Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 17:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Nominator(s): User:MarcusBritish (talk)

Prior ACR can be found here.

• Support. Unfortunately the last review effectively timed out but my opinion from that review still stands. I think it currently meets all of our ACR criteria. It is structured, organised, meets WP/MOS etc and it is well referenced and explained. Any issues I had with it have been resolved. Woody (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Per Woody's comments above. I supported this last time through as well.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• I don't disagree with Woody's assessment, but OTOH I don't agree that the last one was closed simply because the clock ran out; some of the points raised by the opposers haven't been dealt with. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

- Yes, they have in most respects. People just aren't reviewing the edit history and my comments hard enough before saying this. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

• I concur with Dan's assessment. Both FileFoo and AR have raised valid points that may be enough to block promotion if they remain unaddressed. On a procedural note, the previous review was closed on 11 July and was renominated the following day. It's usual to deal with outstanding objections from the previous review before renominating. Finally, although it doesn't relate directly to the article status, I'm troubled by the lack of civility in some of the nominator's responses on the original review. It's perhaps worth putting a marker down here that we expect all business to be conducted in a collegial atmosphere and such rudeness to our reviewers won't be tolerated. EyeSerene^talk 14:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• - "Rudeness" is subjective. I won't be rebuked by anyone based on their personal opinion of me so please, don't bother, you would only cause a fuss. Simply put - I questioned his concerns, he opposed my questions rather than simply answering them - heads clashed. His comments were more "demanding" than "recommendations", and he started to become pushy, stopping just short of what I would consider "bullying". I don't come to Wiki to "do" anything for anyone. Hence why we are all volunteers. That includes mere gnomes, editors, co-ords AND admins. I don't expect anyone to treat me as though they have a high and mighty position to be bowed down to. I do not give respect. People must earn it. I work with people on a 1:1 basis, and do not give respect just because some guy has written 500 articles and given 1000 ACRs over the years. That does not show character or social interaction, it just shows that he likes to write/review a lot. Respect comes from social-interaction. If heads butt, respect fails to form. Simple. You may respect AR all you like, but please, don't be a sycophant - it only makes such people more boastful and arrogant. Praise for anyone is good, sucking-up to people is weird - I would never let anyone raise me above any status that I don't want to be identified as. Wiki isn't a place for egos. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

• It might be helpful if you could list the points that you felt weren't addressed, particularly if you think there is anything outstanding from AustralianRupert given what transpired there. I think the reason that this was restarted was that the nominator couldn't see anything outstanding (that was certainly the impression I got). Fifelfoo's seemed resolved and I lost the point that AustralianRupert was trying to make in the tête-à-tête. If you have an issue with the nominator then it is customary to discuss it with the nominator on the talkpage, not here. Woody (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Woody. Regarding your second point, in the light of this and general concerns raised about review processes becoming ever more confrontational I felt it was worth breaking with tradition on this occasion, though of course I don't want to derail the review; you're right to point out that our focus here should be on the article itself.

Regarding the previous review, I see the following points remaining unaddressed:

From Filefoo: the four points marked "not done". MarcusBritish has responded to each of these in some detail, but because they involve A1 which is pretty much non-negotiable, and because MarcusBritish has asked questions of the reviewer in their responses, it would be useful to see Filefoo's replies before making a decision on those points.

- Everything is negotiable. Wiki has standards, and guidelines, not iron-clad rules. The not done items on Fifelfoo's comments were more to do with citation formatting, and nothing to do with citation content. There is no specific format required - APA, Harvard, etc, is the choice of the editor - reviewers cannot demand citations be changed to their preferred citation-style. They can only identify where there are missing bits on information in the citation that would fail for any style: eg publishing year. Fiflefoo seems to adopt a style that requires Chapter Names to be identified where the author is an Editor. I do not see the need for Chapter Names, if the Page is given. It is not a required field in the MOS. Not is it non-negotiable whether I include Chapter Names. Most of his other points - those that didn't meet any style - were dealt with, and meet a high standard of citation. I doubt anyone can question my citations - they are thorough and organised. I generally follow the Oxford referencing style - because it's British, as am I, than any American referencing style. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

- I have 'poked' Fiflefoo for feedback on the Not dones, and a final vote, several times. He did not respond - so it's out of my hands. I can't force the man to do any more than he has, although some of me questions remain unanswered and his vote was not secured. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

From Australian Rupert: Obviously there's an unstruck "oppose" at the start of that section, and the following points are unaddressed and not marked as "suggestions only":

• "the last part of the first paragraph in the Military career section needs a citation as it appears to be uncited"

- Long dealt with. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

• "same as above for the last part of the second and fourth paragraphs of the Generalship section" (my strikeout)

- Long dealt with. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

• "irregular capitalisation: "only faced Napoleon's Marshals" should probably be "only faced Napoleon's marshals" (as it is an improper noun, I believe)"

- Long dealt with. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

• "there is information in the lead, which is not presented in the body of the article [...]"

- Long dealt with. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

• "to be honest, I'm not sure that Footnote A is acceptable to act as a citation for the outcome of the battles [...]"

- Long dealt with. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

• "I'm not sure that it is acceptable to cite a Wikipedia page as an inline citation as you have for Note # 3 [...]"

- Long dealt with. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

I'm trying to look at this as a neutral ACR closer and therefore making no comment on the points themselves, though given ARs experience in writing and reviewing I'm sure they're all spot on. I hope this helps explain why I believe there was more to the previous outcome than just a timeout. EyeSerene^talk 17:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

- Sorry to disappoint you EyeSerene, but between ARs review and closure, there were plenty of changes, most of which indirectly masked his points. However, as he failed to respond to those changes I have not checked them all off. You state they are "unaddressed" [sic], however, every one you quoted has long since been addressed. Perhaps you didn't look closely enough at the edit history before jumping to conclusions and commenting? Furthermore, I would appreciate if you conducted your own review instead of throwing hand-me-down remarks from reviewers who I am not on good terms with. Such behaviour only serves to prolong disputes, and is rather annoying as it feels more like harassment than a review. If I didn't agree with his comments the first time, I have no reason to agree a second time through third parties, given that you haven't added any further thoughts to them. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

Fifelfoo is on a wikibreak for at least three months, given that, and reading Marcus' explanations I saw them as resolved (and the actual refs compliant with our guidelines). AustralianRupert's oppose was effectively "struck" when he disengaged from the review. I agree that the first three points need to be addressed. The next three however I don't. All the info in the lead seems covered in the article to me, can you point out a specific area of concern? Footnote A no longer exists and each row now has a citation which negates that concern. Wikipedia isn't used a source in the article either. Woody (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments The article is really good work, well sourced and I am leaning towards supporting it. A few things that need to be addressed before I can do that:
• Section "Commissions and promotions", third paragraph. You should also explain that not only that General Moore was killed but also the British were ousted from the Peninsula altogether and forced to re-embark; thus Wellington's proposition to resend an army to the Peninsula.  Done and referenced.
• Section "Allied commander": phrase "Napoleon's [...] attempt to regain power" just doesn't sound right. He successfully regained power, had a new constitution approved by plebiscite. Could you please rephrase?  Done ?

• - I think this was perhaps a minor error in my opinion. I intended to imply that Napoleon wanted to "regain power across Europe", as many believe it was Napoleon's intention to destroy the 7th Coalition and reconquer Europe. As this is a subjective theory though, I'm simply going to change "regain" to "retain". As you say, he did regain power - but only of France - previous Allies now stood against him, eg the Dutch. I don't think it's wrong to say that he had no choice but to fight to retain the power he had regained, as no one would negotiate with him. Let me know if you approve of this, or dispute it further. As long as it maintains a NPOV, that's the main thing. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

• Section "Generalship": "In April 1809, Wellington returned to Portugal with 28,000 British and 16,000 Portuguese troops under his command—the French Army of Spain numbered 360,000". That is true, but it can be misleading to an unadvised reader. Of these forces, most were tied down in garrisons, busy fighting the guerillos and securing the long supply lines. Only a fraction was available to fight Wellington in Portugal and western Spain. Done

• - Rothenberg concurs! :) Ma®©usBritish (talk)

• Same section: "Wellington faced the French Grande Armée, an overpowering force..". The Grande Armee never fought in Spain. You could rephrase by saying, for instance that he faced many of the battle-hardened veterans of the Grande Armee.

• - That's what I thought, initially. Until I read Grand Armée. If you look in the infobox it lists Engagements the Grand Armée fought in. In also lists 4 in the Peninsular, two of those being the battles of Talavera and Vitoria, which were versus Wellington. Can you confirm for me whether that article is incorrect, please, so I can find a better way of re-writing the part you mentioned. Thanks. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

I know that the respective article has a few issues and this is one of them. The Grande Armee actually never fought in Iberia. There were three Grande Armees (it was called that because it was the main French army) : 1st one created in 1804 and disbanded in 1807 ; 2nd in 1809 (styled : Grande Armee d'Allemagne - The Grand Army of Germany)fought against the Austrians (Fifth Coalition) and third created in 1812 and disbanded in 1814. The 1815 army, which fought at Ligny, quatre Bras and Waterloo was called the "Army of the North". Coming back to the Peninsula, there were various armies there, usually with independent commanders reporting directly to Napoleon (via Berthier) : Army of Spain (under Joseph and Jourdan), Army of Andalusia (Soult), Army of Portugal (Massena/Marmont), Army of the North (Bessieres/Dorsenne), Army of Catalunia (Suchet) etc.  Done as best I think I can.

Alexandru Demian (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Same section: "Napoleon only personally visited Spain once in 1808–09". I believe that you need to mention the months too, as he was there for a very short while between Oct. 1808 and Jan. 1809.  Done and referenced.
• Same section: "Ultimately, between the battles of Roliça (August 1808) and Toulouse (April 1814), it would take nearly six years for Wellington to drive the French from the Iberian Peninsular." Sorry, I just cannot see the usefulness of this phrase and also I can't agree with it. When Wellington landed in Portugal in 1808 and faced Junot, his goal was not to drive the French out of the Peninsula. The British began contemplating the possibility some time after the battle of Vitoria in 1813. Moreover, the outcome of the campaign in the Peninsula was more determined by events in Europe (i.e. Russian campaign) than by Wellington's successes. You see my point.. I recommend eliminating altogether or rephrasing.

• - I have some issue with this, again based in subjective historical opinion, and maintaining focus in the article:

• • Agreed that Wellington's original intention was not to drive the French out, but to protect Portugal, and then aid Spain in ousting Joseph Bonaparte. Wellington's own offensive to drive the French out of Spain entirely does come as an objective late in the Peninsular War. But I don't think it can be argued though that it was "a military achievement" and did take 6 years of conflict to attain.
• • I think the point you raise regarding the Russia campaign reflects more on Napoleon and his position as Emperor, than the Peninsular War, which he took no part in. Wellington fought the French, he drove them from Spain whether that was his intention or not. The Peninsular War only ended as a result of Napoleon's abdication, rather than any Decisive battle or logistical advantage, otherwise it is likely that Wellington would have been fighting battles all the way to Paris, possible with Napoleon intervening if not for his abdication. But in conclusion, I think the events in Russia were too indirect to mention here in detail and could lead to a POV fork issue.
• • At the moment I am unsure how to rewrite this. I think it is important to summarise that Wellington's Army fought for 6 years, and that driving the French from the Peninsular was achieved, even if it wasn't a goal at first - it happened. Credit is Wellington's on a Tactical level, which this article primarily deals with. Although on the Strategic level, Napoleon's lack of support for his Spanish armies might seem relevant, it is still quite speculative and leaves questions that are not appropriate here given the Primary Topic of the article - which is about the British involvement and Wellington's actions, rather than overall French strategy - putting too much, or any, non-Peninsular background, might make the article too muddy. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

I agree with your various points and I know that it's a nuance but high quality articles must get the nuances right, IMHO. May I suggest : "Ultimately, between the battles of Roliça (August 1808) and Toulouse (April 1814), the war against the French lasted for six years, with Wellington finally managing to drive the enemy out from the Iberian Peninsula".  Done and expanded.

--Alexandru Demian (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Here you go. Again, nice work and it was a pleasure to read. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have tackled several of these easily enough, I need further info. on one point, and questioned the final point in detail before I consider how it can be approached. Regards, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. Two things:

• "Wellington faced armies formed from the disbanded French Grande Armée, once an overpowering force, having conquered Europe and expanded the French Empire led by Napoleon and his marshals since 1804,[33] only to be reformed into smaller armies from October 1808, under the command of his marshals, to secure Portugal and Spain.[34" Grammatically, it sounds a bit awkward. Could you have another go at rephrasing?  Done ?
• "to help bring peace to Europe". I can't agree with this. The purpose of the British presence in the Peninsula was not to help bring peace to Europe, but rather to safeguard British political and economic interests. Just as the French presence in the Peninsula was meant to protect French economic interests. I recommend that you just take this part out - way too POV for my taste.

Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of all war is to have peace, usually. Each side just wants to win first, though, before bidding for it. This is actually a minor rewrite of Fletcher (2005), p. 107, who writes: "Some veteran Peninsular battalions were present at Waterloo but only around a third was British and of Wellington's army there and it was a pale shadow of that which had marched, it is calculated, over 6,000 miles and had fought undefeated across the Iberian Peninsular, to help bring around the first downfall of Napoleon."

I would say that a country goes to war in order to secure political, economic or military objectives. A country usually makes peace when either it believes it has succeeded in securing these goals, when it is defeated or when it is exhausted and can no longer sustain the war effort or when circumstances change and the aims that seemed significant enough to justify going to war are no longer seen as essential. But, I think that we are moving away from the topic of this assessment. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Reason I didn't quote him word for word is a) he wasn't 'undefeated' as the table shows, although he never lost a major battle (Fletcher's underlying point), b) as he never faced Napoleon personally on the Peninsular it seems a little strong to suggest he caused his downfall in those words, c) only Napoleon's downfall could ever have lead to peace, hence my re-wording.

What I see from the quote you have provided is that you equate achieving peace with the downfall of Napoleon. There is no clear causal relaon between the two. Please remember that the Napoleonic Wars started after Britain declared war on France and the British constantly encouraged and subsidised Russia and Austria, contributing to a prolonged war against Napoleonic Europe (France + spere of influence). Peace and status quo would have been just fine for Napoleon in 1807, 1809 and 1812, not for Bitain. I guess that you see my point. The Napoleonic Wars were much more complex than a Coalition of the good, fighting against an evil Empire. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

However, as I said already said, all war is fought to achieve peace. That is the prime "political and economic interest" of any war - is it not? Just that some will go on fighting - Napoleon, Hitler, Gaddaffi, etc - until the peace is theirs to control despite the cost (Pyrrhic victory). I can't lead this text into a table of Wellington's, one of Britain's great generals and heroes, battle record by basically saying "the next 60 battles were fought just to secure a bit of trade with Portugal for the toffs in Britain" - that's just too flat and disappointing to read after all the text before the table - it virtually belittles the man, and his troops, to not give him any credit for doing his duty beyond his original objective. So we need a reach a compromise here, because I also don't agree with your POV that he didn't help bring peace. By keeping up a sustained offensive effort, Wellington was keeping thousands of men tied to the Peninsular, who were drawing supplies and resources that might otherwise have been used by Napoleon to fight the Russians and Prussians, et al, back in France. Because they beat him back to Paris and he had to abdicate, Wellington had played a role in preventing Napoleon prolonging his war effort against those forces. Therefore, however you look at it he did help bring about peace - even if he wasn't aware of it - that's not my POV, that's fact and therefore I think its not an unreasonable neutral statement. Another view raised by Rothenberg (1999), p. 152, is that Austria joined the coalition after Vitoria, and that all Allied forces aimed to destroy the French armies everywhere in Europe - hence why the Spanish made Wellington their General and kept providing regular troops to fight long after Madrid had been retaken and sent Joseph packing. Again, what for, if not peace? Rothenberg says, "By then [June 1813] the French were no longer fighting to keep Spain but to protect the French border." I can't really say Wellington was 'still' fighting to defend Portugal come 1813, when it's 300 miles back west and the French had no ability to retake it. Madrid and most of Spain was secure, so Wellington must have been fighting to beat the French back and seek peace in their defeat. I don't consider this a nuance, but a key issue in summarising Wellington's undeniable success. Thoughts? Ma®©usBritish (talk)

First, actually, Portugal and Spain had little to do with the main reasons why Britain declared war on France in May 1803. The reason was that France held a dominant position on the Continent and refused to open the controled territories to vital British trade. For a nation relying on an accelrated export-driven economic growth, such as XIXth century Britain, this was extremely serious and threatened vital interests of the country. So, there was more at stake than just commerce with tiny Portugal. The reason why the British chose to fight the French in Portugal and not elsewhere, was based on the fact that this country was a traditioal British ally, far from the French power base, that the population was strongly opposed to a French occupation (as opposed to Germany, Italy etc, where French occupation was accepted rather well) and that a British military intervention enjoyed obvious political legitimacy (the French had forced the legitimate Portuguese dynasy to flee). Secondly, I fail to see the parallel between Napoleon and either Hitler or Gadaffi. Third, I agree that Wellington and his Peninsular army contributed to Napoleon's downfal, but they were not there to fight in order to achieve peace; peace was a consequence of winning a war, not its goal. Fourth, no one can possibly disagree with your statement that Wellington fought a billiant campaign in the Peninsula, using rather limited resources to achieve great military and, indirectly, political results for his country and helping Britain move closer to securing the main objectives that determined it to start the war and carry on fighting form 11 years.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, going to strengthen my argument a bit further with a couple of extracts, with bold key points:

"At 5 p.m. that day Colonel Fredrick Ponsonby [...] found Wellington in his shirtsleeves, pulling on his boots. 'I have extraordinary news for you," Ponsonby said. 'Ay, I though so. I knew we should have peace; I've long expected it,' answered Wellington. 'No; Napoleon has abdicated.' 'How abdicated!' Wellington cried. 'Ay, 'tis time indeed. You don't say so, upon my honour! Hurrah!' Wellington then turned on his heel and snapped his fingers in a triumphal pastiche of a flamenco dance. The Peninsular War was over." - Roberts (2001), p. 117. Expecting peace: his reason to keep fighting and pressuring the French, with the original defence of Portugal long since attained, perhaps?

Yes, I agree, see my previous comment.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"It cannot be overemphasised that the Napoleonic Wars were not won by the British army: 'It was not the Spanish ulcer, but the Russian coronary which destroyed Napoleon.' The Peninsular represented a terrible drain on Napoleon's resources, but it was containable for as long as he did not get drawn into a war on two fronts." - Roberts (2001), p. 119. Reiterating my comment on resources leading to Napoleon's downfall, which resulted in peace per se. Cause and effect establishes Wellington's role in helping bring peace to Europe.

Ma®©usBritish (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already answered this in my previous comments. To conclude, I think we can agree on finding an appropriate phrase to express your idea. Best, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay.. just to make myself clear - I don't compare Napoleon and Hitler in terms of their beliefs, ideals or as men in any respect - I don't even consider Napoleon "evil" - though he was just as fanatical and power-hungry - but not a maniac. He did order the executions of many enemy soldiers, which is never acceptable treatment, though. However, I compare them only in terms of their military methods - both were willing to keep pouring on fresh troops to succeed, regardless of casualties, rather than submit to defeat. Nothing to do with their politics. Neither of them cared about high losses to secure victory. They were both callous in that respect.

Moving on, I'm really looking for a conclusion to this ACR review - I've been working on this article for far longer than expected, and it is holding me back from focusing 100% other things, and becoming very tiring work. Won't be rushing to FLC it. I'm sure you understand. So, how about:

The war on the Peninsular was over. Wellington and his army had marched over an estimated 6,000 miles (9,656 km) and fought in many engagements through Portugal, Spain and Flanders, the consequences of which helped bring peace to Europe.

Ma®©usBritish (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I don't know what executions you are talking about (the incident in Syria in 1799, perhaps?). Furthermore, Caesar, for example, was himself willing to sacrifice a lot in order to achieve victory. But let me get back to the ACR review. I too would like to see this article promoted soon to A-Class. This is why I decided to respond to your invitation to review this article. I am adamant about staying neutral when talking about heated subjects such as the Napoleonic Wars, so this is why I am insisting on staying factual. I'd thus go for the factual "the consequences of which helped bring the downfall of Napoleon/of the French Empire/of French hegemony in Europe", rather than your own, disputable interpretation of events. Best, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't studied Roman history to have any knowledge that allows me to compare Caesar with Napoleon. Was referring to some revolt in Cairo, 1798 - he ordered all rebels with arms to have their throats cut, then to be beheaded and thrown into the Nile. As well as executions of many Spanish rebels. And yes, after Jaffa, he has 2,000 Turks shot. He was a murderous bugger behind his propaganda and shouldn't be praised too highly.. he was still a dictator, either way, and kept Europe at war for longer than WW1+2 put together, for his own inflated ego.

Wellington and his army had marched over an estimated 6,000 miles (9,656 km) and fought in many engagements through Portugal, Spain and Flanders, the consequences of which helped bring the downfall of Napoleon, resulting in peace across Europe. — I think this is a balance of what you suggested, and what I have already. I can't concede to your opinion that my interpretation is that that "disputable". The war ended with peace, whether by his downfall or not, it is the only way any war ends, and Wellington's Army played a role in that. By focusing on Wellington's career it is inevitable that the wider scope of Napoleon's war in Russia is not included - I can focus on that a little more when I type up his battle record background, I only have his battles in a table at the moment - but this isn't a political article, nor is it about the Revolutionary, Napoleonic and Peninsular Wars - it just happens to be the bulk of his career. The point here is to briefly summarise the conclusion of the Peninsular War, not to analyse it in great detail or go off on a fork.

I'll put this amendment into the article now, and await your final thumbs up, and hopefully your support. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Egypt was a province under military occupation. Condemning rebels bearing arms to death was not uncommon in Europe and much less in Egypt. It was a brutal country at the time and could only be ruled with the sword. The execution of some 3,500 Turkish soldiers after the capture of Jaffa was not a noble feat of arms by any standard and not something Bonaparte could be proud of; but, it just happened that many of these soldiers had been taken prisoner before, released under parole and had broken their parole, so they could not be trusted, nor could they be taken prisoner, as the French were lacking the logistic capacity for taking prisoners at that stage; also the French envoy sent to negotiate the surrender of the fortress had been executed.

Execution of rebels bearing arms in Spain too was not uncommon and was unexceptional in any way you want to put it. If you are talking about the pillaging, much of the responsibility would have to go to Napoleon's commanders (Loison, Duhesme, Soult etc.). Napoleon can be blamed for not taking tougher action to sanction them. French rule did bring about good administration in some provinces (Catalonia), which were administered much better than the Spanish people could have dreamed under the useless Bourbon kings. This was not the case everywhere though. But again, nothing exceptional about the execution of arms-bearing rebels.

Throughout my 15 years of study of the Napoleonic Wars and dozens of books read on the subject, I have found no evidence that Napoleon was a "murderous bugger". Throughout human history, war was a bloody and messy business, not for well-suited for a humanist and made for men who were ready to make the toughest decisions, for which humanity will probably condemn them. Take Wellington's example. I quote Andrew Roberts, "Napoleon and Wellington" page 77, who is talking about the French advance and British retreat leading up to the siege of the lines of Torres Vedras in 1810: "Wellington's destruction of the olive and orange trees and burning of villages and crops in Massena's path had meant that the French could not live off the land outside the Lines through the winter. Some historians put the cost in terms of Portuguese lives lost to the starvation during the five-month siege at fifty thousand - 2 percent of the country's population - but whatever the figure a very high civilian price was paid for Wellington's victory". I believe that you should mention this figure in the article somewhere.

Going back to Napoleon, I agree that his regime was dictatorial or totalitarian. There was no real separation of power, the freedom of the press was reduced, there was no multi-party system in place. To be fair, I also think that a neutral historian should note that no 19th century country was purely democratic (not even Britain, where working-class mobs were casually fired at, something that never happened in Napoleonic France) and that Napoleon found some 100,000 political prisoners when he came to power - a heritage of the "democratic" Revolutionary regimes - while the number of political prisoners detained at the end of his regime did not exceed some 200. Furthermore, his rule was validate through wide popular consensus (plebiscite), a system that was not in place in Britain, let alone Russia, Prussia, Austria...

Napoleon's ego did play a role in the Napoleonic Wars. The man was arrogant and overbearing and led an aggressive foreign policy. He shares responsibility for the Napoleonic Wars with the leaders of the other Great Powers of the time, most of all Britain and Austria. Had Napoleon not existed, these wars would have probably taken place anyway, as early 19th century Great Powers had a lot to settle by arms, regardless of Napoleon. Granted, had Napoleon not existed, these wars would have probably been a bit less bloody. I can provide sources to mainstream historians to back this up, if you are interested in the subject.

Ok, back to the review, as I too have spent a lot of time discussing this and need to get back to my own editing. Wellington and his army had marched over an estimated 6,000 miles (9,656 km) and fought in many engagements through Portugal, Spain and Flanders, the consequences of which helped bring the downfall of Napoleon, resulting in peace across Europe. It's historically accurate and neutral, so it's fine with me. You can easily add a phrase about the Portuguese civilian deaths following Wellington's scorched earth campaign in 1810, as this is highly relevant info. I will then provide support for the article. I have analysed the content and IMHO, the article is complete and accurate and summarises the subject rather well. I have not and will not look closely at referencing, phrasing and other aspects.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, not willing to put that in. "Some historians" would quickly become "Some historians" because people want names for opinions like that - Robert's is raising 3rd party opinions, and I don't know who those third parties are, and don't have access to their "proof" anyway. It's 100% debatable anyway, a theory, which "some historians" might contend - including myself, author of this article, without in-depth research - which I don't have. For an article to become A/FL class it should not introduce forks or areas of contentions, and that remark could easily result in edit warring between anti- and pro-Wellington readers. That "opinion" is a rouge element that I have not come across myself and don't have means to look into further. Like I said before, I'm tired of this article now and want it done - not soon, but now, it's been dragging on for a lot longer than I expected - I think it unreasonable to introduce a new subject matter that requires further research and citation. It is a specific opinion about one battle from 60. There were other sieges, other battles no doubt what resulted in loss of civilian lives. The storming of Ciudad Rodrigo, and Badajoz both led to disorder and civilan casualties - the fire at St Sebastian, is another potential area of needless civilian deaths - again, debatable. Each battle has its own story - this is not an article about specific battles, but the military career of one man as a whole. I do not want to get into specifics - it's was never my plan to discuss battle orders, or individual cases, in detail. By adding civilian casualties, it's leaving a hole in the article where I would fail to discuss troop casualties. Then there's India. Pretty soon the article will be too involved, and drive me sick. I really don't want to get into that now, so please save such a request either for FLA class or not at all. It's not relevant as far as I'm concerned, so there's no point in my discussing it further, I've made my mind up. I'd like your vote based on the article "as is" - review closure, no more major requests. I've completed 8/8 of your initial points. I don't think it's fair to ask me to go beyond the current scope of the article, nor to challenge my opinions of Wellington with anti-Wellington sentiments after defending Napoleon for murdering enemy soldiers and rebels, it's just not done. Just support or oppose now, please, based on the huge amount of work that already exists - I really have other things I'd like to be doing. I appreciate all your points to this point, and feel they have taken the article to new strengths. I don't feel any more is required of me for A-class - there are 5 criteria, I believe I have satisfied them all. Any more requests for new material should be saved for FLA where the standard is expected to be higher. And because of that and the higher level of stress it causes, I am unlikely to do so soon, I've only been here for 5-6 months, and this will be my first A-class article - I want to write a few more before jumping in a pit of snakes with FLR reviewers. Please don't hold me to ransom to put "opinions" in, though - I don't want support if it challenges my own POV to secure it, and I do not like demands. Base your support on the merit of what level the article currently stands at, I don't want to have to go hunting for more reviewers and delay this effort even more. I can't ask fairer than that. Regards, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Roberts quotes 3 different historians, plus I've come across this information in other sources, so one can't just dismiss this as a fringe theory or opinion. But, ok, point taken, I can agree that this information is not essential in an article about the Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington; it belongs rather in a section of his biography. However, if you are thinking of further expanding this article in the future by adding a section on the historical assessment of the man's military career, you will need to address this and other skeletons in the man's cupboard. You will surely need to address this if you are thinking about nominating it for FA in the future. I am meaning this as a constructive remark for the future. As things stand, I am supporting this article for A-Class status. Regards and hope to see more of your articles soon, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I have no doubt every general has skeletons in their closet, but as you say, there is a right and wrong place to publish them. I'm not sure if this article will even expand into those realms, I may just nominate it for GA rather than FA, for the time being - I'm not sure I consider FLR very practical. Haven't decided yet. There is a "Napoleon battle record" in development, I welcome your input when it's ready to review - probably starting from Peer Review, then up through B- and A-class, as his record is much longer and more complex than Wellington's, given his plethora of campaigns. I've altered the opening of your review to highlight your support clearly. Thanks again, your input has been top-notch! :) Ma®©usBritish (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
• There are two tags.

I'm aware of this, they've only just been added. There is only 1 now - in dispute.

• The rank table does not format lieutenant-colonel coming after general, field-marshal coming after colonel and so on.

That's because it's doing it alphabetically, not by promotion order - C F G L M - for Rank order by promotion, you just sort by Date. ;)

• Why are the months written as Sep, Oct and Nov etc and not in full.

Makes the column too wide, especially ranges like 19 September – 21 October 1812 would make the col huge or force it 2/3 lines deep spoiling the flow - it is not a MOS requirement to have full months - short versions are acceptable. Keeps the rows 1 line deep. All about maintaining layout.

• I think you need to define what you mean by skirmish, as there would have been hundreds of skirmishes between troops under Wellingtons command during his campaigns.

Eh? A skirmish is a minor engagement/clash, a battle is pitched. Any military historian knows that, "skirmish" is a common English word not unique to military terminology - any minor fight between 2 people can be a skirmish.

Exactly a fight between two or more people why chose those ones and not the presumably hundreds of other skirmishes by Wellingtons army.

Read the paragraph directly before the table, it explains clearly enough: This is not about "Wellington's Army", it's about "Wellington" himself and the battles he personally attended and fought in as a soldier and commander. Chances are most of those "hundreds of other skirmishes" took place miles away from him, on his flanks, rear guard, advance guard, etc - I can only add a skirmish he personally fought in or commanded if it is made known to me.

• The wars do not sort correctly by date starts at 1807 then the next on is 1794 for example. Unless the are in alphabetical order which I can see no need for.

Works fine for me. Only goes 1807 -> 1794 when you sort by "War", because that's grouping the Wars alphabetically. It's doing everything exactly as it should.

• As it Wellingtons battle record I would expect to see the opponent listed.

The French. Lol! I know what you mean.. Not enough room to fit full battle details in per battle, sorry. If people want know the Battle Order per battle they'll have to go read up on those battles themselves. That's too much for me to want to do further.

• Following the example adopted for the Kingdom of Mysore the Maratha Empire should be used for the Second Anglo-Maratha War battles.

Incorrect. "Kingdom" is a state, entirely within a single country, in this case. "Empire" covers a territory owned by someone and includes more than one country - it would cause confusion. Mysore is IN India, whilst the Maratha Empire "covered much of South Asia, encompassing a territory of over 2.8 million km²" - that scale would make your suggestion too broad and unspecific. "India" is more precise, therefore better suited as a location description - as both these campaigns were fought in India itself rather than elsewhere in South Asia. I also shortened the former from "Kingdom of Mysore, India" because of column crowding issues.

• What makes: Association of Friends of the Waterloo Committee - historyofwar.org - 95thrifles.com reliable?

What doesn't? What exactly are YOU questioning about them? Since when do we question referenced web sources unless they're not relevant?

That's not the point you have to say why you believe they are reliable as your using them for reference. For example historyofwar.org is a military history encyclopedia on the web we do not use Wikipedia as a reliable source so why should we use them?

Instead of the Waterloo committee web site you can use this book

"As the great-great-grandson of the first Duke of Wellington and President of the Association of Friends of the Waterloo Committee I would like to welcome you to our official website. The Association is a non-profit making charity which was established in 1973 to preserve and protect the battlefield at a time when the Belgian Authorities were planning to put a motorway through the site. The secondary aim of the Association is to promote a greater understanding of the Battle of Waterloo and Britain's role in the Napoleonic era. It is my wish, and that of the Committee of the Association, that this website should encourage students and scholars of the Napoleonic and French Revolutionary wars and others who are simply interested in this remarkable period in British history."

What is wrong with the Waterloo Committee? See their "History" part quoted above. How is that any less reliable that a general "Book of Quotations" given the relationship factor?

Still have not proven reliability and as a relation they could well have an agenda to push. Where as the book as a reference no one would question.Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

An agenda, from a 200 year old quote? Seems a bit far fetched - an author can just as easily have a POV to push, by only listing anti-war quotes, for example. In this case though I see it that the website is primarily about Waterloo and Wellington, the book is a general quotes book - the website contains more subject matter relevant to the subject that could be of interest to people. I fail to see how any can see that as problematic? Ma®©usBritish (talk)

Because I started this article by building up his record through many searches, and in many cases that website had skirmishes listed in detail, where no other sources did. As I went through and used new books I replaced several of their links with text refs. In the remaining few cases they serve to support refs, because some skirmishes are so little known, there is sod all available to reference from my books. Even the fairly large Battle of Tarbes - barely anyone acknowledges it, yet 3 battalions of the 95th Rifles fought in standard line formation there, not as skirmishers and lost ~93 men that day whilst beating back a larger French formation. Given that there were no books mentioning it, no wiki article and only that site - it was the best source. Building on research often requires you to take scraps of knowledge, however "unreliable" they may seem to you, and dig deeper. In time, more sources may come to light to replace those links altogether.

• Citation 107 Howarth (1997) - Howarth is not listed in the references.

It is now. Moved up from Further reading list to References list. Thanks.

• Why do some notes have years and others not (not all of them with years have two books by the same author in the reference)

When you see "Author (2001)" it refers to the ENTIRE book, hence lack of chapter/page details. Perfectly acceptable referencing style - there is no MOS policy to dispute this - citation styles are chosen by the author - this is my chosen style, but most ref styles use the same method, when quoting a full title to give the Author's surname (publishing year).

Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Points noted. Please bear in mind this is a battle record, like a resumé, it overviews the battles - not the specifics - I have no intention of expanding the table to include opponents, casualties, etc - there just isn't the room, and I don't have the patience to gather all that extra data for 60 battles. Every battle is referenced or wikilinked - if people want details, they may find them at their own leisure. Thanks. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly accurate quite a few battle are red links.

I said "referenced or wikilinked" not and, thank you - perfectly accurate, I'm not prone to making mistakes - when I say something is wikilinked, I usually mean to an existing article, obviously. The reason they are all wikilinked is to leave red links known to invite article creation per WP:REDLINKS for those who like to write up battles. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

• Sorry just found anther one Expeditionary Force is a disambig link

Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It has already been raised in 1st ACR, and the heading in that disambig link is the only accurate description.

See British Expeditionary Force does not include anything appropriate. No description, no Napoleonic War reference. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

Linked on the disamb page is Expeditionary warfare can I suggest you use that.Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I had chosen that originally - but if you look through the contents it neglects to ever mention Wellington's expedition so it lacks any relevance, there is nothing explains it in that article. The heading of the disamb list better explains what a "force" is rather than "warfare" - so it is harder to relate to Wellington. Ma®©usBritish (talk)

• Oppose

Still no evidence that the web sites are a RS.

See Parsecboy's comments below.

I would expect a battle record to list the opponents

No - They were INDIAN or FRENCH - there is NO ROOM for any more columns! The Lead Section covers opponents clearly.

The table does not match the prose - In September 1794, Wellesley experienced his first battle, against the French, at the Battle of Boxtel with the 33rd, before purchasing his final commission to lieutenant-colonel on 30 September 1793

That made no sense, because you did not use grammar to indicate quotes. Try being more clear, and less subjective - there is nothing wrong with the use of English in this article. The table is sortable - they are different entities.

It the table his rank is given as Lieutenant-Colonel but according to the above he was promoted after the battle.

There is nothing about his early career before Boxtel, unless never fought in a battle before then.

Correct - he didn't have one - the table makes that clear.

Also have concerns using the term skirmish as you clarify - Any military historian knows that, "skirmish" is a common English word not unique to military terminology - any minor fight between 2 people can be a skirmish. - There were presumably hundreds of skirmishes when Wellington was present and its a battle record not a skirmish record. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong - there are very FEW skirmishes at which he was present. Look at the References. Read Smith's "Data Book". What you presume, and what is fact are TWO different things. "Skirmish" has been a military terms for decades - if it makes no sense to you, you shouldn't be reading military books. Should I use "Clash"? A clash could ALSO mean 2 people. To counter your own argument, "Battle" is not a unique military term either - "Battle of the Bands" - do guitarists shoot each other? I'm not rewording every word just because one person doesn't like the wording - nor is it an ACR requirement to do so. Nor am I renaming the article to "Wellington's sattle, siege, skirmish, clash, slap and tickle record" to suit every type of engagement.

Opposition noted, but in truth, I really don't like your attitude or approach - you gave a 100% negative review, without indicating any pros/cons, or bits you enjoyed - it was the rudest review I have ever seen - and doesn't deserve consideration. Uncalled for callousness. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 17:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words.Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hard to admit when you're wrong. Thanks for the review.. but your motives are clear. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 18:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comments I know im a bit late to the party, but two things i noticed.
  • I do believe that for each battle the opponent of the british should be listed, for an uneducated reader it may be confusing that a battle was fought in spain without stating that it was fought against the French.
  • Rather than state simply india as the location for the battles in the Martha Empire, you should at the very least indicate that it was in Martha territory by stating Martha India or something similar. Simply stating India is to broad as there were quite a few polities in india at the time.  Done XavierGreen (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I have tweaked the country to mention Maratha, India - however, I do not feel it should be necessary to add the opponent to the table. There is some background to those battles in the Generalship section, specifically "between the battles of Roliça (August 1808) and Toulouse (April 1814), the war against the French lasted for six years" should be clear as mud, even to the uneducated reader. More than this, the table is already quite wide, I would rather not add new columns and make it any wider, as that would affect the layout which I've been maintaining from the start. Thanks! Ma®©usBritish (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I see no reason to believe historyofwar.org or 95thrifles.com qualify as reliable sources. What evidence can you provide that J. Rickard and Richard Moore are experts in their field? Parsecboy (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a re-enactment Society - re-enactment groups involve more research and better standards than even Wiki is capable of - they have historians, professionals who make uniforms and equipment, safety experts - more to the point, they are real-life historians, they don't just write books and wiki articles, they go to battlefields, dress up accurately, shoot replica guns. That makes them experts in their field. http://95thrifles.com/society.html Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 17:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about reliability from an academic perspective. What are the credentials of the authors? Have they published books with well-regarded publishers (as opposed to vanity presses)? Please read WP:RS and WP:SPS to see what I'm trying to determine here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Richard Moore is a long-term muzzle-loading shooter and historical re-enactor. He was a member of the Napoleonic Association of Great Britain for fifteen years and several times a historical interpreter for English Heritage as ‘A Rifleman of Wellington’s Army’. Richard also served as Military and Technical Advisor/Armourer to Sharpe Film 1992-2006 and from 1995 until 2005 served as a popular battlefield tour guide for The Peninsular War 1808-1814 and The Waterloo Campaign 1815. Richard has also appeared in several historical documentaries on TV." Ma®©usBritish ^[talk]

What about historyofwar.org? Parsecboy (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Peter D Antill, BA (Hons) MSc (Econ) PGCE (PCE)
Co-author. Peter Antill has degrees from both Staffordshire University (BA (Hons) International Relations) and the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth (MSc (Econ) Strategic Studies) as well as a PGCE in Post-Compulsory Education from Oxford Brookes University. He was employed as a research assistant in the Department of Defence Management and Security Analysis, Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham between 1998 and 2002 and is currently working at Cranfield University at DA-CMT (Defence Academy - College of Management and Technology). His interests are wide ranging, but include expeditionary warfare and force projection, the Crimean War, the American Civil War, the World Wars and post-war / modern conflicts.

Tristan Dugdale-Pointon,BA(Hons) MSc(Econs)
Co-author. Mr Dugdale-Pointon has a Masters degree in Strategic Studies where he specialised in intelligence and security issues. His areas of interest include terrorism and counter terrorism in which he was a lecturer, Japanese history and the Napoleonic period in Europe. He was also a member of the International Institute Of Strategic Studies (IISS). He is currently developing his own outdoor and survival skills company StormCrow Training.

Dr John Rickard
Co-author and web-master. Dr Rickard has a thesis on the Personel of English and Welsh Castles, 1272-1422, and has studied medieval military history for nearly a decade. He is the author of most articles before 1700 and has also designed and written the website itself. He has also designed the website for the Osmotherley Walking Shop. email:john@rickard.karoo.co.uk The Castle Community, Dr John Rickard. A must for any serious student of English and Welsh castles in the later middle ages, this work contains a detailed list of the owners and constables of all of the castles in England and Wales between 1272 and 1422, a period that includes the building of Edward I's great castles in North Wales, a prolonged period of warfare against the Scots, and ends with the revolt of Owain Glen Dwr. The book also contains a sizable (20,000 word) introduction discussing castle ownership and building across this period." http://historyofwar.org/about.html Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 18:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.