Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

As PM

There is not even a full paragraph about his time as Prime Minister which is rather a large omission? After all, imagine if the article on George Washington barely mantioned his time as President?

Style issue discussion

There is a discussion going on here whether or not the first sentence of a biographical article should contain the full name of the individual and include any post nominal initials (eg. VC, KCB, OBE) or whether these should be relegated to later in the article. I have tried to point out that this is standard style and part of their full titles but there are “readability” concerns. This arose because of the Richard O’Connor featured article and one possible solution, a biobox, is now in place on that page. Please make your opinions known.Dabbler 12:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

How come the Wellington momument in phoenix park is not in this article.

Misc

The DoW was one of only two people to decline the premiership twice, which seems noteworthy although I can't really see where to add it. As does the offer for him to command the Prussian army and that of the (iirc) the Quadruple Alliance in the 1840s.Alci12 15:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is the other to decline twice? It seems to me that both Granville (1859 and 1880) and Hartington (1880 and 1886) did so. And what were the two occasions for Wellington? 1832 is obviously the first, but both 1834 and 1839 seem possible as the other; or perhaps he refused it thrice? john k 04:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

'34 & '38 are the usually agreed dates in the sources I checked. In '32 he was unable to form a government rather than specifically delining the offer. You might see that as semantic but I think it significant. On the other point Hartington: Granville iirc in '59 at least wanted to but was unable to form a ministry. Both H & W then declined twice from principle not from having tried then failed to form a government.Alci12 10:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Most Noble

I'm wondering if it might make sense to leave this out until we agree. It does look pretty silly and we don't start articles with Dr X or Professor Y, so we certainly shouldn't for an unearned style. No other encyclopedia that I know of does this, and the MoS (which is anyway confused on this point) is not policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty close to policy, in that articles are supposed to follow the guidelines. See also my response on the noticeboard. Royals and popes are excluded from having styles, but not nobles or politicians. Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The wording of the MoS seems confused on that point, but it might be best to have the discussion there (if people want to have it), though there's a lot of stuff to read on the talk page first. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). I've reverted myself here in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It does seem unnecessarily pretentious, especially since it provides no new information. Including "Right Honourable" for commoner privy councillors makes some sense, because it provides the useful information that the individual was or is a privy councillor. But including "Most Noble" for a duke or "Right Honourable" for an earl seems unnecessary, since every duke is "most noble" and every earl is "Most honourable". john k 04:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• For anyone interested in defining future policy on this subject in a definitive way I have instigated a debate here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#The Most Noble

PS: If this pretentious prefix must remain here it should at least be "The late and Most Noble" Giano | talk 10:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely we should leave such honourifics out? Even our article, The Most Noble, says "It is usually used on legal documents" and this is not one of those; besides which, it is an abbreviation for The Most High, Potent and Noble Prince (possibly the daftest article title I have ever seen, and also apparently a duplicate of The Most Noble). It would also look daft to call him "His Grace", and the Queen would formally address him as "Our right trusty and right entirely beloved cousin (and counsellor)", but we are not going to add that, are we.

Can't we just discuss the point over in Forms of Address in the United Kingdom and be done with it? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No! because there is already a heated debate from last night here [1] going on through 3 sections and now a more official one taking place here [2] let's try and keep the argument confined to a few places as possible and try and reach a consensus. Giano | talk 11:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I was not clear enough: I was not suggesting that we needed to talk about the issue on another talk page; what I meant was, surely the forms of address for a British Duke should be discussed in that article (or a related article) without cluttering up all of the articles on each Duke. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the Forms of Address in the United Kingdom is the wrong place for it, ALoan. The discussion concerns what we're going to put at the top of biography articles, not what we should to say to a Duke or an Earl's second cousin if we run into one, which is the kind of thing the Forms of address article is about. And please let's not take it to WikiProject Peerage, either, which is unlikely to be the first port of call for people who're editing a bio and have started to worry about what styles to use. The Manual of Style (biographies) — the location Giano has moved the debate to from WP:AN — is surely the logical place, and the easiest to find. I'd recommend everybody to please discuss there. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

Yes, that is the right place to discuss what goes in the articles on Dukes; but it would be nice to have an article that discusses the proper forms of address in various situations. Forms of Address in the United Kingdom is the right place for that, IMHO, or related pages linked therefrom, but The Most Noble is all on its own (I have redirected the "most potent prince" to it, btw). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes you are correct ALoan, I have just this morning written a couple of paragraphs at Talk:Forms of Address in the United Kingdom explaining just what does go on these days on the drawing rooms of Holland Park, Belgravia, and Dorset, based on my experiences of living in that green and blessed land. See if you agree with my contemporary view of the state of British etiquette today. Giano | talk 13:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

History of Portugal (1777-1834) is now being peer reviewed. Please, if you want, go there and state your opinion. Thank you. Gameiro 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to state that it is now a featured article candidate. You can support or oppose here. Thanks. Gameiro 01:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Methodist Connection?

Was his family related to the Wesleys who started the Methodist denomination? Cranston Lamont 23:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If there was it would be a long way back. The paternal line of the Duke was actually the Colley or Cowley family. His ancestor Richard Colley assumed the name and arms of Wellesley or Wesley in 1728, after inheriting the estate of his first cousin Garret Wesley (Colley was also a distant descendent of the Wesleys back in the 1500s). Also this Wesley family originated in Somerset and John Wesley's family came from much further north in Lincolnshire. Arniep 00:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Some Victorian biographies claim the Methodist Wesleys were related both to the Colleys and the earlier Wellesleys by different lines, but Longford doesn't believe them on either point, and gives sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Anon Edit.

"(But none of the Wellesley siblings had happy domestic lives: eldest brother Richard was a playboy, and then had a bitter divorce; William's wife ran away with a cavalry general to enormous public scandal; clergyman Gerald failed to achieve a bishopric because of his womanizing.)"

I can't quite decide if this is unnecessary article bloat and should be deleted - being nor really about W - or actually needs expanding and correcting. For instance, the 'Cavalry General' was the then Lord Paget later Earl of Uxbridge and Marquess of Anglesey. He eloped with Lady Charlotte called by Paget's relatives a 'nefarious damned hell-hound'! who was the wife of Wellington's brother Henry not William. Paget's actions resulted in him being denied command with W in the peninsular - which obviously had military consequences as he was probably the only decent cavalry commander they had.Alci12 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it and will now wait to see the reaction. I'm afraid to say that sections of the trivia appear just to be a collection of all the Chinese whispers. The stable horse remark is popular but has no source, the dukes explation I can't verify from any source even the etymology dictionaries & give alternatives not that given here. I have also amended the titles to change when he uses his surname. He first signed Wellesley 19 May 1798 in a letter to General Harris and uses that form thereafter in his corresponsdence. His styles are prob best not overcomplicated but he was an Irish MP from 1790 (trim) - underage at that - and later for GB. But I think it will clutter things up too much to keep adding more materialAlci12 13:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a little to the trivia page. I can cite the sources later, but I assure you of their veracity.

Assurance is well meant no doubt but we need something verifiable. Links from credible sources As I've said above it's very tempting to remove much of the trivia as it can't be proved. The Dukes etymology is usually given as per [[3]] , [[4]] or [[5]]

I've removed the section on the illegitimate child with QueenV which is nonsense. Even were it true, which it isn't, it would need a citation to prove something no credible source presently supports Alci12 15:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple recommendations for A-Class and better

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, previous [day/week/month/year] might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
• Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • apparently
  • *might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 09:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Appearances in Fiction

In "He Walked Around The Horses" by H. Beam Piper, an alternate history story, Sir Arthur Wellesley appears briefly at the end of the story, wondering who this "General Wellington" might be. tharkun860 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That would require a spoiler warning. Septentrionalis 17:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Military Prowess

"He volunteered for service in the Netherlands and India, and achieved spectacular success, rising in a decade to the rank of general, never losing a battle, and winning prize money from grateful rajahs..."

As I recall, Wellington was defeated once, in a night action during a siege in India- unfortunately I can't remember the name of the place or the battle exactly, but I think that the above quote is misleading. Anyone else with a better memory than mine?

As a minor aside, I also changed the wording of "However his political life came to an abrupt end when he sailed to Europe to participate in the Napoleonic Wars" (at the end of the Early Career section) so that it now reads "...an abrupt halt..." instead; the small matter of his being installed as Prime Minister in 1828 ten years after (and the article's reference to his having taken up politics again from 1819) would seem to indicate that it was hardly an 'end' to his political career.

172.188.214.14 08:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be thinking of an incident that occurred at Seringapatam on the night of the 5th April 1798. Wellesley, in command of the 33rd Regiment of Foot, was ordered to make a night assault on a Sultanpettah Tope (a thicket or plantation) without opportunity to reconnoitre. The attack was repulsed with losses including at least one officer killed and eight men captured (who were promptly and gruesomely executed). Wellesly was separated from his regiment, got lost in the darkness, and failed even to effect an orderly withdrawal. He renewed the attack in the morning and carried the position 'in high style and without loss'.

That's most distinctly a defeat, but perhaps not technically the loss of a battle.

Agemegos 11:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

I thought about just leaving this at a warning for not having internal citations, but the size of the article and the small amount of references given changed my mind. The article goes over a whole bunch of different aspects concerning this person, and I fail to see how the references given truly encompass everything. Plus, the "Personality traits" section is compleatly POV and I question its encyclopedic-ness, in addition to the generally POV tone of the entire article, which generally comes out obviously in favor of the duke. This does not seem like a GA. Homestarmy 17:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Where was Wellington educated after Eton?

The current text says "Wesley was educated at Eton from 1781 to 1785, but a lack of success there, combined with a shortage of family funds, led to a move to Brussels in Belgium to receive further education."

According to Guedalla Wellington went to Brussels with his mother for a year chiefly to retrench expenses, and his only education there was 'twelve months of casual tutoring'. Longford states that he was lodged and tutored in Brighton by the Rev. Henry Michell for some time between Eton and Brussells, but does not mention any kind of education occurring in Brussells: she implies that Wellington's only known activity there was playing the violin. This being teh case, it might behove us to delete references to Wellington being educated at Brussells.

We would do better to make some reference to the 'Royal Academy of Equitation' at Angers, where Wellington spent the year 1786.

Agemegos 11:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of incorrect term 'Napoleonic Wars'

Removed term 'Napoleonic Wars' as this is a non-descript term on the matter.

I have also had material published on Wellington in respect to his defensive and attacking tactics in Portugal and Spain, I would be willing to add material to the page. Londo06 10:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Incorrect?" Who says? There is nothing "non-descript" or objectionable about the term Napoleonic Wars, which is widely used. Richard75 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, as a historian I can tell you that Wellesley was in command of British and Iberian forces in campaigns though the Peninsula and into France. He did not fight in the Napoleonic Wars. Londo06 18:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Have had to remove another incorrect statement regarding the term 'Napoleonic Wars'. Londo06 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Peninsular War was, as our article says, "a major conflict of the Napoleonic Wars." "As a historian," I can tell you that this is the standard understanding of the Peninsular War. So now we're deadlocked in our appeals to authority. john k 16:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this bee comes from; the OED says:

Napoleonic War n. any or all of a series of campaigns against European powers carried out by French armies under Napoleon I between 1800 and 1815, culminating in his defeat at the Battle of Waterloo. With the. Usu. in pl.

This term is sometimes extended to include the revolutionary wars conducted by France from c1792, during which Napoleon rose to prominence.

Since Napoleon did fight in Spain even if not against Wellington, what's the point here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are indeed an historian within the Academic community then you will understand that simply standing on your status to confirm a stance would not be tolerated. As a wikipedian I can assure you it means even less (reference EssJay) around here. I can assure you that the terms Napoleonic Warfare, era, and wars, all speak to me of the Conflicts of the First French Empire and its allies against the seven coalitions that were set up against it. There have been enough published works to support it certainly. So as to remove this statement and getting into a reversion war makes even less sense. Since Wellington was involved in various forms against the armies of the French Republic and First Empire I would think that the widest form might be the best, in this case Napoleonic Wars might be appropriate. If one were speaking just of the peninsular wars I would be tempted to call it the war of the sixth coalition and if you include the Waterloo campaign then I'd also include the seventh. However the man was involved long before that in the Low Countries, hence my thoughts on this matter. I can not think of a better way to lower one's image in the community that to engage in one of these revert wars. As a friend of mine told me, "arguing in online forums is like winning a special Olympics... you have everyone looking for the short bus to pull up." Remember the Military task force and the Napoleonic task force are watching so can we please all stop looking like idiots? Tirronan 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

'Conflicts of the First French Empire and its allies against the seven coalitions that were set up against it' That shows a lack of understanding as to the British reasons for being involved in a European theatre of war. My problem is with the misuse of the term, not the term itself.

The term is fine as part of a glossary, but after reading the Oxford History of the British Army and the links to the Napoleonic Wars, it fails to mention those words. It is the classification and designation that is in dispute, not that others outside the British military historians will refer to Napoleonic wars and not be at fault. Londo06 10:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

While the Oxford History of the British Army would be a great source I fail to make the connection between that and your statement. Assuming the lack of my understanding is again making the assumption that you have such an understanding and that I do not. I also don't fail to make a connection of what the British view of the various alliances it brought about and often played the role of paymaster to promote. Again this comes down to a simple labeling of the conflicts over a definable period of time. Now arguing about when that time began is an interesting byplay by historians but out of this the scope of this article.

None of this however addresses your engaging in a reversion war and the dim view I and this community takes on such activities. These articles are closely watched and this type of behavior is not well looked upon. I would suggest that you engage the other editors of this page and come to consensus on a stance on this. Further, I would encourage you to not take a stance of superiority in education or knowledge on the subject. I would submit that neither you nor I would have a singular clue as to who is on the other side of these keyboards therefore not a clue as to either capability, education, or knowledge of subject. Cheers Tirronan 17:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept that wikipedia is a place to promote knowledge and accept it as not a change in the historiography, but that the term is useful as a redirect, and serves as a useful tool to begin a reading into the likes of Sir John Moore, the Peninsular War and Arthur Wellesley. The term Napoleonic Wars is not incorrect, just not accurate as a term to describe either intention or specific actions. Londo06 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The came on in the same old way

Currently the article says:

Napoleon's tactics were typified by massive conscript armies who advanced in tight columns to rout opposing forces, combined with massive artillery bombardments. This tactic originated with Frederick the Great, and was soon adopted by nearly every major participant in the war, with the chief exception of the British, and the Portuguese and Spanish troops they trained. In almost every engagement, the tight-packed French columns (in which only the first two ranks and outer edges could fire) would advance, apparently unheeding of casualties. Against the ill-trained and panic-prone armies of the Austrians and the other allied powers, it was spectacularly successful. Against the disciplined and trained British regulars who stood in line in two ranks (thus permitting every man in line to fire), the column was a dramatic failure. Despite the demonstrated helplessness of the French columns against the British line, the French commanders in Iberia continued to attack in column. (Indeed, column attacks were used even at the Battle of Waterloo.) Thus, in many instances, a single British battalion would defeat an entire French division.

Until six months ago I would not have thought the paragraph anything but the historical received wisdom, however there is disagreement over this traditional analysis -- See Historical revisionism#French attacking formations in the Napoleonic wars, Column (formation) and Talk:Column (formation), so I think that the paragraph should be souced. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also I read with interest an account of the Battle of Sabugal where the 95th picked off any Frenchman infront of them who looked likely to give an order to redeploy from column formation. Of the 5 French colonels who faced the Light Division that day 2 were killed and 2 were badly wounded. (Urban Rifles page 109). It is also well documented that at the Battle of Waterloo that on a number of occasions the French were thrown into confusion when columns redeploying into line were fired upon.

Finally the above text seems to assume that there as only one type of column the "Heavy column", but infact there were a number of different types of columns for example the "column of companies" which was still in use in the American Civil War, for these and others (see Infantry Tactics and Combat during the Napoleonic Wars. Part 3: Columns) --Philip Baird Shearer 00:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly read accounts that suggest the French did try modify their tactics but never a clear one as to tell us the details, it seems that whatever they were trying failed to be completed under sustained fire. As to the later point I don't think that is a problem. This article covers the brief details of the events and armies involved in an article that is about Wellington and it would be quite unnecessarily bloated by a wider discussion of forms of column which surely belongs to another article. Alci12 12:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the section at the top starts off wrong and ends up worse. The system Napoleon inherited had little to do with Fredrick the Great and never did. Instead it was a mixture of the old French Army and half trained volunteer formations of the revolution. Add to that the insult given the Austrian Army is even worse and has no place in Wiki. The Austrian Army was always well trained and its troops would fight as hard as any in Europe. They were always well equipped. I assure you that the French army does not celebrat the Battle ofWargarm or the Battle of Leipzig, as great victories. I wish that tactical combat was as simple as counting muskets and good British resolve, I honestly do, it would sure be simple wouldn't it? It however is not and was not the case in most of the battles a simple matter of solid lines against ill though out assualt columns. I would refer you to Paddy Griffin's work on the subject. It is the primer to understanding Napoleonic Warfare tactics at the small scale. Honestly I think the whole paragraph so bad that deletion would and should be considered. This section is insulting in the extream to anyone that isn't a subject of the UK. Frankly I expect far better in a Wiki article. Tirronan 14:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'd agree with the first line but it's no use to wiki either if we play 'every army is just a good, brave, trained, organised supplied and led as ever other' for that is simply not true. Alci12 15:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

One other point, As Wellington frequently used the reverse slope when he chose the battle field, it may be that when attacking his army, that the French had problems gauging when to redeploy from column into line. All credit to him, but that does not mean that the French intended to press home their attacks in column formation. As this paragraph is controversial it should cite its sources or be deleted. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the Austrian Army was not that it was disorganised, it was very well trained and equipped, something the Prussian Army could not say through Waterloo. However unlike the Prussian Army (which was far more effective in the field) it was often poorly led and never had a General Staff system and the concurent C&C issues often ate them alive. However the point is this isn't a comparative of the armies of Europe during Wellington's time. We went into details that are at best circumstancial perhaps sliding into urban myth and have it in a bio... Tirronan 18:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Of the Napoleonic commanders, Archduke Karl and Schwarzenberg were both competent commanders. Mack was notably incompetent, and Melas wasn't very good, but Austrian leadership was reasonably good. Karl was almost certainly a more gifted leader than anyone either the Russians or the Prussians could muster (besides Suvorov). john k 04:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If by Archduke Karl I have seen referrence to Archduke Charles and I assume this is the same commander. He was more than competent and damn near ruined the French army when it beat him the 2nd time. Schwarzenberg was competent but hardly engergetic. However the issues that people talk about with the Austrian army are with its earlier era. The Austrian army that marched to war in 1813 was a competent force that marched all the way to Paris and defeated Napoleon convincingly. Now that being said I still stand by what my line of inquirey is... what is all that paragraph doing in a biography? Tirronan 15:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Karl is the German form of Charles, so, yes, they are the same person. As to the earlier Austrian army, Charles was defeating Moreau and Jourdan in Germany in 1796, and I think if you read Tim Blanning's book on the French Revolutionary Wars, you'll see that Blanning, at least, thinks that the Austrians generally fought quite well throughout those wars, although there top leadership wasn't necessarily all that inspired. At any rate, I will concur that the paragraph is an odd one for the Wellington article. john k 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This link goes directly to what I am saying about the line vs. Column debate. It should have been laid to rest years ago. That English speakers somehow think that the French army was tactically or stratigically stupid astonishes me to this day. I hear things like stupid and incompetent labeled to them and its just flat wrong. The real end to French dominance of Europe was when their enemies raised their own game to match. The Austrians of Wargam of Liepzig were far more effective as an army than the Austrians of Austerliz. The Prussian Army would never see another Jena. The British army floundered until Moore and Wellington. This speaks to what the French were doing. [[6]]

Wellington was not at Maida; and the picture of Wellington's battles can be sourced from Longford's Wellington, which used (but in part criticizes) Oman. The claim here is not that the French were inept, but that the French tactic was ineffective against an enemy disciplined enough to reserve fire, especially when deployed on the far side of a hill - and that Napoleon, not having fought a fully trained and effectively generalled English army, did not realize this until too late. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think, if I followed that was being said, the point being the French would charge from line or from column as the situation dictated not that Wellington was or was not at a battle. Paddy Griffon wrote a very small book about small tactics and how they were different then what our perception was. In the America's we think the Minute Men used Pennsylvania Rifles to pick off British officers and shooting the lines to bits... the reality was much different. I think what I am working to is this, the British consistently fielded the most disciplined infantry in that era. I can not begin to tell you how difficult it is to train troops to fire one volley and charge. Every impulse is to reload and fire again yet the British infantry would lower bayonets and charge with every intention of closing. This factor, along with the fact that the French often didn't know where the British lines were, allowed them to work magic. It didn't always work D'Erlon's attack showed what might be done, but the British Heavy Calvary saw to that...

Probably true; but were any of those occasions Wellington's field battles? He didn't fight all that many, and at Waterloo, he himself said that the French fought in column in the same old way and were defeated in the old way (not exact; I don't at the moment have Longford in front of me.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This may be a non-issue; when Pakenham counteerattacked at Salamamca, Wellington ordered him to form in column. Napoleon almost always attacked; Wellington almost always defended. If the column was the standard attack formation, Napoleon will have used it far more often. So what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wellington as a Soldier

The last major rewrite while not any worse than the previous is exactly why this article has gone from a Featured Article Canidate to class B. There are so many unsupported statements and damning critic of Generals and capabilities... all completely unsupported by the way... all provided by an unknown IP address. This edit is so POV that I felt like getting out pom poms and cheering for Wellington. I think the time has come to lock down the page to ip's and new accounts. Also after having my nose rubbed in it enough nothing in the article begins to have footnoting and verification anywhere near wiki standards. I would suggest a total rewrite from a cold 3rd person stance. I don't know when bio's became the playground of opinions but it sure has here. Tirronan 22:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I would support taking this out entirely; it's a POV essay. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten, concentrating on Wellington. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, I don't have referrence work on Wellington to do the job I would prefer and this is much much better! Tirronan 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Change of name

This said that the Wesleys "legally" changed their surname in 1798. This seems most unlikely; eighteenth-century spelling was variable: The first Earl of Mornington's original surname was spelt Colley, Cowley, or Cooley. Is there a source for this (especially for Arthur, who was in India, away from British legal machinery)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen nothing to suggest any legal formality, iirc correctly Longford & Guedalla just reference him using the new form in all his letters from a specific day. Other members of his family certainly went through the correct procedure of getting a royal licence but I can't find entries for all of them. Alci12 14:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Military Campaigns

'33rd Regiment of Foot Wellingtons Redcoats who fought in the Napoleonic Wars between 1812 - 1816' Just out of interest what actions did the 33rd take as part of any force acting against French forces after Waterloo. Londo06 06:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any knowledge about the 33rd Regiment of Foot. I can tell you that Wellington's army marched to Paris after Waterloo trailing a bit behind the Prussians. If that regiment was part of Wellington's order of battle then it would be so employed. More than a little care should be provided here however regiments were frequently detailed to other objectives. The Prussian army detached an entire Corp to assist in the fortress campaign that didn't complete until Sept. of 1815. Its very possible for a regiment to be employed elsewhere. Tirronan 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On a theme for the Napoleonic Wars: I was under impression that the 'Napoleonic Wars' ended in 1815, not 1816. Londo06 13:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wellington's Letter

It seems like this article is missing a reference to Wellington's letter, which I guess is a joke, but I'm not sure myself. If the letter is a joke, it should at least be mentioned somewhere (perhaps "Popular Culture") with a link, and and a debunking of the myth. See http://www.abc.net.au/perth/stories/s761972.htm for example. Dr Smith 21:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The stable mentality: why did he change his name?

The Wesley family are widely recorded in the sources in Meath. They weren't of any real significance, but were a minor gentry family in west Meath. This chap apparently is descended from the Wesley branch of Dangan. And they all spelt their name Wesley, for centuries. There is not a single record of this guy's spelling being used by the Wesley family of Meath before he took it upon himself to change his name. If the guy detested his Irishness that much, why don't we let him be described as "British"? It was his life. 193.1.172.104 05:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if he loved his Irishness he'd still be British as the entire of Ireland was British then. And so what he changed his name, nothing new there, people take these whims. Maybe he was just pretending to be like the peasent folk of the day in Europe who couldn't spell their own surnames right lol ;-)

Mabuska 00:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. So if the native Irish in Ireland under British colonial occupation were apparently "British" so the Iraqis in Iraq under US occupation are now US citizens? When it comes to might making right, with that comment who can ever deny that imperialism is the true ideological forefather of fascism.86.42.98.32 (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just consider that Wellington's family were "High-Church Tories," perhaps they became embarassed by the name connection to the religious dissenter (Methodist) leader John Wesley and wished to create a little distance. Imagine being a Catholic priest with the surname Luther or Calvin, or a Baptist preacher called "Pope," it would be somewhat embarassing.

Urselius (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• He didn't make the decision to change his name. According to Arthur Bryant, he started using "Wellesley" when his elder brother, Richard Wellesley, 1st Marquess Wellesley, as the head of the family, decided to change it. I remember reading something about it being an older style or something like that, but I don't believe he stated that his ancestors used it. This doesn't answer any questions as to why, but I think it should be clear that it was his brother that made the change, and he just went along with it. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 05:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture and Beethoven

I removed this quote supposedly from Wellington about Beethoven's symphony:

(reflecting his distaste for the more modern music of the age, Wellington remarked after a performance of the piece that, "Had the battle sounded this bad, I would have run away myself!")

The only other place I have seen it was online at [Reluctant Nomad] as

By God no, if it had been, I should have run away myself.

-The Duke of Wellington replying to a question from the Russian ambassador on whether Beethoven's Battle Symphony was like the actual battle of Waterloo
This sounds suspiciously close to his quote about Waterloo:

It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life... By God! I don't think it would have done if I had not been there.

which can be found in Wikiquote, Bartlett's, etc. I have searched for this quote and much as I would love for it to exist, I think it is a derivation from a derivation and thus not legitimate. If anyone can provide a source, please reinsert and note it as such.--Billyshakes (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits/improvements

Over the coming weeks I will be making significant edits to the article. Most importantly I will be adding references to the majority of the text and rewriting most sections. I will also be restructuring the article in an effort per article guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. I appreciate any help and welcome any criticisms or edits to improve my additions. Thanks. LordHarris 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Too much personal opinions and doubtful conclusions

Especially the part about Waterloo is filled with personal remarks and judgement about effectiveness of the battle strategies, troop morale, and the leaders abilities.

It even ends with a personal opinion rating the "quality" of the battle.

Lack of citations, notably about the German historian calling this a "German battle", since Germany didnt exist at that time.

Controversy between Prussians and English after the battle concerning their respective Importance for the allied victory missing in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htews (talk • contribs) 08:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wellington/Wesley/Wellesley--Interesting?

This is just a possible suggestion of something that might be interesting.

I just read, in John Keegan's Mask of Command, about Wellington being born a Wesley, later changing to Wellesley (Keegan 103). Since Wellington lived right after John and Charles Wesley's time of activity, I wondered if they were somehow related. I have not looked into this very much, and I don't know if it is of any interest. But I did find this,Wellington's Family Name Colley from the NY Times in 1894. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.6.196 (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The changes of his surname are connected with some heritages made by his father. It is describe in all biographies about Wellington, that has been common practice in that time in England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.16.120 (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Colley is well known about, but when exactly did they change from Wesley to Wellesley? I don't see it on the article, and surely the name of a subject is important.86.42.222.164 (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC):

The date of the change from Wesley to Wellesley was May 1798.86.42.214.4 (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling and Grammar

This article is appalling in terms of spelling and grammatical errors. There are several instances of made-up words being used, such as "learnt," as well as a distinct lack and utter misuse of punctuation. While this article is highly factual and presents relevant information in a clear and logical manner, the quality of the writing is decidedly poor. I am disappointed to see such an otherwise good article in such a loathsome condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.120.207.220 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Learnt is not a made up word! It is in common usage in British English and equally equivalent to learned. The usage of each is debated, but nonetheless learnt is a 'real word'. As far as the rest of the writing is concerned please feel free to contribute and improve the punctuation yourself (rather than moan about it on the talk page). LordHarris 23:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Lord Harris. Sioraf (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

'scum of the earth'

scum of the earth, but we made damn good guys of them. is the complete quote.

a source might be: Glover, M.: Wellington as a Military Commander.

the main reason for that might be that the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars consisted mainly of men pressed into service or crminials or privatly raised bataillions.

In constrast the French army was made up of conscripts. With professional officers.

--78.49.16.120 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)