimes several at a time.  What's more, the last 4 of the references aren't references, but footnotes- bringing the total to 16.  I do not think that that is enough on it's own to fail the article.  However: Images.  There are 46 images.  I understand that they are all fair use or not held under any copyright.  That is beside the point.  46 is far too many for any article.  Images should be used to add to the information presented, not as decoration.  If these problems are taken care of, please resubmit to GAC and message me on my talk page- as this article has sat at GAc for 2 months without review, and would likely sit there that long again, I am willing to look at it again immediately, rather than waiting for ti to reach the top of the list. --PresN 16:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Passed the article for GA.  The remaining criteria were met, and the article looks good.  The image issue has been fixed.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 23:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GAC

message: This article should include  the following informations about the allies of Napoleon:
*what they fought for (e.g the Poles hoped for a creation of independent state see the Duchy of Warsaw)
*what was their morale 
*how loyal were they to Napoleon Mieciu K 22:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have written a section on Foreign troops in La Grande Armée.--Bryson 20:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tips 

message: How were troops in La Grande Armée recruited? Im making a new article call"Napoleonic French soldiers" and need alot more info. Such as pay, medicine, loyalty to France, local services, camp life, Retirement, life in the marines, etc. were any such thing in La Grande Armée as regulars? Because there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. Just elite troops and light infantry. --Philippe Auguste 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. 
*Article's language uses uncomfortable cliches like "La Grande Armée first entered the annals of history" or "crème de la crème". These need to be cleaned up.
*Organization has no sources at all.
*Imperial Guard needs better referencing in its introduction.
*Imperial Guard cavalry is almost totally unreferenced.
*Cavalry is almost totally unreferenced.
*There should be no inline external links.
*Infantry has no references.
*Artillery has far too few references.
*Support services is unreferenced.
These issues continue through the article, only the final section on history being close to being properly referenced. The writing standard is generally quite good, where it avoids cliche, but without references this cannot remain a GA. References shouls also aim to give specific page numbers rather than broad sweeps of them.
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! I'm responsible most for those troubled sections to which you are referring...you're welcome. I wrote them before you joined the project and citations became de rigueur for good articles or even featured ones. Now, after all these years, you show up with an unreasonable deadline and list of demands which basically reads to me like ¡¡¡M0aR N0tZ0RS!!!. Most all of those facts I mentioned are easily verifiable in the sources provided. In the case of the Organization one, all one has to do is look at a typical order of battle for any campaign or engagement of the period ( Waterloo will do ) to see that it is accurate and factual. In the case of the engineers, there is a nice little Wiki link to Monsieur General Eblé's bio where, and at the bottom of this article too, you will find a link to an excellent article on the subject in the War Times Journal. For Cavalry of the Guard, there is a book listed Napoleon's Elite Cavalry: Cavalry of the Imperial Guard, 1804-1815, which I'm taking a wild guess here might just be a source for that section, but titles, like covers, lawyers and politicians, can be deceptive. Please feel free to add these or any other cites you like. Otherwise you might as well save us time and take your cute little green plus sign and go now. I will be heart broken, but I shall endure without it...somehow...as shall this article.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see you are so resigned to losing GA status. It would be nicer however if you would put the same effort into improving the article as you have into thinking up snappy replies. As such a long-standing editor, you must be well aware of the very good reasons Wikipedia requires clear, simple and thorough academic referencing in its Good Articles. If you want more time to bring this article up to standard, you have only to ask and it will be given. Good luck.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am well aware, sir, of the prevailing mentality which equates quality with verifiability with quantity of inline citations. First inlines were a stylistic choice left up to the authors, then they became recommended for certain kinds of articles and passages, then required of all good or featured articles. Now the God Kings and Ayatollahs of Style demand that every passage of every article be cited.  It is not academic but a pedantic mockery of real academic practices. It is yet another hobgoblin of small minds. I reject and ignore it as I reject and ignore all of the ever-changing and growing horde of policies which will ultimately shackle Wikipedia behind a wall of bland mediocrity. I have done my bit for this article and moved on, as have my friends and colleagues Ansbach and ALoan (both GREAT contributors not only to this article but to WP all around!). It is now the turn of others to try and improve upon our efforts. Are you up to the challenge, sir? Or are you too busy judging the merits of others' work to create more meritorious works yourself? The quality of our work still shines and no amount of meaningless awards or status symbols can change that.This remains a good article whether or not it is recognized as such. So thanks but no thanks for the offer of extra time.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, although the main reason that this article will fail to qualify for GA is its woeful lack of inline citation, I regret to inform you that the prose is by no means the shining example you take it to be. If I may, I shall draw your attention to some examples of glaring cliche, the likes of which would no doubt make messers Mills & Boon shudder. For example "La Grande Armée first entered the annals of history when, in 1805, Napoleon I renamed the army . . ." or "the Old Guard consisted of two regiments and was the crème de la crème of La Grande Armée." or "The behemoth force crossed the Niemen on June 23, 1812," where they Biblical monstrosities? Coffee with cream? I think not. Overall however the article is indeed well written, although the layout is far from superb. I have no doubt that yourself, ALoan and Ansbach are all excellent contributors but I am afraid that you must move with the times or risk ending up as the proverbial dodo. Wikipedia requires thorough citation so that academic figures who would otherwise tear this encyclopedia's analysis and description asunder are forced to eat humble pie when it is conclusively demonstrated that the information herein is based upon their own learned scribblings. Such verifiability is also useful when ramapaging partisans of one cause or another descend to wreak havoc on the principles of NPOV; by showing such louts full documentary evidence of other points of view, one is more easily able to hold off their beastial savagery. As to your questioning of my own "meritorious works" I can assure you sir that should you cast your eye upon Second Ostend Raid or more recently Glorious First of June, you will see featured articles penned by mine own hand (with many grateful acknowledgements to fellow participators), articles both comprehensive and verifiable concerning the greatest military machine of any age, the Royal Navy.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps (on hold)

message: I notice that SoLando has done some work on the article. I'll hold off delisting this at the moment to allow further work to be undertaken. Another seven days, with more to come if necessary.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, nothing much has happened so I'm going to delist this. I realise not everyone agrees with me and if you want to take this to WP:GAR to contest it, then you are welcome. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps 2

message: Shouldn't these be mentioned somewhere in the article?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If You wish to start an article on the subject, then make brief mention of it in an appropriate section and/or link to it, be my guest.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, not just now. Spending too much time editing as it is, and not in the same century. I just thought they should be mentioned since that is how the rest of the World found out about what the GA was doing...or what Napoleon wanted the World to find out ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bulletins of Napoleon's Grand Armee 

message: May I suggest, well, insist actually, the Marshals be reordered in the order of being granted the rank and not alphabetically! I would like to state my extreme revulsion of seeing Bernadotte listed first, even more so ahead of Berthier, the real first Marshal of Empire!!!! It is an outrage in every sense of the word!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alphabetical order, however much it may offend our sense of propriety, does offer the virtue of neutrality. This article has been criticised somewhat for lacking this virtue (see Jackie Tar's comments above:). If readers wish to find out who got their batons first, then they can read the respective marshals' bios, which is exactly what the gallery is meant to encourage. It is really only a glorified further reading list. Let's not read too much into it:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

text: How does neutrality enter into the chronological awarding of the rank?! Either Bernadotte was the first awarded the rank or Berthier. Its a matter of historical record. Regardless of my POV of Bernadotte, ordering in the order of award is the only way of doing so, the alphabetical order is simply misrepresenting to the reader the pecking order Napoleon used. You can however address Napoleon's bias in the article if you wish.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I also think that the marshals belong at the start of the article given their leadership roles, and the fact that some like Berthier and Davout literaly made the Grande Armee.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marshals 

message: I can't Find a single thing about the Imperial Navy and/or the Marines. I suggest that an Aricle be added to suit this purpose. Philippe Auguste (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Elting (1997) mentions them somewhere. If you wish to start an article GO FOR IT. But you will have to register an account here first:(--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marines 

message: Perhaps the most famous statistical graphic/map ever drawn is Minard's 1869 map of the devistation of the Grand Armee during the invasion of Russia. Should it appear on this page? Erniecohen (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minard map? 

message: I'd like to propose that the Guard sections here be moved to and integrated with the Imperial Guard (Napoleon I) article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge out - the Guard 

message: What about the supply of Grande Armée?
Breakfast: 
White bread, cheese, 
Spirits 
Lunch: 
Soup 1 / 2 pounds 
Meat, vegetables, 
1 / 2 Maaß wine 
Vesper bread: 
Soup, vegetables, 
1 / 2 Maaß wine 
for officers in addition: 
Rum or coffee, either mirror eggs, poultry or fish. --在紅龍 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supply 

message: An image used in this article, File:Grenadier Pied banner1804.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Grenadier Pied banner1804.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Grande Armée. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820045117/http://entomology.montana.edu/historybug/napoleon/typhus_russia.htm to http://entomology.montana.edu/historybug/napoleon/typhus_russia.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514091424/http://www.napoleonic-literature.com/Flying_Ambulance.htm to http://napoleonic-literature.com/Flying_Ambulance.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514091424/http://www.napoleonic-literature.com/Flying_Ambulance.htm to http://napoleonic-literature.com/Flying_Ambulance.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Grande Armée. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121220114621/http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/NAFNAP.HTM to http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/NAFNAP.HTM
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121220114621/http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/NAFNAP.HTM to http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/NAFNAP.HTM
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121220114621/http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/NAFNAP.HTM to http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/NAFNAP.HTM
*Added  tag to http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/cavalry_Napoleon.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So I've been doing my research, and have found an issue.  The Grande Armée was a FIELD ARMY part of the French Imperial Army, not the name of the armed forces branch itself.  For instance, a number of armies were formed as part of the Imperial Army, including: Army of the Vendée, Army of Italy, Army of Naples, Army of Spain, Army of the Rhine, and so on.  In the way that the French Revolutionary Army had multiple field armies, like the Army of the Rhine, Army of the Coasts, Army of Italy, and so forth (yes names were repeated many times throughout French military history).  So, my suggestion is the article be optimised so that this page is specific on the actual Field Army, while a new page is created for the actual branch.  For references, I'd be happy to provide my evidence in my suggestion if needed.  J-Man11 (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. Srnec (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: It appears this youtube video is essentially copying verbatim the entire Wiki article: 
I will say that the youtuber at least appears to have sourced the images, but has not cited Wikipedia as his source when his entire script is essentially quoting this article word for word. TouchMeTwice (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent copyright Infringement on YouTube