Wellington Vs. Davout

[MrP]

Originally Posted by Mike

Says you.

You have not answered my question. Do you have any reason to doubt the Wikipedia sources I used as well as the others? If yes, why?

It may be less of a specific thing than a general one, old boy. Viz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

Wikipedia:Academic use

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion.


Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a creditable source.[1][2]

Follow two simple rules:

Do your research properly. Remember that any encyclopedia is a starting point for research, not an ending point

* An encyclopedia is great for getting a general understanding of a subject before you dive into it. But then you 'do' have to dive into your subject; using books and articles and other appropriate sources will provide better research. Research from these sources will be more detailed, more precise, more carefully reasoned, and (in most cases) more broadly peer reviewed than the summary you found in an encyclopedia. These will be the sources you cite in your paper. There is no need to cite Wikipedia in this case.
* An encyclopedia is great for checking general knowledge that you have forgotten, like the starting date of the First World War or the boiling point of mercury. Citation is not needed for fact checking general knowledge.
* Slightly obscure details, such as the population of Ghana, can be found on Wikipedia, but it is best to verify the information using an authoritative source, such as the CIA World Factbook.
* A very obscure detail, such as the names of the founders of the Social Democrat Hunchakian Party, might be very hard to find without the aid of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is ideal in these situations because it will allow you to find the information, as well as sources which you can research to confirm that information. In any case, you should not cite Wikipedia, but the source provided; you should of course look up the source yourself before citing it. If there is no source cited, consider a different method of obtaining this information.

Use your judgment. Remember that all sources have to be evaluated.

* Wikipedia is not a replacement for a reading assignment by your professor.
* If a book is in your university library or published by a reputable university press, or if an article is in a standard academic journal, that means that several professors at some point have considered the information and considered it worthy to publish. Be careful not to use sources that are too old, however, as some methods and conclusions might be out of date.
* Sourcing a website is a game of chance. Unless you know that the site is run by a respected institution, or if you have verified the sources the site uses, it is probably a bad idea to cite it.
* While reading Wikipedia articles for research, remember to consider the information carefully, and never treat what is on Wikipedia as wholesale truth.

It is the goal of Wikipedia to become a research aid that all students can trust. If you, in the course of your research, find that there is misinformation on Wikipedia, look over the basic guidelines of Wikipedia and especially what the community considers a reliable source and please consider editing the article (and even creating an account) with what you have learned. This is a part of how Wikipedia wishes to attain its goals.

Wikipedia links to many credible sources

Even though Wikipedia articles can be easily tampered to thwart credibility, the references in an article usually link to credible sources. The driving forces that cause so many Wikipedia articles to link to highly credible sources are the content policies, such as WP:VERIFY and WP:SOURCES, plus the actions of reviewers who constantly remove unreliable sources from articles. For those reasons, the sources cited by a Wikipedia article tend to be more accurate, direct references than many webpages found by Web search engines.

References

1. ^ New Age judge blasts Apple | The Register
2. ^ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief | The Register

External links

* Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation Chronicle of Higher Education, June 12, 2006.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Mike

They fought at the Pennisular War and was at Lundy's Lane, contrary to your claims. If they were captured at the Pennisular War, it just proves that the British "A Team" was not as good as you claim.

No, they never served in the Peninsula. 2/89th was part of the garrison of Gibraltar (which was no more part of Wellington's command than the British Army of Valencia was) for a while. A wing of the Bn was sent inland and was captured. The remaining wing was withdrawn, reinforced with vast numbers of militia volunteers and sent to America to relieve a more experienced battalion

I wouldn't call Canada a safe theater since the Americans outnumber them there. The War in Spain was safer for the British since the French there did not consider the British its top priority. The Americans in Canada did.

In 1808 Canada is a very safe theatre.

It does not take away from the fact that the outnumbered Americans attacked a defensive position full of regulars and carried the day. That is impressive.

Except they didn't. Scott allowed himself to become fixed in a static firefight, which he was losing badly, for several hours. Ripley on arriving at least attacked, and gained a lodgement, helped by Drummond's incompetence.

In fact, had Drummond been half competent, he could have destroyed Scott's Brigade simply by advancing. He however definately wasn't an A-team general, nor were his troops.

The Americans had about 2,650 infantry (300 were militia), whilst the British had about 3,500 (1,300 were militia, counting the Glengarry LI and IMUC Bn). Both had about the same numbers of "regulars".

If you are going to belittle the Americans at Lundy's Lane, Davout and and the Spanish as due to the incompetence of their opponents, so do you should belittle Wellington for the same reason. The Spanish victory at Bailén, in which an entire French army surrendered, was impressive despite "French incompetence". Davout's victory at Auerstaedt against long odds was imnpressive despite "Prussian incompetence". Wellington never won an impressive battle like the Americans at Lundy's Lane, Davout at Auerstaedt and the Spanish at Bailén despite the fact that Wellington enjoyed so many advantages over the French, including "French incompetence". That does no make him a GREAT general.

Decisive victories require incompetence on the side of the loser. Hannibal's victory at Cannae required a Varro (misquoting a quote from Reid's America's Civil War: The Operational Battlefield 1861-1863, my current reading book). Unfortunately Lundys' Lane was an indecisive battle for both sides. Had Drummond have been at least middling then the US Army would have been destroyed (due to American incompetence). However his incompetence allowed them to survive; if the net effect was zero.

At Auerstadt Davoust performed very well, but the Prussians performed terribly. They lost the battle rather than Davoust winning it.

The reason Wellington didn't just destroy French Armies is due to the very competence of the French commanders and troops.

[DAv]

You have not answered my question. Do you have any reason to doubt the Wikipedia sources I used as well as the others? If yes, why?

The reasons behind my judgement can be seen from MrP's post.

Which questions? I will answer them.

The one I just asked in an earlier post.

I used by simply saying that the sources are faulty without explaining why

My reasons for not recognising Wikipedia as a proper source have been explained. I myself have used Esdaile and various other historians in forming my arguments such as Corrigan, Zamoyski and Harvey to name a few. Of those three, Harvey can only really be regarded as having any sort of pro-British bias (Although his in depth research in the Napoleonic Wars is enlightening).

you have British bias.

If that were true, I wouldn't have bothered to mention the guerrillas at all. If you want real pro-British bias, read one of Bryant's books. Your bias was noted as soon as you dismissed all those who have respect for Wellington as 'Wellington-lovers' and dismissed all those who give him the respect earned by the man as such.

The reason Wellington didn't just destroy French Armies is due to the very competence of the French commanders and troops.

Or in the case of Salamanca, because his Allies let him down.

That does no make him a GREAT general.

He won had to deal with Military difficulty in his campaigns and political difficulty at home, his Allies were questionable more often than not, suffered from a lack of a large cavalry, was unable to get a proper siege train for his needs, had to build a working Army from the various nationalities in Iberia and was often in danger of the French ganging up and trying to outnumber him. Despite all these difficulties, he managed to outwit, defeat and humble some of France's greatest Marshalls with victory upon victory. That makes him a great General indeed.

What is wrong with a web page for research?

Sorry for that snappiness. My natural Biblophilia (That the one?) nature coming into play. Something... wrong with trying to put a whole book onto a screen. Give me the fabric of paper any day.

[Cockroach]

Originally Posted by Mike

They fought at the Pennisular War and was at Lundy's Lane, contrary to your claims. If they were captured at the Pennisular War, it just proves that the British "A Team" was not as good as you claim.

First, you've quite clearly misunderstood what 67th Tiger's turn of phrase meant:
The nearest is 2/89th, which served in Garrison at Gibraltar.
Nearest as in the unit present at the battle closest to your description rather than nearest to the site of the battle by geographic location.

Second, taking your argument to it's logical conclusion, since a certain Private Lynch got captured by the Iraqis back in 2003, does that make the entire US army no better than a tin pot dictator's rabble?

[peteratwar]

Well even if the 'A' team of troops were at Lundys Lane (which only an incredibly minute number seem to have been) then they are not going to perform well if lead by an incompetent general.

On the other hand an 'A' team leader like Wellington knows how to handle his troops and to get the best out of them regardless. In Spain (after a while) he had his 'A' team of soldiers and managed to win every battle. In the 100 days he definitely did not have 'A' team troops (although some regiments were) and he was facing a cohesive and well-trained French force which had in its ranks all the veteran POW's who had been captured earlier. He then managed to get the best out of his variegated army. A great General.

[peteratwar]

Another thing that Mike tends to overlook is that whilst French forces wer brought up to date with drafts and conscripts in their second (not secondary) theatre of war, that is also true of the British. Their reinforcements were not trained veterans but also drafts fresh from barrack training.

Whilst the French spent a lot of their forces in combatting the guerillas it also true that they could not and did not ignore the British. Indeed their instructions were to eject the British from the Peninsular. Wellington was content to deal with them in detail. When they moved to concentrate their armies which if/when achived would enormously outnumber him, he sensibly withdrew to allow time, space and logistics to work for him. One must remember above all that if Wellington were defeated then there was no other British army which could take its place.

[Mike]

But I do know a a quote from Barbero's book, in which a Pennisular War veteran who was fighting at Waterloo was saying that Waterlo was more difficult than Spain. I will go dig out the book and give you the quote tomorrow because I can't find it on the Internet.

Here are some quotes from the book I promised.

On pg. 237: "The conduct of the noncommissioned officers, particularly those veterans who had fought in Spain, contributed decisively to keeping their men at their posts. Sergeant Major Ballam of the Seventy-third was pale as a corpse when he addressed the commander of the regiment, murmuring, "We had nothing like this in Spain, sir." And yet, having watched one the men duck from time to time when the balls flew too close, Bellam stepped over to him and bawled him out: "Damn you, sir, what do you stoop for? You should not stoop if your head was off!" The man, a thin-skinned fellow, took this reprimand badly. A few moments latter, a ball hit the sergeant major in the face, killing him instantly, and the soldier leaned over his disfigured corpse and exclaimed, "Damn it, sir! What do you lie there for? You should not lie down if your head was off!""

This is a letter Wellington wrote to his brother the day after the battle. On pg. 309: "It was the most desperate business I ever was in. I never took so much trouble about any Battle, & never was so near being beat. Our loss is immense particularly in that best of all Instruments, British Infantry, I never saw the Infantry behave so well."

Quotes from British officers agree. On pg. 310: After talking with some of them, Captain Jackson reported them "all agreeing that the Duke had never before been so severely pressed; or had so much difficulty to maintain his position."

there are a lot more like this. Wellington apparently had a near nervous-breakdown and was traumatised for months after the battle until he returned to England in a hero' welcome which inflated his overrated reputation.

These quotes prove that Wellington and the British A Team had it easy in Spain. They never faced quality opposition until Waterloo. They would have been defeated if the agressive Prussians hadn't arrived to save the day. The Prussians are the real heroes for the Allied in that battle and in the whole 100 Days Campaign.

Now, it is your turn. Provide some quotes from Esdaile or other sources from books.

[Mike]

The reason Wellington didn't just destroy French Armies is due to the very competence of the French commanders and troops.

the French were incompetent in battles against Wellington. Have you not seen my previous posts and Atreus's posts on this? Why have you not addressed these posts if you don't think that the French were incompetent against Wellington? They even fought against each other as much as Wellington because of their egos, sabotaging themselves in the process. The French also had so many disadvantages in Spain.

As matters stand, the French were incompetent against Wellington. That should disqualify Wellington as a great general according to your logic.

[Mike]

I forgot to add that Barbero thinks that it is possible that French casualties at Waterloo may even be less that those of the Allied. That is an impressive achievement for the French considering that they, like the Americans at Lundy's Lane, had to attack a defensive position with insufficient numbers at the beginning of the battle. The French then had to fight the combined might of the Prussians and Allied for several hours while still coming close to victory and inflicting more casualties than received.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Mike

Here are some quotes from the book I promised.

On pg. 237: "The conduct of the noncommissioned officers, particularly those veterans who had fought in Spain, contributed decisively to keeping their men at their posts. Sergeant Major Ballam of the Seventy-third was pale as a corpse when he addressed the commander of the regiment, murmuring, "We had nothing like this in Spain, sir." And yet, having watched one the men duck from time to time when the balls flew too close, Bellam stepped over to him and bawled him out: "Damn you, sir, what do you stoop for? You should not stoop if your head was off!" The man, a thin-skinned fellow, took this reprimand badly. A few moments latter, a ball hit the sergeant major in the face, killing him instantly, and the soldier leaned over his disfigured corpse and exclaimed, "Damn it, sir! What do you lie there for? You should not lie down if your head was off!""

I doubt they did, for the 73rd (both 1st and 2nd Bns) never served in Spain. 1/73rd served in the East Indies and 2/73rd was raised from the Militia and was sent to the Army of the Low Countries in 1813.

[DAv]

there are a lot more like this. Wellington apparently had a near nervous-breakdown and was traumatised for months after the battle

Which may have been because a large proportion of Wellington's commanders and friends built up during the Peninsular War were killed in the battle, sometimes directly beside him. He comforted one before going on to write his report for the battle and was prepared to lead the Allied Army under him into France before news of Napoleon's surrender reached him. And it wasn't just Waterloo, look at Goya's portrait of Wellington from 1812 and you'll see the features of a man who was hard pressed for over three years.

These quotes prove that Wellington and the British A Team had it easy in Spain.

No they didn't. As I've mentioned before, they had clear disadvantages in Spain when fighting against the French in numbers, siege trains, cavalry, Allies that did more harm than good quite a large amount of time among various others. The British and Portuguese had it far from easy in Spain.

They would have been defeated if the agressive Prussians hadn't arrived to save the day.

What makes this point awfully moot however is that the only reason Waterloo was fought was because Wellington was counting on the Prussians to arrive.

the French were incompetent in battles against Wellington.

Not particularly. Massena was capable in Portugal, Soult managed to give Wellington him more than a few sleepless nights (As Wellington pointed out to him) and Marmont managed to keep Wellington from striking until Salamanca. When it came to Wellington, the Marshalls were generally just outclassed.

I forgot to add that Barbero thinks that it is possible that French casualties at Waterloo may even be less that those of the Allied.

As in he can't prove it but just puts it in anyway?

[peteratwar]

Mike, the quotes you provided certainly do not prove that the British had it easy in Spain. It merely says that Waterloo was more severe than any battle they had been in whilst in Spain. That is quite a different thing.

Nowhere have I read claims Wellington had a near-nervous breakdown nor that he was traumatised for months. That he had a strong reaction at the battle’s end given the responsibility he had, the loss of friends and colleagues around him and the sheer strain of running the battle is hardly surprising. The letter you quote sums that up nicely. Wellington was fighting the battle with inferior numbers and an inferiorly trained army of varying nationalities against a homogenous well-trained army with very many veterans (thanks to the returns of POWs) lead by General who was considered the best in the world. Wellington fought the battle on the basis the Prussians would support him; which they did albeit arriving on the battlefield much later than was expected. Indeed the Prussians started withdrawing until Muffling persuaded them to continue convincing them that Wellington was still holding the line.

Wellington by dint of his own efforts ensured that every attack the French made were countered and thrown back until the last attack of the Middle Guard was beaten back and the Allied line advanced as did the Prussians finally on the left routing the French. Barbero’s casualty claims are interesting and at variance with almost everyone else. Be glad to know how he justifies them and what his calculations are based on. Even your favourite Wikipedia doesn’t claim that!

Easy in Spain for Wellington ? Hardly. He was fighting a numerically superior foe with an unreliable major ally, winning every battle against an enemy hugely accustomed to victories using tried and tested tactics under generals who were involved in those victories. These failed against Wellington’s own tactics and deployment. It doesn’t make them incompetent but merely shows Wellington’s abilities. Wellington kept his army in the field with a nervous Government behind him, supplied as best he could without pillaging the country. He outmanoeuvred the enemy, finally driving them out of the Peninsular before invading France itself and continuing to win victories. I grant you the French did themselves no favours with arguments between the Marshals which certainly helped. Nevertheless, even though Wellington defeated the French armies there were still others there. He, on the other hand, had only one army and if that were defeated only once it would have been the British ejected from the Peninsular. So in conducting the campaign he proved himself a highly competent general and an offensive one to boot NOT a defensive one (think about it he drove the French out of Spain and invaded France) who in the eyes of his contemporaries was rivalled only by Napoleon

[Mike]

Which may have been because a large proportion of Wellington's commanders and friends built up during the Peninsular War were killed in the battle, sometimes directly beside him. He comforted one before going on to write his report for the battle and was prepared to lead the Allied Army under him into France before news of Napoleon's surrender reached him.

Wellington said that the Waterloo battle was the toughest by far. You are ignoring the quotes and are just rambling.

And it wasn't just Waterloo, look at Goya's portrait of Wellington from 1812 and you'll see the features of a man who was hard pressed for over three years.

You can't judge a man by an embellished portrait. Describe those features. I didn't see any of those features. All I saw was a well-groomed and clean shaven man with clean clothes taking a pose with arms crossed.

No they didn't. As I've mentioned before, they had clear disadvantages in Spain when fighting against the French in numbers, siege trains, cavalry, Allies that did more harm than good quite a large amount of time among various others. The British and Portuguese had it far from easy in Spain.

As I have mentioned before, the French had far greater disadvantages in Spain. That has to be taken into account. I am sure that the French (as well as the Austrians, Prussians, and Russians who fought the best of France) would rather take the British problem in Spain instead of their own.

Wellington's allies were not more of a hinderance than a good. They were essential, far more important than Wellington ever was. See this:

Battles alone don't win this type of wars. British military historian Hart writes: "... the presence of the British Expeditionary Corps was an essential foundation... Wellington's battles were materially the least effective part of the operations. By them he [Wellington] inflicted a total loss of some 45,000 men only - counting killed, wounded and prisoners - on the French during the 5 years' campaign... whereas Marbot reckoned that the number of French deaths alone during this period averaged 100 a day. Hence it is a clear deduction that the overwhelming majority of the losses which drained the French strength, and their morale still more, was due to the operations of the guerillas..." (Hart - "Strategy" 1991, pp 110-111)
"... the Spanish 'nation in arms' ... may have lacked the polished professionalism of the British Light Division but, in the long run, they probably inflicted considerably more damage on the French forces than all of Wellington's pitched battles combined. The sieges of Gerona alone cost the Imperial armies over 20,000 casualties and, exclusively from sickness and guerilla raids, the French forces in the Peninsula lost approx. 100 men per day for over 4 years, a total of some 164,000 casualties. It is, therefore, easy to see how the war in Spain bled the French army white ..." (- Gates)
http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napole..._in_Spain.html

Not particularly. Massena was capable in Portugal, Soult managed to give Wellington him more than a few sleepless nights (As Wellington pointed out to him) and Marmont managed to keep Wellington from striking until Salamanca. When it came to Wellington, the Marshalls were generally just outclassed.

You forget the little detail that they had to put up with the Spanish guerillas , a huge army to feed, train, infighting between generals, logistics problems in a hostile country and so on. They were not outclassed, but out-matched.

As in he can't prove it but just puts it in anyway?

Here is Barbero's quote that thankfully, is found on the Internet.

"with rare exceptions the wounded men who died after the battle do not seem to have been included in these totals, nor have any reliable data on the subject been published, except in regard to the British troops. Consequently, if these are excluded, at Waterloo, during the day, statistics suggest that 207 French officers died or went missing, as opposed to a total of 279 for their adversaries. Therefore, based on traditional ratios of officers to enlisted men, it seems legitimate to wonder whether the losses suffered by the French might even have been inferior to those of Wellington and Blucher. http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/BATTLE_OF_WATERLOO.htm#battleofwaterloocasualties

[Mike]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

I doubt they did, for the 73rd (both 1st and 2nd Bns) never served in Spain. 1/73rd served in the East Indies and 2/73rd was raised from the Militia and was sent to the Army of the Low Countries in 1813.

Do you have a link to the roll call?

If this is true, than either Barbero may have made a mistake with the regiment number or Sergeant Major Bellam may have been in Spain with a different regiment. The quote is still valid.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Mike

Do you have a link to the roll call?

If this is true, than either Barbero may have made a mistake with the regiment number or Sergeant Major Bellam may have been in Spain with a different regiment. The quote is still valid.

He may, although moving between regiments was not usual.

However, the service histories of every battalion can be accessed at the archive.org copy of regiments.org

[peteratwar]

Originally Posted by Mike

Wellington said that the Waterloo battle was the toughest by far.


Here is Barbero's quote that thankfully, is found on the Internet.

"with rare exceptions the wounded men who died after the battle do not seem to have been included in these totals, nor have any reliable data on the subject been published, except in regard to the British troops. Consequently, if these are excluded, at Waterloo, during the day, statistics suggest that 207 French officers died or went missing, as opposed to a total of 279 for their adversaries. Therefore, based on traditional ratios of officers to enlisted men, it seems legitimate to wonder whether the losses suffered by the French might even have been inferior to those of Wellington and Blucher. http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napole...rloocasualties

Well given he was victorious, certainly speaks well of Wellinton's abilities.

Babero's quote/ theory doesn't seem to have any reliable backing whatsoever apart from flying in the face of all other reports

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Mike

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napole..._in_Spain.html

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/BATTLE_OF_WATERLOO.htm#battleofwaterloocasualties

Be really careful using that site as a source. It's fairly typical of the anglophobic backlash that some Napoleon fanbois have. It likes to dwell on the "excuses" on why Napoleon lost in Spain, Russia and Belgium, and to simultaneously try and prove he didn't really lose, it's all just a cruel trick.

The academic study of the Napoleonic Wars online is done at http://www.napoleon-series.org/

[DAv]

You are ignoring the quotes and are just rambling.

I'm not. Waterloo was his toughest battle yes, but Wellington suffered because of the large proportion of his staff and friends who were killed right in front of him or elsewhere during the battle. Wellington's saying 'The Finger of Providence was Upon me' shows just how close he felt to dying in battle.

All I saw was a well-groomed and clean shaven man with clean clothes taking a pose with arms crossed.

Considering Goya's art doesn't even show his arms, I doubt you're looking at the right one. The one I'm referring to was in 1812 after the entry into Madrid.

a huge army to feed, train, infighting between generals, logistics problems in a hostile country and so on. They were not outclassed, but out-matched.

Wellington suffered from similar problems. The sheer incompetence of the Spanish regular forces, the need to combine Portuguese and British Armies as a single coherent force and the fact that the contribution of the guerrillas itself was prone to exageration by the Liberals of Spain as well as the fact they denied the Spanish forces men and resources they desperrately needed. In every battle, Wellington outwitted and defeated his opponents. Unless you want to suggest that every French Marshall was incomptent.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by DAv

Considering Goya's art doesn't even show his arms, I doubt you're looking at the right one. The one I'm referring to was in 1812 after the entry into Madrid.

This one I assume?

[Mike]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

Be really careful using that site as a source. It's fairly typical of the anglophobic backlash that some Napoleon fanbois have. It likes to dwell on the "excuses" on why Napoleon lost in Spain, Russia and Belgium, and to simultaneously try and prove he didn't really lose, it's all just a cruel trick.

Once again, you are dismissing the source without explaining why. The website took the quotes directly from people called Hart and Gates. Are you going to accuse them of anglophobic bias?