Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Dubious sentence

"Consequently, Ney now organised a combined arms (infantry, artillery and cavalry) attack on La Haye Sainte, which fell as the defending King's German Legion troops ran out of ammunition. Ney then moved artillery up to the allied centre and began to pulverise the infantry squares.[73]"

This is the final sentence of the French Cavalry attack section.

There seem to be several things wrong with it: first, attacking a building with cavalry is pointless, be they with infantry or not, second, field artillery have little effect on reasonably stout (like Belgian farmhouses) buildings, apart from shells setting them alight (which is what happened to the Chateau de Goumont, to little effect).

I think two events are being conflated here.

Having become obvious that the cavalry on their own were achieving little, Ney organised a combined arms attack, using Bachelu's Division (Reille's Corps) and the remaining French cavalry in a fit enough state, towards the centre of Wellington's position, this was halted by the Household Brigade cavalry led by Uxbridge (who couldn't break the French infantry formations, and consequently the British cavalry then fell back). Uxbridge then tried to lead the Dutch-Belgian heavy cavalry into the attack but they refused to charge. Meanwhile, Bachelu's men and their cavalry supports were being hard hit by artillery fire and eventually fell back themselves.

Simultaneously, or thereabouts, elements of D'Erlon's Corps renewed the attack on La Haye Sainte, and were ultimately successful.

Urselius 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can reference all of that, be bold and put it in! -Kieran 17:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Done (I'm bloody, bold and resolute - in Shakespeare's words ;) )Urselius 14:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Artillery

One omission and one challenge.

We should say something about Wellington's tactic of having his gun crews seek shelter in the infantry squares during the cavalry attacks. There is also Mercer's account of not doing so because he reckoned if his men ran for the Brunswick squares next to them, the Brunswickers would run too. He gives a great eyewitness account of what happened to cuirassiers when you fired canister at them at point-blank range, too.

Now the challenge. What's the source for there being only 54 guns in the Grand Battery? French "batteries" (field brigades, or companies, perhaps, more correctly) had eight guns. There should have been either 48 or 56, i.e. 6 or 7 batteries, as otherwise it would imply at least one incomplete unit, or that some weapons were detached for some reason. I don't recall any suggestion from elsewhere that that happened. Were there perhaps 54 guns east of the Brussels road? Tirailleur 12:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Adkin, p. 296, has forty two 6lb, eighteen 12lb cannon, and six 6in and fourteen 5.5in howitzers - eighty pieces of ordnance in total from 10 artillery companies (of 8 pieces each). This is for the period 1:00 to 1:30 pm.

6th Foot Artillery: 9th, 10th, 11th, 19th and 20th companies

8th  : 4th company

2nd  : 7th company

Marines of the Guard Foot Artillery: 2 companies (undifferentiated)

Old Guard Foot Artillery: 6th company.

Urselius 13:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - and those figures are consistent with what I know of French artillery organisation, i.e. each 8-gun foot artillery company had 6 guns and two howitzers. Your source shows 20 howitzers in total which says they had the howitzers of 10 companies, hence 80 guns - so it ties in. The eighteen 12-pounders would be the guns of three companies and the six 6in howitzers would have been theirs.

I wonder if someone miscounted by adding up just the guns and forgot to include the howitzers? That would get you close to 54 guns. Or perhaps 54 guns is what they had left after the Union Brigade got done with them.

I vote we change it. At present the article implies that there was a 54-gun battery which covered the entire length of Wellington's position, and that this dilution of fire accounted for its relative ineffectiveness. Tirailleur 21:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

By all means change it. Urselius 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Format

In my internet explorer is the formating of the page rather strange. The text begins very late, almost beneath the infobox. Can this be changed, so that the article looks better? Anne-theater 01:36 CEST 6 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne-theater (talk • contribs) 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes the white expanse has been noted. It isn't clear how it arose and it's equally unclear how to get rid of it.

Urselius 14:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

People have been mentioning this, but I haven't seen it on Firefox on Windows or Linux, or on IE 6. Maybe it's an IE7 quirk? Could we do a survey of what browser the people who are having this problem are using? -Kieran 20:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone by the name of Athrash has kindly made an edit which certainly fixed it for me. Urselius 20:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review progress tracker

See above #GA review
General points
Point Item Current state
I link all commander's names when first mentioned done
II links to "Battle of . . ." - no capital "B" done
III merge short paragraphs some
IV copyedit for clarity some
V more references (mainly for FA) some
VI textboxes with quotes some added; more needed
VII more maps of the battle not done - deferred


Specific Points
Point Item Current state
1 longer lead done
2 integrate lead quote into text done
3 reference first paragraphs of prelude done
4 merge prelude paragraphs rearranged; considered unnecessary
5 reference or remove "false intelligence" done
6 clarify end of 2nd paragraph of prelude done
7 clarify 7th paragraph of prelude done
8 link prelude to battle with conclusion done
9 clarify end of 2nd paragraph in armies not done
10 clarify paragraph on Prussian army done
11 clarify positions and times in battlefield some done
12 join first two paragraphs of battle done
13 clarify who Bulow was done
14 source Gordon Highlanders legend done
15 explain term "cuirassiers" wikilinked
15 reference/improve "alternative view" in charge/heavy cav done
17 provide the time of the French cavalry attack done
18 fix double mention of deaths of Ponsonby and Hamilton done
19 reference 3rd paragraph of FCA done
20 Plancenoit - fix church "fully involved" in fire done
22 source "spoiled my battlefield" quote done (quote corrected)
23 add information on greater significance of the battle some done

OK, here is a table summarising where we are with the GA review. I've started filling it in, but please fill in any gaps I've left, and mark points as done if you address them. -Kieran 21:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I addressed the "alternative view" problem in the British cavalry charge section, I've just added a reference, I'll have to look up the particular letter concerned. I also cleaned up the rather confusing (former 7th para.) final section of the Prelude. However, the links for the names of Prussian corps generals need to be tidied up, ie their full names should be at the the first mention as should any link. Bulow is mentioned as the commander of the Prussian IV Corps , so I don't understand the query about who he was, though again his full name and rank should be given in the first mention. Indeed the ranks and full names of most of the Prussian generals are given in the 'Armies' section and should be moved to the 'Prelude,' where they are first mentioned.
The time of the initiation of the French cavalry attacks has been added (ie about 4 o'clock).

Urselius 08:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with the Bulow mention is that it only states his surname, not his full name or rank. A wikilink would also be good. -Kieran 22:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added numbers to the above table. So we can discuss them.

  • 2. I dissagree. The quote should stand alone as the equivelent of a sound bite and should be {{cquote}}ed and it clashes with IV above
    • There was an error in the numbering of the table (IV, V, IV [should be VI]). I corrected it and believe that the above is meant to say "clashes with VI". LaraLove♥ 16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the mistake. Yes I meant VI. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit ambivalent myself. I think it could work as a sound bite, but in that case it should go at the end of the lead, so as not to break the flow. -Kieran 23:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 3 I agree that the the outlaw and 150,000 should be sourced. But I do not think the rest of the paragraph needs to be.
  • 4 dissagree. If these were bullet points then most of them would be seperated as they are in paragraphs. For exmple "Only very late on the night of 15 June was Wellington certain that the Charleroi ..." and "As Napoleon considered the concentrated Prussian army the greater threat," are different points and I think ought to have their own paragraphs. But I agree the last sentence is hanging and should be attached to something so I have rearranged some of the details to do that. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Noted in the table. -Kieran 23:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 11: clarify positions and times in battlefield "The history of a battle, is not unlike the history of a ball. Some individuals may recollect all the little events of which the great result is the battle won or lost, but no individual can recollect the order in which, or the exact moment at which, they occurred,..." --Welligton. "The hour at which Waterloo began, though there were 150,000 actors in the great tragedy, was long a matter of dispute. The Duke of Wellington puts it at ten o'clock. General Alava says half-past eleven, Napoleon and Drouet say twelve o'clock, and Ney one o'clock. Lord Hill may be credited with having settled this minute question of fact. He took two watches with him into the fight, one a stop-watch, and he marked with it the sound of the first shot fired, and this evidence is now accepted as proving that the first flash of red flame which marked the opening of the world-shaking tragedy of Waterloo took place at exactly ten minutes to twelve." -- W. H. Fitchett. This is not the best article to demand such clarity. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 22: source "spoiled my battlefield" quote. He is quoted as saying "They have altered my field of battle!" by Victor Hugo in Chapter VII. Napoleon in a Good Humor of his novel "Les Miserables", so that is probably the better quote to search on for the original. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I. In the infobox, Ney's name reads Michel Ney, but in the body it reads Marshal Ney. Which is it? LaraLove♥ 13:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    Michel Ney, Duke of Elchingen, Prince of the Moskowa, Marshal of the Empire --Philip Baird Shearer 14:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Helping out

I saw on the GAC report that this article has been on hold for quite a few days. In order to speed up this process, I've begun helping out with the necessary changes. I also noticed, in looking over this page, that FA is a goal. I'll take care of copy-editing, merging/condensing, and FA nit-picks. I'll also tweak the references, which are pretty much done, but there's a few inconsistencies that I'll clear up. Hopefully, this will get the GA pass and help you on to FA. Regards, LaraLove♥ 13:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I reordered the notes and references; per WP:LAYOUT, they should be next to each other. I also separated (references are all under that section and Footnotes section contains only notes) and correctly formatted them. Sorry it took like a hundred edits. First time I've done that before. LaraLove 19:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Layout is a mess. I don't agree with it. This is why these GA and FA are a pain. Someone comes a long and decides that they want it this way or that and then alter the guidelines. Then if an article is up for GA of FA people say but the guideline says so. For example have a look at WP:FOOT and WP:CITE. SlimVirgin put in a prohibition on where reference tags should go without any consensus to do so, and yet I presume that anyone who wanted to have an article as an FA would be forced to use a format for reference tags for which there is no consensus "because the guidelines say so". --Philip Baird Shearer 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I just moved the notes to be under the references and sorted them. If I remember correctly, WP:LAYOUT says that those can be in any order, as long as notes and references are next to one another. That aside, I can't really tell if you're being rude to me or just voicing frustration at the process. SlimVirgin's changes were unrelated to GA or FA, as far as I am aware. As far as FA's footnotes requirement, FAs represent WP's work of publishable quality; It makes sense that there would be consistency within that regarding footnotes, in my opinion. Although, I don't think I've ever seen a featured article that didn't have inline citations after punctuation, which is not to say none exist. I've also not seen GAs with inlines anywhere other than after the punc. And I've seen hundreds of GAs. LaraLove 17:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
No I assume that you are working in good faith, it is the process of GA and FA that I am not particularly enamoured by. Please see the discussions on this point on WP:CITE and WP:FOOT that you have not seen any (when scientists who read journals such as Nature are familiar with and use them) is proof of what I am talking about, one would have thought that some scientific articles would use footnoting as is used by Nature! If you argue that " FAs represent WP's work of publishable quality; It makes sense that there would be consistency within that regarding footnotes" then presumably such things as spelling should also be consistent across articles? I would disagree with that should be consistent is the spelling in and article and likewise the footnoting. I tend to keep clear of WP:LAYOUT (although I have contributed to it in the past) where do you think (at the moment) it states that references and footnotes should be next to each other? Unless you have any strong objections I wish to move the Footnotes back below further reading --Philip Baird Shearer 19:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your argument and can see it from your point of view. I can also see a similarity between the difference in spelling and the difference in use of footnotes style, to a point. While I don't join you in your opposition to the current standard for this, I do understand your frustration. As far as notes and refs being next to each other, WP:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions note 1. I agree with this because the notes cite the references, so it makes sense to me that they be next to each other to allow the reader to quickly and easily see which book or whatever each citation is referring to. What are your reasons for wanting to change this? If you really would like the notes at the bottom, perhaps do that and move references above that. Have it be See also, Further reading, References, Notes. That seems completely acceptable to me per WP:LAYOUT. LaraLove 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mathematical problems with Union Brigade losses

I'm increasingly unhappy about the use of estimates of losses in the British cavalry charge section.

They don't make sense mathematically.

Even when you make a low estimate of just 900 men of the Union Brigade in line at the beginning of the charge, then a third killed from this number would be around 300. We know from official records that the brigade suffered only 264 killed for THE WHOLE BATTLE. We also know, because eyewitnesses said so, that the Brigade suffered many casualties in the course of the battle after their first charge, largely through artillery fire. It just doesn't add up, quite literally. There were only 38 men recorded as missing so even if these were all dead there would still be a shortfall.

I would propose that all references to numbers of losses in the single charge be removed an reference made just to "heavy losses" and let the reader see the official numbers for the whole battle, which are footnoted.

Urselius 10:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


This is OR. All we can do is say what reliable, verifiable sources tell us. MAG1 12:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How reliable is a source which goes against simple mathematics and the laws of probability? Surely a source which defies logic is inherently unusable Urselius 13:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

264 killed must imply probably another 250 or so wounded. It also implies a similar number of horses killed or wounded. With 900 men in line to begin with, 500 losses could mean that 400 men had their horse killed, 400 horses had their rider killed, and 100 men were killed along with their horses. In that scenario, a 900-man unit would cease to exist. Once the 400 horseless riders hook up with the 400 riderless horses then you have a 400-strong unit, but that could be next day.

I went through the same thought process with the casualties from the French heavy cavalry charges. Houssaye's figures show that even among the Guard heavy cavalry, which you'd expect would suffer relatively little from either desertion or straggling, net losses were 50% between 14 and 19 June. If one assumes that the entire loss came from combat this could theoretically mean that, on the day, half the men and the other half's horses were killed, leaving the unit with a net strength of zero.

In either case, a net loss of 50% implies a significantly higher "intra-day" loss. It comes down to the degree of overlap between horse casualties and rider casualties. There seem to have just enough Scots Greys uninjured and on a well-found horse to have been useful for duty guarding prisoners, for instance. Tirailleur 12:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This really doesn't revolve around how many effectives were left after the charge (though an officer of one of the KGL hussar regiments says he saw TWO squadrons of Greys (prob. the whole regiment) after their first charge), that is a different question.
Taken at face value the statement that a third of the Union Brigade were killed (not killed plus wounded) in the charge just doesn't fit. Assuming that the rather low estimate of 900 men in line before the charge is correct this would mean that 300 died in the charge and (with 264 plus all of the 38 missing to give a total of 302 for the official returns) a further two men killed in the whole of the rest of the battle. Considering that all the survivors must have returned to the British position by 3:00pm at the latest this gives another 4+ hours of battle with, in theory, only 2 further men killed.
The same logic works for the claim of a third wounded in the charge, again the totals for the whole battle were 310, which would suggest 10 wounded for the whole of the rest of the battle. The numbers just go against common sense.
A number of eyewinesses state that the Union brigade was badly shot up by artillery in the afternoon, one says the Greys lost heavily to French cavalry carbine fire and yet another records the Royals charging and driving off a body of cuirassiers. This level of combat would have produced more than 12 casualties.
Urselius 13:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position on this.

We have facts, these are the numbers of men in the brigades before the battle and the numbers of killed, wounded and missing after the battle. Any numbers given for losses in one particular event within the battle are just guesses. If you are erudite and have the time to write and manage to interest a publisher you might get your guess published, however it will still be a guess.

If I were pushed I would guess that the Union Brigade probably lost about a third of its numbers in the charge (killed , wounded and missing/captured), with somewhere nearer a half than two thirds left as effectives. This is my guess and I think it is a better guess than the one in the article, but I would wouldn't I?

I don't propose to substitute my guess for the one in place, I propose to just get rid of the guesses altogether. All the evidence is that the two brigades lost heavily in the charge, but the evidence also shows that the two brigades continued to perform useful functions later in the battle, and continued to suffer casualties. The latter evidence is, at present, compromised by the guess as to the levels of casualties suffered in the first charge.

I don't think it is either necessary or desirable to have guesswork in the article.

Urselius 15:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What narrative point are you making though? The Union Brigade were broken and scattered. Until rallied, reformed and reorganised, it wasn't of any further use. By the time that was achieved - 5 o'clock or so - the remnants would have been in time to make local counter-charges against the French cavalry.

I agree we shouldn't guess what losses were incurred when. My point I guess is that they didn't need to have suffered all those losses in their initial charge for the generally-accepted historical account of what they did to stand up as correct. They could have suffered the losses you suggest, been broken by them, and then later rallied and suffered the rest. Tirailleur 16:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, Clark-Kennedy of the Royals, says that the Union Brigade was reassembled and reorganised in a wooded area behind where they had set off from, and was then led forward into line (somewhat further west than their initial position). If they had lost a third killed and a third wounded by this stage they would have had to have led charmed lives for the rest of the battle not to incurr further casualties, it just doesn't make any sense.
I would propose that the estimates of losses in the first charge be replaced by more general comments about "heavy losses" as there are no real facts available on which meaningful estimates can be made. Urselius 08:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As no-one seems to be greatly attached to the estimates of losses, and they weren't referenced, I have removed them and added a few extra remarks and references to the section. Urselius 15:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re the Prussians at Plancenoit section

A couple of comments. The passage "At about this time the 15th Brigade IV Corps linked up with the Nassauers of Wellington's left flank with the brigade artillery, horse artillery deployed to the left in support. Napoleon sent Lobau's Division to intercept Bülow's IV Corps. Therefore Napoleon sent his 10-battalion-strong Young Guard to beat the Prussians back" doesn't make a huge amount of sense. Are we saying the 15th Brigade's artillery was horse artillery or that the brigade artillery and horse artillery were sent? Also, the last 2 sentences I quoted are a nonsequitur.

The eyewitness quote at the end of the section seems to me to describe the moments before the Anglo-allied general advance. As such, does it belong here? Tirailleur 17:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem here being once again timing, every army or section of said army wanting to claim that this happened 1st. Timing in this battle will drive you to complete distraction. I have a section where one of the Prussian battlion histories claiming that La Haye Fischermount breakthrough started at 6pm when both battlions on either side stating 7pm. I'm pretty sure it was around 7pm but equally certain that no one was carefully checking the time in a battle. One of the few things I am certain of is that the breakthrough at Placenoit was the last of the 3 breeches as eye wittness accounts say that the French were already fleeing the British on the other side of the Battlefield. Chesney claimed that Zieten broke through 1st, followed shortly by Wellinton, and finished up with Bulow. David Hamilton-Williams makes more bombastic claims but he is under a cloud to this day (though perhaps not deservedly so) a half ton of British authors either don't know about Ziethen or ignore it while stating that Wellington broke through 1st. Given the confusion about the time on every side, I said on or about thinking that is about the best we are going to be able to accomplish here. Tirronan 02:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that there were two phases in the advance of Wellinton's troops, something that is not often highlighted. First, Wellington authorised a follow up by Adam's Brigade and Halkett's Hanoverians, plus Vivian's hussars, of the retreating defeated batallions of the Imperial Guard, this advance could have be halted and recalled if resistance had stiffened. Wellington then realised that the the morale of the whole French army was collapsing, at which point he ordered the general advance.
I suspect that the first, limited advance, was probably slightly ahead of Zeiten's, and that his advance and Wellington's general advance were more or less simultaneous. A conformation of this situation is that, although Durutte's division was broken by Zeiten's troops in their advance, Durutte himself was wounded (lost a hand and the sight of one eye) by a British cavalryman not a Prussian. If the Prussians had been ahead of the first Allied advance this incident is unlikely to have happened.
Urselius 08:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The 1st breach was effected by Prussian Infantry/Artillery and when Ziethen started pushing his Cav through rout followed, now DHW claims (and I am highly suspious of this claim) that Wellington saw this from horseback and ordered a full charge. Personally I think that claim is bullshit and won't use it. My best guess is that infantry fleeing Cav will be hot-footing to the rear as fast as feet could provide for and that this is what happened to Durutte's division. Durutte could not have been hanging around with his division fleeing and probably ran into Wellington's Cav in the retreat. Any other outcome would have had him pinned on the end of a Prussian lance. Tirronan 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Longford described Waterloo as unfolding in 5 acts, like a classical tragedy, except that the 5 acts (Hougoumont, d'Erlon, French cavalry, attack of the Imperial Guard, Plancenoit) overlapped. The first and last of those played out through most of the day.

Incidentally we need a policy decision on Ziethen or Zieten. I recommend the former because it's Ziethen on the battle map and that's harder to change than the wiki text.

Tirronan do you want to have a go at straightening out the Prussian section? Tirailleur 09:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the eyewitness acount: I wasn't really too certain about the section it would belong in when I put it in. On second reading, I think it probably belongs in the "Prussian Advance" section. -Kieran 02:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me have a look at this again and I will see what I can do. Ok the section that talks about the Imperial Guard in the Prussian advance section was placing the time (Guard attack on Wellingtonn's center so as to give the reader a chance to see what was going on over at the other end of the battlefield. Might be a good tool to use in the Allied (Wellington's Army) section to tie this together more closely. I've added verbage to make that clearer and expanded the Placenoit section futher to make that clearer. Tirronan 20:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've revised that section which was of the Prussian arrival not Placenoit and I have removed this quote which does not belong in the Prussian section. Looks like the quote should have been in a section talking about Wellington's infantry moving from square to line to repulse the Imperial Guard attack on the Center of Wellington's line. I've got it copied below in case you want to include it there. Tirronan 12:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Notes on FA

I have very mixed feelings about FA status, I was the one that got Battle of Shiloh its FA status and had cause to regret it. I worked for a month on the T-38 and F-86 articles after FA status fixing things that the [citation needed] Bombers had a fieldday with. Always amazed me how many muppets show up with a determination to enforce their ideal upon the editors (and even more amusing to see how little they contribute themselves while demanding weeks worth of work) all in the name of the highest ideals of Wikipedia. This article has had more than it's share of the attack of the muppets and you may very well want to consider if we are willing to do that all over again. Tirronan 21:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

References and citations

We have two books in the references:

  1. Hofschröer, Peter (1815). The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory. London: Greenhill Books. ISBN 1-85367-368-4
  2. Hofschröer, Peter (2004). Wellington's Smallest Victory: The Duke, the Model Maker and the Secret of Waterloo. London: Faber & Faber. ISBN

So the citations need a disambiguation on title like "German victory" and "Smallest victory" --Philip Baird Shearer 21:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the second book so anything in the prussian sections is German victory Tirronan 19:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha! see this edit on 4 June. I'll move it into further reading. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The second book is about Sibourne and his building of the Waterloo model, which is in the British Army Museum in London.Anne-theater 01:00 , 17 September 2007 (CEST)

Capitalization

Capitalization, especially of unit names, is somewhat nonstandardised in the article. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't currently have style guidelines for this, so I've proposed some on the relevant MoS page. Please have a look and see if you agree. Once they're stable, I'm going to go through and standardise. -Kieran 23:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As this is a project wide issue please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital_letters)#Military terms --Philip Baird Shearer 06:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Please feel free to join in. I think we can probably have the issue deferred for GA purposed for now, although if we go for FA, it needs to be resolved and the article edited to match. -Kieran 21:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

GA re-review

We've been on hold for more than two weeks now. Most of what was requested has been done. I move that we push to finish off the last few minor points (or argue why they are unnecessary), and request re-review this Wednesday (19 September). -Kieran 21:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the progress tracker. Right now all that's left to do is:
  • Get citations for the declaration of Napoleon as an outlaw and the commitment of 150 000 troops by each power in the first paragraph of the prelude.
    • Completed but section is inaccurate over 800,000 men were deployed. Tirronan 19:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Get a citation for Napoleon providing false intelligence to Wellington's spies.
    • Completed Hofschorer provides 23 pages on this subject Tirronan 19:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarify the end of the paragraph on Wellington's army under armies. (This was added just pre-review by an anonymous editor. Maybe it just needs to be removed?)
  • Clarify and expand the paragraph on Blucher's army under armies.
    • Completed Tirronan 19:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge the first two paragraphs of battle, and link Bulow's Corps in better. (Why is it significant that they were tired and posted far away from the battlefield? Were they one of the corps chosen by Blucher to assist Wellington? Did he choose them in spite of their distance?) The information provided on Bulow's corps is good, but its context and relevance is not clear.
    • Completed Tirronan 19:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think once we've got these last issues out of the way, we can ask for a second review. -Kieran 13:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bulow's corps was the only Prussian corps not to have been badly mauled at the Battle of Ligny two days earlier, as it had not reached that battlefield at all. If you look at his infantry battalions they averaged roughly 600+ men each, some of the battalions of the other corps had little more than 300 men in the ranks on the day of Waterloo. Bulow's corps was therefore the strongest Blucher had and was therfore the obvious choice for heading the Prussian advance to the battlefield. Unfortunately this corps was not the nearest to Waterloo at the dawn of the 18th June, they therefore had a long march. Urselius 14:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A full Prussian infantry battalion would be 720 men and officers as you notice this almost never happened but that is the regulation muster. The 4th Corps was guarding the other 3 as they reassembled and was thus the farest away, further the supply trains had to be rerouted thus fought without resupply for 48 hours. Tirronan 16:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! I've given the new material a bit of a copy edit for clarity and fixed a few typos (please check that the factual content is still ok). There's just one thing that needs to be done: At the end of the paragraph on Wellington's army, there are a few sentences about the force Wellington left at Hal. In these sentences there are mentions of differing opinions by historians on Wellington's motivations for doing this. I think this is what the review was asking to be clarified: If we are going to cite historian's opinions, we need in-line citations for this. Alternately, the sentences could maybe be copyedited to take this out.
Once this is done, I'm going to ask that the article be taken off hold. (Or, whoever does this can do that...) -Kieran —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the Imperial Guard

It isn't obvious in the text that the attack by 5 battalions actually split into two parts (of 2 and 3 battalions) before it reached the Allied line. One part was defeated by Chasse's counter attack, the other by Maitland's guards and the flanking fire of Adam's 52nd Light Infantry.

As it stands at the moment it reads as though the same battallions of French guardsmen were somehow defeated twice. This really needs addressing.Urselius 08:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This in fact is what led to various battalions claiming they had defeated the guards most historians didn't catch the fact that the Guard arrived in a staggered and eventually split formation. Also a statement here about most of the Guard being in Placenoit would serve to link these two actions together which probably would be a good thing. Tirronan 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually what the section implied is that the attack split into three parts, one repulsed by Chasse and a second that the British guards repulsed; the latter was then reinforced by another Chasseur battalion coming up, and it was the latter that was defeated by flanking fire from the 52nd LI. I have reworded the article so that it now explicitly says this. I haven't put in citations because I haven't altered the facts we give. I have also made it clear that each prong was defeated - in the previous version this wasn't quite there. Tirailleur 10:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Muddled references

References 67 and 68 no longer make sense. I took the pre-casualty brigade strengths from Adkin and the numbers of casualties from Smith. I did this as neither book shows the full 'before and after' picture.

My poor old brain (which dates from the days of fountain pens) can't cope with re-arranging the code to make the thing sensible again (in the Jane Austin sense of the word). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs) 19:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what to do there. Is it not possible that you could split the reference, or maybe give an unformatted version here? -Kieran 08:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've sorted it out, in a way. Though it isn't as clear as the original was. I've been struck by how often Wiki style parameters interfere with common sense and elegance of expression, a pet peeve. Urselius 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review (2)

I have been notified that the article is ready for me to review again to complete the GA process. I'm a little busy today but should get to it either this evening or tomorrow (Saturday at the very latest). At first glance however, the article looks enormously impressive and its clear that a lot of hard work has gone on, well done.--Jackyd101 08:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, although people are still talking below, I think I can start the review now. What I'll do is run through it and note any problems below as if I was doing a full FAC review. Although this is too intense for a simple GA review, it will help prepare the article for FA which is presumably where it is headed. Once I have run through it I'll decide whether the article stands up to GA and whether I will pass it (which, honestly I almost certainly will from the looks of things). I will start tonight, but this process may take a while as I am a little busy and this article is pretty substantial. If anything I mention is fixed whilst I'm still going through then please just leave a little note below the bullet point. Regards.--Jackyd101 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The lead gives a much better overview of the campaign and is much clearer. I still don't like the cquote where it is, I think it seriously breaks up the text of the lead and is very distracting. I see there was some discussion of this above but no conclusions were reached. I suggest that if it must be put in cquotes, then put it at the end of the lead.
Done. Tirailleur 11:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think its normal to put the campaignbox below the infobox, not above it. Is there a particular reason this convention is reversed here?
No idea. I can reverse this easily enough. Tirailleur 11:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It was done because some browsers were/are having problems.see #Format --Philip Baird Shearer 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I know consensus that battle should be capitalised when saying "Battle of Waterloo" in a sentance is for a capital "B" but I still don't like the way it looks. Nevertheless, I respect consensus and withdraw this comment above.
  • I moved a couple of references which were improperly placed (refs should be directly next to punctuation). I didn't see any others but keep an eye out for them.
  • I absolutely love that there is a seperate article for the Duchess of Richmond's ball. Kudos to whoever created that.
Thanks :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "reconnoitred" links to a non-existant Wikitionary article. Can someone sort that out (I think the link has been mispelled).
Fixed. Now links to "reconnaissance", from which the verb is "reconnoitre". Apparently. Tirailleur 11:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I added the word to the article and I though it was common parlance. But for general information the OED says
  • "1. trans. a. Mil. (and Naval). To make an inspection or take observations of (an enemy, his strength, position, etc.)., b. transf. To make an inspection, examination or survey of (persons).
  • 2. a. Mil. To inspect, examine, or survey (a district or tract of ground) in order to discover the presence or position of an enemy, or to find out the resources or military features of the country. b. transf. To survey or explore (a district, etc.) in order to learn its character, geography, etc. c. transf. To examine, inspect, look into (a thing or matter).
  • 3. absol. or intr. To make a reconnaissance.
  • 4. trans. To recollect, remember, recognize.
"Hence reconnoitrer, one who reconnoitres." hope that helps --Philip Baird Shearer 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The sentance "Crucially, they retreated not to the east, along their own lines of communication and away from Wellington, but northwards, parallel to Wellington's line of march and still within supporting distance, and remained throughout in communication with Wellington." has an awful lot of commas, could a few be trimmed? Keep an eye out for more sentances like this and other slightly dodgy punctuation.
Fixed. It's now two sentences. Tirailleur 11:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph of "Armies" the "(7,000 of whom were Peninsular War veterans[14])." parenthsis would be better suited to being moved to the next sentance (i.e. "All these were regular troops, 7,000 of whom were Peninsular War veterans[14]." Otherwise it looks a little like 7,000 of the 6,000 KGL were veterans rather than 7,000 of the total British army which is what the sentance means. (I went ahead and moved this myself).
Thanks. It does read better. Tirailleur 11:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've noticed in places the spelling veers from American English ("reorganized") to British English ("characterised") and back again. I don't mind which is chosen (although British English would probably make more sense) but the article must be consistant.
Agree. Needs a read-through to fix this. One day I must print the whole thing off. Tirailleur 11:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A source may have to be found for the first sentance of the French cavalry attack section. I know that what is said is correct, but in further review someone may slap a citation needed tag on it.
We can easily come up with one. There is some speculation among authors that the entire cavalry attack was actually inadvertent. There is a far more robust case for the account given in the article - Ney's request for extra troops to exploit this apparent opportunity elicited a dusty retort from Napoleon ("Where would you like me to get them? Would you like me to make some?")
  • Mihaud, Lefebvre-Desnöettes, Kellerman and Guyot are not linked when they are first mentioned. Neither is Lobau. The same is true of several other names in the same section (i.e. Reille etc.). Links can also be made to British Regiments such as those at the end of the French cavalry attack.
Are we OK with empty (red) links for now? There will not be a lot to say about some of these guys. Tirailleur 11:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I just created a stub article for Édouard Jean Baptiste Milhaud --Philip Baird Shearer 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "The ends of the U" is not very encyclopedic. How about the "ends of the line".
Fixed. Tirailleur 11:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Allied" & "Allies" are sometimes capitalised and sometimes aren't. I don't mind which is used, but be consistant.
Agree - the issue I think is that Wellington's army itself is normally referred to as the Anglo-allied or Anglo-Allied army, while Britain, Prussia and the other contributors are also collectively the allies. This formulation gets a bit clunky at times. I'll have a look at what can be done. Tirailleur 11:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Britain, Prussia and the other contributors are also collectively the Coalition (7th Coalition) --Philip Baird Shearer 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a brief paragraph after the battle today along the lines of "Since 1815 the Battle of Waterloo has had a major and lasting influence in the countries whose armies were involved, for example etc." This only need be three lines or so, but it could incorporate the Waterloo in popular culture link and round off the article nicely. Just an idea.

What do you know, that was quicker than I thought. A few notes on my comments in the first GA review, the already impressive narrative is greatly improved and the paragraphs are of a decent length to adequately explain their subjects. The linking to other articles (particulaly people) is however still not as good as it could be. The addition of quotes has improved the article immensely and added much needed colour to an article which by its very nature is quite technical militarily. The quotes have also reduced the need for other visual stimulation like maps or more pictures. References are great. Congratulations to everybody who worked on this very impressive article which breaks down a complex and very important historical event to accessible and interesting prose, well done, you have a GA.--Jackyd101 02:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yippee!! Tirailleur 11:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, missed something. Although I think it wouldn't be too difficult to clean up for someone more familiar with them, the Notes are in a serious mess. That needs clearing up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the endorsement! British English spelling has two "schools" the Oxford and the Cambridge. For words like capitalise/capitalize the Cambridge school would favour the use of 'z,' the Oxford school would favour 's.' Either method is considered correct (I favour the Oxford spelling myself), but consistency is everything. Urselius 08:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you live and learn. I was aware of the Oxford and Cambridge mouth positions while speaking, but not of the schools of spelling. Tirailleur 11:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
An addendum to my comments above; with the thing about linking to names when they first appear, it is important that all those who do have article get a link. Then perhaps a list could be made here on the talk page of officers who should have a link to them but currently do not have their own article. When the required article is created the link is made in the main article. That way the red links appear on the talk page not the main article (making it look tidier) but there is some kind of tracking system for required links. If someone really isn't notable or interesting enough to have their own article ever then obviously no link is required.--Jackyd101 13:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There's a problem with some titles of biographical articles, appropriately enough its the peerage titles borne by the subjects that are at fault. I tried to link with the correct form "Edward, Lord Somerset" but had to modify to "Edward Somerset" for the link with "Lord Somerset" in brackets. Even more strange I tried linking Sir Hussey Vivian (with just the "Hussey Vivian" bit) to a page called "Hussey Vivian, 1st Baron Vivian" and it didn't work. This is a particular problem if, as in this case, Vivian was not a baron at the time of Waterloo, merely a knight. Urselius 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Prussian sections

These still seem a bit incoherent, eg:-

It was Blücher's intention to secure his left upon Frichermont using the Bois de Paris road. Blücher and Wellington had been exchanging communications since 10:00 and had agreed to this advance on Frichermont if Wellington's centre was under attack. General Bülow noted that Plancenoit lay open and that the time was 16:30. At about this time the 15th Brigade IV Corps was sent to link up with the Nassauers of Wellington's left flank at Frichermont/La Haye area...

OK, this I do not understand. Blücher wanted to secure his left on Frichermont so the 15th Brigade was sent to link up with the Nassauers at Frichermont / La Haye. Given that Blucher was marching due west, that move would anchor his northern i.e. right flank, not his left.

...with the brigade artillery's, horse artillery battery deployed to the left of the brigade in support.

Would it be correct and clearer to say "the brigade's horse artillery battery"? There was only one per brigade IIRC.

Napoleon sent Lobau's Corps to intercept the rest of Bülow's IV Corps proceeding to Placenoit. Therefore Napoleon sent his 10-battalion-strong Young Guard to beat the Prussians back.

I still don't follow this. The "therefore" implies a cause and effect but I can't see it; and where were the Young Guard sent?

In effect driving the Lobau's Corp down the back of the entire rear of Armee Du Nord's and threating its only line of retreat.

This isn't a sentence and badly needs a proofread - we aren't going to get to GA if we have verb-free sentences and spelling errors (Corp, threating, Placenoit).

Napoleon had dispatched the entire 8 battalions of Young Guard and 2 battalions of the Old Guard to reinforce Lobau's Division.

Stylistically should we not write out small numbers - eight rather than 8 battalions? Also, Lobau's force was a "Corp" in the previous paragraph and now it's a "Division".

Napoleon sent two battalions of the Old Guard

Two more or the same two?

The Silesian Schützen (riflemen) and the F/1st Landwehr

I have added an explanatory parethensis to explain what Schützen are, but I don't know what the F/1st Landwehr are. Is this the Fusilier battalion of the 1st Landwehr regiment? If so we'd best either say so, or just say "a battalion of the 1st Landwehr", unless we want to get into a discussion here of the difference between fusiliers and musketeers in the Prussian army.

  • Ok damn I hate this, Prussian basics 101, The Prussian army regiment consists of 1 Fusilier, and 2 Musketeer battalions, this is a regiment, 3 regiments with additional cavalry and artillery makes a brigade, Schutzen = Sharpshooter or Rifles in the English army as ar Jagers found in the germanic formations in Wellington's army and mostly supplied with rifles. So in this case there F/1st Landwehr is the Fusiler Battalion 1st Regiment Landwehr.

- Right, so my guess was correct, but your average reader probably won't intuit this. I will add a section to the "Armies" bit which explains the structure of a Prussian regiment. We have mentioned musketeer battalions and Schützen so we probably need this. It would break the flow of the narrative to explain it at this point of the narrative though. Tirailleur 21:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The French fell back before the renewed assault without much of an attempt at defense. At this point, the French began to seriously contest ground,

Nonsequitur again; the second sentence contradicts the first. Also "defense" is an American spelling - I am fine with either but we should be consistent.

  • I am an American and I wrote the thing I am not conversant in British conventions so be my guest. As for the sentence the French simply gave ground then really dug in to defend and still got thrown out of the position in some disorder.Tirronan 20:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'll reword it now I understand it. Tirailleur 21:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The 25th Regiment's musketeer battalions threw the 1/2e Grenadiers (Old Guard)

The 2nd Grenadiers were Old Guard? Not according to the Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Guard), which says that "All soldiers within the 1st Grenadiers, 1st Chasseurs, and the Sergeants of the 2nd Grenadiers, Chasseurs, and Fusiliers were in the Old Guard Infantry." The 1/2e Grenadiers would be Middle Guard. I agree that the Old Guard fought at Plancenoit - but not all the Guard that fought at Plancenoit were Old. Tirailleur 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • There is an Old, Middle (not btw ever offical at the time) and a Young guard. Please note that the middle guard is a mondern distintion and not one applied at the time.
Hmm. In the attack of the Imperial Guard section, we have a quote from Ney: "I saw four regiments of the middle guard, conducted by the Emperor, arriving." Ney was shot in December 1815, so if that quote is genuine, the terminology was in use at the time. Tirailleur 08:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There was an order of honor as it were and the 1st Grenadiers, 1st Chasseurs would be the cream de la cream but this will be lost on most readers. Here is the deployement for everyone's enlightenment, 2 battalions were in and around Placenoit and very involved in the fighting, all 8 battaltions of the young guard were there and almost none escaped alive, 2 more old/middle guard were close by in case support was needed and another next to Nappy as his last reserve. The rest were advancing on Wellington's center. The problem we will have is that if everything is explained in this depth we will never finish this article and it will delve into areas that really don't concern the battle. There are several areas I have resisted going into, the Prussian Brigade being a miniture all arms corps and how badley it affected French operations throughout the campaign being one, while explaining Prussian formations being another. Doing so in the French guard battalion would be much in the same line. Tirronan 20:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I take your point. Since it's not factually inaccurate it makes sense to leave it. Tirailleur 21:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Lobau's command was a corps, of 3 infantry divisions of which 2 were at Waterloo, the other was, detatched, at Wavre. Before the battle 2 light cavalry divisions (Domon's and Subervie's) were attached to Lobau's command.
I think there was some distinction betweeen the "Oldest of the Old" and the merely "Old." The 2nd regiments of both chasseurs and grenadiers are normally considered "Old Guard." The whole situation is complicated by the grenadiers and chasseurs being administratively separated into two separate commands, whereas on the battlefield the 1st and 2nd Grenadiers and Chasseurs were placed together as an "Old Guard" formation, whilst the 3rd and 4th Grenadiers and Chasseurs were placed together as a "Middle Guard" formation. Urselius 13:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok I write in a very terse style, until I worked on this article there was barely a mention of the Prussian involvement but this is beside the point. I am going to suggest with all kindness that you are an editor as well as I am and that this article does not belong to me nor to the other editors here. If you don't like what I have writen, and sometimes I don't like what I have writen, then by all means rewrite it to your liking and we will review and change it if something is horribly wrong. Having taken the time to write this perhaps you will take the next step and edit, I am sure that I am not the 2nd coming of Shakespear and if you have an idea how to do so better then please have at it with my blessing. Tirronan 20:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
OTOH, you have a much more detailed grasp of the Prussian contribution and operations than I do. I have made a few edits to your text, but mostly these have of format plus a few reorderings for flow - I don't want to change stuff on the basis of what I think you mean, only to find I've got the wrong end of the stick. I'm not trying to be a pain in anyone's ass here but it seems likely that this stuff will get picked up in GA review so we might as well sort it out now. In the points I make above, if you look at them you'll see they're all stuff that requires a grasp of the facts to amend, and yours is way deeper than mine where the Prussians are concerned. Tirailleur 21:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have reordered the Prussians sections into what seems to me to be a more intuitive sequence, I have added some stuff about Prussian organisation, I have explained the F/15th notation in a footnote and I have revised the Attack of the Guard section to make it read more clearly. I have based the revisions on what was already implied. What says everyone? Tirailleur 22:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You did just fine and I wasn't angry I just prefer that we talk about changes here and then do them. I am not the only guy that can read PH and figure out what the Prussians were doing ;p. BTW there are good articles on the Prussian organization here that will enlighten you a bit on how they worked. They had the final distillation on French tactics and my they seemed to have a good handle on it in Waterloo, as opposed to Ligny. Tirronan 04:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Spelling consistency

Landwehr or Landwehr? - I think the latter as it's not an English word.

Cuirassier or cuirassier? - I think the former as there have been cuirassiers back to the English Civil War.

Carabinier or carabinier? - I think the latter as it's not an English word.

La Haye or La Haie? - I think the latter for consistency with the map.

Zieten or Ziethen? - I think the latter for consistency with the map.

Regiment / regiment, Brigade / brigade, Corps / corps - we are all over the place with this. I think it should be uppercase when describing a specific formation (2nd Brigade) but lowercase when describing one generally (Lobau's corps, but VI Corps). Tirailleur 13:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then please proceed as per my above comments, you know how we are about citation so if you bring something new into the page cite per factual statement. Tirronan 19:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to work through making the above consistent. The main issue I think is with proper names - it is easier to change the article than to change the map and as the spellings in the map are uncontentious I think we go with those. Tirailleur 21:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to provide citations to back up the italicisation of non-English terms. A talk page discussion should suffice, if there's a dispute. On the topic of capitalisation, please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Military_terms. (Also note that the guide was only recently finalised, so if you disagree with a detail of it, please discuss and modify the guideline.) More or less, the guideline states that formal names of units need to be capitalised, as well as abbreviations of these names (at least where the abbreviation remains specific). I think that's pretty much in line with what you're proposing. I definitely agree that there needs to be standardisation in this article - that was a large motivation for my efforts to create the guideline -Kieran 14:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Note 5

I see someone has had the bravura to reference Hamilton-Williams, note 5, but his book isn't in the references section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs) 10:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add the note, but I think I've found the reference and have added it. -Kieran 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually that was me, I've reread his book and checked his references, he is wrong in a couple of areas but this is a factual work of history and the 1st one since Chesney to highlight Prussian involvement and caught a lot of heat over it, that doesn't make it a bad work just a contraversaly one. Tirronan 04:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Article length

I have noticed the article's getting quite long (around 87kb). According to Wikipedia:Article_size, we should be aiming for 32-50kb, although this is only for "readable prose", of which I think this article probably isn't too far off that. There are also provisions for exceptions, and in this case I think it might be difficult to start splitting the article up. (Well, actually, maybe it would be ok to have an individual article for each of the major phases of the battle ...) Anyway, I think we need to be careful about adding too much more detail at the moment, and focus on getting the right details in, and on the quality of those details. What does everyone else think? -Kieran 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We could probably prune it a bit. Tirailleur 15:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It needs a vigorous prune. Whilst it's excellent overall, it's repetitive and verbose in places, adding to length. Some examples:

  • Intro, 2nd par: descriptions of where the armies were. It could probably be reduced by a third with no loss of meaning.
  • Intro, 3rd par: intro: "Napoleon chose to delay the start of the Battle of Waterloo until late in the morning of 18 June to give the ground time to dry out a little from the rain that had fallen during the night". Could be replaced with "It rained heavily overnight on 17 June, so Napoleon delayed giving battle until noon on 18 June to allow the ground to dry out."
  • Prelude, 2nd, 3rd, 4th pars: Ney's advance on Quatre Bras (15 June). Despite the welter of detail, the key point was that Napoleon told him to take Quatre Bras and he didn't (enabling Wellington to reinforce the crossroads the following day) isn't made. Again this is describes twice, in slightly different words. These paragraphs could probably be halved in length with little loss of meaning.

--ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done some pruning and hopefully not ruffled any feathers in so doing but now I can't see the size it's got to. What did I break? Tirailleur 00:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Down from 10,900-ish to 9,800-ish article words (excluding footnotes, etc). --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the length, I don't think it is much of a problem visa vie Battle of Gettysburg Battle of Shiloh Battle of Jutland and it seems that this is allowed so that the event may be properly covered. In importance the 100 days campaign effected European history to this day and deserves the proper coverage. Now as to getting to cover what needs be covered I agree and you might notice that the Prussian sections are pretty tight while covering the areas it needs to.Tirronan 06:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Lancers

I've amended the new mention of lancers in the final section to be less universal. Although the lance became more popular in the early-mid 19th century it was far from universally adopted. Of the regiments in the charge of the British Light Brigade at Balaclava (1853-ish) only one out of five carried the lance, and none of the regiments of the Heavy Brigade in the same battle carried lances.

It is true that in some services, the Imperial German for example, the experiment of arming the first rank of some non-lancer regiments with lances was tried, even so the majority of the troopers in such regiments would not have had lances and would have retained the sword as their main weapon. Urselius 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good edits. Tirailleur 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually large sections of the Prussian Landwehr Cavalry were lance armed and a section of Prussian Lancers were at Quatra Bras as well. Tirronan 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I heard there were 50-odd Silesian hussars; there were uhlans too? Tirailleur 13:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll check PH tonight but if memory serves they were Lutzow's Freicorps converted to uhlans 1 squad of 50. That may be incorrect so let me verify but again if memory serves they were separtated from the Prussian 1st corps during its operations in slowing the French advance and were contributing to the defense of Quatra Bras. Tirronan 14:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do, yes; I recall that initially on 16 June 50 Silesian hussars were the only Allied cavalry there, and that they rode off to rejoin their parent unit. It is perhaps more relevant to the Quatre Bras article, i.e. more detail than we need here. Tirailleur 21:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Gleig, Vol. II, Chapt. III
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Waterloo/Archive_7&oldid=1136555018"