Talk:Battle of Ligny/Archive 1

Archive 1

St Amand

and a some of 2nd Corps to attack St. Amaund, Is this correct because most of the II Corps (if not all) was with Ney. Philip Baird Shearer 02:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

As no one has answered, Using this source http://www.waterloo-campaign.nl/june16/ligny.3.pdf I have changed the wording --Philip Baird Shearer 18:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am currently at work Phillip I will check in against PH and make sure that it is correct if that is ok with you? Tirronan 21:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. As I am using an Internet source, it is much batter to have it checked with a more reliable source. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the sadder things here in Wiki

One of the sadder things in wiki is that if the battle didn't have the British in it and its English Wiki it is a stub... this is one of the worst examples though Liepzig was actually worse before I started expanding it. I am going to work on this one and I would sure like a hand in doing so. Tirronan 01:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Most English-speaking readers / contributors probably aren't interested in battles their own countrymen didn't fight in. Ligny is widely perceived I think as an ally's incidental defeat on the road to Waterloo, and hence not very interesting.Tirailleur 12:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

For a quickfix as the German Wikipedia has a much more comprehensive version, I suggest that the text of the German article is run throught Google translate and hand fetteled to flesh out this article quickley. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Having worked to fix the Malmady Trial article translated from French its a fix but not very quick, I spent 4 days fixing the English to resemble our language. Tirronan 18:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to continue expansion on the article, PH's 1st book on the Waterloo campaign goes into the battle in great depth and should be of help here. Tirronan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirronan (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Schlacht bei Ligny

Tirronan and I have made a large expansion based on de:Schlacht bei Ligny (the German version) and other informaion from Battle of Waterloo article and the Waterloo Campaign. The Army section was written by by Tirronan --Philip Baird Shearer 07:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly de:Schlacht bei Ligny does not cite its sources, so there is still lots of work to --Philip Baird Shearer 08:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have edited some of language but nothing 'plotwise'...there are some repetitive sections however, and I wonder if the 'Aftermath' section is not rather too detailed? It's still a very good article though; Ligny was in fact a very important battle and has remained in the shadows for too long; my compliments to the above editors. --{User:Summitscribbler, 15:01, 27 February 2008.

I have an English version of Peter Hofschroer's work so it can be cited but at the moment I am working up the French Invasion of Russia and have Jutland to take on after that... my plate is a bit full right now. --Tirronan (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

When I helped make a large expansion to this article in September 2007 I used American English. I notice that someone has re-written it using British English. One needs to look to the version before September last year to see what the original English used in this article was. See "13:21, 1 November 2004" I introduced the word "centre" so BE it is. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is still a stub

The Army section seems to be biased. There is always a particular way to show the French Army of 1815 as a good army, made of veterans in opposition of new recruits for the Allies. This sentence alone represents it well "This was probably the best army Napoleon had led since 1806". And that's a POV without any sources. if you refer to Elting and Adkin, there was a great difference between a veteran of a lost campaign (per example campaign of France 1814) and some of a victorious one as in 1806. David Chandler is eloquent on this topic "France's resources in 1815 were stretched pathetically thinly."

The fact is the French Army was suffering exactly the same trouble than the Prussian Army concerning the lack of equipement, good horses, guns and good soldiers. We should stop to believe that France was an infinite money-spinner, especially after the campaign of Russia and the sixth coalition campaign. Without forget that a good part of this Prussian Army fought against the French just one year ago, so there were some veterans in the Allied Army.

It does appear that there are people trying to raise more than necessary the final allied victory against Napoleon. 86.206.185.143 (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I resent that, Phillip and I brought this article over from the German page, and I was the one that brought over the fact that the Prussian Army was the worst fielded since early 1813. The Prussian and Allied Armies still had good units, 1/4 of the Prussian units were old line units and as good as there was in any of the 3 armies, 2 of the old line battalions routed a Middle Guard unit right out of a forest south of Placenoit at Waterloo by bayonet! That doeesn't change the fact that some 40% of the Prussian units were Landwere short on both equipment and training and with no combat experience whatsoever. The British Greys had never been out of England before, many of the thin red line were not the old reliables penisular types (they were suffering 20% casulties after the New Orleans debacle) and much of the Dutch/Nassau/Belgains were not much better. The English were at least well equipped but not even that could be said of the Prussians. Tirronan (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tirronan, you give a good picture of the Prussian Army and I do not deny it, I agree with. The problem is more the French Army's general perception some have. "This was probably the best army Napoleon had led since 1806" and this sentence move the wikipedian users and readers far away of the reality. We know since the antiquity that glorying the defeated and exaggerating its values make the victory even better, but it doesn't make sense to put too high. Lack of equipment and training were common in French and Prussian Armies. About the no combat experience, that does not change that the last French recent military past was simply disastrous, almost three years of decline and defeats (1812-1814), it does not make a good experience in combat. About the British Army, which was not made of veterans, we should not forget that they were regulars, so with a good training and in some points, it counterbalances the veteran' status. 90.9.24.115 (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Max Hastings in his book Armageddon argues that despite the decline in quality of the Germany Army since its heyday in 1944/45 it was still man for man better than the Western Allied or Russian units and that was despite being on the back foot for three years. So I don't think your argument is necessarily true, one would have to look at the lists of the French armies and see what the proportion of veterans to recruits were before drawing any conclusions about the quality of the French army. -- PBS (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In all respect, taking a book of World War II armies' quality comparaison for the Hundred Days is like comparing orange and apple. The last world war hold out 6 years (1939-1945). Reasonably and avoiding the French revolution, the Napoleonic Wars ran during 12 years. In 1815, France was exhausted. They already said "I give in" a first time in 1814, then one year after Nappy came back. No cracking for the Germans during the last world war. It may be that my argument is not necessarily true, but what about the statement without any sources the current article has ? "This was probably the best army Napoleon had led since 1806" The best army Napoleon had led since 1806 is the one of Eylau and Friedland (1807) because this is the same minus the dead. "In equipment and supply the French were well set with both" Strange enough that all accounts of French officers (Desales, Lachouque, Houssaye) of 1815 all claim the exact opposite. During all the Napoleonic Wars, the logistic branch of the French army was a total mess, comonly they were living on the conquered land as they did in Prussia in 1806 and as they couldn't in Russia. 90.9.25.140 (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Barbaro argued that the armies were in fact about equal in quality, I'd have to argue that the French Guard had taken a step down from the Guard of old but... Several others have noted that the French force was indeed a fine army with many veterans, it however was an army that mistrusted its officers. Both the Allied and French armies were better equipped than the Prussian army and I find it hard to imagine a worse trained force than a Prussian Landwere Cavalry formation but maybe there were.Tirronan (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Barbero argued that (...) and French officers noticed the opposite. But either you nor Mr Shearer did answer my principal question, the unsourced claim that it was the best army of Napoleon since 1806. I'm adding a Citation needed to the article. 90.9.25.140 (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

How about getting an account? I dispise dealing with IP addresses. I'll look and see what I have on the subject of the French army. --Tirronan (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong to not get an account on Wikipedia. 90.9.25.140 (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

French Army Section rewrite (Minor)

The French Armee du Nord (Army of the North) was commanded by veteran officers and headed by Napoleon himself, who had won dozens of battles. Directly under him were three Field Marshals, Grouchy, Ney, and Soult, all generals of renown and bravery. The corps and division generals were well known for ability and with several campaigns behind them. The troops of the Army of the North were for the most part experienced veterans who had seen at least one battle. While the mix of veterans was higher than in either of the other armies, many of the troops had never worked with one another before nor under their officers. Trust in one another and in their officers was therefore in short supply. For all that we may count the vetrans it was noted that there were many in the French formations that had never been under fire. In the words of Henry Houssaye "Napoleon had never held in his hand an instrument so fearsome or fragile." [7]In equipment and supply the French were well set with both,}} although the Guard units had to suffer standard weapons, and the Army of the North had more cavalry than their opponents throughout the four days of battle that would follow and end at Waterloo.

Object or not as you chose but here is what I found on a quick search of my sources and I have acted accordingly --Tirronan (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have anymore complaint to express and agree with your recent edit. thank you 90.9.25.140 (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Short tempered and class B

While I try (and often fail) to be as tolerant as it is possible for me to be, I have a notoriously short temper where it comes to smart mouthing from behind a keyboard. It doesn't take much bravery to do so and it would seem that some just can't resist the urge. I've upgraded this article to a class B and I think I have gotten rid of the last of the tags. If you find something you don't agree with lets try and do something new and different and do a bit of research (as opposed to shooting off at the mouth with an opinion) and adding supporting citation or rewriting it to how you understand it with said supporting citations.--Tirronan (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that but lecturing people from behind a keyboard does not take much bravery as it could be taken as smart mouthing too. And experience of Wikipedia does show this is often better to first express critics in the discussion page than changing the related article without having a consensus on the topic. About shooting off at the mouth with an opinion, I do not consider some registered contributors in fair position to use this kind of argument. 90.9.25.140 (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was talking to the guy that made the comment about this article still being a stub, again I noticed that he didn't make a single effort to improve this article and it goes to the point. As to the rest my only request is that you get an account, in your dealings with me I have no complaint. Tirronan (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Which Pirch

There were 2 brothers, Otto Karl Lorenz von Pirch and Georg Dubislav Ludwig von Pirch. According to this article, Otto Karl Lorenz von Pirch commanded II Corps in the Waterloo campaign, which means that Georg must have commanded the division in von Ziethens corps. According to the german wiki, Georg Dubislav Ludwig von Pirch command the prussian II Corps. Which one is wrong? TeunSpaans (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me break out a few books and get back with you on that one, however I do know that Pirch I, commanded the 2nd corps and Pirch II, was the brigade commander. I'm not that familer with their full names at this point and I have to get back to you on that. Tirronan (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No Hurry. And thank you for looking into it! TeunSpaans (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Major General Georg Dubislave Ludwig von Pirch 1763 - 1838, he was the older of the 2 brothers and had been promoted after Borstell complained about the treatment of the Saxons under his command. --Tirronan (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you TeunSpaans (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Repetition

Hi, just reading through and noticed that in the "Prussian retreat" and "Aftermath" sections, the following is repeated:

On the Prussian right, Zieten's I Corps retreated slowly with most of its artillery, leaving a rearguard close to Brye to slow any French pursuit. On the left, Lieutenant-General Thielemann's III Corps retreated unmolested, leaving a strong rearguard at Sombreffe. The bulk of the rearguard units held their positions until about midnight, before following the rest of the retreating army. In fact, Zieten's I Corps rearguard only left the battlefield in the early morning of 17 June, as the exhausted French had failed to press on.[18] Pirch I's II Corps followed I Corps off the battlefield and Thieleman's III Corps moved last with the army's various supply parks in tow.

I don't know enough about the subject to figure out which should go/be rewitten. You've probably noticed this already, but if not, there you go. Theinterior (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

'Converging to Battle' section; correction needed

Actually- where it is written Liege being south-west of Ligny, it is in fact North-East of Ligny. The mention of Pirsch 1's 2nd Corps arriving from the south-west of the battlefield is contrary to the fact that this line of movement was actually the French attacking army's direction. Joey123xz (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Order of Battle request

I think it would go a long way - and be no huge task- to add an order of battle table for this important battle. Joey123xz (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

6eme coalition

Can someone tell me what the war of 6eme coalition was? -- Zoe

6ème is just French for 6th. The Napoleonic Wars can be divided into a series of "coalitions" of different sides (the 6th was Russia and Britain vs France) but I think a link to Napoleonic Wars itself should suffice. -- Someone else 05:20 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Zoe

You're welcome! Thanks for keeping up with the Battle-Bot<G> -- Someone else 05:41 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

Pictures

@Brigade Piron: five years (from September 2007 until you changed six months ago) the images had been there. There is no agreement that articles have to be consistent with each other, only that articles have to be internally consistent. So before it is changed back to your preferred version please show that there is a consensus for such a change (WP:BRD). PBS (talk)-- 14:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Details of the retreat

“At 10 o’clock the order to fall back was given, and the centre and right retrograded in perfect order. Forming again within a quarter of a league of the field of battle, they recommenced their retreat; and, unmolested by the enemy, retired upon Wavre.”

• Maxwell, William Hamilton (1833). Stories of Waterloo. R. Bentley. p. 209.

“Our infantry, posted behind Ligny, though forced to retreat, did not suffer itself to be discouraged … Formed in masses, it coolly repulsed all the attacks of the cavalry, and retreated in good order upon the height, whence it continued its retrograde movement upon Tilly. … At the distance of a quarter of a league from the field of battle, the army formed again. The enemy did not venture to pursue it. The village of Brie remained in our possession during the night, as well as Sombref, where General Thielemann had fought with the 3rd Corps”.

• Mueffling, Friedrich Carl Ferdinand von (1833). A Sketch of the Battle of Waterloo: To which are Added Official Despatches of ... the Duke of Wellington ... Prince Blucher, and Reflexions on the Battles of Ligny and Waterloo. Pratt & Barry. p. 77. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

"The final assault of the Imperial Guard captures the villages at the centre of the Prussian line and sends Blucher's army reeling back" ... "though they had been beaten they managed to withdraw from the battle field in reasonable order."

• From Cornwell, Bernard (23 February 2015). Waterloo: The History of Four Days, Three Armies and Three Battles. Lulu.com. pp. 62–63. ISBN 978-1-312-92522-9.

"When the centre of the Prussian army had been broken ... The Occupation of Bry by General Pirch II offered a safe point of retreat to the disordered Prussian battalions; and, now that it had become quite dark, Pirch lead all the troops from this post towards Marbais, where they reformed, and whence, soon afterwards, under the command of lieutenant General Röder, they continued the retreat upon Tilly.

• From Siborne, William (1848). The Waterloo Campaign, 1815 (4th ed.). Westminster: A. Constable. pp. 251 ff.

@user:Wdford Given the fours sources above: do you think that "and the Prussian forces in the centre (Ligny) and the right retired in perfect order." is a balanced account? You cited just two sources, what made you choose Maxwell "perfect order" instead of Mueffling "good order"?

--- PBS (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I was sticking with the established practice of quoting the sources such as Siborne. I am quite happy to reword the material in “modern English”, but then we would have to do the same for all the sections and the articles – we cannot use Siborne’s flowery descriptions for the British efforts but then switch to cold dispassionate wording for the Prussian efforts.

I see that you quoted from Siborne pg 251. However if you had read to the bottom of that same page (which I’m sure you must have) you would also see the sentence: “The good order and perfect steadiness of these battalions ….. completely checked the further advance of the French cavalry, and greatly facilitated the retreat of the Prussian troops.” Why did you not focus instead on that sentence?

Also from Siborne, a British author:

• Pg 246: “To the nearest infantry, which gladly received the party, and, retiring in perfect order, bade defiance to the attacks of its pursuers.”
• Pg 247: “The battalion, however, by continuing in admirable order, enabled General Pirch I, on whom, at this time, the defence of Ligny had devolved, to effect the retreat of the troops from the village.”
• Pg 252: “The left wing, under Thielemann, maintained its positon, and contributed not a little, by its firm countenance, in diffusing a considerable degree of caution into the French movements in advance.”
• Pg 254: “plainly intimated that the Prussian left wing (Thielemann’s corps) still firmly maintained itself in a position whence it might seriously endanger the flank of any further movement in advance against the centre.”
• Pg 254: “never, perhaps, did a defeated army extricate itself from its difficulties with so much adroitness and order, or retire from a hard fought field with so little diminution of its moral force.”

Tirronan is of course correct about the deserters leaving completely. These were mostly men from provinces that had been part of France until recently, and many men still were more loyal to France than Prussia – victims of the contempt with which European leaders treated ordinary people. However the fact some men, who had effectively been press-ganged into a war they wanted no part of, chose to depart for greener pastures, is no reflection on the conduct of the Prussian army itself.

It’s also significant that Zieten was still holding firm at Brye, that Pirch had fallen back a short distance from Ligny and rallied, and that Thielemann was still solid at Sombreffe and had even attempted a few counterattacks as the light failed. Glover writes (pg 66) that: “The Prussians had miraculously formed a defensive line between Brye and Sombreffe, behind which all was confusion, with dispersed groups of soldiers milling everywhere. But, almost unbelievably, their morale had not collapsed and these disorganised groups simply sought someone to tell them where to go and what to do. Slowly order emerged from the chaos.” This is not a description of a shattered army “reeling back” or “recoiling in defeat”, it is a consequence of struggling to communicate in mud and darkness before the invention of radios.

Bernard Cornwell is a British novelist, who uses “artistic licence” quite freely in his prose. His approach is far from objective, as we have discussed previously, and his use of phrases like “reeling back” are hardly encyclopaediac – especially when compared to the contrasting versions of more credible authors. Wdford (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"I was sticking with the established practice of quoting the sources such as Siborne." If you are quoting someone then place it in quotes (see WP:QUOTE). If you mean that you were copying from a source then when several other sources exist you should summarise those sources in a balanced way (to quote Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".)

"I am quite happy to reword the material in 'modern English', but then we would have to do the same for all the sections and the articles" not so, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.

I did not quote more from Siborne above because to disprove the statement "and the centre and right retrograded in perfect order" one only needs to quote sources that state that not all the units retreated in perfect order, that some brigades did not retreat in disorder does not mean that all of them were in perfect order. So I ask again given the balance of the sources why did you choose Maxwell "perfect order" instead of Mueffling "good order" (the two sources you cited to support the sentence)?

-- PBS (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought I had been clear about this – I chose the Maxwell over the Mueffling purely because Maxwell is consistent with Siborne, and Siborne has been widely regurgitated in Waterloo-related articles under “attribution”. Siborne also uses the terms “admirable order”, “firm countenance” and “much adroitness”.

BTW: who is to say that Siborne is wrong? The “retrograding” here is being performed by Corps-level formations, and Siborne does not imply that every individual platoon marched in perfect step and in perfectly straight lines, in parade formation with no mud on their shoes. Obviously many battalions were seriously depleted by a day of hard fighting, some battalions had lost all or most of their officers, there were desertions in some units, the French had managed to sneak some units behind the Prussians under cover of dusk, the battle-field was much larger than just Ligny and communication across the extended line was difficult in the dark, and radios had not yet been invented. However despite all the challenges the I and II Corps retired under command, defending themselves as they went, and regrouped a short distance further back on a more tenable defensive position. III Corps never retired at all, and covered I and II Corps with the occasional probing counter-attack.

Re your reference to WP:Other stuff exists, it seems this does not actually apply to our discussion. However I quote a few lines from that essay that are useful and instructive:

• These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid.
• When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.
• An entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.
• This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else.
• Arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred.

It is interesting that you are happy to use Siborne’s Victorian superlatives in passages describing British actions, but are objecting on grounds of neutrality when they are applied to support the Prussian actions. At least you are now finding neutrality attractive – the blatant bias in these articles has stood unchallenged for ages.

If you would prefer to compromise on an adjective somewhere midway between "perfect order" and "good order", how about “very good order”? Wdford (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Guys I have a new book that I ordered from Amazon and arrived yesterday late. I'll get the details out later this evening but allow me a few days to review it. According to my investigation the fellow is quite well respected in the historical reviews. I'm not a great fan of Siborne preferring Chesney, but my friend has apparently disgraced himself so lets get a more modern author in here.Tirronan (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It will depend on how reliable the new source is - if it is another chap like Cornwell then it is useless. I am also interested in your use of the word "modern": Clausewitz and Muffling were eye-witnesses to these events, and Siborne and Chesney worked from the material of eye-witnesses. How will the work of a "modern" author be able to improve on them (apart from using modern words instead of Victorian superlatives, obviously)? Who is the new author in question please? Wdford (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry exactly when did you become the last word in the reliability of modern historians because I missed that one? I think that you and I agree on more than we disagree but please do not try to be the sole authority here. Any attempt to limit sources to those that you approve is not going to go over well. I'll get the book author and IBSN number out soon right now I am working 11 hour days and given a 45 minute transit to my job perhaps you will understand that time is not my friend right now.

Clausewitz and Muffling and Siborne and Chesney are established experts on the topic, who wrote from first-hand accounts. Many other authors have since agreed with them - some just following them and others perhaps pointing to "additional" sources which happen to corroborate them. Personal interpretations are personal, but a new author who contradicts the established FACTS will need to produce impressive sources in support of that contradiction, in order to be considered a reliable source. I don't make the rules. Enjoy your Monday. Wdford (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah we'll see, there are not that many books on the Battle of Ligny and you are not the arbitrator of sources either. That is the end of that discussion. Cheers.

The Eagle's Last Triumph: Napoleon's Victory at Ligny, June 1815 Andrew Uffindell ISBN-13: 978-1853671821

Andrew Uffindel is one of the leading experts on the Napoleonic era. He is the author of many books and articles in this field, including The National Army Museum book of Wellington’s Armies; Napoleon’s Immortals, Napoleon 1814 and Waterloo Commanders.Tirronan (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wdford you are either deliberately being obtuse or you do not realise that you are straying from the sentence under discussion. "the Prussian forces in the centre (Ligny) and the right retired in perfect order." I quoted Siborne ""When the centre of the Prussian army had been broken ... The Occupation of Bry by General Pirch II offered a safe point of retreat to the disordered Prussian battalions;" You quote Silborne in other contexts but, on this issue he clearly states what I have quoted. For example you state Siborne also uses the terms “admirable order” but in this you are either misreading the section or being deliberately misleading. The sentence is "The Battalion, however, by continuing in admirable order" that is about one battalion and to extrapolate from that to say that my quote is not accurate is disingenuous. Those parts you quote are not about the centre and right wings, but either about specific units (pages 246, 247) or about the left wing (pages 252, 254) or with you last quote "never, perhaps,..." (p. 254) which does not mention the order or lack of it during the initial retreat. Here is the passage I quoted in full without the ellipsis:

Siborne on the retreat of the centre of the Prussian Army at Ligny

When the Centre of the Prussian Army had been broken by the French Cavalry, and the Prussian Commander had been placed so completely hors de combat, Lieutenant General Count von Gneisenau, the Chief of the Staff, having undertaken the direction of affairs, ordered the retreat of the First and Second Corps upon Tilly ; and despatched Colonel Thile with directions to Thielemann, that if he could not effect a direct retreat upon Tilly, he was to retire upon Gembloux, there to unite with Bülow, and then effect a junction with the rest of the Army. The occupation of Bry by General Pirch II. offered a safe point of retreat to the disordered Prussian Battalions; and, now that it had become quite dark, Pirch led all the troops from this post towards Marbais, where they reformed, and whence, soon afterwards, under the command of lieutenant General Röder, they continued the retreat upon Tilly. Marwitz' Cavalry Brigade, which was not pursued with much vigour by the Enemy, fell back to the rear of the Battalions formed up to cover its movement, and now joined the rest of the Cavalry of the Eight Wing, in the general retreat. (Silborne page 251)

You have not shown that Siborne goes on to contradict this statement of his despite cherry picking quotes out of context. You write above "Maxwell is consistent with Siborne", yet Maxwell wrote "the centre and right retrograded in perfect order" which is nowhere near a summation of what Siborne wrote in the collapse box above which includes "offered a safe point of retreat to the disordered Prussian Battalions". BTW Maxwell uses the "retrograded" which if it has a legitimate use is for a planned retreat not for a forced one. To use retrograded in this context is more than just a POV it is wrong. -- PBS (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There is on the net a detailed description of the battle that is probably more detail than that which Siborne provides and it is based on primary sources. The site is Dutch so I presume that Pierre de Wit is Dutch, or from the name, possibly of French/Belgian origin.[1]

• Wit, Pierre de (13 July 2012), "The Prussian Retreat", The campaign of 1815: a study, Emmen, the Netherlands {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

De Wit is not a published historian,[2] so I avoid citing him in articles, but his website is extremely useful for a detailed account of the campaign. In this case the retreat is covered by 9 pages of text and images, and supported by 9 pages of footnotes. The chapter explains the initial retreat in detail and from those details it is easy to ascertain how confused the retreat was. To show that the retreat was not "retrograded [action] in perfect order" on only has to quote the start of page 6

As a lot of units of brigades had been engaged at different places during the battle, the retreat wasn't carried out by brigades. Of these units, often just groups of men rallied around officers and went back towards Tilly. It was there or later that units were reformed.

-- PBS (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Tirronan : Uffindell is fine by me, I have cited him myself on the Battle of Waterloo article.

@ PBS : I really don’t see why you are pounding on old Maxwell like this – his credentials are no worse than Cornwell, of whom you appear to approve? You might not agree with Maxwell’s flowery language, but calling him POV is a bit rough, surely? BTW the US Department of Defence terminology defines a “retrograde movement” as “Any movement of a command to the rear, or away from the enemy. It may be forced by the enemy or may be made voluntarily. Such movements may be classified as withdrawal, retirement, or delaying action.” [3] That seems to be in line with Maxwell’s usage, don’t you think?

The Pierre de Wit material was a good read, thank you. I think it shows – as do the other reliable sources – that the retreat was actually very well done, considering they had been encircled, it was dark and they had no radios. A group of exhausted men gathering around their officers, obeying commands, shooting at their enemies and retiring to a better position under full command sounds like a perfectly decent withdrawal to me. However if you have issue with Maxwell’s use of the word “perfect” because some battalions had become detached from their brigades in the dark (or had been deliberately sent to different parts of the field earlier as the battle evolved), then by all means suggest a different word. :) Wdford (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been rereading my books on Ligny as it has been years. First this was a major battle by any measure and it was fought with ferocity by both sides. Wagonlee alone changed hands 5 times during the course of the battle. That ferocity is not in any way transmitted to the reader as the article stands. In as much we are failing our audience. I'll give an example from another article The Battle of Jutland. In the second meeting of the main fleets that evening it is rather simply explained. The entire heads of German squadrons in line were disappearing due to the number of near misses from British salvos. So savage was that attack that Scheer was in an out right panic and his decisions showed. I am not suggesting that we use florid language but this is a dry as toast recital giving no real impression of the battle. Second, this was a defeat period. No it was not a battle of annihilation but attempting to make it less than it is does no honor to either side fighting the battle. I really do not like the "perfect order" use as I have yet to hear of a battle where the center is taken with the other side walking off as if on parade. It doesn't smell right at all and that is because we are offering bullshit. A single battalion might march off in good order and entire corps does not. I'm smarter than that and I assume our readers are too. In attempting to minimalise the defeat we minimalise the battle. Was that what was intended? The French did not pursue because they were exhausted and Napoleon was in ill health didn't push it. Given that the Prussians were sending cavalry charges at any formation getting close to their retreat was enough to discourage pursuit for the night. All in all this rewrite is a downgrade from what was there before.Tirronan (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the article as it stands does not do justice to the battle at all. One get's the impression that this article was written by British editors, who felt that since there were no British units involved it was of no particular importance, and all that was required was a brief gloss before referring the reader to the British action at Waterloo. A detailed expansion program is required. I agree that we should avoid florid language, but this rule should apply throughout, not just when applied to Prussian actions. I would avoid comparisons with the Battle of Jutland - where the "savage" British attack resulted in the British navy losing more and bigger ships than the Germans, and suffering a lot more casualties. Which reliable source (ie not a tabloid newspaper) suggested that Scheer was panicking? Wdford (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no it was brought over by PBS and I from the German article because what was here before was so pathetic as to not being worth the effort to talk about. There are very very few source books to go to. And like him or not Peter Hofschröer is one of the few. (I've known him for 2 decades now so the less said the better). As for the Jutland article none of that wording is in the article, and shouldn't be. IE as in "In Example"? The point is again none of the action captured and every single history writer I've read does a better job then we do. That has to change.Tirronan (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - let's do it. Wdford (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Way Forward

My first suggestion is that the "background" sections are larger than the "battle" sections - this surely needs to be corrected. Bearing in mind that the background material all exists in other articles already, I think we should summarise the background sections a bit more. Any objections? Wdford (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer to leave it. It does a great deal to illuminate operational concepts in action that allowed the Prussians to capture accurate intelligence and allowed it a 24 hour advantage over the British. The intent is to show the operational versus the tactical aspects. It also shows the brigade concept that the Prussians were working on. As to the French working around Corps as the organizational leadership building blocks. I would propose expanding the action sections with more description so that the reader gets a better mental picture of what was happening.Tirronan (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely we need to expand the action sections - a lot. We also need to expand the background sections a bit more, to clarify that this battle was fought over an extended front line, that situations were very different at different parts of the line at different times, and to properly clarify the impact of Wellington's weasel promise at the windmill. However the sections for "prelude" and "converging towards battle" have a bit of overlap, which can (and should) be cleaned up. Since I've already made a start on cleaning up the end, what say I start on cleaning up the beginning, and you start so long on expanding the middle? Wdford (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Expansion of the battle section

Following on the request to expand the battle section, I have used the text from William Siborne's account to expand the battle section and to alter the text describing deployments and immediate disengagement. The text is only one author's detailed account and more can be added to emphasise details and different perspectives. One modern book of which only a portion is online but seems to be fairly detailed is:

• Clayton, Tim (2014). Waterloo: Four Days that Changed Europe's Destiny. Hachette UK. ISBN 9780748134120.

See for example these pages on the meeting at the "wooden windmill of Bussy". -- PBS (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this huge amount of work - much appreciated. Big thumbs-up from me. Wdford (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Fleurus

I recently became aware that the Trois Burettes was notable in both the Battle of Fleurus (1690) in the Nine Years' War and in the Battle of Ligny. There were two other battles of Fleurus

• Battle of Fleurus (1622) in the Thirty Years' War
• Battle of Fleurus (1794) in the French Revolutionary Wars

Is there any evidence that the commanders or their staff were aware of the details of these battles, as such a knowledge could have been useful at the Battle of Ligny? -- PBS (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

More Images needed

This article needs more images. There is a good collection here:

• http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/battle-of-ligny.html

but the problem is although many of them are out of copyright, there is a watermark across many of theses images, so it will be necessary to find the original sources.

There is also a question of artistic licence for the description of the windmill on the heights of Naveau (AFAICT also known as the "Windmill at Fleurus"). There is currently a brick windmill on that site, and there seems to be confusion over whether it was standing in 1815 or if it is a later replacement. The next two articles discuss this issue:

The ‘Moulin Naveau’ (windmill) is situated on the left hand side of the road leading out of Fleurus to Gembloux, and was used by Napoleon as an observatory during the battle of Ligny. At the time of our visit it was in very good condition, although whether or not the original windmill was made of brick is debateable, many paintings of the battle showing it to be a wooded structure? At the foot of the windmill is the monument celebrating the three French victories at Fleurus (The Battle of Ligny Battlefield Anomalies)

After 11 am Napoleon arrived at Fleurus and was greeted with loud "Vive l'Empereur!" He ordered his sappers to build an observation post - a circular gallery around the windmill near Fleurus - and, map in hand, began to survey the battlefield. "From Napoleon's observatory in the mill at Fleurus, the Prussian positions did not appear as strong as they really were." (Henri Houssaye cited by Battle of Ligny 16 June 1815, Napoleonistyka

Why build a circular gallery around the windmill if it was not circular? Also those articles contain more images that would be useful if we can find the originals.

There may also be some pictures by Richard Knötel (January 12, 1857 – April 26, 1914), a German artist and pioneer of the study of military uniforms.

-- PBS (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The article by Pierre de Wit (2008) The windmill of Naveau - The campaign of 1815: a study is a detailed study which, to me, strongly suggests that the windmill is the brick one which is mentioned above. -- PBS (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Lack of citations in the "Background" section

@user:Howcheng I have reverted this edit which placed a {{refimprove section}} at the top of the section:

consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step (It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}). ... If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. (WP:PROVIT

Why did you not use citation needed tags? Did you try to find citations for the text that concerns you? Have you read he article see also article at the top of the section? It is called Waterloo Campaign: Start of hostilities (15 June) also did you look at the main campaign article: Waterloo Campaign. Are there any cited sources in those articles that cover you concerns? -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: The first two paragraphs in that section do not have any citations at all. My job is to vet articles for inclusion on the Main Page as part of WP:Selected anniversaries and I'm looking at 30–40 articles on a daily basis, so I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to do the research myself. Yes, this article has previously appeared there, but in the past year the standard for inclusion has gotten higher, so I've been re-examining articles with a more critical eye. By tagging the section as such, my hope is that editors who are more familiar with the material will be able to quickly add the additional citation. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 18:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you compared the article as it is now with how it was a year ago (here)? If you are tagging 30–40 articles on a daily basis without attempting to find sources yourself then you are not following the WP:V policy. In this case if you meant the first two paragraphs why not tag those paragraphs instead of the whole section. -- PBS (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the state of the article a year ago has to do with this. I see that it has changed quite a lot (nice work, assuming that you are primarily responsible for it), but when we consider articles for inclusion on the Main Page, we are looking at the current state. Furthermore, WP:V states "The burden of demonstrating verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (I didn't add the material) and "you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself" (not required). I am NOT tagging 30–40 articles/day. I am examining that many. I use the maintenance tags because visually it makes things easier for me and anyone else who happens to be deciding which articles are eligible for use in OTD. See a yellow or orange tag? Automatic disqualify. In a perfect world where I didn't have other commitments (work, family, other volunteer jobs), then yes I could take the time to carefully examine each article closely and attempt to do the research myself. At any rate, it appears that my tagging the article has had the desired effect and you've since included additional citations. As you are the subject-matter expert, it was far more efficient for you to do get that done, rather than myself. Would you be able to improve Battle of Quatre Bras#Aftermath as well, so that we can get these guys both back in for next year? Thanks so much for your work. —howcheng {chat} 18:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)