Talk:Peninsular War/Archive 1

message: So is it the Peninsula War or the Peninsular War?  Both are used in the article (without explanation).  Philip J. Rayment 13:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: name?

message: History of Portugal (1777-1834) is now being peer reviewed. Please, if you want, go there and state your opinion. Thank you. Gameiro 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to state that it is now a featured article candidate. You can support or oppose here. Thanks. Gameiro 01:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: Should there be more mention about Dom João VI?   Although he was not directly involved with the Peninsular Wars, it is interesting that he and approximately 15,000 Porguguese nobles and other people escaped to Brazil, to the dismay of many Portuguese citizens who were left behind.
Dawn22 00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It had a great impact in several ways, and it's highly relevant because it led to the inability of seizing the Portuguese Royal House - which was a stated goal of Napoleon - and to direct british intervention on portuguese affairs. It's also important to mention that the war extended to South America with French and Spanish possessions being attacked by the armed forces in Brazil, which is rarely mentioned. It directly led to Brazil's independence after the end of the war and to the portuguese civil war between liberals and absolutists. I'll try to add something more about it while keeping due proportions in an article about the war itself.--194.38.154.77 00:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dom João VI 

message: This should be moved to War of Independence (Spain), as Peninsula War is only popular in the UK. --Asterion talk to me 01:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "Peninsular War" is standard throughout the English-speaking world, as far as I know. And rather than quarrel Quixotically over minor details like the title, one might be better advised to work towards improving the article's content, which is appallingly narrow and Anglocentric. To describe the war's dazzling, brutal, and revolutionary guerilla campaign, the first and most successful of its kind, as "the British gave this aid because it cost them much less than it would have to equip British soldiers to face the French troops in conventional warfare," is negligent, plain and simple. Had the British faced the French Empire in conventional warfare, "Wellington would've been 'Duke' of some prison cell in Paris," to put it lightly. Albrecht 02:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree, indeed! At the moment, it is written as a lesser offspring of Britain's Napoleonic Wars, from a heavily biased anglocentrism. Regards, --Asterion talk to me 02:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The British did face the French in conventional warfare.  The fighting along the Torres Vedras lines was not a guerrilla conflict.  There was also Spanish guerrilla action going on, but I don't think it's clearly agreed that it had any decisive impact.  Which is not to say that we shouldn't have more about the purely Spanish aspects of the fighting. And I agree with Albrecht that "Peninsular War" is the standard English term for the conflict. john k 02:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree. Guerrillas, and Regular Spanish Army units -several times defeated, but never completely destroyed, and many times re-created- kept French Army from focusing all their troops at one single point. BTW, I deleted: ... but this failed due to the stubborness of the Spaniards. due to its xenophobic (in my not-so humble opinion) content.--80.103.224.248 00:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moving it to "War of Independence(Spain)" it from my POV completely wrong. It says little about the war itself and is only used, guess, in Spain. In Portugal the term used is also "Peninsular War" ("Guerra Peninsular"), and righly so since the war itself predates the later fallout of Spain with France and the consequences of that to the Napoleonic Wars as a whole. It began earlier  - with the invasion of Portugal - and even slighty before the Treaty of Sintra  Spain is either neutral or actively involved in Napoleon's side (this changed in the 2nd of May that began the uprisings). The proposed name change is therefore narrower, less descriptive and sacrifices an accepted english term for a spanish one that is neither more popular nor better. I can perfectly understand the usage of it in Spain - after all each country creates expressions that reflect the influences on itself - but in an article in english it's almost comical. There are many conventional battles between the French and the anglo-portuguese army during the First French Invasion, *latter* greatly aided by the spanish  militias that cut of Junot's safe retreat and kept important french troops tied up. From then on the War involves regular armies of the three nations plus the militias of the iberian nations againts the French (with foreign imperial units). Bottom line: the name "Peninsular War" is IMO correct and it's more widespread that the one proposed. --194.38.154.77 00:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current name is OK with me. I left the original comment around 2 months ago. Regards, E  Asterion u talking to me? 00:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to hear it.  (I'll just had, because I can't help myself, that another good reason to leave it here is because the war wasn't just a Spanish War of Independence.  Portugal was at least as directly concerned, and much of the fighting occurred there. john k 00:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move it, please 

message: I'd started to change these but I thought I might raise this as it's going to take some time and it's better if everyone is happy before I do too much.
We have really inconsistent name formats being used. e.g. Wellington is called 'Arthur Wellesley' in one box (when he was Sir Arthur at the time) but in another battlebox he's 'Sir Arthur~' (when he was by that time Viscount Wellington) and so on. This also applies for various other commanders. There seems no apparent pattern. 
Personally I think they should be title at time of battle with the hyperlink to their  usual article behind it. The alternatives are using simply the name which is confusing for general readers who often have no idea of the actual names of famous titled commanders or using their final style which may be confusing and illogical   sometimes decades ahead of them being known as such. Alci12 13:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle Infoboxes 

message: In the discussion of the fighting at Vimeiro, the current text indicates that Wellesley was replaced after the battle by Burrard, and that Dalyrmple was Burrard's second-in-command.  I believe this is not entirely correct.  According to Charles Esdaile's The Peninsular War, Dalyrmple was the senior officer, and Burrard the second-in-command.  This is also reflected in the wiki articles on both Rolica and Vimereiro.  Its possible the confusion is caused by Burrard's arriving at the site first, albeit by only a few hours.  I'd make the change myself, but I'm not that much of an expert - and could be wrong. --Dilettante2006 20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite correct, Burrard was second ic. Edit as you think best.Alci12 17:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chain-of-Command

message: The article states that in Catalonia the term "Guerra del Francès (War of the French)" is used instead of "Guerra de Independencia". I've never heard that and I believe a citation would be needed. Furthermore, it could be not neutral. There is an important pro-Independence, pro-Autonomy feeling in Catalonia that is very extended by not shared by all those who live there. I fear that saying that in Catalonia that's the term used could be not correct. Perhaps it could be better to say that it's the term used by a part of the Catalan society. MJGR 06:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catalonian translation

message: The article states that the war led to a time of "turbulent Liberalism". Is that neutral? It seems Liberalism is being blamed for the ulterior war. Why not turbulent Absolutism? I'm going to change it to something like "turbulent wars between Absolutism and Liberalism". MJGR 06:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: I realize that division by years is pretty lame, but the 'progress' section was way too long, and had to be divided somehow.  -The Gomm 02:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dividing 'Progress of the war' by years 

message: I was wondering if the best 'intro' image for the Peninsular War infobox was not Goya's Mamluk charge, but rather his 'The Third of May 1808' showing the execution.  Switch?  The Gomm 22:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are very good (probably the best two) choices. While Third of May is certainly more famous and probably the better artwork, I personally prefer Second of May in the box because: a) compositionally, has more action, b) depicts an actual battle (and nicely portrays the brutal, unforgiving character of the fighting), c) might be less POV than having faceless French soldiers murdering a Christ-like Spaniard (i.e. the Spanish, in turn, weren't exactly great humanitarians when it came to their treatment of the French), d) Third of May nicely illustrates the "Consequences in Spain" section, whereas the Dos de Mayo risings are already illustrated in the text. Albrecht 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: Are three Campaignboxes really needed to describe this one corner of the Napoleonic wars?  
One Campaignbox is certainly helpful, but 3?  
Do the titles need to be so long?  
The Gomm 04:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In brief: no. More than three will be needed. Considering the fact that we're still missing articles for several dozen Peninsular War battles, you're going to be seeing new boxes in the future. In fact, the current 1809 box combines the Napoleonic invasion with the Andalusian Campaign and several other theatres; it's only a matter of time before I split it up. That being said, if we're going to list them all beneath the Warbox it's probably best in terms of layout not to have more than five or six Campaignboxes. I've also shortened the title on the 1808 campaign as requested. Albrecht 04:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Campaignboxes? 

message: What should be in the RESULT line of the infobox?  Wasn't the Result of the Peninsular War a whole lot of french casualties, and fighting that continued even after Napoleon quit?  The Treaty of Fontainebleau (at least one of them) ended the entire war, and thus belong in the Napoleonic Wars infobox (which instead says 'Allied Victory').  In fact, a brief survey of campaign/battle infoboxes identifies the result of the conflict rather than the treaty that documented it.  If the infobox is going to have a RESULTS section, then shouldn't it say what the result was?  The Gomm 05:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the RESULT of the Peninsular war differ from the Result of the War of the Sixth Coalition?  They both seemed to end at the same time, with Napoleon's exile to Elba, so why are their INFOBOX Results different?  The Gomm 00:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result of Peninsular War  

message: Bailén set in motion the rise of the Fifth Coalition against Napoleon: why could the Austrians not emulate the Spaniards?[16]
I don't undrstand this. Is this a quote. Is is too POV without a clear explanation. Raymond Palmer
:Taken directly from our beloved 1911 Britannica. POV? Maybe in language, but the idea at the time was that the Austrians could, in turn, roll back the French hold over Europe with a Bailén of their own. The British press (and I imagine pamphleteers throughout Europe) was genuinely impressed and went nuts promoting the rising of Austria. Anyway, the phrase captures the popular sentiment reverberating in Austrian circles at the time; if it deserves explanation it is probably in the Bailén article, not here. Albrecht 22:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Language taken directly from a source should perhaps be kept in quotes, so as to clarify this sort of POV issue.  The Gomm 22:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation