Talk:Battle of Albuera

message: Copy-edit discussion archived to Talk:Battle of Albuera/copyedit, since it got pretty big :) Carre 13:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-edit discussion 

message: I was thinking of that table...I like it enough now to not want to get rid of it, but it looks clunky where it is.  I was thinking of moving it to a daughter article, with a see also at the very start of Battle, then putting some words around the table in the new article.  That way, in the prose, I could perhaps explain Godinot's and Werlé's large brigades, and provide more detail on the other units.  Any thoughts or opinions?  Carre 10:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good idea, like on the Battle of Austerlitz article and its order of battle. Carl Logan 11:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; either that, or put it at the end of the article (although I think splitting it off would be better). Small tables can be made to float in an infobox and don't disrupt the flow so much, but that would be nigh-on impossible with this one. As Carl Logan says, most other such articles (see Battle of Waterloo as well) follow this format. EyeSereneTALK 10:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, will do this during the coming week.  I have full details, all the way down to the regimental level.  It seems like the two examples go to this level, so I guess I'll do the same this time too.  A bit of text about how some of the divisions/brigades came about (eg provisional Portuguese, Godinot, Werlé) will wrap it fairly well too. Carre 14:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of battle 

message: As a comparison I have added the casualties sustained by the French infantry at the Battle of Garcia Hernandez in 1812.  The situation was quite similar in that two squares of French infantry were broken by cavalry (KGL Dragoons).  However of the French casualties the vast majority were made prisoners, wheras at Abuera the majority of British casualties were apparently killed or wounded with a minority made prisoner.
The text I added could possibly be better placed within a footnote, but the clumsy citation system put me off trying.
Urselius (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with what you've written, or where it is, from what I can see.  I was encouraged at either the MilHist peer review or A-class review to put more historiography around that piece, but I never did.  Your comparison with Garcia Hernandez is interesting;  strangely, Oman's History seems to lean towards letting the Uhlan's off the brutality charge, but your citation is from Oman's Army – I'll have to have a look!  Carré (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   The charge of being unusually brutal seems to have affected all lance-armed cavalry in the period, the ethnically French lancers at Waterloo were also crticised for spearing wounded and not taking prisoners.  Perhaps the greater physical distance from the victim afforded by the length of the lance tended to make casual brutality more pyschologically acceptable.  
Urselius (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good article overall - well written, but this part of the Colborne brigade's section is likely Original research and/or Synthesis. Further, the comparison is inapplicable on its face - Colborne's Brigade is in line advancing and taken in the flank not in square, the whole point of being in square is to prevent what happened to Colborne - as the 31st's square demonstrates. The high casualties seem just a result of infantry being caught by cavalry in the worst possible position. I suggest removing it or, at least, rewriting with sources substantiating actual slaughter of surrendered wounded and tradition of no quarter and kia to prisoner ratios.Tttom1 (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims that lancers did not give quarter 

message: Quoting the text:
"...and a suicidal charge by Long's heavy cavalry against Latour-Maubourg's infantry, formed in square, was only halted by Beresford's timely arrival. Latour-Maubourg was subsequently able to complete his withdrawal.[21]"
This isn't strictly true. The heavies had been stopped and physically moved away from Long's direct control by the action of an aide of Beresford's before Beresford arrived on the scene.  Long sent a captain back to the heavies to get them forward, but his intentions (recorded only 3 days after the action and before the censure from Wellington had been received) were to use the heavy cavalry to drive off the remaining French cavalry which were supporting the infantry squares. He then thought that the French infantry, deprived of cavalry cover, would be induced to surrender.  Long never mentioned any intention of throwing his cavalry at formed squares of French infantry, this is an insinuation of Beresford/D'Urban and uncritically repeated by Oman. The captain returned to Long to say that Bereford had stopped the heavies personally. Long remained to see, with incredulity, the French column walk away from eight squadrons of British heavy cavalry, three squadrons of Portuguese cavalry and a battery of KGL artillery (which got off a few shots at the French before being halted by Beresford) just as the forward elements of British infantry under Colborne were coming up. It is worth pointing out that a contemporary way of breaking infantry squares was recognised as the co-operation of artillery and cavalry.  The threat of cavalry charging forced the infantry to stop moving and adopt a defensive posture, the artillery then used the infantry as target practice until they surrendered or were so knocked about that the cavalry could charge with hope of success.
Urselius (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Long would have written about wanting to use his cavalry against infantry in square, even if that was his intention at the time. However, one has to question D'Urban's account of anything involving Long too. Thanks to self-serving testimony on both sides of this rather childish dispute, we're always going to be able to write two versions of everything! Is this Fletcher again for the above? (BTW, Carre is not editing much at the moment, though I think he does check in from time to time.) EyeSerenetalk 20:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's from McGuffie and Fletcher, and also Napier (to some extent).  The main indication of Long's intent was a letter he wrote only three days after the action.  At the time he would have merely been unhappy about Beresford's handling of the action, he would not have known of Beresford's very self-serving report to Wellington and would not, of course, have received Wellington's stern censure of the 13th LD (and by extrapolation of himself).  There would be no particular reason for Long to have been defensive in his letter, there is also no reason to doubt that what he expressed was what he felt at the time.  If he felt that he could have broken the French infantry with the heavies I think he would have said so, but he didn't, he merely said that he would have used them to drive off the remaining French cavalry and then, he considered, that he would have been able to force the infantry to surrender.  The French column needed to keep moving towards Badajoz as it knew it had a whole Anglo-Portuguese army coming up behind it.  Without cavalry cover, and menaced by no less than 11 British and Portuguese squadrons, the French infantry would have been forced to stop or at least made to move very very slowly.  Long had every reason to expect, in these circumstances, that British artillery and infantry would have been able to close with the French long before they reached the safety of Badajoz, and the game would have been over for them. Urselius (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Long's explanation of his intent is tactically sound, and would probably have left the French infantry in serious trouble (although Craufurd showed how it could be done at Fuentes de Oñoro - but unlike our hypothetical situation he still had cavalry support). Beresford clearly felt he had to justify his actions, which according to Long's version directly led to L-M's escape, and Wellington was, perhaps understandably, always ready to believe the worst about the cavalry! However, back to the topic... if you want to work this into the article, feel free; how would you suggest going about it? EyeSerenetalk 09:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There isn't a page on Campo Mayor, which is something I've been contemplating remedying for some time, though it would be a considerable effort.  Once this page is in existence then linking would be easy from here, and a full discussion of the controversy would be readily available for the interested reader. As it is I think watering down the rather bald statement into something on the lines of: "The pursuit of L-M's force was poorly co-ordinated and the greater part of the French force managed to reach the safety of Badajoz. The reason behind this failure was subsequently disputed between supporters of Brigadier Long and Marshal Beresford."  Or words to that effect. The KGL hussars fought very well against vastly superior numbers of French cavalry at Fuentes, the two squadrons of French hussars directly supporting L-M's infantry did similarly good work at Campo Mayor, but there's little doubt that 8 squadrons of British heavies could have broken them very easily. Urselius (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Poorly coordinated pursuit' pretty much sums up the British side of the Peninsular war ;) Your suggestion sounds good to me - maybe we could provide further explanation in a footnote? Something like: "According to Oman, Beresford had to intervene to prevent Long sending his cavalry in a suicidal charge against L-M's formed infantry, but Long's account (reported by McGuffie and Fletcher) has Beresford preventing him from driving off the remaining French cavalry, thus leaving L-M's infantry exposed to a combined-arms assault that would likely have seen a complete French capitulation." EyeSerenetalk 11:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Great, and more succinct than my version ;) Let's go with that then. EyeSerenetalk 17:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you check the Napier details for the new footnote please?  Which edition of Vol II in particular, I think.  Just checked my copy (1st edition), and pp 309-310 isn't about Albuera / Campo Maior, but later editions had changes in.  Then I'll add Vol II to the references section, and mosify the new footnote. Cheers. Carré (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a later edition, the 4th, in the early editions Napier holds back on his criticisms of Beresford's record.  Even the moderate tone of his first edition provoked a storm from the Beresford camp, Napier didn't pull his punches in later editions.  Indeed in the various prefaces and "letters" included in the later editions Napier positively insults Beresford. Urselius (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thanks for that.  Found a 4th edition on google books, so I'll link that in the . Carré (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me ;) EyeSerenetalk 12:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  I don't know how you want to treat the spelling of the name of the action.  'Campo Maior' is the modern Portuguese name for the town.  However, 'Campo Mayor' (a more Spanish style of spelling) is still the English usage for the name of the action eg. The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book by Digby Smith (1998).  Of course it is also the spelling used by Napier and Oman. Urselius (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's Mayor in all of my references too, all 15 of em :D, but I'd already used Maior in the article, so consistency.  Similarly, don't really want to go talking about things like Badajos;  perpetuating century old British misconceptions on spelling, I don't feel, really has a place in an encyclopaedia.  I actually have a vague recollection of reading this version of events before, probably in Fortescue, so it's good to have the viewpoint in the article.  Thanks for bringing it up and putting the words in. Carré (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I think Maior is correct despite the sources (that's what the linked article is called, and is consistent with Badajoz rather than Badajos) EyeSerenetalk 13:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long again :) 

message: I've reverted a recent change to the infobox casualty figures so the article and refs remain in synch, but given that the reason for the change was that Oman's casualty figures may be exaggerated, maybe we can discuss that here? Cheers, EyeSerenetalk 11:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw this as well. I understand and to an extent sympathise with Albrecht's point (although I think he is a bit hard on Oman). I have experience with outlandish casualty reports and it is tempting to ignore those that look a bit too high or low. However, on Wikipedia we report what sources say, not what we assume based on the author. Therefore the full range of statistics need to be supplied in the infobox, and then discussed in context the appropriate section below, as the article was prior to the recent changes.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, often the best we can do is give a range. Because it wasn't only the casualty figures that were changed, but strengths as well, I thought this might be something that needed further examination. EyeSerenetalk 12:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The strengths weren't actually changed, just the format of them tweaked to tidy up a bit.  With respect to the casualty figures, my first instinct was to revert also.  There's little doubt that Oman's figures are exaggerated, but Soult's figures which are also given in the info-box are also clearly nonsense.  Those are the upper and lower ranges supported by references though, while the Aftermath (I think) section explains further and quotes the more realistic figure of 7,000. Carré (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, apologies for the somewhat abrupt edit: I realize that ideally, this step should have come first. I certainly won't insist on the change, but it struck me this week that neither Gates nor Esdaile nor (for instance) Cayuela Fernández (La Guerra de la Independencia: historia bélica, pueblo y nación en España, 1808-1814) seem to give much credence to Oman's calculation, all settling for 7,000 as the revised figure. (On the other hand, recent sources do tend to cite Soult's report, but it's not always clear to what degree they would revise the casualties upwards or whether they find Soult more credible than Oman or less so). Having said that, I accept the reasoning whereby the full range should be given if Soult's figures are stated. Albrecht (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The aftermath section already quotes two French historians as giving the 7000 figure. Might it be worth adding to that sentence/section that Gates, Esdaile and Cayuela Fernández also prefer this estimate? EyeSerenetalk 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but it's by no means essential. It might help prevent the misinterpretation that it's a matter of French versus Anglo-Saxon "blocs" or "schools," which is definitely not the case. Tell you what: I'll do the field work myself, double-check the sources, and propose the change here. Albrecht (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty figures 

message: Nothing on the Gates ref says that this was a tactical victory. Reiftyr (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Several authors I've read call it inconclusive, so I agree.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Tactical?

message: Fortescue says "Many years later when the battle of Albuera had become a theme of bitter controversy, Beresford admitted...." I came here curious about that later controversy; it seems like if the British (or Allied?) principals were later engaged in argument over the results of the battle something about that would be an appropriate addition to the article. Since I know nothing whatsoever about that myself I'm just leaving this as a suggestion. 71.34.14.42 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Later Controversy

message: The lack of explanatory maps, either of the location or of the development of the battle, make the article very hard to follow. The old maps are more illustrations than contributions to the article. Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of maps 

message: G'day all, just wondering if anyone here can provide a reference for this sentence: "His army was much smaller than that of the Allies, but he hoped the quality of his troops would compensate for his lack of numbers"? I have tagged it in the article with a Cn tag to make it clear what I am referring to. As a featured article, it would be best if this could be dealt with to ensure that the article remains up to scratch with the current FA referencing requirements. Pinging a few editors from the Napoleonic War task force who may be able to assist: . If any of you can assist, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed

message: Too much reliance on antique sources. A lot of Oman (1911), who is sound, but to base so much of the article on him is hardly "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Some 1917, 1841, 1837, and some Napier from 1831. Again, sound enough, but HQ RSs? While I could nit pick, the article is pretty sound, it "just" needs largely resourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone can suggest reliable and accessible sources that could replace Oman etc then I'd be happy to do some of the grunt work replacing sources, but I do not myself have a good enough grasp of the literature to know where or where not to start with other works. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]]