Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington/Archive 1

message: If I recall correctly, Commander in Chief of the Forces was a position of some political importance. Therefore, while I don't object to moving Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports (a mostly honorary position) out of the main box, I think Commander in Chief should be moved back (especially as his tenures in that position fit the box rather neatly). ugen64 01:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Navigation Boxes

message: I recall that Wellington produced some well-known phrases, but I don't have them to hand. Something about being Irish ("being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse", maybe?) and a good one about the English army after their appalling behaviour in Spain ("I don't know what the enemy makes of them, but they put the fear of God into me"). I'll try to find them. --MJW 81.154.201.45 01:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations

message: I have not read anywhere that His Grace was made a Knight of the Order of St. Patrick (British Army Commanders in Chief appears to be occasionally inaccurate). --Anglius 02:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of St. Patrick

message: Why did he take the town of Wellington in Somerset for his title? I assume he had some family connection to the place, but I'm not aware of the details. Bastie 00:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Guedalla is more specific, stating that William was aware that a distant ancestor had held lands near to Wellington.Alci12 16:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Choice of Title

message: I think this section needs a little expansion. There are bits that seem to misrepresent the positon. For instance Wellington some thirty years before becoming PM writes to both friends and in his official capacity as aide-de-camp about the wisdom of removing measures that penalise the Irish, a position he repeated and maintained throughout this time. The article as written suggests it was an almost damascene conversion in 1829 which 
may be true of some of the Tory party but not of wellington.
The other issue that strikes me is the problem of the "Tory" label. While he was conservative in nature he was not always a Tory. He accepted office as Chief secretary to Ireland on the specific understanding that this was non partisan and that he would not be bound to support the governing party, if they resigned, by following suit. Even as a supposedly Tory PM he was interested in the continuance of government more than party politics and his short term in office owed much to the refusal of much of the Tory party to support his policies.
In terms of the Reform Act, it passed in the end in part because Wellington convinced his supporters to stay away and not vote against the measure. He didn't support the reforms but he thought their failure to pass and the consequences was more of a threat to the  
country and its stability than reform.
In terms how he saw as his role he repeats throughout his life phrases similar this this:
"I am nimmukwallah, as we say in the East; that is, I have eaten of the King's salt, and, therefore, I conceive it to be my duty to serve with unhesitating zeal and cheerfulness, when and wherever the King or his Government may think to employ me."
(Letter to a friend 1806, Despatches, II, p616 footnote)
I haven't edited the article and would welcome how we might feed some of this into itAlci12 13:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Life

message: I'm not sure whether:
"He came from an established family of noblemen – his father was the 1st Earl of Mornington, his eldest brother, who would inherit his father's Earldom, would be created Marquess Wellesley, and two of his other brothers would be raised to the peerage as Baron Maryborough and Baron Cowley. "
fits into the introductory part. Maybe mention that he came from an established family of noblemen, but put the detail later on in the article? The introduction should be more of an overview of why he is well-known/what he did. A humble suggestion, Ben davison 13:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're over stretching your knowledge I think, he was the son of a first Earl but the grandson of a baron (paternally) and of a viscount (maternally).On his paternal side there are a succession of knights (through the colleys, cusacks and then back to the original Wellesleys and Plunketts) over several hundred years. On his maternal side he was related to the Marquess of Downside and Baron Sandys.Alci12 12:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I moved it into the Early life section for now, perhaps it can be further edited, Dabbler 15:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suitable?

message: Was the Duke really Anglo-Irish, or was he an Anglo-Norman Irishman (like the Butlers)? As far as I am aware, his family was in Ireland from at least the fifteenth century. --Anglius 00:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglo-Irish

message: I have added a new section (accidentally anonymously) recounting Wellington's contributions in warfare. I know in lieu of some of his other accomplishments, it might seem a bit "foppish" or unacademic, but in general Wellington was known best as a military commander, and secondly as a statesman. Therefore, I think an appropriate analysis should be given on his contributions to that industry. Obviously, this will be difficult to do completely NPOV, and though I have read a great deal about military tactics and strategy of that era, some will inevitably come from interpretation of some facts and sources. The sources I will be using will be Richard Holmes' biography, David Chandler's numerous military texts, and Phillip J. Haythorntwaite's military descriptions of the respective militaries.
Arvidius 00:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, if you're going to go down that line then we'd better explain why the tactics were different. Napoleon could afford battles where he lost 30,000 men as his armies numbered in the 100s of thousands. Wellington struggled to get 30,000 troops and could never afford to take risks. With regard to persuit, it is in good measure a feature of cavalry reserves; Wellington had few enough for use in battle let alone to keep fresh for the persuit.Alci12 10:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: British army of 80,000 troops? I think you mean allied army. At Waterloo he had 30,000 the remaining being allied/Hanovarian troops. Both in India and early in the peninsula he had fewer than 40,000, even including allied troops under his command.Vimeiro for example, was ~17,000 Anglo-Portuguese. We have to be a bit careful in this area to fairly mention the allied army, even if some of the allied elements were not exactly 'trusted' by Wellington. WRT to India, I think that would be excellant, as you rightly say, it is an area almost forgotten in popular culture and general articles about the Duke.Alci12 16:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh good, but I think the current text overplays Wellington as a "defensive general".  He certainly understood the value of terrain, and keeping his valuable (but contemptible) men out of harm's way, but the Battle of Assaye was an offensive engagement; ditto the Battle of Vitoria.  If Wellington had lost his command, where would the British have found another army? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Soldier Article