Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 3

message: Looking at the article, I am puzzled as to why it uses U.S. date format (month-day-year), when all participating countries use International Dating format (day-month year). The Manual of Style indicates that articles should use the style appropriate for the country, and I consider U.S. Dating inappropriate for this article. --Jumbo 03:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it uses two different dating systems. It would seem reasonable to chenge it to a single one while I personally prefer the (month-day-year) system in English (probably because I went to college in the US) I'd have no problem with (day-month-year) (assuming this is the system used in Britain).--Caranorn 13:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurodates 

message: Please see the article on Allies:
:Allies spelled with a capital A, usually denotes the countries who fought together against the Central Powers in World War I (see Triple Entente or Allies of World War I) or those who fought against the Axis Powers in World War II.
I think that this article should refrain from using allies with a capital A. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allies

message: I don't know how to create a new subject so I'm sticking my remarks about the British Cavalry Attack in here.  There are a few points I'd like to raise.  The totals for the two British heavy cavalry brigades was about 2500, there may have been less actually in line as an eyewitness (Clark-Kennedy of the Royals) claimed there were only 900 sabres in the Union Brigade.  The curassier brigade to receive the brunt of the attack by the Household Brigade, and to have been routed, was that of Dubois.  Travers' brigade was to the rear of La Haye Sainte at the time and remained substantially intact, though part of the brigade seems to have been attacked by the 2nd Lifeguards - the large numbers of infantry to the brigade's front probably insulated them from the British charge.  Traver's brigade was one of the formations involved in the French counterattack after the British had become disorganised.
In regard to citations:
French infantry and their unpreparedness for receiving cavalry:
Houssaye, Henri. Waterloo p.198, London, 1900.
The breaking of Dubois' two regiments of cuirassiers:
Fletcher, Ian. Galloping at Everything, Spellmount, Staplehurst, 1999.
French infantry losses and capture of Eagles:
Siborne, HT. The Waterloo Letters, Cassell, London 1891, reprinted Greenhill Books London, 1993. 
Smith, Digby. The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book, London 1998.  This is the only single volume authority for casualty figures and losses of standards and cannon for the period.
The activity of the British Heavy cavalry Brigades later in the battle and their charging enemy cavalry and infantry, also their use in bolstering the morale of nearby units:
Anglesey, George Charles Henry Victor Paget, Marquess of. One-Leg: The Life and Letters of Henry William Paget, First Marquess of Anglesey, KG, 1768-1854. The Reprint Society, London, 1961.
Siborne, HT. The Waterloo Letters, Cassell, London 1891, reprinted Greenhill Books London, 1993. 
Glover, Gareth. Letters from the Battle of Waterloo, Greenhill Books London, 2004.
Urselius 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Cavalry Attack 

message: A Wikipedia article is surely no place for inconsequential anecdotes. The name of Wellington's horse, and the fact (if fact it be) that it was his favourite mount, add nothing to our understanding of the battle and its importance. I suggest deletion. pmr 13:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever since Bucephalus it has been considered of some importance that the name of a great commanders horse is mentioned. A quick Google will confirm just how many pages there are on this topic. (about 119,000 English pages for Wellington Copenhagen horse). Of course there are also a lot of pages on Napoleons horses as well, see for example FAQ: What was the name of Napoleon's horse?  --Philip Baird Shearer 20:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In point of fact most American's can name Robert E. Lee's horse, some of us can name Sheridan's horse, ect.  Its a common in military history to the point of no commentary on it.  I support Philip's statement. Tirronan 18:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copenhagen

message: Note that the British watches were kept on London time, and so the times given in some British accounts can be one hour before the true time. (A. Barbero, The Battle, Atlantic Books, p.95)</ref> So were does he get that figure from?
*First what is "true time"? 
*Second assuming it is sun time. Using some back of an envelope calculations: The difference between Waterloo and London is about 17 minutes (a degree being 4 minutes). The difference between Paris time and London time would have been less. GMT can differ from Sun time: Equation of time, assuming that there is a lag of 8 days (192/24.3) [10 June] gives 0 minutes . So the time difference AFAICT would have been about 20 minutes or less. 
--Philip Baird Shearer 13:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All a bit OR this.  Barbero clearly states that Greenwich observatory time was one hour behind of continental time (defined by a French official body as with measurements?), however that was determined.  This ties in with the battle accounts:  Wellington says that the attack on Hougoumont started around 10; at this time Napoleon was apparently sending obscure dispatches to Grouchy; Napoleon wrote his general order for the battle at 11:00 (not likely to happen before hostilities had opened); Reille said he received orders to attack Hougoumont at about 11:15.  These can only be approximately reconciled with the hour's difference between British and French watches.  Of course, if anyone can come up with a verifiable source that contradicts Barbero, then this then it needs to go in (incidentally, Longford also times the attack on Hougoumont as 11:30).  MAG1 00:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Historical time is a pretty specialised topic, and so I think we need to depend on references.  The "about seven in the evening" should not be taken too seriously:  the paragraph covers an awful lot of action from the final attack on La Haye Sainte until the general advance, and I think it is safe to say that Wellington was not making careful notes (and he was nearly the only person in his staff to get through the battle unscathed, so I doubt if anyone else was either).  MAG1 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Greenwich Mean Time was adopted across the island of Great Britain by the Railway Clearing House in 1847, and by almost all railway companies by the following year. It was gradually adopted for other purposes, but a legal case in 1858 held "local mean time" to be the official time. This changed in 1880, when GMT was legally adopted throughout Great Britain.
So as I said before what time did the evening attacks take place according to your sources and what time does Barbero maintain was "true time"? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Times

message: Given the amount of vandalism we deal with would it be possible to lock down the page to long term accounts and admins 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tirronan (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 February 2007   (UTC)
:Compared to the vandalism on English Civil War I don't think there is not a lot of vandalism this page. However you can make a request at "Wikipedia:Requests for page protection" if you think it is more than should be tolerated. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locking down the page 

message: Rewrote the Prussian arrival and footnoted both Prussian sections.  The rest of the citations need to be by someone more familier with the British than I am. Tirronan 02:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite