Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The Battle

What in pity sake does, "the loss of two eagles," in the first ¶ mean?

Addressing, without actually answering, my own question, I quote from the Wikipedia entry Battle of Waterloo, Charge of the British heavy cavalry, 4th ¶, "From the centre leftwards, the Royal Dragoons destroyed Bourgeois' brigade, capturing the eagle of the 105th Ligne. The Inniskillings routed the other brigade of Quoit's division, and the Greys destroyed most of Nogue's brigade, capturing the eagle of the 45th Ligne." Dick Kimball (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

these? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The French Army under Napoleon aspired to emulate the Roman Empire, the legions of Rome had a battle standard known as an Eagle/Imperial Eagle which was extremely important to the individual legions itself for a number of reasons.Sheodred 21:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That sounds like the sort of knowledgeable and considered WP:OR that, unfortunately, we can't use? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The Distribution of the Eagle Standards

Napoleon tried to shape France based on earlier empires which had done well and prolonged, particularly the Roman and Greek empires. See: Empire style for details on the architecture of empires. The Eagle is a symbol that has been used as a sign of strength by many countries, not just the Romans, see: Eagle (heraldry). The Eagle should not be confused with the fact that French infantry battle formations closely represent the Phalanx formation, again, of Roman and Greek origin. Napoleon's intention was not so much as to emulate anyone directly, as he was very much in favour of using massed artillery against his enemy before an attack, but to use French columns as huge human battering-rams with which to crush thin enemy lines swiftly. And for a time, under less disciplined troops like the Spanish, it worked to great effect. Come Waterloo, the Brits and their allies were more than familiar with the weaknesses of such a formation, were very stubborn and knew how to deny a column's advance effectively. To answer the original question more directly, "the loss of two eagles" is similar to saying "two French standards were captured" - at that time in history, the loss of a regimental flag was deemed a great dishonour to any army and often affected morale. Officers could be discharged for losing their standard in some armies. French eagles were issued by Napoleon personally, and so were highly protected by his troops, and prized trophies by the enemy. Nobody risks their lives these days for a flag in battle, they are ceremonial, but they were also a means of identification in those days, as standards were often unique - if you capture an enemy standard, it makes it difficult for a general to issue orders regarding that units actions, so there are tactical benefits to understand also. The capture of standards in Napoleonic battles is often a notable event, warranting their mention to some degree. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 01:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be quite a long footnote! Martinevans123 (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you're simply seeking to make the article more clear to non-Napoleonic historian readers, who like yourself might have no idea what "the loss of two eagles" refers to, I would simply suggest rewording it to "the loss of two French Imperial Eagle standards" - the addition of "standards" alone explains what an "eagle" serves as, the added wikilink gives those readers a chance to look into it further, if needs be, and the French Imperial Eagle article is fairly decent. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 08:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I had a vague idea, before someone else asked, above. So I added the current link. But yes, it would be better to spell it out. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Napoleonic "eagles" were just regimental standards, every European army at the time used them. A regimental standard represented the regiment itself, capturing one shows that you defeated that particular regiment. Every European army at the time used to tally the standards they captured along with enemy guns and casualties inflicted. If change should be made for clarification then the term "eagles" should be replaced with "standards", if you still don't understand then you should read an article about battle standards, an article on the 1st Duke of Wellington is no place for a lengthy discussion on the symbolic importance of regimental standards. 123.243.215.92 (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

See Regimental colours - capturing a regiment's (or a ship's) colours was tantamount to announcing their surrender, so the colours were usually defended almost to the last man.

... hence the saying 'coming through with flying colours', i.e., winning or succeeding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Daguerreotype?

Why not use the daguerreotype for the article's main portrait seeing as its the only known actual image? Is it another case of "this is a better known image"? I keep trying to figure out when the word "encyclopedia" became synonymous with "Top 40 Pop Chart". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.215.92 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Or at least state in the caption that it was only photograph ever taken of the Duke, who loathed photography. Valetude (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Reluctant?

Holmes claims '...he also dipped a reluctant toe into politics.' A few lines later, he is an elected member of the Irish House of Commons. What did the earlier comment mean? Valetude (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably means he was hesitant to get involved in politics at first, not very willing or confident, but turned out to be popular enough to get elected into important offices. He was, afterall, Prime Minister of the UK. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Category Irish expatriates in the United Kingdom

I recently made an edit, adding Wellington to the above category. This was reverted by Somchai Sun, stating "Inaccurate cat - as he was British." I'm not disputing Wellington's nationality here, but he was born and raised in Ireland, of as were his parents and grandparents, so surely there are perfectly good grounds for adding this category? Fergananim (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ireland was in the United Kingdom during his time, so he cant be an expat in the UK. Murry1975 (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, we're going to have to do something about that ... oh wait we did! Fair enough, I guess the category Irish expatriates in England covers this. Fergananim (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The (1st???) Duke of Wellington

Of course he is just the Duke of Wellington. All the others only get the name by inheritance from him — and he actually earned it! Eddaido (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

For there to be a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., there must have been a 1st. See Duke of Wellington (title). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Concerning Wellesley's nationality

Here's possibly the best single article I've found on the subject. Please make use of it. Fergananim (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/wellington-won-battle-of-waterloo-200-years-ago-but-irish-rejected-his-legacy-1.2254416

Good stuff indeed. Should put the final nail in the coffin of the "He was Irish" camp. This shouldn't be about politics, nationalism or culture from a modern point of view - it should be about cold hard facts. And the fact is, this man wasn't Irish - as they put it: "From Ireland, but not of Ireland. Case completely closed. 94.197.120.110 (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic article, but for the overestimation of Irish troops in the British army of the period, but that's nothing new (it was always thirty percent, not forty, but at least the Waterloo figure is right). Alooulla (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

vignette

My objection to this recent addition is not that is not in the source, but that it is not very encyclopedic. Finding an example and then telling the reader what is means is pretty much a definition of WP:OR.--SabreBD (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording, which I hope will assuage your concerns.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks, I think I can live with that.--SabreBD (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Old Nosey

The Duke was known as Old Nosey, so what is the issue with mentioning it? It's more famous than most of the nicknames listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelisuk (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem, but it needs a reliable source. I also reverted the edit because it removed a well sourced name and screwed up the formatting of other notes.--SabreBD (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise I spoiled the format. I still don't understand why The National Army Museum website isn't a reliable source, but surely books aren't the only sources allowed. Still, I'll look for a book, unless someone else gets there first.Chelisuk (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

" In the popular ballads of the day Wellington was called 'Nosey' or 'Old Nosey', " says Rory Muir (2013). Wellington: Waterloo and the fortunes of peace, 1814-1852. p. 472.

That will do it.--SabreBD (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Chelisuk (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"The National Army Museum website isn't a reliable source", because regrettably it regularly proves to be innacurate JF42 (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Early Career/Netherlands

I have amended these two sections. Duplicate references to W's promotions had been inserted into the Netherlends section garbling the narrative. I have excised them and moved the references back to Early Career which seems to have sorted a problem with the citations there.

I have removed the aside relating to purchase because A) W's promotion was entirely by purchase and B) if it was common practice, is this really a necessary detail to provide? A link to an article dealing with the subject would suffice. If anyone cares to, that can be added in due course.

I have left the reference to the burning of the violins. Despite Holmes choosing to include it in 2002, I believe the anecdote is now regarded as unreliable.

I have amended the description of the departure of the 33rd for the Low Countries and the subsequent campaign to remove a couple of innaccuracies, clarify the context and tighten up the narrative- adding some detail where necessary.

JF42 (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111122151358/http://newspapers.bl.uk:80/blcs/ to http://newspapers.bl.uk/blcs/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have replaced this reference with a link to the British Newspaper Archive (British Library) website - it requires subscription to view articles (some uk libraries offer free access to it), but searches are free - this is the search result that leads to the referenced page [1] EdwardUK (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington's home . . .

Could you make reference to his home: http://www.stratfield-saye.co.uk/stratfield-saye-house-estate/the-house-grounds/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.101.17 (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611040229/http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/prime-ministers-in-history/duke-of-wellington to http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/prime-ministers-in-history/duke-of-wellington
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715141954/http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/prime-ministers-in-history/duke-of-wellington to http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/prime-ministers-in-history/duke-of-wellington

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203121128/http://www.dwr.org.uk/dwr.php?id=207 to http://www.dwr.org.uk/dwr.php?id=207
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216071449/http://gaslight.mtroyal.ab.ca/waterloo.htm to http://gaslight.mtroyal.ab.ca/waterloo.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Portrait by Swinton is not of Kitty Pakenham

The portrait by Swinton, labelled in this article as being of Kitty Pakenham, is in fact of Elizabeth, 2nd Duchess of Wellington. I work at Stratfield Saye House and see the original oil painting daily. It is not Kitty, it is the 2nd Duchess.

I have removed the image. Dormskirk (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Heraldic state funeral?

The article says that Wellington's funeral was "the last heraldic state funeral to be held in Britain". What is meant by a heraldic funeral in this context? It's not clear from the text. Beorhtwulf (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Anglo Irish

I think Anglo-Irish is a contentious and arguably derogatory term . It also fails to recognise the British nature of his life and country, excluding as it does Wales and Scotland. There is no evidence that the term would have been used by Wellington himself or his contemporaries. It is more common perhaps in Ireland or other places with an animus against Britain (e.g. France where many still confuse England and Britain). Please don't just revert if you disagree but put other points of view or supply references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathugeo (talk • contribs) 18:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should only contain a summary of what is in the main article body. It is not a place for grandstanding a specific issue. Per WP:BRD, reverting is exactly what to do if people disagree with an entry.

Your reference isn't particularly useful. I see no evidence that Anglo Irish is derogatory, and your own source undermines the idea that it isn't currently used to describe him. That source isn't particularly useful in an article about a historical person anyway - which should mostly use WP:RS sources from historians specialising in the subject. (Hohum ^@) 20:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the onus is on you to demonstrate the authenticity of the description, Anglo-Irish. The only reference I can find is another Wikipedia article which merely asserts this but does not provide any authoritative source. I replaced it with British aristocrat, which has the advantage of being factual and irrefutable. The quote is very well-known and often cited so even if you do not find it useful or illuminating, many other people have done, so I see no justification for you deleting it. Whether he said actually it or not is beside the point, which is that overlapping Irish and British identity was and is a matter of debate and political sensitivity, not a settled fact. Either way this description does not capture his Britishness and therefore does not belong in the summary. It does, however, belong in the text as this is an important part of his identity, if not the whole story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathugeo (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove that "Anglo-Irish" is a "contentious and arguably derogatory term" that you claim. I would even go so far as to call your claim a WP:FRINGE theory. The use of "Anglo-" plus some other nationality, often one that was once part of the British Empire, is quite common it describe historical figures with mixed heritage... Anglo-American especially, Anglo-Indian and Anglo-Australian less so. If one is "derogatory" then are not all of them potentially derogatory terms? If so, why have we never seen these terms being challenged by politically-correct groups or media? Since this is not an WP:EXTRAORDINARY form of identification, then editors have every right to revert your changes. Please note that you are on your WP:3RR limit and may be reported and blocked if you the article revert again. Also, your last edit summary "I am happy to have my changes improved but you should not simply delete if you disagree" comes across as WP:OWN-like behaviour. Any disputed material can be challenged, especially if it cannot be verified. Please stick to discussing the matter here – although it has been discussed many times before, if you check the Archives, so it's unlikey your edit will stick – rather than attempt further war-editing or POV-pushing. — Marcus^(talk) 16:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I added a very famous quote, I described Wellington as British because it is clear from multiple sources that this is how he saw himself (which is what makes it derogatory) and I changed his description of being a pre-eminent military leader as being before Waterloo not just afterwards. This has all been deleted without justification. I am sure the Irish specialism of the editor has nothing to do with it but either way I'll think I'll leave you to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathugeo (talk • contribs) 08:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

What quote? The "born in a stable" one? He didn't say it. See: en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington#Misattributed. — Marcus^(talk) 02:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"Anglo-Irish" as a derogatory term? I don't think so! No more offensive than "Anglo-Norman"... An absolutely absurd detail to get uppity on - this man lived in the 18th/19th century :D--Anglo Chartist (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington → The Duke of Wellington – WP:COMMONNAME, and the new name has more Google results than the other one. So, renaming the article will be beneficial to the average reader. Thanks. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 14:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. It might be marginally beneficial to the average leader but it will require several thousand links to be changed unnecessarily. Dormskirk (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Strongly oppose move! I believe WP:ASTONISH applies here. "The Duke of Wellington" is expected to mean the title Duke of Wellington, not the first person to hold that title – and in fact, Duke of Wellington (title) already exists. In addition, there may be minor WP:THE concerns as well. ONR (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose This would go against the general naming conventions for this type of article. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, The Duke of Wellington is the current title holder, Arthur Wellesley was the 1st Duke of Wellington. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC).

• Oppose. Fails WP:Precise. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no benefit to this. (Hohum ^@) 14:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:SNOWBALL – it's a foregone conclusion. — Marcus^(talk) 15:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Family heritage

The Family heritage section is a mess. We state that the earliest mention of the family is in 1180, then that was given land in 1066 for a specific reason, which would be impossible to know if the first mention of the family was 100+ years later (and there is no family for which we explicitly know why they were given lands following the Conquest - one simply should not accept such outlandish claims unless from a recent scholar with no interest in mythologizing their own family). Then it says that a specific member of the family invaded Ireland in 1172, again impossible to know if the earliest mention of any family member isn't until years later. Then we are told that Lord Wellington had the Wellesley name, not because of descent from any of these people, but due to surname adoption, so what is the point? Next we get an account of the Colleys that starts with the 18th century, then cites a low-quality source to tell the reader the name is English (even though the source itself says it can also be native-Irish) then we are told someone in the 16th century leased some land, then we get a 15th century person who is only speculated to be ancestor (by a stale source) then back downward to connect to a maybe-cousin whose name is not known, and to (perhaps) the 16th century guy again. Next it highlights a link to the Cusacks to demonstrate that there really was a genealogical descent from the Wellesleys, though it apparently had nothing to do with the surname adoption. None of this really helps to understand the article's subject (WP:NOTGENEALOGY). Agricolae (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. — Marcus^(talk) 06:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. Others may not like my fix, though. Agricolae (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems that there's been no instant reaction or revert in the first 24 hours, which is probably a good sign. I generally agree with you that the whole section was questionable. Normally, I would have suggested trimming it down to a more concise summary retaining only the facts relevant to Wellington himself, but looking back over the section I think it was tediously written and that nothing was worth retaining. Removal was probably for the best. — Marcus^(talk) 15:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Awards

The article cites a number of foreign (i.e. non-British) knighthoods. In fact he had over twenty. He was also a Dutch Prince, a Spanish Duke (twice over), and a Portuguese Count. He was also a Marshal in six foreign countries (including France). (See Roberts, "Napoleon and Wellington", p.335).

This is clearly too long to list. I propose to replace with numbers, apart from the hereditary titles, and cite Roberts.

--Markd999 (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

see Arms, titles, honours and styles of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington for information on his awards (they have already been put in a separate article). Dormskirk (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Toulouse (1814)

The article calls Toulouse a French victory. The article on Toulouse says that victory is disputed. (I think this is too kind to Soult; he was a political survivor who was in a position to claim victory on the basis of alleged intentions which I doubt he had. To my mind, carrying a heavily fortified ridge, taking a gun and three French generals prisoner, and then taking a town when it was abandoned by the French was a British victory; Wellington's casualties may have been higher than the French, but one would have expected this simply from the terrain, let alone from the fact that at least two of Wellington's Generals mishandled their troops badly).

I propose to align this article with the one on Toulouse.

--Markd999 (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sparrowhawks? (Penultimate paragraph)

"Sparrowhawks" seems very Wellingtonian. But Roberts ("Napoleon and Wellington", 2001) says categorically that this is apocryphal. It does not seem to add to the article. I propose to delete.

Markd999 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Defeat by Pazhassi Rajah

He was defeated by Kerala Varma Pazhassi Rajah of Kottayam,Malabar. Lakshmi shivanandh (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Dubious claim

The article has a line claiming that: "As he did not return to England until the Peninsular War was over, he was awarded all his patents of nobility in a unique ceremony lasting a full day." The problem is that the London Gazette says nothing of the sort, only that his letters patent as a duke were issued. Moreover, peers don't undergo a ceremony when they are created, except for their formal introduction to the House of Lords. I have accordingly removed the claim. Atchom (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Arthur Wellesley by John Hoppner.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

where is the mention of luck

had Ney not screwed up .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington by John Jackson.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Style

The Duke should by styled as "His Grace and Serene Highness" since he was a Duke in the UK (style of Grace) but a Prince in the Netherlands and Belgium (style of Serene Highness). His descendants use the style of serene highness in the Netherlands, as is given by that title.RexAntica (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any source here that style is used? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is a legal case concerning the Duke, in which he is also referred to as the Prince of Waterloo https://www.dekamer.be/doc/qrva/pdf/52/52k0066.pdf . Here is the royal assent which made him a Prince with that style. https://www.coursehero.com/file/p5aclda/Deze-man-had-in-de-Napoleontische-oorlogen-zijn-adelspapieren-verloren-zij/ . In the Netherlands Princes, in this case the Prince of Waterloo (Prins van Waterloo), are afforded the style of "Doorluchtigheid", meaning Serene Highness. Granted, it is unlikely that he used the title in the UK, but Serene Highness outranks Grace as set by the precedents of His Majesty King George V, so we should put both styles on the page. The first, Grace, for the UK, and the second, Serene Highness, for the Netherlands (and Belgium). RexAntica (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Wellington's Potential

Hello all! This is request for a group effort in improving Wellington.

Wellington is a critical historical figure of the Napoleonic Wars, and Britain as a whole. He's a well known, and often well liked figure, his article reflects that with the plentiful of passionate edits its received. Despite this, this article is standing at B quality (while his military career article stands at G.A.) I feel this is a strange place for an article with a lot of potential, and that it just needs attention, better yet most of the article's issues seem very superficial. I am not a experienced editor by any means, but I think it would be a fun effort to improve old nosey!

Some things I've noticed

- Use of idioms: I'm always against the use of idioms in encyclopedic articles, and there seems to be numerous ones in Wellington, I've already removed some and plan to tackle the rest very soon.

- Quirks of tone: Some of these are pretty easy to catch such as "The last of the Guard retreated headlong. A ripple of panic passed through the French lines as the astounding news spread..." this reads like a novel, and is entertaining writing, but is out of place for a encyclopedic article.

- Odd Structure: The article has strange titles (I.E. "Battle" in the Hundred Days section- aptly this should be just "Battle of Waterloo," also "Back in Britain" as a header reads more like an essay) and sometimes even stranger structure in these sections, this is a pretty easy fix once again. I think some sections could also very easily be merged.

I understand these things I've pointed out here are quite minimal, and that there are possibly plenty more things dwelling in the citations preventing its improvement, but if there is clear interest from the community, those can be tackled in due time. So I'm asking, is there any interest in improving Wellington? Or will he just remain positioned on the reverse slope of B quality. Thanks. Chariotsacha (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I spent a lot of time back in March 2012 getting this article, much of which had been unsourced, up to B-class. If you think you can improve it further that would be great. Dormskirk (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Dormskirk, great work on Wellington over the years! Chariotsacha (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"undefeated in battle"

I've removed the statement that he was 'was undefeated in battle', there is no reference for this statement. It is also incorrect:

11th May 1811, Pombal Portugal 12 May 1811, Redinha Portugal. 5th May to the 16th June 1811, Second Siege of Badajoz Spain. 7th to the 25th July 1812, First siege of San Sebastian 19th September to the 21st October 1812, Siege of Burgos 25 september 1812, El Boden Spain 25–29 October 1812, Tordesillas

He was an objectively good general, he does not need falsehoods.

I don't think there's any cause for insult; I don't think people ignore truth so much as are unaware of these minor battles. Either that or they mix him up with the Duke of Marlborough, who actually was undefeated in battle. Have edited your wording as a result. 2A00:23C5:CE1C:DB01:DC1B:A011:F1E2:6078 (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Seringapatam night attack

On the section on the night attack how is it known that the first account is right and the one by the other guy is wrong, also if the other is known to be wrong why is it included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestar47 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

8th Company?

The caption of this image claims the standard of the 8th Company is being displayed. I'm not seeing any standard at all in that picture. SpinningSpark 16:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The caption says "Reenactors of the 33rd Regiment of Foot Wellington's Redcoats who fought in the Napoleonic Wars, 1812–1815, here showing the standard line 8th Company". My understanding is that a "a standard Line Infantry Regiment" was made up of a number of "standard Line Infantry Companies". See for example this article which portrays a "standard line company".Dormskirk (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I completely misread the meaning of the caption. SpinningSpark 17:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Old Guard or Middle Guard

In the Battle of Waterloo section it says "The attack of the Imperial Guards was mounted by five battalions of the Middle Guard, and not by the Grenadiers or Chasseurs of the Old Guard." Why is it necessary to make such a qualification? Is this a common misunderstanding? It is especially confusing as Chasseurs are repeatedly mentioned taking part in the attack after this statement. SpinningSpark 17:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not my area but I think the article is just trying to explain Napoleon's tactics i.e. the implication is that he deliberately held back the Grenadiers and Chasseurs of the Old Guard. Other editors may have greater historical insight. Dormskirk (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Srirangapatnam: Tipu Sultan's death

According to Dalrymple 2019 (William Dalrymple, The Anarchy, Bloomsbury, London p 350) it was the leader of the attack, Major General Baird, who found Tipu's body and took his pulse.

I'm not an experienced editor and I don't know how to resolve a situation where there are two discordant sources. 2A00:23C6:3095:3B01:B506:85D0:8037:D0C2 (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)