Talk:Hundred Days/Archive 1

message: No anecdotes ever serve to demonstrate xyz, they serve to illustrate. Many people will understand the difference. The anecdote, if it is apocryphal, is just as good as an illustration of Napoleonic propaganda. So it serves equally well whether true or false. By setting it in context, it deserves to stay. Wetman 02:17, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The section regarding the anecdote seems weak. It initially suggests that the events described may not have happened at all; but at the end it states that "it is however now established that Napoleon knew the weapons were loaded with powder only". Did it happen, or not? Established by whom? -Ashley Pomeroy 06:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anecdote: Blanks? 

message: I think this is a great article. Just moved some commas and added some apostrophes. Usual picky stuff. In addition, it could really do with some section breaks but I'm probably not equal to the task. --MJW 10:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar & Section Breaks 

message: I am unclear what the term "unequally" adds to the phrase 
"This was the last conflict and it was fought between a coalition of Britain, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria and a number of German States and unequally against the person of Napoleon Bonaparte".
Presumably, the coalition didn't think it was unequal or there wouldn't have been so many of them. I have removed it. --MJW 10:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unequally 

message: Someone should go to school on this one.--Nick Catalano 03:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, although the article itself could use a polish and more citations. Durova 04:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Breaks 

message: I believe it was.(24.75.194.50 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wasn't the constitution called the 'liberal empire' 

message: I don't know, if Britannica may be wrong or the source misread, but I remember reading that Carnot insisted on declaring the dictatorship and Napoléon himself didn't really support the idea.  Ataxerxes 10:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  After Waterloo

message: Not a single book listed in sources?  Not an inline citation in the entire article?  There were 7th coalition troups besieging fortesses until 09/1815... and everyone thinks this article is a good one? I am not sure that anyone has looked at this article in over a year.  If anyone cares let me know otherwise I am rewriting it. Tirronan 01:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations and Sourcing

message: I see that the Waterloo Campaign redirects to the 100 days article.  Though the 2 are inter-woven I think they are separate subjects.  Much of the 100 days is the political rise and fall of Napoleon within French Republic.  As such though it impacts and is impacted by the campaign it is still a subject in and of itself that needs to be worked up to the proper size to give it the attention that it needs.  The military campaign spans from June 14th to September 15th 1815 with the fall of the last pro-Napoleon fortress to seige.  I think the two should be separated. Tirronan 15:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects

message: I was hoping someone was able to fill in information about the one hundred stones in a roundabout in France, which is a tribute to Napoleon's military campaign revival. The name of the place in France, I have forgotten. Ths, Dailly Rubbings 00:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribute of Hundred Days 

message: It seems we make changes here without consulting let along citing, the henchmen comment is POV the statements about other armies in Europe is typical British hogwash thrown about without thought or comment.  I expect better history than this to be frank, and if this pisses a few people of so much the better... start thinking before you start leaving your opinions as fact here.  I strongly advise that you consider your statements from a NPOV or I'll start yanking them, further the citation, well the complete lack thereof here allows this level of crap to exist in Wikipedia. Tirronan 20:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this, and was a bit unhappy with it, the more I read it the less happy I get.  I agree, quite a bit of it is heavy POV, and also could do with a rewrite to improve the style.  There are potentially useful bits here, but the whole prelude and recap of the events of the sixth coalition I'd suggest aren't needed here, as these are covered in that specific article.  If bits of it could be rewritten, I'd suggest they'd be placed in more appropriate articles.  He's gone right back to 1792 in places, and this all reads like an introduction to an extensive history of the Napoleonic wars, not to a encyclopedia article on a specific section.  I'd suggest someone had a look at this, deleted anything extraneous and rewrite the rest.  What do you think? Benea 21:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there is something to be salvaged here but most of the 1814 stuff is either a gross simplification or written to support a POV.  You'd never gather that Paris was completely surrounded by armies (or that Napoleon was battered back from Moscow to Paris by those supposedly inferior armies) and that the Marshallete demanded Napoleon's abdication.  Sorry for blowing up its just that I expect a level of historical accuracy and a level of scholarship that is completely lacking in this article, hell I have seen better essays by British 15 year old boys.  Here is where I am at, I've had it with this urban myth as history we put up with.  If they can't supply accurate citation to support this crap within 24 hours I am yanking it.  We can rebuild from there. Tirronan 21:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm POV 

message: Nice job in deleting a lot of POV and unsupported crap!  I should have already done this myself but it is really nice to see IP addresses doing something really good!  Thanks guys this was much appreciated. Tirronan 23:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions

message: I've begun editing this somewhat the section about his return to power and the section right after both marked with Essays would both be canidates for extensive revision or deletion as they are just out right sorry excuses for a encyclopedic article.  Mostly just unsupported conjecture at best.  The section on what brought about such discontent with the royalist's efforts to return the the "Ancient Reigme" needs to be brought out in more detail.  I've removed another henchmen comment... sheesh that is just sorry... and hopefully we can have this cleared up in a few days. Tirronan 19:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: At the 'Napoleon Series' there is a very fine, and as it was written by a Belgian not very biased, account of the Hundred Days:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/battles/hundred/c_hundred.html
Might be worth a look at.
Urselius 12:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful online source 

message: How come there is not mention of the war between Naples and Austria? This was very much an important part of the War of the Seventh Coalition (indeed there is NO mention in the article where Naples contributed to the French effort). Centy</font> – [reply]• contribs – 13:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Neapolitan War]] 

message: :See above #Citations and Sourcing
From the revison history of the article:
*14:23, 11 October 2007 PBS (Reverted to last version by Swedish fusilier. Replacing old uncited text with new uncited text is not the way to improve the article)
*17:48, 11 October 2007 Relata refero  (I hope I am doing this right: the new text is mainly from Grant and Temperly, and Agatha Ramm, as noted in the text. The old text is the notoriously Francophobic '11 EB,)
*08:18, 12 October 2007 PBS (rv to last version by PBS reason the new text does not have citations see WP:V)
From the talk pages of Relata refero and PBS
:[Relata refero,] you might like to read Wikipedia:Citing sources and have a look at the Battle of Waterloo for a related page with lots of citations. Also you might interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history --PBS 14:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Waterloo in January, it is only this year that it has had citations included. Of course it will take time for the Hundred Days to reach the same standard, but it was thanks to User:Tirronan insisting on citations that the article Battle of Waterloo is in the state it is today. Tirronan started the same process on the Hundred days, and I agree with him/her. ... --PBS 07:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I do agree with you, but most of what you have tagged as needing citation is from the 1911 EB. Relata refero 09:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References and citations

message: *This section is wrong.  Ney was assigned command the night before the attack began on Quatra Bras which goes some way to explaining his lack of control of his assembling army ie de'Erlon.  Groucy commanded somewhat earlier.
Napoleon moved two armies, the Army of the North (AotN) and the Reserve Army (RA) 128,000 men, up to the French Belgium frontier without alerting the coalition forces.[17] The left wing of the Army of the North (I and II corps) was under the command of Marshal Ney, and the right wing (III and IV corps) under the command of Marshal Grouchy. Napoleon was in direct command of the Reserve (French Imperial Guard, VI Corps, and the I, II, III, and IV cavalry corps). During the initial advance all three elements remained close enough to support each another.
*This section is also wrong, the Prussians were very aware that something was up and were most vocal that they expected an attack at any moment for about a week before the event.
*The timing of orders needs to be assessed, some years after the event Wellington deliberately attempted to look like he had been less fooled than in fact he was. This included retiming events to earlier than they were ect.  Effective orders did not arrive at unit until the morning of the Battle of Quatra Bras and only the independent command decisions of the Dutch/Nassau group saved the day and bought the time for Wellington to bring up help.  It was after the ball that Wellington really started dashing out orders.
*Wellington is not the only thing to watch out for here, both Groucy and Ney are thrown under the bus by Napoleon to attempt to rescue his reputation.  The most agregious is against Groucy who was doing and acting exactly as to his orders and strongly attempted to complete every action that was assigned to him, further he extracted his Corps when he should have been wiped out and rallied the army around him to the best that it could be.  Ney's reputation didn't fair as well but he did not order the calvary charge either.
Moving up to the frontier without alerting the Coalition, Napoleon crossed the frontier at Thuin near Charleroi, the French drove in Coalition outposts and secured Napoleon’s favoured “central position” - at the junction between Wellington’s Allied army to his north-west, and Blücher’s Prussian to his north-east. Wellington had expected Napoleon to try to envelop the Allied armies by moving through Mons to the west of Brussels.[citation needed] Napoleon encouraged this view with false intelligence.[citation needed] A message from Wellington’s intelligence chief, Sir Colquhoun Grant, was delayed by General Dörnberg, and Wellington first heard of the capture of Charleroi at 15:00 shortly followed by another message from the Prince of Orange. Wellington ordered his army to collect at their divisional headquarters, but was still unsure whether the attack in Charleroi was a feint and the main assault would come from Mons, and Wellington only found out with certainty Napoleon’s intentions and sent out orders for the mustering of his army near Nivelles and Quatre Bras just before midnight on the 15 June.[18]
Tirronan 14:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Manoeuvre

message: I've let this section sit here pretty well unmolested but I am not about to start citing paragraphs I don't for a minute believe to be true.  If anyone has strong feelings about the matter this is your last chance to speak up before I start a rewrite on it tomorrow evening. Both Napoleon and Wellington attempted to rewrite history to better serve their purposes but that isn't history and I don't tolerate urban myths in place of actual eventes. Tirronan (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Last warning

message: In the lead it says the Hundred Days began on March 20 and in the infobox it says March 10, which one is correct ? Thanks, have a nice day. Rosenknospe 12:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of the Hundred Days 

message: the timeline which was added covers the fall of the empire in 1814 and ends with Napoleon's banishment to Elba. This article however is about the Hundred Days of 1815, when Napoleon returned from exile in Elba. The timeline is thus distinctively out of time/place and should be deleted or altered. -- fdewaele, Christmas 2007, 13:28.
I'd favor deletion with a link to a page that referred to the history of the broad overview of the Napoleonic conflict. Tirronan (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've altered it to the key dates of the 100 days. Needs some more work but I think it is an improvement on the old timeline -- PBS (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: its been noted that the hundered days was not in fact a 100 days by several historians. Tirronan (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Concure with a small exception, I would date it from his landing to his abdication, without him the revolution couldn't continue. Tirronan (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: I added Hanover. It may have been a member of the German Confederation but was in Waterloo not only with its own army, but also with the KGL.Therefore I think it should be listed as part of the coalition Anne-theater (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that, nice to see you again Anne. Tirronan (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hanover

message: I feel that the section on the Neapolitan war should be merged into this section or at least placed before it. It puts into context the fact the Austrians massing in Italy had already been involved in one campaign even before Suchet moved against them. Also, mentions why the Neapolitans were fighting for the Austrians against Brune even though they are listed as pro-French in the infobox. Centy – [reply]• contribs – 03:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the new paragraphs are just an attempt to get the ball rolling. I think the first thing that needs doing is a couple of sentences in the ==Aftermath== section of the Neapolitan War explaining the immediate aftermath of the war and Neapolitan involvement in the invasion of France. I look forward to reading it when it is done. Meanwhile I have had a go at integrating the Neapolitan War into the new section which I have now renamed "Other campaigns and wars". --PBS (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other campaigns 

message: I have renamed these sections given reflist refers to references. Several sources are missing although referred to. Would be nice if someone added them without me having to go looking for them--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and references