Talk:French Revolutionary Wars/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The extended (wikified) quotation from Mignet may not be the best way to handle the context of Europe at this time, but it seems pretty much on the mark and it is public domain. As usual, it can be rewritten; if someone does so, please pull it out of quotation marks. I personally would suggest either a comprehensive rewrite or leaving it as is (possibly with further wikification), rather than falling between two stools. -- Jmabel 21:21, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone wants to expand this article, possibly even into a series, Mignet gives an extensive account of these wars, and his material is uncopyrighted and readily available on line. -- Jmabel 00:02, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'd note that there's currently some duplication, as Napoleonic Wars, First Coalition, and Second Coalition all have some discussion of this material. Some sort of effort to reduce the doubling up would be of use, I think. The History of France series, btw, is currently pretty miserable, as well. At any rate, yeah, maybe. john k 05:17, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Pulled some material out of Mignet, padding it with info pulled from other wikipedia articles, especially biographical ones, and facts and dates from a couple other sources (notably a copy of Dupuy&Dupuy I have at home). I've organized it chronologically, and my treatment may be a little heavy on dates and battle. Nothing wrong with that in a war history ;-), but my idea was to put the details in the year-by-year articles, and have the French Revolutionary Wars page itself focus more on the broad brush of analysis and diplomacy, which I'm not sure I've done well. -- Willhsmit 23:22, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikisource

Recent addition at the bottom appears to be to a poor scan of a 1911 EB article, on Wikisource. Mentioning the EB article is useful, I guess, but why link to a bad scan of it? Anyone want to try cleaning this up on Wikisource? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


A cleane up copy of the 1911 article, would be a great replacemnt for what we have now, it really goes into depth and isnt really out of date.--Gary123 17:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Portugal

Wow, not a mention of the battles between the Spanish-Napoleonic vs Portuguese-English alliance? And you dare call this... an Encyclopaedia?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.138.0.158 (talk • contribs) 15 August 2006.

Those of us with any sanity call it a work in progress, about 5-1/2 years under way, by an almost entirely amateur staff. If something has not been written there is no person who was more responsible than you for writing it.
In this case, though, I suspect that the problem is that the article you want is Napoleonic Wars. Do let me know if what you are looking for is not there, either. - Jmabel | Talk 04:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Flags in Infobox

It is not particularly critical, but WP:MIL guidelines indicate a preference for no flags (or at least, small flags). Carom 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Did the First French Republic "defeat" England?

Albrecht thinks so. A third opinion would be welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your definition of "defeat." The French soundly beat the British pretty much everywhere they could find and fight them—Toulon, Brittany, the Netherlands—and drove them from the Continent. Maybe that's not enough. But what I find interesting is that this kind of semantic debate and analysis is only ever necessary when the British are on the losing end of the contest—strangely, very few people bother to pause and reflect on Clausewitzian philosophical distinctions before labelling anything "British victory." In fact, it comes quite naturally. Albrecht 05:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the implicit statement that I'm somehow saying this because I'm pro-British, in the last year or so, based on my edits, I've been variously accused of being a Zionist, a "pro-Palestinian", a Romanian nationalist, a hater of Romanians, a Catalan nationalist, a "chauvinistic American", and an anti-American, and I'm sure I'm leaving several out, so I suppose you can call me an Anglophile if you like, though it will probably be just a prelude to someone else on another topic excoriating me for my apparent hatred of the British. Other than that: a third opinion would still be welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't mean to imply that you personally are pro or anti anything, just that the general trend on Wikipedia leans in an Anglophilic direction (this shouldn't be surprising, given the language we're using right now!). I wouldn't mind a third opinion myself, but I don't think this is something we should lose our heads over. You can undo my edit if you want. Albrecht 07:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The British were victorious at sea and outside of Europe, conquering most French colonies (except Saint-Domingue, which had its own issues), as well as taking Malta and driving the French out of Egypt. The British were unable to leverage their overseas victories to end French domination of the continent (as is to be expected), and they eventually agreed (briefly) to an unfavorable peace treaty, but I don't think it can be described as a "defeat." And I find it rather telling that apparently the only places you think the French could "find and fight" the British are on the continent. The Egyptian campaign, at the very least, stands out as a stark French defeat at the hands of the British. john k 13:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was a defeat because the British goal was, together with other European powers, to abolish the republic and restore the monarchy. The failed and agreed on an unfavorbly peace.Carl Logan 13:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This is why the war was not a British victory. But there were other intermediate goals, like conquering French colonies, or (later) expelling the French from Egypt and Malta, which were successful. The dispute revolves around whether France had defeated "all its enemies" or merely "all its enemies on the continent." It is my view that France had defeated Britain only in so far as Britan can be considered an enemy of France "on the continent." Outside the European continent, the British were strikingly successful, except in Saint-Domingue, where they were fighting groups only nominally tied to the French Republic. The British certainly didn't win the war, but they weren't defeated. It's also not particularly true that any of the powers' principal goals was to abolish the republic and restore the monarchy, except maybe Spain. The Austrians and Prussians started a war with France when the Republic had not yet come into existence, and their goal was to protect the privileges of imperial ecclesiastic princes in Alsace (technically). They both also had goals of territorial aggrandizement at French expense. The British and Dutch goal was primarily to make sure the French didn't gain control of the Low Countries. There was a lot of monarchist rhetoric besides this, but it was mostly window dressing. At any rate, the British were certainly defeated on the continent - the Low Countries were lost and the Duke of York had to embark for England. They weren't defeated outside Europe, where the peace was essentially a status quo ante peace. I see nothing wrong with saying that the French only defeated those enemies that are "on the continent". john k 15:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Britain were defeated the same way that Prussia and Russia was defeat. They didn't really lose any territory, but was forced to recognize the republic, the only major power that really suffered loses with the peace was Austria. Strange that no one is rushing to defend Russia and Prussia in the same way, very strange indeed. Carl Logan 15:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the best thing would be to create a aftermath section with a more precise and less sweeping explationen.Carl Logan 16:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, right, Britain was dashingly successful in all her "intermediate goals," like convincing the electorate that there was at least a chance their taxes might accomplish something more than sending expeditions to be slapped around by the French all over the continent. That's pretty much what the colonial sphere amounted to, by the admission of the British public and military officials themselves, who, it shouldn't be forgotten, gave all their 'conquests' back at the earliest opportunity. Britain's every ally had fallen, all her attempts at restoring the monarchy had failed, her commercial interests in Holland were history; British armies had been bludgeoned while French armies on every front stood on conquered territory. It seems to me that all the arguments to the contrary fall back on, "hey, but Britain survived!" Well, so did France. Again, I don't really care if the tiny phrase "on the continent" goes or stays, but I think it's pretty disingenuous of you to fall into line "For King and Country," and with all filial piety, at the mere suggestion of a British defeat. Albrecht 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not British, so I don't see where wounded patriotism comes in. The British were defeated on the continent, and victorious elsewhere. Insofar as the British were defeated, it was as an enemy on the continent. And the French defeat in Egypt was quite significant. john k 23:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The British were not 'defeated' they lost a few battles on the continent, but beat the French in Africa and on the seas. It is all mute anyway since the Brits won in the end at Waterloo and in Spain. The peace was not a British 'sue for peace' thing. It was a breathing space for both countries until the next year. The Brits weren't defeated in the 'same way' as the other two since they signed a treaty AFTER they won in Africa and on the sea. France wasn't a republic anyway by the time of the treaty since Napolean took power in 1799. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 17:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

It is important to realize that the French Revolutionary Wars were a decisive French victory and had some fairly radical implications for world history. France directly defeated Britain in some encounters and directly lost to Britain in others. This argument, however, misses the fundamental point: these wars involved European coalitions. It is those that France generally defeated. Arguing about whether they beat this or that country is not constructive because this was not strictly a Franco-British affair. To YankeeRoman: the British actually had significant aid in their efforts against the French in Spain (from the Portugese and Spanish guerrilas) and in their efforts against the French at Waterloo (only one-third of Wellington's army was British and Waterloo was settled decisively by the arrival of the Prussians, otherwise Wellington would have clearly retreated).UberCryxic 19:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It was still made up of many British and led by the british. It also doesn't matter if it was a coalition against them. They still lost in the end as well as the article stating that France "beat" Britain. In the Peninsula the army the french went against was mainly british. There were guerilla tactics, but the army was british and led by Wellington. And who says Wellington would have lost at Waterloo had it not been for the Prussians. They contributed, but were mainly defeated by the British led army. It was they who pushed back the french. The Prussians for all intents and purposes secured the flank. Keep in mind the French had aid from other countries. It was a British Victory in the end. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 20:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

"Who says Wellington would have lost at Waterloo had it not been for the Prussians," you ask? Good question. Actually, I think I can think of someone: Napoleon Bonaparte.
Now maybe Napoleon was a sniveling little Corsican-coward, a glorified Colonel with delusions of grandeur, and maybe he got what he deserved at the hands of those heroic Anglo-Saxons, but even so, I think I'll take his analysis of the Battle of Waterloo over that of, say, some random dude on the Web. To say nothing of your patently uninformed idea of the conduct of military operations in the Peninsula. You admit that "there were guerilla tactics," but you seem totally unaware of the basic facts underlying this assertion. The guerillas made Spain about as inhospitable as the surface of Venus—their activities over four years accounted for some 164,000 French casualties. Oh, how many did the British inflict? Go on, add them up; it won't take long. Uh-huh. In fact, the French lost more men besieging one Spanish city (Girona) than in all of Wellington's Peninsular battles combined. Now you can continue to say that these things "don't matter" while paying less and less attention to why they do, or you can wake up and realize that the Spanish guerillas and Portuguese militias all but won the war in Spain. Without their help, Wellesley would've been "Duke" of some prison cell in Paris. (as they say) Albrecht 03:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And I'll take Wellington's analysis over some random dude on the web! To say the least an idiot! To say nothing of YOUR patently uinformed idea's of the conduct of military operations in the Peninsula. Get a grip. No British army there, NO VICTORY over the French!!. Wrong n the Beseiging part. Go on and Add it up yourself. The British fought how many battles there? and what was the strength on both armies engaged? And how many casualties were there? A lot against bigger armies too. Now think hard now!!! Your fucked up if you think the guerilla's won the war!!! And it was't just the 'duke' it was Moore, and others. Get a clue YankeeRoman (72.205.45.148 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC))

Well, I guess this last outburst confirms it: you've got nothing left. And all the better if you think you've accomplished something by shooting curse words and verbal abuse at lines of text on your monitor (I'd report you to an admin, but to care I'd have to take offence, meaning you'd need to hit something real). Now, I'll accept talk of historical accuracy from lots of people, but not from someone with your demonstrated detachment from the relevant literature:
  • I'm not sure if knowing that the guerillas won the war in Spain makes me messed up, but I do know it puts me in line with just about every major scholarly publication on the subject, from Chandler, Solis, Keegan, and Gates to Winston Churchill (oh, sorry, I forgot how virulently anti-British this last one is). To clarify, it is certainly true that Wellington's campaigns ultimately liberated Spain. But to suggest, as you repeatedly have, that his Allied army was materially more damaging to the French than the Spanish forces approaches the height of ignorance of the subject. You ought to know (but obviously don't) that the Spanish regular army was considerably larger than Wellington's forces (which were, themselves, largely Luso-Spanish), and did much of the actual fighting throughout the war, especially in 1808 and 1809. And your condescending attitude is almost incredible considering how far out of contact you are with the facts. As far as I've seen, no one in the historical community supports the almost mythical significance you seem disposed to attach to Wellington. Even someone like Esdaille, whose opinion of the guerrilleros is scathingly critical, said of the war:
  • My math is fine. The French besieged Girona three times. They lost 20,000 casualties in the third siege alone. Count'em if you'd like. I noticed you ask a lot of questions on this point. If any of this confuses you, and if you're unsure about the details of these campaigns, I invite you to look these things up and expose yourself, for the first time obviously, to the historical analysis motivating my point of view.
  • As stated below, Wellington (in addition to the vast advantages he enjoyed in other areas, including massively better intelligence, communications, and logistics, courtesy of the Spanish guerrilas) outnumbered his enemies in most Peninsular War battles. And despite all this he still met with defeat and even humiliation on occasion, like at the ghastly Burgos fiasco. Is this shameful? No, of course not, because he was only a man, not the demigod you make him out to be.
In brief: no game. Considering how long this page is getting, I'll take the liberty to remove any reply you care to make to Talk:Peninsular War. Later, O Cicero. Albrecht 01:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The article specifically discusses the French Revolutionary Wars, which involved the First Coalition (1792-1797) and the Second Coalition (1798-1801). Historiographically, there is quite a notable distinction made (almost always) between the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars (1805-1815). It is best if we keep this in mind to avoid unnecessary confusion. The French lost the Napoleonic Wars, but they won the Revolutionary Wars. That's....it really. I don't see what's left to argue over about this part.

On Waterloo: the Prussians can be given the most credit for winning the battle. The British, Dutch, Belgians, and Hannoverians (you keep saying "British victory," but I'm puzzled by this; read above: most of Wellington's troops were not British...non-British units also often had local, not British, commanders) fought very well throughout the day, but their efforts would have been futile without Prussian aid. Strategically, Prussian utility can be gaged from the fact that they tied down 13,000 French troops through the ferocious fights around Plancenoit. These would have probably been used to crash through the Allied center at La Haie Sainte. In the event, they could not be used. A fair estimation would be to divide credit between the Anglo-Dutch-Hannoverian forces on one side and the Prussians on the other. In the final analysis, however, the battle could not have been won without Prussian forces. This is something that Wellington himself recognized: the only reason why he decided to fight Napoleon on that day was because he was certain Blucher would march to his aid. Otherwise, Wellington would have kept retreating.UberCryxic 00:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

On Waterloo: The BRITISH were the ones who deserve credit. Read above. Did you not notice that they were the ones that were in command? Wellington had sole command. It was a british victory, I don't understand why you keep saying dutch, hanovarians, etc. The Briitsh made up the core of his army. The Prussians only covered the flank. It strengthend Wellington's center as a result. Just because "blucher was marching to his aid" doesn't mean it was deserved to the Prussians. If anything the final analysis goes to the English since they did the most fighting, it You have to give the bear brunt of the victory to the British led army.
On the Napoleonic wars the french lost, and the British didn't lose the Revolutionary wars. There not much distinction between the thrid and second coalition because Napoleon was sole ruler after 1799. The debate is if the English lost. And they didn't since since it was a mutaul treaty and they won in the end after waterloo, thats....it really. YankeeRoman(72.205.45.148 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC))
I did "read above," but the fundamental problem here is that your statements are incorrect. Wellington had overall command of the army, but there were other, very important subordinate commanders that played an important role in the battle and the campaign, among them the Prince of Orange (commanded five brigades of the I Corps and was in charge of the center at Waterloo) and Prince Bernard of Saxe-Weimar, who commanded units on the left of the Allied line. To the right of the Allied line, Nassauers and Hannoverians occupied the woods around the Hougoumont Chateau and saw heavy fighting all day.
If we go back even further, we find more evidence of how helpful non-British units were. At the Battle of Quatre-Bras two days before Waterloo, General Perponcher's 2nd Dutch division (composed of Nassau German troops) occupied Quatre-Bras in direct opposition to Wellington's orders. In all likelihood, this crucial move saved the Allies because Ney did not seem all that eager to drive Perponcher out. The weak and cautious attacks that the French carried out were more than skilfully handled by the 2nd Division, despite enormous numerical inferiority. They managed to hold as a cohesive unit until Wellington came with aid at around 3 in the afternoon. The first reinforcements were Merlen's Belgo-Dutch cavalry brigade from Nivelles. Perponcher's actions denied Napoleon a critical juncture necessary to fully divide the Allies in two.
So....several things to point out. I keep saying "British, Dutch, Belgians...." and so on because I want to make sure that we all realize that there were many different ethnicities and nationalities that took part at Waterloo. I also keep saying it because, again, only 1/3 of Wellington's entire army was British. The rest were these aforementioned soldiers and collectively they played a more important role than the British soldiers. This is not to knock down British troops in any way whatsoever; after all, we'd expect the others to do better because they formed a larger percentage of the army, no? Only makes sense, and that's just what happened. We also need to squarely point out that the British did no more and no less fighting than these other ethnicities and nationalities. All were equally involved and all did a great job (but again, because there were more of the other soldiers, they just happened to do more).
Once again, you need to realize the distinction between the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars. Regardless of what your personal preferences are in treating this time period, the vast majority of the relevant historical community makes a very significant division between these two periods of European warfare. There is a very real and strong distinction that's always made between the Second and Third coalitions. The Second Coalition started in 1798 and was brought to an end in 1801 with the Treaty of Luneville. The Third Coalition started in late 1804 and was brought to an end in late 1805 with the Treaty of Pressburg. Keep in mind that Britain is only one nation; it cannot, by definition, make a coalition by itself. So, for example, even though the British were not defeated in 1805, the Third Coalition was defeated because the other main participants, Russia and Austria, lost at Austerlitz. Same thing with the Second Coalition. Even though the British were not totally defeated, the Second Coalition itself was defeated because Austria and Russia bowed out.
One other thing: I should mention, for the record, that British armies on the continent were defeated during the Revolutionary Wars. See the campaigns of the Duke of York, in conjunction with other Allied armies, in 1799. The British even made a nice little rhyme about it:
The grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men.
He marched them up to the top of the hill
And he marched them down again.
And when they were up, they were up.
And when they were down, they were down.
And when they were only halfway up,
They were neither up nor down.UberCryxic 23:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said, the British were defeated as an enemy of France on the continent. Insofar as the British were an enemy of France outside the continent, the French were not victorious. France was able to use its continental victories to secure a status quo ante peace outside of Europe, but I don't see how a status quo ante peace constitutes a victory. On the continent, the coalition of British, Austrians, and their changing allies, was definitively defeated. Outside the continent, the British were strikingly successful, and the French were only able to secure the status quo ante as a result of their massive victories on the continent. Saying that France defeated all its enemies "on the continent" is accurate, and does not exclude Britain, insofar as Britain was involved in the continental war. It merely does not incorrectly imply that the French were successful everywhere - they were strikingly unsuccessful both in the colonies and in Egypt. john k 23:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
True, only I'm not convinced this is an interpretation most readers will share. Unless it is made clear in the text that Britain was involved in the continental fighting, the phrase "enemies on the continent" will be taken to mean "continental states," i.e. Austria, Prussia, Russia, but not Britain. Of course I'm aware of the French reverses overseas, but I think this talk of "striking success" is a bit of a stretch considering the relative unimportance of these lonely Caribbean outposts vis-a-vis the great sieges and battles in Toulon and the Netherlands (and it's not like the British swept all before them at sea—the war against Spain was by all accounts an utter fiasco which littered redcoats all over the Atlantic, from Cadiz and Santa Cruz to Puerto Rico). Albrecht 00:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Egypt was hardly unimportant (and leads us to Turkey, another non-continental enemy the French didn't defeat). Fair enough on the war against Spain, with which I am largely unfamiliar, but this surely wouldn't qualify as the French beating the English. The French were victorious on the continent (including against the English), but not victorious elsewhere. Saying the French won the war on the continent surely makes the most sense. It doesn't give a particularly false impression if we don't try to create false equality between French victories on the continent and defeats elsewhere. john k 12:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Listen up closely people: this very question is faulty. We're thinking about the problem in terms of France and Britain only, but this is a huge disservice to the actual events. It doesn't matter whether France defeated Britain or vice versa. The only thing that matters in the context of the Revolutionary Wars is that France defeated the coalitions. The question of Britain alone is an ancillary topic.UberCryxic 00:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The question, Ubercryxic, is whether we should say that France defeated all its enemies, or that it defeated all its enemies on the continent. This is an argument over a particular statement in the article. If you want to reword it entirely, go ahead, but it's best to review what people are actually arguing about before weighing in on such things. john k 12:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To UberCryxic: First off, no, the subordiate commanders you refer to were NOT IN COMMAND! Wellington had sole authority and made the battle plans and delegated. I don't understand why you keep denying this. The British were in charge and made up the substantial forces within the army. Again, you don't seem to be concerned with this. In almost all history texts I have encountered they all say it was a British victory with all other elements you talk about on the periphery. I already know all the things that you have brought to attention. How can you say that the British troops had the lesser role? Ever hear of the Pharse "NOW MAITLAND, NOW'S YOUR TIME"? Maitland sure sounds British to me! This forced the Imperial Guard to flee for the first time. Or who was defending Hougoumont which secured the flank? you are wrong flat out there, The Brits were defending this place (Scots and Coldstream Guards). I can give you a sources if you want on who secured Hougoumont. And which calvery charged the French line? Scot Grey's by any chance? I can go on.

You also convenently dissed my comments about the difference of the revolutionary wars and the later. I already know about the history of it. Both the second and the third were seperated by a mere few months. There were still similarities. Especially since Napoleon was already sole ruler of France. as for the Brits in the second, just because once bad General (york) was beaten doesn't mean they weren't victorious in other places. Ever heard of Nelson or Abercromby? The Brits dominated the sea and won the battle of Alexandria right before the treaty of Amiens. The Brits were also busy smashing the Irish Rebellion at the time. The coalitions were defeated, but again thats not what were talking about here. Its did Britian lose? That was the question regarding this thread. Not did the coalitions. YankeeRoman(72.205.45.148 03:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

Your first sentence is a weird and repetitive remark: obviously if they're "subordinate" commanders, then they are not in overall command. Wellington was, something we both recognize. No one is denying that; the problem now is that you are making strawmen arguments. The British did not make up the "substantial forces" within the army; British troops were a minority in this army. Most history texts usually mention that it was a combined Allied (British and Prussian) victory. What most texts will do in that regard is emphasize their own side's accomplishments (so a German text would focus more on the Prussians, a British one on the British, a Dutch one on the Dutch, and so on). Maitland's troops were British, yes, but what are you implying by this? That the whole Battle of Waterloo hinged on Maitland's Guards? I'm not saying that it's what you're saying, I'm just asking it. Just so it's out there, however: the Battle of Waterloo obviously involved a whole other array of events, some of which you mentioned. I think you better re-read my statement on Hougoumont: I said that the non-British troops were guarding the woods, not the chateau itself, which was, indeed, guarded by British troops. But what we have to remember is that the engagements around Hougoumont occurred all around the chateau and involved non-British troops, who fought very courageously.
I am not aware that I dismissed any of your statement; I did state that your statements were incorrect (almost exclusively too). You are incorrect even now, which is worrisome. The Second and Third Coalitions were not separated by a few months. The Third Coalition did not really start until late 1804, when Britain was able to recruit Sweden into its anti-Napoleonic camp. Up until then, only Britain was officially hostile to Napoleon (had been since 1803, of course). But again, one nation does not make a coalition. You say that's not what we're talking about here - referring to the coalitions - but precisely what I am telling you is that we should be talking about it because it's the only relevant thing. This is the talk page for the French Revolutionary Wars, after all. And the Revolutionary Wars involved France against two European coalitions. This should be the focus of our debate.UberCryxic 04:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You are incorrect even now, sir. This thread is about Britian losing. Thats what I have responded to. We shouldn't be talking about Second Coalitions and others and since it was only a year after the second coalition fell I stand by my other comments, but I still am focusing on Britain, not the coalitions. I already have seen your comments about one nation not making a coalition, I don't care about that. It shouldn't be the focus of the thread. Most sources I have read claim it was British (again, the things you were mentioning are in these sources). It says 'Allied' losses for example, but is emphaizing (sp) what country did the most. You can't convince me that it was not the British. I'm sorry but we are going to have to agree to disagree then. Now, you say the brits were the minority. they weren't. The dutch and other COMBINED maybe. Not seperatly. The brits made up the the main group. As well as taking the leading role. And since the decisive part of the battle was Maitland beating the Imperial Guard, what do you think? That is what I am telling you.YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 15:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC))
Well yeah I realize that's what the topic of conversation is about, but it shouldn't be about that. This question is irrelevant to this article. The reason why it is irrelevant is because France and Britain were not the only participants in the Revolutionary Wars. This seems like an antiquated argument over Anglo-French rivalries meant for diehard nationalists rather than historians. I sincerely doubt most sources you have read purely claim it is a "British" victory. Obviously it is not; the best we can say is that it was an Allied victory. I'd love to agree to disagree, but the issue is not even that simple. The problem is that you are perpetrating falsehoods, and this is only increasing the confusion. When you say "they weren't," do you mean they did not comprise the minority of the total army? If so, then this is what David Chandler has to say about it in the Campaigns of Napoleon (p. 1017 in my edition):
Wellington's field army was a composite Allied force - of which only one third was British - totaling 79,000 infantry, 14,000 horse and 196 guns.
Ok now, you could have also meant that the British formed the largest contingent out of all those nationalities/ethnicities individually. If that is so, then you are still incorrect. Ethnic Germans were actually the highest component, followed by the Dutch, and the British last (they each formed roughly 1/3 of Wellington's army, with the Germans the biggest, the Dutch second, and the British third). In total, 3/4 of the Allied armies in the Low Countries were actually ethnic Germans.
Was this a British victory? How important were the Prussians? This is what Chandler writes on p. 1058:
Thus from two circumstances - Gneisenau's fortuitous selection of Wavre and Blucher's determined loyalty to his ally, there sprang the decision to support Wellington at Mont St. Jean. Without this aid, Wellington would probably have been defeated if not utterly routed on the 18th.
That is actually the common historical opinion on Waterloo if Blucher had not gone to Wellington's aid. As things stood then, this Napoleon vs. Wellington scenario would have never occurred because the latter always planned to fight alongside Blucher. Wellington was smart; he knew he'd lose if he went up against the main French army alone (and, of course, he nearly did lose). What is emerging here is a serious misrepresentation on your part of the actual events and people who made them.UberCryxic 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
no, you are making falsehoods. Such as "Wellington knew he would lose" Where does he say this? Second ALL three nationalities made up 1/3. Well where did you come up with the Brits being the least? Again, I already knew they made up 1/3. I already know. "That" is actually the uncommon historical opinion. I have three sources I can refer you to. Macdonalds "Great Battlefields of the World" where he claimed it was a British victory. Nowhere does he show that the Dutch and others bore the brunt of the fighting (that doesn't mean they didn't fight, I'm not saying that, I'm saying the most important part of the fighting). This is a misrepresentation on YOUR part. I already know most of what occurred, I don't need you to remind me. You thrusting Maitland charge, (British leveling the Imperial guard), there defense of Hougoumont, (British threw French out), Wellington being in command, the Calvery Charge of the Scot Greys and the like all being thrown aside shouldn't be acceptable!! The Brits were obviously in the forefront. I already know about the Prussians contribution, but the main fighting was from Wellington's army. The presence of the Prussian army had an effect obviously, but the army that DEFEATED Napoleon was the British led one. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 21:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC))
And another thing...there is no such thing as woulda, coulda, shoulda. We go by what happened. We DON'T know what would've happend if so and so occurred or didn't. In most of Wellington's battles, nay all, he fought outnumbered. Perhaps he preferred this (since he won almost all the time). Almost counts in horseshoes and car accidents only. (YankeeRoman)
Which battles did Wellington fought outnumbered? If I remember right most of those he fought in the Peninsular he outnumbered the French. Carl Logan 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth are we talking about either Wellington or the Battle of Waterloo? This is an article about the French Revolutionary Wars, which ended in 1801/2. john k 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hahahaha! Pardon my laughter, but this latest round actually demands it. I could either cry at what you've said, or I could laugh, so I chose the latter. Wellington actually outnumbered his opponents in MANY battles, including some of his most famous victories: Salamanca (1812), Vitoria (1813), and Toulouse (1814). I really have no idea where that comment came from; I expect you to retract it.


Getting back to the main argument: please stop making strawmen arguments. You are putting words in my mouth that I did not state. Where did I say Wellington "knew he would lose"? Are you kidding? Wellington was actually very confident of victory on the 18th (again, because he thought Blucher would come to his aid). This is what Peter Hofschroer says on the composition of the Allied armies:


Each formed roughly one-third of his army, with the Germans making the largest third, the British the smallest. Almost all of Blücher's Prussians were ethnic Germans. In the theatre in the Low Countries, 75% of the troops were German.
With that aside, let's continue. I never accused you of saying non-British units did not fight, but I did accuse you of the mistake you continue to make, which is thinking that British units fought more than non-British ones. This is just simply false and reveals a poor understanding of Waterloo. Jerome's initial attacks against Hougoumont ran into determined Nassau and Hannoverian opposition, which continued to fight even after they had been cornered into the chateau (reinforcements from the Coldstream Guards allowed them to hold out). At the center of the Allied line, it was the KGL, composed of German soldiers, who held with great gallantry against ferocious French assaults. No one is saying that anyone bore more of the fighting than others; I'm saying that they (mostly) suffered equally. The Prussian army also fought incredibly hard on the Allied left; their furious attacks against Plancenoit eventually paid off.
Finally, thank you for conceding on the point that we must think about this as a European affair, rather than just an Anglo-French matter. Saves us a lot of time.UberCryxic 22:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

LMAO!! HAHAHAHA, yourself. Umm, this should vindicate me a bit here. From Essential Histories "the Napoleonic Wars The Rise and Fall of an Empire" The battle of Busaco, Sept 27 1810 Wellington had 52,000 men Massena had 65,000 men. Thats one!! Fuentes de Onoro Massena (48,000 men) Wellington (38,000) thats two, both in the Peninsula. In India the Battle of Assaya Wellington (7,000) Indians (100,000). So as you can see, I wouldn't get too cocky with me. I don't know about the other one in India, but I can check. And of course Waterloo. This should prove YOU ARE MAKING STRAWMANS ARGUMENTS. Stop doing it!

On Waterloo: You quoted it "Wellington was smart; he knew he'd lose if he went up against the main French army alone". Are you kidding me? Dude, take it easy and see your shit before you open you mouth. Wake Up!!! That was your quote. Its right above.

No, again you make the mistake. Abviuosly if Wellington was in command he had his army doing the brunt of the fighting. The chateau was defended by the Brits. The others were overwhlemed. What are you talking about?! Maitland's move was the turning point of the battle, (Wellington's famous order) as well as the cavlery charge. In the Peninsula at the battle of Talavera the "charge of the 48th Foot" ring a bell. He had more spainish troops in that battle than British. From the text I cited above, it states that the Spainish were unreliable. The same thing can be placed here. He had his men take up the main effort. Maitland among other things proves it. I expect you to retract some things now.

Finally, I didn't concede anything, but thanks for conceding that Wellington was in command for the most part, makes it look very much more what is was A BRITISH VICTORY! Since Wellington is in charge and had a substanital number of English to make up his army it is known as a british win. (YankeeRoman(72.205.45.148 00:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

You're beyond vindication at this point. Your original statement was this: "In most of Wellington's battles, nay all, he fought outnumbered." You stated that Wellington's armies were outnumbered in every battle that Wellington fought. Clearly this is false; all I need to show it's false is just one battle. Take Toulouse in 1814: Wellington had roughly 49,000 troops and Soult 42,000. Clearly then, your statement is false. What? Your statement is false. You stated something that was incorrect. Please retract. What's amazing beyond the silly mistake is your approach afterwards: you listed a few of Wellington's battles to make a point, but you ignored the vast majority of them. You think you can make this argument by look at three or four battles? Do you know how many battles Wellington fought? So what if he was outnumbered in the three you listed? What about Salamanca (1812), Badajoz (1812), Vitoria (1813), Toulouse (1814)? Why did you not mention these? Seriously; why did you not mention them? Wellington outnumbered his opponent in all of them. Was it to cover up your deceptions? Did you not know about these battles?

On Waterloo: yes I did quote that! Your interpretation is lacking once again, however. Read carefully: "Wellington was smart; he knew he'd lose if he went up against the main French army alone". I've emphasized the "if" so I can draw the attention of readers to your blatant deceptions. Wellington was confident of victory because he thought Blucher would come to his aid. Wellington would not have been confident of victory otherwise. My statements are consistent. Please stop deceiving (or lying, who knows).

The fighting both inside and outside the Hougoumont Chateau involved British and non-British troops. This is just a fact about the battle. It appears that you're not aware of it, however. Once again, the issue is not who was in overall command. Why do you keep bringing this up? This is irrelevant. Wellington was in overall command. Ok fine. But that's not what I'm questioning or exploring. The main point is that several subordinate commanders in Wellington's army were not British. That's just a fact. I don't understand what you're questioning about this. Does it make you feel bad somehow? Another main point is that non-British units fought spectacularly, just as well as the British ones. They were brilliant, all of them: the Dutch, the Germans, and the British. Maitland's charge was not the turning point of the battle; far from it. Once the Prussians poured into the field en masse, the strategic outcome was sealed. Maitland's charge was important to the ultimate victory - and symbolically it was the first serious defeat for the Middle Guard - but we should keep in mind that it did not turn the tide of the battle.

So far, on top of conceding on the argument over Britain and France in this time period, you have also conceded on the composition of the Allied army, tacitly acknowledging the fact that the British were a minority. This is going rather well.UberCryxic 02:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh also, I'm not exactly sure what you meant or implied in your statement about the British and the Spanish, but generally we can say that the Spanish were key to ultimate British success and vice versa. Neither could have done it alone. Let's also not forget the Portugese, who eventually represented over half of Wellington's army in the Peninsular War and fought amazingly.UberCryxic 02:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


no you are beyond vindication!! don't try to cover up you false wellington quote. What? You said "Wellington knew he would lose" WRONG!!! the key word is 'knew' Mr. Deception. You said he KNEW!!! And you just conceded the MAITALND is IMPORTANT part as well as Wellington commmanding. Which IS the big one. Watch what you say!!And yes Maitland's charge (along with Hougoumont's defense) WAS the turning point. It was not the main important part of the battle? It was the middle guard? It was the Imperial Guard!!! The only thing you got is the Wellington was outnumbered and that was now cancelled out when you say the Spanish were the ultimate key to British success. The Main army was the key to success there. Yeah, I'm getting in your head apparently, you need to take it easy and try the decaff. You have made this a big deal apparently. Its OK....but your wrong. YankeeRoman(72.205.45.148 02:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

Wellington knew he would lose if he faced the French alone. Why do you think he kept retreating while Napoleon advanced? Taking a tour of Belgium perhaps? He was waiting for the opportune moment; the moment when he could be reasonably confident that he could join forces with Blucher. That's why he decided to stand up and fight on the 18th. There's nothing wrong with my statement about Wellington's feelings. It accurately captures his dispositions at that time. Hougoumont's defense could not have been the turning point because it was more of a long, drawn out affair. It certainly played a key role in the final verdict because it ate up so many French soldiers that could have been used in other theaters, but it wasn't a turning point by any stretch of the imagination. The thing with Waterloo: there really wasn't a turning point. You can't look at one moment and say, "aha! this right here turned the tide of the battle." The best we can probably say is when victory for the Allies was assured, which was not until late in the day. Maitland's charge was an important event among many other important events in a very important battle. Hell, we'd do well to remember that Maitland's charge was not the only thing at the end; other non-British units also charged the French successfully. That's what it comes down to. The units that were charged by Maitland composed the Middle Guard. I don't know if you are aware, but the Imperial Guard was traditionally divided into three main parts: the Old Guard, the Middle Guard, and the Young Guard. The Middle Guard was what broke at Waterloo. The Old Guard, two battalions of which were sent against Hougoumont, fought very successfully throughout the battle, driving out 14 Prussian battalions out of Plancenoit in one instance (just two battalions accomplished that! Quite a feat).

Unfortunately, I cannot understand your last comments. If I could, I would reply to them. Let me just reiterate the fact that you were wrong when it comes to Wellington always being outnumbered and you were also wrong on the fact that the British received much significant aid from the Spanish (both regular armies and guerrilas) during the Peninsular War.UberCryxic 03:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Blah, blah, blah....Maitland's Guard was called the Guards Brigade. Hougoumont defense secured Wellington's right flank, and did he really retreat? He had already had fought with New at Quatre Bras. He decided to slug it out at waterloo since conveying the field years earlier, noticing its important features, such as the high ground where the decisive part of the battle occurred. Let me reiterate the fact that you were wrong about who commnaded the army, who was at Hougoumont, how important all were to victory. No turning point now? I just mentioned the decisive parts. And the British army if anything was significant aid in Spain. Now you say they were giving the British aid. Right before you said it was the reason for ultimate victory. you are all over the place my friend. (YankeeRoman) (24.75.194.50 13:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

Essentially, the fundamental point regarding Maitland's troops is that they were not the only ones that charged at the end (see Chasse's Dutch troops, who also performed heroically). The Hougoumont defense did secure Wellington's right flank, but this was accomplished through the involvement of British and non-British troops. It's just essential that we recognize the contributions of other soldiers here, otherwise a very incomplete picture of the battle emerges. He had fought with Ney at Quatre-Bras because the latter was a crucial junction that could not be allowed to fall in French hands so soon. Once the Allied armies were in a general retreat, however, then the French could have it. From the French perspective, the idea was to capture Quatre-Bras and outflank the Prussians, who were fighting at Ligny with Napoleon's main army. Specifically regarding the 18th: Wellington only fought because he thought Blucher would come to help. The selection for the battlefield is an extremely important topic, but it takes a backseat to the larger strategic situation, which Wellington understood very well by this point (he had some difficulties early on in the campaign). Who was at Hougoumont? Both British and non-British troops. Overall, the non-British troops made up the larger part of the soldiers guarding the woods around the chateau. You have ignored this part of the action, but it is actually quite important. Keep in mind that the actions around the chateau occurred over a wide front (that is, there were massive fights for the woods too, not just for the chateau) and, again, involved soldiers from many nationalities and ethnicities. Who commanded the army? Wellington commanded his portion. I don't really know who's disputing this. I would like an original statement that shows I said Wellington was not in command of his army. Regarding some other things about Waterloo: you didn't just mention "decisive" parts, you specifically talked about turning points. As I said, it's very difficult to look at this battle and actually come up with anything that can be reasonably termed a "turning point."

Of course the British army was significant in Spain! But the Spanish guerrilas and regular armies were also significant to the British and Portugese in tying up large numbers of French troops. In 1812, the French Empire had roughly 300,000 soldiers in Iberia, but how many of these could be used for field operations? Barely a fifth, less than 60,000. This was because Spanish insurrections across the peninsula demanded strong French garrisons here and there. Without the aid of the Spanish population, the British would most definitely not have won the Peninsular War. And once again: please also keep in mind the Portugese, who eventually came to make up more than half of Wellington's army. They fought very well towards the latter stages of the war. Like Waterloo, victory in the Peninsular War was a team effort.UberCryxic 16:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm, you simply dissmissed Wellington, sir, by claming his subordinates were very important (or had more to do with it), you then said 'fine' in one of the statements above about Wellington's role. Now we are back to square one. Wellington didn't have a portion. He had SUPREME COMMAND. That means all of it. Maitlands Brigs Brigade is what led the charge. Again I thought we were in accordance with this, but now you say "they weren't the only ones who charged". Maitland LED the charge and so did his brigade. It was they who bore the brunt of the matter. Same thing in the chautue. The troops in the woods were there, only problem was they were ineffective since the French almost captured the place. It was the Coldstream Guards that took care of mattters. The French had to have either slipped past these troops or overwhelmed them, since the fighting in and around the place was the main part. As for Quatre Bras, Wellington disengaged but so did Ney. Neither retreated.

As for Spain, I stand by my previous comments. Wellington's armies mattered things more than than the spanish and portuguese. The hit and run attacks put a hurting on the French but, the main armies engaged is what decided this. The size of both armies varied because of reinforcements. The source I gave above says the French had 65,000 at Busaco and a few years later had 66,000 at Victoria. It was never a stationary force. YankeeRoman(72.205.45.148 02:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

He controlled a portion of the total Allied army in the Low Countries, meaning everything excluding the Prussians (he did not have control over them). The notion that I dismissed Wellington is a bit silly; Wellington was a spectacular commander and worked wonders at Waterloo. But he didn't do it alone. He needed Blucher to seal the victory. Other non-British subordinate commanders also did very well, either at Waterloo or before (again, Quatre-Bras is the best and most important example in that regard; the initiative of the Dutch might well have saved the Allied armies). Maitland's troops led the charge in their sector, but they most definitely were not the only ones who attacked the French at the end. I think the only point we agreed on was that their charge was crucial, but it just wasn't the only one. Chasse's Belgo-Dutch division attacked the French ferociously and managed to defeat some Middle Guard units. The first charge in this sector was led by Detmers' brigade (around 3,000 soldiers), who pounded the French to the teeth. The Belgian 35th Jagers battalion then followed some of the retreating French. Very interesting point to make at this stage: it is possible that the Belgians and the Dutch actually started pursuing the French even before Wellington gave the general order of advance. The sources are a bit unclear here. Meanwhile, of course, Maitland's I Guards were battering the outnumbered 3rd and 4th Chasseurs of the Middle Guard. After the latter two took some heavy volleys, Maitland charged and drove them away. The rest is history, but that's mainly what happened at the end. Again, it was a combined team effort; both British and non-British units profited from each other's courage and tenacity in these final stages.

Now, about this pesky chateau! At roughly 11:30 am (the start of the battle), the troops inside the chateau were composed of the following: 1,000 Germans and 200 British. Here's the detailed order of battle:

Grenadier company, 2nd Nassau (135 men) - Located in the buildings
Two companies, 2nd Nassau (270 men) - Located in the garden
One company, 2nd Nassau (135 men) - Located in Great Orchard
Two companies, 2nd Nassau (270 men) - Located in the woods nearby the chateau
One company, Field Jager Corps (100 men)
Detachment of Luneburg Light Battalion (50 men)
Detachment of Grubenhagen Light Battalion (50 men)
Light company, 2nd British Guards (100 men) - Located in the garden
Light company, 3rd British Guards (100 men) - Located near the compound

As you can see, German troops far outnumbered their British counterparts in the beginning. Later on, from around 12 to 2, the composition was as follows: 1,500 Germans and 400 British. From 2 to 7, the British outnumbered the others, some 1,800 British troops to 800 Germans. Later still, there were more German than British troops in the chateau. It is also important to remember, though I have mentioned it before, that La Haie Sainte and Papelotte were also defended by German troops. Our focus on what happened just at the end is a bit childish. The large contribution of these non-British units can be felt all throughout the battle. The Coldstream Guards were there, but they served more in a supporting role.

About Quatre-Bras: Ney's objective was to capture it. Nothing less would do. Ney failed at this and Napoleon was predictably enraged when he discovered what happened (that is, not much). The 2nd Nassau Division was probably the hero of Quatre-Bras, if for nothing more than simply fooling Ney into thinking that he had run into a large Allied army, though obviously not even mentioning their extraordinary heroism given the odds.

Wellington's armies mattered in Spain yes. Thank you for stating the obvious. This is not the point anybody is contesting, however. The point is that Wellington's armies could not have done the job without the support of the local population. That was absolutely essential to ultimate victory. Who was "more" important is something that we can discuss, but it's also irrelevant. The British would have lost without the Spanish and the Spanish would have lost without the British. There's really no way to get around that.UberCryxic 04:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh also, no one is contesting the Busaco thing. Yes, Wellington was outnumbered there. The point is that you were wrong when you said that Wellington was always outnumbered. That is just a plainly incorrect comment. You still refuse to retract it for some reason.UberCryxic 04:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But you said that Wellington was a in command of his 'portion'. He obviously was not. I point is you were clearly wrong here. Just like you refuse to retract this here. And you now chage the Spanish thing. You said the Spanish were the reason for "ultimate victory". With or without them CAN be debated. The major armies were what decided this for the most part. We are looking at whoulda, coulda, shoulda. THATS IT! We can make up any story. We go by what HAPPENED in History. Clearly the British army was what ultimatly defeated the French and what pushed them out of Spain and then into southern France. Without the Brits or without the Spanish is irrellevent. Again, I stand by my comments about Hougoumot, both La Haie Sainte and Papelotte FELL to the French. Clearly showing who had to take the leading role. The Brits and the Coldstream Guards kicked the French out of the cheatu led by Colonel Macdonald. A supporting role? They took the LEADING ROLE. How is it a focus on just at the end? The end is WHAT MATTERED. Again, I don't understand your retraction of Maitland. His WAS the full brunt since Wellington ordered it. You also forgot to mention Adam's brigade, that took part. Another thing you forgot its called the IMPERIAL GUARD. The Maitland brigade didn't pursue second the french, they cause the french line to break and then retreat. The French regrouped and then were defeated again (Adams brigade). Again, The British led the way. We already know other units were in the battle. I don't understand why you keep denying that the British took the main brunt of the battle and played the decisive role in winning it (especially since it was Wellington's army which he led).

As far as Quatre Bras goes. I don't care about Ney. I care about Wellington. The notion that was implied was that Wellington wouldn't have fought without Blucher. I believe him fighting at Quatre Bras disproves this. He would've ran immediately instead of engaging Ney if this was true. The source I have states that Ney beleived he had met the whole army in battle when in fact he had only engaged Wellington's forward positions. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

Just to clear up any confusion on Wellington, confusion that I think is self-inflicted on your part: he controlled his army. Period. Duh. Let's see...in how many other ways can I convey that message? Wellington had control over his army and Blucher had control over his. I believe you are inciting trouble on this front just for the sake of argument. My statements have been more than clear. But if I confused you somehow, then hopefully now it's over. The last thing I want is for this little and very irrelevant aspect of our debate to cloud the larger point: many subordinate commanders were not British and they did a great job. Perponcher is probably the best example. He violated Wellington's orders on the 16th and went to defend Quatre-Bras because he realized it had huge strategic value. The next issue appears to be indicative of a trend; that is, you like to put words in your opponent's mouth and then attack that contrived argument instead of the original one. This is what I originally said about the Peninsular War:

Oh also, I'm not exactly sure what you meant or implied in your statement about the British and the Spanish, but generally we can say that the Spanish were key to ultimate British success and vice versa. Neither could have done it alone. Let's also not forget the Portugese, who eventually represented over half of Wellington's army in the Peninsular War and fought amazingly.

How do you represent this statement?

You said the Spanish were the reason for "ultimate victory".

That's a little too funny....and weird. What I actually said and implied was that the Spanish were key to ultimate victory; in no way did I state or imply, in any of my comments on this talk page, that the Spanish were the reason for victory. This last part seems to have been your own concoction. Now, I am a firm believer that only axiomatic languages can reveal unequivocal meaning, but even allowing for some discrepancy in natural languages should not have caused you to so blatantly misrepresent my statements. You are either very confused or are being manipulative. Anyway, I am going by what happened in history. I wish I could say the same for you. I'm telling you exactly what happened, and will do so again now. In the Peninsular War, reasons for success can be divided somewhat evenly between the British and the Spanish, with the Portugese trailing but still being significant. So if you wanted some numerical represenation: 40% British, 40% Spanish, 20% Portugese. Those numbers and proportions don't represent anything hardcore by any stretch of the imagination; they are only meant to give some idea about the relative contributions of each side. The British army fought spectacularly, but later on so did the Portugese, and the Spanish provided help all along (albeit the regular armies often lost against the French, but they did preoccupy the latter, and the guerrilas more than compensated). To give you some idea of the importance of the guerrillas, here is a quotation from John Lawrence Tone's The Fatal Knot, which describes the insurgency in Navarre. It's an excellent book and I highly recommend it.

While Mina recovered in the monastery of Irache, the guerrilas skirmished with the French on numerous fronts. The French forces in Pamplona numbered some 4,000 infantry and 500 horse at this time. In addition, garrisons had been reestablished or reinforced in Arriba, Caparroso, Irurzun, Lecumberri, Tafalla, and Tudela, and there were additional garrisons stationed along the French border in Burguete, Elizondo, Fuenterrabia, Irun, Maya, Orbaiceta, Roncesvalles, Santesteban, and Urdax. However, Abbe could not easily borrow troops from these garrisons. Those stationed in the Ribera were particularly important to the occupation, since they secured Abbe's supply route to the agricultural riches of the Ebro valley. The Ribera garrisons were also frequently Abbe's only source of intelligence from the rest of Spain. As a result of these constraints, the French could place no more than 4,000 men in the field at a time, and usually the columns sent out from Pamplona numbered closer to 2,000 men. Thus, even during the period of Mina's convalescence, the French were unable to retake the offensive.

The above excerpt was meant as a microcosm on the general situation that the French faced in Spain. Harsh military conditions like these were recurring in scores of other French-controlled districts.

There's no retraction on Maitland. Don't you remember? I'm telling you what really happened. The initial engagements at the end between the French and the British and the Germans went for the French. After this, the Dutch counter-attacked, hence Chasse's famous line: ""Forward colonel Detmers and charge with the bayonet!" The Dutch charged and broke the leading French echelons. The fight between Maitland and the French that you are thinking of involved the 2nd and 3rd of the Foot Guards (about 1,500 men) against the French 3rd and 4th Chasseurs. This was more of a protracted musketry exchange. General Henrion's 4th Chasseurs actually gave the British a bloody nose before Colborne's 52nd hit these French forces from the flank and charged with the bayonet to drive to victory. Van Eysinga of the Dutch 19th Militia Battalion describes the pounding that the 3rd Division gave the French:

There they took a position and defended themselves in a way one could only expect of the noble French Guard; it grieved me to help destroy these brave troops ... At the mmoment we had cleared the orchard, French cuirassiers approached us in anger.

The main point is....the Dutch were doing a lot of destruction in these final stages. It wasn't just the British who were pivotal at the end. That's an important fact and we'd do well to remember it. About the Imperial Guard: somehow there seems to be misunderstanding on its exact composition and final attack. The French Imperial Guard had several hierarchies and units of various skill and prestige. The Old Guard was regarded as the best, then came the Middle Guard, and finally the Young Guard. At Waterloo, the Young Guard was mostly involved in the fight against the Prussians at Plancenoit. The Old Guard participated a little bit here and there; they fought at Plancenoit and, towards the end, at Hougoumont. Two battalions of the Old Guard, in conjunction with other Imperial Guard units that Napoleon hoped would win the battle, led an attack around Hougoumont. These troops were not defeated. The attacks that we're both focusing on, and the ones that have gone down in military lore, involved the Middle Guard. The latter fought extremely well, but it was also outnumbered and outgunned. It had little hope of success given the circumstances. The main French attack was actually supposed to be in the vicinity of La Haie Sainte, to the left of where they actually struck (Ney can be blamed for this; instead of following the Charleroi-Brussels road that would have lead to the heart of the battered Allied center, he followed a more north-western direction that landed the French in the middle of staunch resistance).

Good that you brought up Quatre-Bras because it provides an opportunity to clear up your misconceptions. We have to remember that Wellington was generally uncertain about the strategic situation at this point. Even up until the 16th he was worried about the French striking at the Channel ports (a perennial British concern). Wellington did not actually think that there would be a fight at Quatre-Bras that day. In fact, he did not want one! Remember, it was Perponcher who acted on his own initiative to occupy the vital junction at Quatre-Bras. Perponcher completely flouted Wellington's orders. So you see, the fight at Quatre-Bras proves nothing in the way that you're thinking about the problem. Wellington fought there because the initiative of a subordinate commander forced him to. You're making the mistake in thinking that Wellington wanted to fight there, but this is not true. The last comment about Ney's beliefs is true. Ney thought he was facing a large Allied army and acted somewhat cautiously, despite Napoleon's direct and straightforward letters commanding an immediate attack. I don't see how this is relevant, however. This is a mistake on Ney's part; it does not say anything about Wellington. And I'm not saying Wellington did badly. Yeah he may have screwed up before the 16th in his general strategic (mis)understanding, but once he came to Quatre-Bras he got his stuff together and did very well.UberCryxic 03:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Blah, blah, blah....No, your NOT telling me what happened at all. I am telling you apparently. Maitland CHARGED with his brigade was what turned the French into losers (along with Adams Brigade), PERIOD. Wellington was in charge of HIS army. Very good, thats a retraction, you talked about his subordiates being the main guys. Now you bring up Blucher. Well, duh...Blucher had HIS army. But Wellington's army was in the main fight. You are now all over the place. You admitted Wellington was in command, then retracted with this portion stuff and now cover it up with Blucher. How? Before you were talking about subordinates did most of the job. I proved you wrong. Wellington being officer commanding shows which country REALLY WAS THE VICTOR if you combine that with the job of Maitland, the Coldstream Guards, the Scot Grey's and Adams brigade among other things. It was THEY who were leading at the forefront of this battle. Saying otherwise is just wishful thinking on your part. The others CONTRIBUTED, but the main job was done by the BRITISH. THE END Going over this is just a waste of fucking time, and shows you to apparently be an anglophob!

You also retracted the Spanish being the 'ultimate key to victory'. Thats what you said. It was the BRITS again who were the ulitmate key to victory with their army. Again, just like Waterloo, the others CONTIBUTED. Why can't you just accept these facts?!!Wellington's British troops were battle tested and tough from years of fighting in the Peninsula, from that perspective why would he NOT have them take up leading roles at Waterloo and other places while the conflict in the Peninsula was taking place?

Regarding Quatre Bras. Again, Wellington didn't 'run away' from the french. He wasn't forced to do anything. He would not have fought had this been the case. He would've just retreated IMMEDIATELY! He decided to make his stand at Waterloo since he knew the that the place favored a stong defense position among other things. Now please, your not gonna convince me. I have already made up my mind about this battle from the sources I have read and despite you pleas. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 18:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

Maitland's 1st Guards did very well, but they were only a part of the conclusion of the battle. Chasse's 3rd Dutch Division also performed very well. I hope you're not getting the impression that I'm somehow ragging on Maitland or something; really the only point of this entire 'adventure' was to show that other non-British units were also key at the end. In many ways, the Dutch performed even better than the British. It was the Dutch who broke the leading echelons of the Guard, not the British. But again, both were important at the end. Yes, Wellington was in charge of his army. Thank you, again, for stating the obvious. I really don't even know why that became a controversial part. This seems like we're haggling over every little and irrelevant point. My initial statements only convey the fact that subordinate commanders were crucial to Allied victory. Among these were Saxe-Weimar, Perponcher, and Chasse, as explained before. Obviously these men were not as important as Wellington, but they were important, and for our purposes, that's the only thing that matters. There is no suggestion that they were the only key to victory, but they certainly were key. What's happening on this front is that you are misunderstanding my comments, and I don't realize why since they don't seem to be that difficult. Please understand the distinction between being THE reason for victory and being A reason for victory. So far I think this is the part that has completely confused you.

The sense that I'm getting from your responses is that you're trying to show that the British were not only crucial, but were the key to victory. Is that a fair interpretation? I ask because I don't mean to be critical if I have misunderstood your position. If that is, in fact, your position, then you are, of course, amazingly wrong. A moment of such importance for world history really demands better understanding, and misrepresenting the contributions of the various players helps no one in that regard. We'd do well to remember that the French invaded the Low Countries, not Britain. Those peoples had a greater stake in what was going on. That's why they fought very well, at least partly. In the final analysis, the British were not the most important players. Collectively, the Dutch and German troops did more. The British were certainly a huge factor, but not the major one.

On Spain: let me just correct a blatantly incorrect part. The British troops that Wellington commanded for the 1815 campaign were mostly not those that served in Iberia. I'm surprised you did not know this. It's actually common knowledge for the campaign. The British troops in 1815 were not the professional and battle-hardened veterans of Spain. Despite that, they fought very well, as you point out. Keep in mind that the guerrilas did not just "contribute." That word almost mitigates their overwhelming presence. The guerrilas caused strategic mishaps for the French before any battles were even fought. In that sense, they helped the British enormously. The British, of course, also helped them.

On Quatre-Bras: absolutely Wellington was forced into a fight! At this stage in the campaign, he was still very much concerned about the Channel ports. That's the main reason why he could not help Blucher out at Ligny (he was too far away). It was Perponcher's individualistic action that forced Wellington to move the rest of his army towards Quatre-Bras to fight for the crucial road junction. You could say that Perponcher's actions on that day may well have saved the Allies from eventual defeat. Very important to keep in mind that Wellington could not retreat "immediately" because, by the time he got to Quatre-Bras, a significant portion of his army was already engaged with the French. You don't just retreat in cases like that (duh, military practice 101); you have to stand and fight lest your enemy gains a vital position.UberCryxic 19:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


I have already shown you. You can keep complaining about it and the like. It really isn't a question as far as I am concerned. It was a British led battle and in the Peninsula a British led war with THEM getting the kudos for the most part (and rightly so). It is not uncommon for the brits to have other elements in there army. At the battle of Omdurrmann the army of egypt made up a substantial amount of men in that army, yet the British led it and had many Englishman in it. Therefore, the battle of Omdurrmann is known as a British victory. I stand by my previous arguements. Wellington COULD retreat immediately, he didn't. You are not gonna convince me. I already know what happened. Denying this was a British victory is a joke!! Therefore, still being repetitive is boring. It wasn't just "they played a part'. They played THE MAIN PART. The Leading role with a supporting cast. THAT'S IT!! We are just going to have to agree to disagree, like I said before. I will just call attention to the previous comments I made. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 18:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC))

The problem is that it was not just a British-led battle. The battle also involved the Prussians, and they were not led by the British. You can ignore the Dutch and the Germans serving under the British, but certainly the Prussians were acting independently. And not only that, but Prussian contributions to the battle proved decisive just at a time when the Allies needed some huge help. As I said, the general problem here is that you continue to speak of a British victory without realizing that whatever forces the French had before them, whether you like to call them British, Dutch, German, or Suzzie, would have lost without Prussian aid. That is one of the things military historians of the period are most certain of. It's also a fundamental issue that you have to grapple with. We also have to stringently keep in mind that Allied strategy in this campaign was not "British-led." Wellington and Blucher were acting together in formulating their plans; the foundational aspect of their behavior in 1815 was to effect a union in case they went up against Napoleon's main army. Wellington failed to achieve this when Ligny rolled around on the 16th, but Blucher, resolute bastard that he was, decided to march to Wellington's aid on the 18th (Wellington was also eventually preoccupied with Quatre-Bras).

Once again, this was not strictly a British victory and the British did not play the main role. 75% of the Allied troops were ethnic Germans; they must get the lion's share of the credit. Wellington performed brilliantly towards the end, but his brilliant performance would still have come up short without Blucher's assistance. This was more of an Allied victory than anything else. I mean, technically speaking, of course this was a British victory! I'm speaking in the sense that if a certain side wins a conflict, then all the participants of that side are victors. That's very true. By that token, the Dutch, Prussians, and British were all victors, a statement I would more than agree with. Who was "more" victorious is a bit less clear, and I think somewhat historically irrelevant, although it does come up when national rivalries are at stake.UberCryxic 22:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The same message is true for the Peninsular War. Yeah the British were technically victors, but it was also a generally Allied victory. Like at Waterloo, the British would not have won in Iberia without (enormous) Spanish assistance. UberCryxic 22:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Still standing with my last comments. Yeah, they were the KEY to victory. British victory in both theatres. The End. Why? See my previous comments. Repetition sucks, so I will spare you the time. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

Once again, I understand your position, but it is based on faulty assumptions and a poor understanding of the historical record. The British were no more key at Waterloo than the other Allies and no more key in Iberia than the Spanish and the Portugese together. We have to understand that these Allied victories required everyone working together; one side alone would not have accomplished much.UberCryxic 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Once again, I stand on my last comments, I understand your position, but its based fualty assumptions and skewing of the truth and a poor understanding of the historical record. British Victories, enough said. YankeeRoman(68.105.183.45 22:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC))

Well I don't really know why you are being repetitive, nor do I really care, but it should be emphasized that these were primarily Allied victories. Britain would not have done much alone.19:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, other countries wouldn't have done anything without Great Britain. No Britain no victory. Same can be said about them in WW2. If anything I don't know why you have been repetitive since the first debate, nor do I really care. YankeeRoman(70.187.232.85 23:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

If you're saying and implying that others needed Britain in order to win, then yeah I agree with you. That's what I've been saying the whole time. That and Britain also needed the others to come out on top. They both needed each other.UberCryxic 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:French_Revolutionary_Wars/Archive_1&oldid=97329382"