Talk:Battle of Corunna

message: There seems to be a contradiction in the casualty figures listed in different parts of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.205.196 (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: anyone know the names of any of the Royal Navy ships which evacuated the British? Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.179.93 (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is full of misinformation, the most significant is within the context of the casualties. The casualties for the British are more in the line of 900 rather than 8,000. Total British casualties can be attributed to roughly 6,000 (adding Corunna) taking into account privations suffered within the campaign as a whole, but within this single battle, ths casualties were 900. I would also not classify this battle as a French victory. This battle was fought in a rearguard fashion to allow the British army to successfully evacuate to the sea. In this strategic aim, they succeeded. Also, in doing so, the British defeated the French assaults upon their positions, reflecting a tactical superiority as well. If French victory is to remain within the article, it can be better qualified as "Phyrric" victor or what not.
:I think this argument holds up. Changing result to "British victory", plain and simple. Albrecht 21:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quibble on some of the details which I shall have a think about before editing. The last section of this article needs serious work the Dunkirk analogy is especially troublesome. Far from giving a positive bounce the death of John Moore (a whig) permanantly destroyed Whig support for the War making the existence of the Tory government tenuous. The whigs contained many who had never wanted a war but from 1789 had wanted the revolution of france imported to Britain. Moore's death brought most of the remaining whigs into open hostility to the war. Where the comparison is stronger is wrt to the rescued troops making up part of the army that landed in portugal under wellington.Alci12 11:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's possibly a problem with internal consistency in this article. The campaign as a whole in 1808-9 was indisputably a French victory. However this article states that the French intent for the battle was to destroy the British army and the British intent was to evacuate from Spain. Thus the stated result of "French strategic victory" is contradictory to the main text.Agema 20:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors 

message: I am sorry, my English is very limited.
I am the author of the book: "The Aio report", a documented study on the roman walls of Lugo, with a special dedication to topology, geometry and military engineering.
Alan Neal was an English doctor who accompanied to General Moore in his campaign against Napoleón in 1809. I would like to have more information about Mr. Neal as well as of the interesting drawings that he made of the campaign in the northwest of Spain. In the book I have used an engraving of Neal to make a topographic study (virtual space 3D) You can see it at: http://www.cartesia.org/article.php?sid=71
The book is also a denunciation of the form as it is interpreted today, the fortress, by the "active forces and the official institutions". (To see: "The Chinese Tower ", clear sample of a rooted error).
The book tries to demonstrate that the roman wall was an unconquerable technological strength, that their towers had a essential function and like, its only existence, horrifies to those "overwhelming institutions".
The last remainders of the towers disappeared in 1836, when the wall was adapted for the modern war. The time and lack of memory they caused erroneous current military interpretation.
See the summary: http://www.3dnauta.com
See: ROMAN WALL of LUGO (Trilogy. Experimental simultaneous translation)
IN PRAESENTIA (The Aio report) PRESENT of the wall and its documented links.
Warm greetings
--Ulises Sarry 22:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alan Neal, MD. Lugo 1809 

message: There seems to be a dispute over describing the outcome.  Different people regard it as a British victory (the British achieved their objective of withdrawing) and others as a French victory (the French held the battlefieid at the end).  Why is "British withdrawal" not the best NPOV description? --Henrygb 10:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV summary outcome

message: It seems to have only one - POV - source.   Spanishonion 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Looking at the article in Firefox the first three section "edit" links appear in the middle of section 3.  If this is a general issue with Firefox (rather than a just me issue) does any skilled programmer there know how to fix this?  
Springnuts 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display problems in Firefox 

message: The article does not cover the naval aspects of the battle. 
It would be good to have more background to the events described by Miss Susan Gay's Falmouth chronology:
*1808 October 9th. Expedition under Sir David Baird of 150 transports carrying between 12,000 and 13,000 men, convoyed by H.M.S. Louie, Amelia and Champion. On 13th entered Corunna Harbour. Vernon White . . . Talk  20:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was not a naval battle, nor were any ships involved in the battle of Corunna.  The Battle of Corunna was fought on land between two armies on 16th January 1809.  The evacuation by ship concerns the retreat of the army from Spain via the port of Corunna and is a strategic matter which pertains to the campaign.  There really ought to be a separate article dealing with the campaign as a whole including the retreat.Maglone (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed naval should be covered for context. Naval aspect now covered and Falmouth ex added & ref'd. Tttom1 (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Naval aspects

message: I have deleted the recent addition attributing Napoleon leaving the pursuit to his subordinates because of trouble with Austria as this may not be correct and it adds too much unnecessary detail.
When I first wrote the Background section I deliberately did not mention the reasons for Napoleon's departure.  This is because the matter is debatable, but the main reason is that I did not wish to clutter the article with detail that is not quite relevant to the Battle of Corunna.  Chandler explains that the Napoleon did not wish to be associated with failure and as Moore had escaped him he chose to be involved no longer.  Further more Oman states the following: 
"An oft-repeated story says that the Emperor received a packet of letters from Paris while riding from Benavente to Astorga on January 1, 1809, and, after reading them by the wayside with every sign of anger, declared that he must return to France. If the tale be true, we may be sure that the papers which so moved his wrath had no reference to armaments on the Danube, but were concerned with the intrigues in Paris. There was absolutely nothing in the state of European affairs to make an instant departure from Spain necessary. On the other hand, rumours of domestic plots always touched the Emperor to the quick, and it must have been as irritating as it was unexpected to discover that his own sister and brother-in-law were dabbling in such intrigues, even though ostensibly they were but discussing what should be done if something should happen in Spain to their august relative. 
Already ere leaving Benavente the Emperor had issued orders which showed that he had abandoned his hope of surrounding and crushing Moore..." (A History of the Peninsular War Vol. I 1807-1809, Oman p661)
It's very easy to clutter an article with too much information and so I have reverted to the earlier version that omits it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maglone (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oman in A history of England p.616 clearly states that Napoleon leaves Spain to attend to the Austrians, this is a generally accepted view easily supported by refs. Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte By Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne, Ramsay Weston Phipps p.xlix; A History of England and Greater Britain, Arthur Lyon Cross, Macmillan, 1914, p.854. Revolutionary Europe, 1789-1815, Henry Morse Stephens, London, 1900, p. 271.Tttom1 (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napoleon's reasons for leaving the pursuit 

message: This page was recently moved to Battle of La Coruna, I've reverted it to its previous name per WP:COMMONNAME. While "La Coruna" is a valid name, a search of academic sources through the likes of JSTOR ("Corunna" - 300 / "La Coruna" - 89) and Google Scholar ("Corunna" - 584 / "La Coruna" - 7) shows that "Corunna" is used significantly more than "La Coruna"; as a result, it is the more appropriate name for the article. -- Sabre (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: In this battle the British stopped the French attack and then embarked as planned. The battle did not provide a "strategic victory" for the French as the British were already planning to leave. "The British army arrived in Corunna on 11 January and would have immediately evacuated by sea but found that the transport vessels that had been ordered had not yet arrived". The French were defeated and then the British left. If the French had not attacked the British would still have left so how can the result (a British victory) be also a "French Strategic Victory"? It cannot. The French "Strategic Victory" had already taken place when Moore found himself deep in hostile territory with the Spanish beaten and a massive French force closing in on him. This battle did not provide a strategic victory, that had already taken place. This battle meant that the British could embark and return to fight again, rather than be captured or destroyed. It was a British victory.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a French strategic victory because Spain's allies, the British, had to go back to England instead of remaining in Spain to fight alongside the Spanish in spite of the fact the British held their embarkation point and successfully and then fled back to England. Further, a large portion of northern Spain was lost and went under French control since the British could only hold the ground long enough to get on their boats and leave. Esdaile in The Peninsular War: A New History pp.157 -158 discusses both views of this.Tttom1 (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The battle was a British Victory and not a "French Strategic Victory"

message: Please stop edit warring on 'strategic french victory' result & refs in info box. Statements used have supporting explanations on pages cited pointing out the difference of the results on the field as opposed to the results for the campaign.Tttom1 (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing contentious about replacing the removed referenced statements. Its edit warring to keep removing them.Tttom1 (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit war in info box 

message: The references being used to support the mentioned claim do not correspond with a "French Strategic Victory" at all as I will now attempt to explain:
QUOTING THE FIRST REFERENCE:""At first sight, then, British intervention had ended in humiliation and disaster. At La Coruna, true, a reverse had been inflicted on the French. However, Sir John Moore was dead, over one fifth of his army were missing, and several thousand more sick or wounded, whilst the retreat had had all the appearances of a rout." --------------- This refers to the failure of the British campaign, not the battle itself. The campaign was over before the battle was fought, the French were trying to capture or destroy the British forces before they embarked, this they did not do and their attack was beaten back.
QUOTING THE SECOND REFERENCE: "According to The Times of London, "The fact must not be disguised ... that we have suffered a shameful disaster": Christopher Hibbert, Corunna (London: Batsford, 1961), p. 188. Carl Cavanaugh Hodge, Encyclopedia of the Age of Imperialism, 1800-1914 (Greenwood, 2007), p. lxxiii: "French Victory at the Battle of Corunna. Britain Forced to Evacuate Spain." ---------------- A cherry picked newspaper headline does not a source make. The "shameful disaster" was the failure of the campaign, it does not show that the French gained a "strategic victory" through this battle because it cannot.
 The battle did not provide a "strategic victory" for the French as the British were already planning to leave regardless. Quoting the actual wikipedia article on the battle: "The British army arrived in Corunna on 11 January and would have immediately evacuated by sea but found that the transport vessels that had been ordered had not yet arrived." So the French were defeated and then the British left. If the French had not attacked the British would still have left so how can the result (a British victory i.e. the French were defeated in their attempt to stop the British) be also a "French Strategic Victory", for if the battle had not taken place the British would still have embarked on the ships.
It is undue weight being given to one sentence in one source. Against these we have three very strong sources for a British Victory and I can get many many more from the web with little effort. If you look at the page reverts, you'll find it is this "French Strategic Victory" minority view that is being repeatedly re-added, not the other way round. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid it is you that is cherry picking as well as nit-picking Esdaile discusses the pros & cons over several pages pertinent quotes are included in ref  - to suggest that is all there is is cherry picking (more: "lost all of its baggage and been forced to destroy almost all the horses that had managed to reach La Coruna  ... immense quantities of materiel... 4,000 barrels of powder...as well as the occupation of the most populated region in the whole of Spain. ... Even worse.... etc.) - and to ask for a literal quote of a general term is nit-picking.Tttom1 (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be making the argument that those saying 'British victory, French strategic victory' are saying the British didn't succeed on the field at Corunna - we are not - however, just saying 'British victory' implies that it is not 'qualified' and 'limited' - which it obviously was and which is easily demonstrated throughout sources such as those shown above: Ground warfare: An International Encyclopedia, Vol.1, by Stanley Sandler, 214; "Costly British victory in the Peninsular War.".
The Campaigns of Napoleon, by David G. Chandler, 657. "Sarrazin (a former French commander) writes "Whatever Buonaparte may assert, Soult was most certainly repulsed at Corunna; and the English gained a defensive victory..". The Portuguese Army of the Napoleonic Wars, by Otto von Pivka, Michael Roffe, p5;"The army disintegrates under the gruelling conditions; it partly redeems itself by its defensive victory at Corunna on 16 January 1809, to cover its own embarkation." In terms of the info box, 'Strategic French victory' covers the qualifications that are later presented more fully in the article.Tttom1 (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is about this specific battle not about the strategic background to it. Trying to include the background is a case of infobox mission creep. The strategic outcome was already determined; the British were leaving and would have gone already if their transport had not been delayed. It could be said that failing to destroy the British force entirely was a French strategic failure. The battle was not in any way part of an overall French strategic success.--Charles (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Context is not mission creep. If you're saying that the British would have left Spain - in any case - and not because the French were in hot pursuit - I'd have to agree. But neither the British public at the time, nor the Spanish, thought that (or for that matter the French - who are at least honest about suffering a tactical defeat). By eliminating the context, the actual event is distorted in the info box and is at odds with the article to which it is secondary.Tttom1 (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It astonishes me how Charlesdrakew and Gaius Octavius Princeps have decided to completely and utterly ignore the issue as it was resolved months ago.  Permit me to repeat a point I made at that time (see above for original): "Let me address User:Charles repeated POV that the there could have been no strategic outcome for the Battle of Corunna, since the British intention before the battle was to withdraw from Spain and the French did not prevent that outcome.  He claims a British tactical victory instead.  Why?  Because the French were chased off the field of battle before the British boarded their ships.  However, it was the French intention that the British withdraw from Spain.  The British did not simply walk out of the country: the French chased them out of Spain.  It was the French, not the British, who held the field of battle.  The British could have won 20 Corunnas, and each one would have been a French victory from a strategic point of view if the larger stategic goal - the expulsion of the British - would have been acheived." Schpinbo (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding arguments about "consensus"; this is a logical fallacy. First, because regarding this particular issue, there is in fact no "consensus," even when we include your allies with whom you've previously worked to create such an appearance. And second, because if you had been trained as an historian, you'd realize that interpretative consensus does not historical accuracy create.  Also, claims to "infobox relevence" are incorrect. Several battles in history were tactical victories for one side, and strategic victories for another - as Wikipedia itself acknowledges.  The battle was fought between two evenly-sized armies. Had Soult met his Waterloo at Corunna, Moore would naturally have stayed and fought on in Spain. To suggest that the French did not win a strategic victory because the British "meant" to retreat from Spain, no matter what the French did, and therefore this cannot be considered a British defeat, is rather like saying that the British "meant" to "give" India back to the punjabs after World War Two, and therefore the British cannot be said to have "lost" their south Asian empire.  Schpinbo (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I have been "warned about edit warring" before?  GOP, your attempts to silence others using the garb of "Wikipedia bobby" are charming.  Your condescension less so, I'm afraid.  What it boils down to is this: to suggest that the outcome of the battle was preordained is a historical fallacy.  I had to explain this to your confrere Charles - apparently I'll need to explain it to you as well.  (I'll spare you a dose of your own discourteous medicine and not sugget that you "READ THE ABOVE DISCUSSION.")  Soult's and Moore's armies were evenly matched, as you are well aware.  While it is obviously the case that Moore called up the help of the RN given the fact that he was anticipating strategic defeat (or, he lost the campaign, as you cconcede), he had not yet known what the outcome of his action at Corunna would be.  By denying the possibility that he could have delivered a proverbial Waterloo to Soult at Corunna, you are also denying that Moore would have remained in Spain had such an outcome occurred.  Had Soult been crushed, we cannot eliminate the possibility that Moore would have, in fact, remained in Spain and regrouped.  That is what actual, as opposed to amateur historians refer to as the role of contingency in history.  That Moore nominally won the battle, in terms of battlefield tactics, is of course a given.  But not so well that the OVERALL strategic situation swung in his favour: hence, the French won a strategic victory.  Schpinbo (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree with this analysis and comment further that the reverts in the info box on this issue have been going on for years now in spite of citations and discussions.Tttom1 (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it's good sport for some to simply remove relevant citations as well, when it suits their cause.  I have every confidence their antics will continue, Tttom.  Have you noticed, by the way, how they'll lay in wait for a couple of weeks, then resort to their revisionism when they think no one is looking? Schpinbo (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming that the British might have tried to reoccupy lost territory following a decisive victory (which they had) is both improbable and unsourced speculation. It is misleading to claim that this battle was in any way strategic.--Charles (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Chuck, do you even hear yourself?  "[...] tried to reoccupy lost territory following a decisive victory"?  Dear boy, there is no "decisive victory" where the victor cannot "reoccupy lost territory."  And, one might add, where the "defeated" power holds the field at the end of the battle.  It is apparent that you and GOP cannot see your tendentiousness.  A weary smile overcomes the faces of those who are beginning to understand what motivates you and your esteemed psuedo-Roman colleague. Schpinbo (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Schpinbo, you are very patronising and my name is not Chuck.--Charles (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging from your userpage, Charles, you give as good as you get when it comes to being patronising - perhaps better.  May your war of the bus lines result more than just a tactical victory.  Schpinbo (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: How about you discuss the points raised rather than reverting back to your view?

message: I deleted the word "faithfully" referring to General Alcedo's defence of the city of A Coruña towards the ending of the Battle of Corunna,after the British troops had already left the battlefield,because I think there is no reason to make that remark:General Alcedo was only acting as it was his duty as an officer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.105.154 (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing, isn't it?  It takes a very particular point of view to be able to say that a Spanish general, presumably telling himself that he was working to expel the French invader from his country, and that his friend is fighting on his soil towards this end, was in fact merely doing the bidding of the "friend." Schpinbo (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Word 'faithfully' restored and ref'd - direct from Napier. Tttom1 (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Faithfully

message: A footnote in the article states:
Currently the only Neal book in the References section is Memorials of the late war .. and  AFAICT neither volume I pp. 100–104 or volume 2, pp.100–104  of Neale's (1828) Memorials of the late war ..contain these quotes. 
The Moore quote can be found in a dispatch to Lord Castlereagh dated 28 December 1808 and published by the British Government. It is quoted in various places including History of the Wars Occasioned by the French Revolution: From the ..., vol 1,  pp. 630–631 by C. H. Gifford (London, 1817). I can not find the Berthier quote on line.
However further investigation by looking at the history of the article the text was originally added by Tttom on 17 January 2009. The original quotes was:
The page numbers were corrected a few minutes later to 100-104. That volume is online at the Internet archive Letters from Portugal and Spain by Neale (London, 1809) but pages 100-104 of the volume are not correct, because the pages are in the Appendix which is numbered from one. So the first of the two letters is a translation (from French) and is in Appendix—XXXV p. 100
:"To the Duke of Dalmatia, Chamarlin, 10th December 1808 ...everything inclines us to think that they [the British] are in full retreat, ... (signed) The Prince of Neufchatel, Major-General" 
The dispatch to Lord Castlereagh mentioned above is numbered in this volume XXXVI and described as "copy of a letter from Lieutenant-General Sir John Moore to Lord viscount Castlereagh" Benevente 28th December, 1808. and starts on page 101, the quote is on page 102 (the dispatch finishes on page 104). I will mend the text to match this information. -- PBS (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neale, pp.100–104 

message: Shouldn't the Spaniards be included in the infobox? Uspzor (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: *
Hugo from near the end of page 110-111:
French original	Google English translation
Le Maré Soult dirigea sur la flotte anglaise le feu d'une  batterie avantageusement placée; alors cette flotte leva l'ancre et prit le large. Une arrière-grad, qui occupait encore les faubourgs du côté du port, et qui avait coupé le pont qui le sépare de la ville, s'embarqua dans l'apres-midi sur quelques bâtiments restés pour elle. Les Français  trouvèrent dans le camp anglais, le 17, plus de 3,000 fusils abandonnés, des habillements et des munitions. Les Anglais avaient perdu, d'après ls raport des blessés qu'ils avaient abandonnés dans les faubourgs, 2,500 hommes dans le combat de la veille.
Le maréchal avait jeté quelques bataillons d'infantrie légère dans les faubourgs de la Corogne, et, le 18 au martin, il fit sommer la place d'ouvrir ses portés. Quoique le départ de les flotte anglaise ne permit plus la moindre résistance, les deux régiments espagnols enfermés dans la ville firent mine de vouloir la défendre, et le maréchal, pour amener leur commandant  à capitular dans la journée du 20, fut obligé de faire une démonstration d'attaque de vive force. On trouva dans la place 200 pièces de canon, 20,000 fusils, 600,000 cartouches,  200 milliers de de poundres, des magazins considérables en vivres et objets militaires, 1,200 cadavres de chevaux, et 500 chevaux vivants dont les jarrets  étaient coupés.	The Maré Soult led the English fleet fire advantageously placed a battery; then the fleet weighed anchor and took off .  A rear -grad who still occupied the suburbs on the harbor side , which had cut the bridge that separates the city , embarked in the afternoon after a few buildings remained for her. The French found in the English camp , 17 , over 3,000 abandoned guns, clothing and ammunition. The English had lost , according ls Hours of Operation injured they had abandoned in the suburbs, 2,500 men in the battle yesterday.
The marshal had thrown a few battalions of light infantry in the outskirts of Corunna, and on 18 at Martin , he summoned instead to open its worn. Although the departure of the British fleet no longer allowed the slightest resistance , the two Spanish regiments locked in the city went to want to defend mine , and Marshal , to bring their commander to capitulate in the day of 20 , was forced to make a demonstration of attack by force . Was found in the place 200 guns, 20,000 guns, 600,000 cartridges, 200 thousands of poundres considerable military shops in food and objects, 1,200 dead horses and 500 live horses whose throats were cut .
-- PBS (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  On p. 110, as originally cited: "La cavalarie était presque entièrement démontée; 6,000 chevaux, tant de troupe que le train d'artillerie, était morts de fatigue, ou avaient été tués par leurs cavaleirs..." The cavalry was almost entirely dismounted, 6,000 horses, all of the troop of the train of artilllery, were dead from fatigue, or shot by their riders ..." So I'm restoring ref'd  statement.Tttom1 (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you could clear that up and correct my mistake. I had not noticed that the article before the article on the "depature of the Empror for Paris" (called Entrée de Français à Lug) included a mention the retreat into Corunna (although I had read with interest, and added the article before it (Combat de Caçbellos. — Mort du général Colbert) to the "Further reading" section  of his biography article. -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  French account used in the article