Battle of Albuera is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 16, 2018. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Copy-edit discussion archived to Talk:Battle of Albuera/copyedit, since it got pretty big :) Carre 13:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of that table...I like it enough now to not want to get rid of it, but it looks clunky where it is. I was thinking of moving it to a daughter article, with a see also at the very start of Battle, then putting some words around the table in the new article. That way, in the prose, I could perhaps explain Godinot's and Werlé's large brigades, and provide more detail on the other units. Any thoughts or opinions? Carre 10:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, another truly excellent article on a Napoleonic War battle and one I was happy to pass for GA. I have a few notes below on issues to be addressed before taking the article further (as I suggest you do) but just to say well done to Carre and EyeSerene (and anybody else involved) for an informative, interesting and intelligent article.
Those were all the comments I had, and apart from the first none are very vital issues before this article can be taken further. Kudos to those involved and keep up the good work.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 21:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[←]The current sentence structure would support something there in a footnote; it's not a problem digging it up, since the Oman volume is on my bookshelf not 5 feet from where I'm sitting, and if it can confuse someone who actually knows something about the Peninsular war, it's best to clarify for those who don't. As said, I'll put it in a footnote though (with reference), so as not to spoil the prose. Will do tomorrow (can't be arsed tonight :D) Carre ( talk) 18:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)Thanks for the review Jacky. I've been through and tried to address the commas/names issues - I have possibly over-linked the article as a result, but I'll make a further pass to try to find possible articles for the redlinks (and maybe start stubs where not, if I get the time). I'll also try to tie this up with the related Order of Battle article. If I've missed anything, feel free to complain in my direction ;) EyeSerene TALK 09:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[←]I'll echo Eye's thanks - the new bio articles look very good. Unfortunately, RL has conspired to keep me away from WP for the last week or so, so haven't been able to comment until now. The Major Jacky was considering delinking is the one who commanded the garrison at Campo Maior - although he did a sterling job defending the town, I doubt there's much more to say about him so I'll delink for now. A browse through a few of my sources may show if he did anything else worthy of an article. Carre ( talk) 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Another 4 stubs done, but if anyone's French is good enough, Godinot, Werlé and Maransin have more details in the French wikipedia and its source. Carre ( talk) 14:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
According to Long's letters (which are contemporary), Long himself alerted Beresford to an anomaly of rank. Long was a brigadier-general, which was something of a courtesy title (like commodore in the navy) not a rank, in terms of substantive rank he was a colonel. As the allied Spanish cavalry were commanded by a major-general, Long considered that the Spanish might object to being placed under the command of a mere colonel. As a result of this Beresford decided that Lumley, a British major-general, should take over over-all command of the cavalry, to which Long acceded. However, Beresford decided to implement the replacement of Long on the very day of the Battle of Albuera, during combat, which Long took as a mortal insult.
The earlier clash at Campo Mayor had soured relations between Beresford and Long and a great deal of resentment had built up between the two men, partly based on Long's scathing comments on the Portuguese cavalry he commanded (Beresford was commander in chief of the Portuguese Army). As D'Urban was closely attached to Beresford it is of no surprise that he chose to put a slant on the supersession of Long that suggested that Long was removed for incompetency.
See: McGuffie, T.H (Ed). Peninsular Cavalry General (1811-1813): The Correspondence of Lieutenant-General Robert Ballard Long, London (1951).
Fletcher, I. Galloping at Everything: The British Cavalry in the Peninsula and at Waterloo 1808-15, Spellmount, Staplehurst (1999).
Urselius ( talk) 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have McGuffie (it cost about 30 pounds sterling - second-hand) and Fletcher.
Interestingly, Fletcher (p. 149 - referencing Fortesque) attributes the precipitate withdrawal of Long's men back over to the Albuera town side of the river to a mix up by Beresford's staff officers. Long received two orders, the first from D'Urban telling him to remain on the right bank of the river and dispute his withdrawal until hard pressed by the French, the second order came from Beresford's Adjutant General, Colonel Rooke, this told Long to retire across the river and form on its left bank. Long obviously responded to the later order, which he assumed would supercede the earlier one.
This would tend to negate the argument that the primary reason for Long being relieved of his command was that Beresford was unduly displeased with his handling of his cavalry in the opening stages of the battle.
McGuffie p. 106 - a letter from Long dated 22nd May 1811:
"In consequence of the union of the Spanish Cavalry, and to prevent disputes about rank, General Beresford directed Major General Lumley to take command of the whole Cavalry, and, in my opinion, rather indelicately, permitted this command to be assumed after the action had commenced, and whilst I was manoeuvring the Troops. This I can never forgive and thus has fortune deprived me again of what I am free to think and hope might have been my hard-earned reward. Though deeply hurt, I did not abate my zeal and endeavours to promote the Marshal's glory, and to my perfect knowledge of the ground, which I had reconnoitred the night before, enabled me I believe to be of assistance to the officer who thus superseeded me."
Urselius ( talk) 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Fletcher reference: Fortesque, British Army, VIII, p.186.
Fletcher, I. Galloping at Everything: The British Cavalry in the Peninsula and at Waterloo 1808-15, Spellmount, Staplehurst (1999). ISBN# 1862270163.
McGuffie, T.H. (ed.) Peninsular Cavalry General: (1811-13) The Correspondence of Lieutenant General Robert Ballard Long London : George G. Harrap; 1951. (pre ISBN)
I think that if there are two versions of an event, both supported by at least one primary source, then they should both go in the body of the text. This would be my opinion about the best way of treating the problem.
Just to muddy the water even more, I have grave doubts over Beresford's formal ability to relieve a British general of his command in the field. Considering the difficulties Wellington had in getting rid of people such as William Erskine I imagine that Beresford, who was not even C-in-C of the British forces, would have been even more hamstrung. After all Long was sent out by Horseguards and invested with his command by Wellington. I would imagine that a general would have had to commit an indictable criminal offence to be removed or superceded by Beresford without reference to higher authority. Given that this sort of situation existed, it seems to me that Beresford must have had some form of agreement from Long that he was willing to be put under Lumley's authority. If the reason for this move was given out that it was because Long was incompetent then that agreement would not have been forthcoming. It must be remembered that D'Urban's letters were not public, or official.
Templates - far too technical for me, what's wrong with simple citations these days?
I needed the McGuffie quickly for something I was writing, I got a good price on a copy of Tomkinson though.
Urselius ( talk) 08:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The text etc. looks fine to me.
By a series of accidents I seem to have become a cavalry specialist, but my interests are, in fact, quite wide: including naval matters (I suspect my next article will have a naval subject). I'll have a look at the Peninsular War page.
Urselius ( talk) 14:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking for opinions, if anyone's watching...
Should the Duchy of Warsaw be included in the infobox? It was there in the article version before I got my hands on it, and only removed after Jacky's comment at the GA review. The Vistula Uhlans were the only Polish troops present, I believe (unless there were any infantrymen amongst the French conscripts), but they weren't there as an independent entity. They were part of the French army.
I removed a recent re-addition of them in the infobox, but then reverted myself. I figured, eventually, that just as they weren't there independently, the same could, just about and at a stretch, be argued about the Portuguese (yes, a much more tenuous argument there!).
In the end, I decided I didn't want to partake in any revert warring, so do any watchers have any opinions? Cheers Carré ( talk) 20:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If you put the Poles in, then you can also add Hanover. There were at least as many King's German Legion participants, as were Polish ones. And the KGL was a part of the British army, as were the Poles one of the French army. So, please either both participants or none! Anne-theater ( talk) 21:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Just to chuck in my 2p worth, it struck me (when I was copyediting) as odd that the Poles should be mentioned in the infobox, mainly because there is only a brief mention of them in the article. They are there in the ORBAT for those readers that are interested, and personally I think that's sufficient. EyeSerene TALK 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As a comparison I have added the casualties sustained by the French infantry at the Battle of Garcia Hernandez in 1812. The situation was quite similar in that two squares of French infantry were broken by cavalry (KGL Dragoons). However of the French casualties the vast majority were made prisoners, wheras at Abuera the majority of British casualties were apparently killed or wounded with a minority made prisoner.
The text I added could possibly be better placed within a footnote, but the clumsy citation system put me off trying.
Urselius ( talk) 14:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Urselius ( talk) 11:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Quoting the text:
"...and a suicidal charge by Long's heavy cavalry against Latour-Maubourg's infantry, formed in square, was only halted by Beresford's timely arrival. Latour-Maubourg was subsequently able to complete his withdrawal.[21]"
This isn't strictly true. The heavies had been stopped and physically moved away from Long's direct control by the action of an aide of Beresford's before Beresford arrived on the scene. Long sent a captain back to the heavies to get them forward, but his intentions (recorded only 3 days after the action and before the censure from Wellington had been received) were to use the heavy cavalry to drive off the remaining French cavalry which were supporting the infantry squares. He then thought that the French infantry, deprived of cavalry cover, would be induced to surrender. Long never mentioned any intention of throwing his cavalry at formed squares of French infantry, this is an insinuation of Beresford/D'Urban and uncritically repeated by Oman. The captain returned to Long to say that Bereford had stopped the heavies personally. Long remained to see, with incredulity, the French column walk away from eight squadrons of British heavy cavalry, three squadrons of Portuguese cavalry and a battery of KGL artillery (which got off a few shots at the French before being halted by Beresford) just as the forward elements of British infantry under Colborne were coming up. It is worth pointing out that a contemporary way of breaking infantry squares was recognised as the co-operation of artillery and cavalry. The threat of cavalry charging forced the infantry to stop moving and adopt a defensive posture, the artillery then used the infantry as target practice until they surrendered or were so knocked about that the cavalry could charge with hope of success.
Urselius ( talk) 13:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
How about a slight expansion of my above suggestion for the body of the text? and the following as a footnote:
"The cavalry clash at Campo Mayor, was to become a very controversial action. Beresford considered that Long had lost control of his light cavalry, which had pursued fleeing French cavalry for up to seven miles until they came within range of the fortress guns of Badajoz. Beresford also claimed that his taking personal command of the heavy dragoon brigade had prevented Long from ordering them to attempt a suicidal charge against French infantry squares (see Oman pp.258-265) Long was of the opinion, and was subsquently supported in this by the historian Napier (see Napier pp. 309-310), that if Beresford had released the British brigade of heavy dragoons he would have been able to drive off the supporting French cavalry and force the French infantry to surrender (see McGuffie, T.H pp. 73-81)."
I can get hold of the missing page numbers etc.
Urselius ( talk) 13:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Done! It's only more succinct if you ignore the stonking great footnote attached. :) Urselius ( talk) 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be kind to the reader to give the alternate spelling in brackets after the first use of the name. I have great mental problems reading histories where Spanish-Portuguese border place-names are used - for Olivenza do I think "oleeventha" or "oleevenzha?" Urselius ( talk) 14:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have read all the traditional histories (French and British) dealing with Albuera and I have also read a meticulously researched book about the battle by G. Dempsey entitled Albuera 1811 -- The Bloodiest Battle of the Peninsula War (2008). The book provides many new facts about the battle and reveals some mistakes made by famous historians such as Oman and Fortescue. My intention is to make changes in the article based on the new book where the evidence for a correction is clear and compelling. Other contributors who are interested in Albuera may want to look at the book before objecting to changes.-- Marshalb ( talk) 22:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The number of sources is never as important as the quality of sources. There is no work about this battle (Fortescue and Oman included) other than the new book that ties its facts and conclusions to primary sources via footnotes. That causes me to conclude that the new book is a better source of information about some facts (such as the date when Wellington sent a letter to Long removing him from command) even if no other book contains that information and other "respected" sources have different stories about why Long was superceded. History is not a popularity contest in which the most votes determine historical truth, especially when newer secondary sources have a tendency to cite the same information without verification from earlier secondary sources. Anyone who cares enough about Albuera to be writing on this discussion page should care enough to read the new book and draw his or her own conclusions before asserting that Oman and Fortescue must always be right because they have been around a long time.
By the way, Andalu cia is the Spanish name of the province and should have been used in this article rather than the English name Andalusia for the same reason that we now call the capital of China Beijing rather than Peking. Marshalb ( talk) 17:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted a recent change to the infobox casualty figures so the article and refs remain in synch, but given that the reason for the change was that Oman's casualty figures may be exaggerated, maybe we can discuss that here? Cheers, EyeSerene talk 11:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
[←]As far as I remember, neither Gates nor Esdaile explain where they get the 7,000 figure from. The reference to Belmas etc is from Jac Weller, who quotes Soult's, Oman's and the 7,000 numbers. Oman is quite explicit in how he came up with his numbers, as also mentioned in Aftermath (extrapolated from regimental returns). Given that extrapolation is just a posh name for an educated / informed guess, we already have a doubt raised to that number in the article. The evidence from Oman is certainly enough to call doubt on either of Soult's figures, comparing Soult's returns of officer casualties with the regimental returns. Fortescue is no use, since he just "borrows" from Oman.
Agree that the discrepancy isn't a French vs Anglo argument Carré ( talk) 12:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
"The aftermath of the battle resulted in two famous quotes from the opposing commanders.
Wellington, while writing up his report of the battle is recorded as saying “This will not do – write me down a victory.”
However, the more famous quote is from a letter Soult wrote after the battle. “There is no beating these troops. I always thought they were bad soldiers, now I am sure of it. I had turned their right, pierced their centre and everywhere victory was mine – but they did not know how to run!” [1]"
These are interesting but I think we need more information to put them into context (esp. for Wellington), and the reference is incomplete. EyeSerene talk 11:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
References
Nothing on the Gates ref says that this was a tactical victory. Reiftyr ( talk) 01:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Fortescue says "Many years later when the battle of Albuera had become a theme of bitter controversy, Beresford admitted...." I came here curious about that later controversy; it seems like if the British (or Allied?) principals were later engaged in argument over the results of the battle something about that would be an appropriate addition to the article. Since I know nothing whatsoever about that myself I'm just leaving this as a suggestion. 71.34.14.42 ( talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The lack of explanatory maps, either of the location or of the development of the battle, make the article very hard to follow. The old maps are more illustrations than contributions to the article. Cyclopaedic ( talk) 11:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
G'day all, just wondering if anyone here can provide a reference for this sentence: "His army was much smaller than that of the Allies, but he hoped the quality of his troops would compensate for his lack of numbers"? I have tagged it in the article with a Cn tag to make it clear what I am referring to. As a featured article, it would be best if this could be dealt with to ensure that the article remains up to scratch with the current FA referencing requirements. Pinging a few editors from the Napoleonic War task force who may be able to assist: @ Auntieruth55, GELongstreet, and Djmaschek:. If any of you can assist, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Too much reliance on antique sources. A lot of Oman (1911), who is sound, but to base so much of the article on him is hardly "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Some 1917, 1841, 1837, and some Napier from 1831. Again, sound enough, but HQ RSs? While I could nit pick, the article is pretty sound, it "just" needs largely resourcing. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Battle of Albuera is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 16, 2018. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Copy-edit discussion archived to Talk:Battle of Albuera/copyedit, since it got pretty big :) Carre 13:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of that table...I like it enough now to not want to get rid of it, but it looks clunky where it is. I was thinking of moving it to a daughter article, with a see also at the very start of Battle, then putting some words around the table in the new article. That way, in the prose, I could perhaps explain Godinot's and Werlé's large brigades, and provide more detail on the other units. Any thoughts or opinions? Carre 10:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, another truly excellent article on a Napoleonic War battle and one I was happy to pass for GA. I have a few notes below on issues to be addressed before taking the article further (as I suggest you do) but just to say well done to Carre and EyeSerene (and anybody else involved) for an informative, interesting and intelligent article.
Those were all the comments I had, and apart from the first none are very vital issues before this article can be taken further. Kudos to those involved and keep up the good work.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 21:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[←]The current sentence structure would support something there in a footnote; it's not a problem digging it up, since the Oman volume is on my bookshelf not 5 feet from where I'm sitting, and if it can confuse someone who actually knows something about the Peninsular war, it's best to clarify for those who don't. As said, I'll put it in a footnote though (with reference), so as not to spoil the prose. Will do tomorrow (can't be arsed tonight :D) Carre ( talk) 18:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)Thanks for the review Jacky. I've been through and tried to address the commas/names issues - I have possibly over-linked the article as a result, but I'll make a further pass to try to find possible articles for the redlinks (and maybe start stubs where not, if I get the time). I'll also try to tie this up with the related Order of Battle article. If I've missed anything, feel free to complain in my direction ;) EyeSerene TALK 09:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[←]I'll echo Eye's thanks - the new bio articles look very good. Unfortunately, RL has conspired to keep me away from WP for the last week or so, so haven't been able to comment until now. The Major Jacky was considering delinking is the one who commanded the garrison at Campo Maior - although he did a sterling job defending the town, I doubt there's much more to say about him so I'll delink for now. A browse through a few of my sources may show if he did anything else worthy of an article. Carre ( talk) 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Another 4 stubs done, but if anyone's French is good enough, Godinot, Werlé and Maransin have more details in the French wikipedia and its source. Carre ( talk) 14:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
According to Long's letters (which are contemporary), Long himself alerted Beresford to an anomaly of rank. Long was a brigadier-general, which was something of a courtesy title (like commodore in the navy) not a rank, in terms of substantive rank he was a colonel. As the allied Spanish cavalry were commanded by a major-general, Long considered that the Spanish might object to being placed under the command of a mere colonel. As a result of this Beresford decided that Lumley, a British major-general, should take over over-all command of the cavalry, to which Long acceded. However, Beresford decided to implement the replacement of Long on the very day of the Battle of Albuera, during combat, which Long took as a mortal insult.
The earlier clash at Campo Mayor had soured relations between Beresford and Long and a great deal of resentment had built up between the two men, partly based on Long's scathing comments on the Portuguese cavalry he commanded (Beresford was commander in chief of the Portuguese Army). As D'Urban was closely attached to Beresford it is of no surprise that he chose to put a slant on the supersession of Long that suggested that Long was removed for incompetency.
See: McGuffie, T.H (Ed). Peninsular Cavalry General (1811-1813): The Correspondence of Lieutenant-General Robert Ballard Long, London (1951).
Fletcher, I. Galloping at Everything: The British Cavalry in the Peninsula and at Waterloo 1808-15, Spellmount, Staplehurst (1999).
Urselius ( talk) 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have McGuffie (it cost about 30 pounds sterling - second-hand) and Fletcher.
Interestingly, Fletcher (p. 149 - referencing Fortesque) attributes the precipitate withdrawal of Long's men back over to the Albuera town side of the river to a mix up by Beresford's staff officers. Long received two orders, the first from D'Urban telling him to remain on the right bank of the river and dispute his withdrawal until hard pressed by the French, the second order came from Beresford's Adjutant General, Colonel Rooke, this told Long to retire across the river and form on its left bank. Long obviously responded to the later order, which he assumed would supercede the earlier one.
This would tend to negate the argument that the primary reason for Long being relieved of his command was that Beresford was unduly displeased with his handling of his cavalry in the opening stages of the battle.
McGuffie p. 106 - a letter from Long dated 22nd May 1811:
"In consequence of the union of the Spanish Cavalry, and to prevent disputes about rank, General Beresford directed Major General Lumley to take command of the whole Cavalry, and, in my opinion, rather indelicately, permitted this command to be assumed after the action had commenced, and whilst I was manoeuvring the Troops. This I can never forgive and thus has fortune deprived me again of what I am free to think and hope might have been my hard-earned reward. Though deeply hurt, I did not abate my zeal and endeavours to promote the Marshal's glory, and to my perfect knowledge of the ground, which I had reconnoitred the night before, enabled me I believe to be of assistance to the officer who thus superseeded me."
Urselius ( talk) 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Fletcher reference: Fortesque, British Army, VIII, p.186.
Fletcher, I. Galloping at Everything: The British Cavalry in the Peninsula and at Waterloo 1808-15, Spellmount, Staplehurst (1999). ISBN# 1862270163.
McGuffie, T.H. (ed.) Peninsular Cavalry General: (1811-13) The Correspondence of Lieutenant General Robert Ballard Long London : George G. Harrap; 1951. (pre ISBN)
I think that if there are two versions of an event, both supported by at least one primary source, then they should both go in the body of the text. This would be my opinion about the best way of treating the problem.
Just to muddy the water even more, I have grave doubts over Beresford's formal ability to relieve a British general of his command in the field. Considering the difficulties Wellington had in getting rid of people such as William Erskine I imagine that Beresford, who was not even C-in-C of the British forces, would have been even more hamstrung. After all Long was sent out by Horseguards and invested with his command by Wellington. I would imagine that a general would have had to commit an indictable criminal offence to be removed or superceded by Beresford without reference to higher authority. Given that this sort of situation existed, it seems to me that Beresford must have had some form of agreement from Long that he was willing to be put under Lumley's authority. If the reason for this move was given out that it was because Long was incompetent then that agreement would not have been forthcoming. It must be remembered that D'Urban's letters were not public, or official.
Templates - far too technical for me, what's wrong with simple citations these days?
I needed the McGuffie quickly for something I was writing, I got a good price on a copy of Tomkinson though.
Urselius ( talk) 08:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The text etc. looks fine to me.
By a series of accidents I seem to have become a cavalry specialist, but my interests are, in fact, quite wide: including naval matters (I suspect my next article will have a naval subject). I'll have a look at the Peninsular War page.
Urselius ( talk) 14:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking for opinions, if anyone's watching...
Should the Duchy of Warsaw be included in the infobox? It was there in the article version before I got my hands on it, and only removed after Jacky's comment at the GA review. The Vistula Uhlans were the only Polish troops present, I believe (unless there were any infantrymen amongst the French conscripts), but they weren't there as an independent entity. They were part of the French army.
I removed a recent re-addition of them in the infobox, but then reverted myself. I figured, eventually, that just as they weren't there independently, the same could, just about and at a stretch, be argued about the Portuguese (yes, a much more tenuous argument there!).
In the end, I decided I didn't want to partake in any revert warring, so do any watchers have any opinions? Cheers Carré ( talk) 20:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If you put the Poles in, then you can also add Hanover. There were at least as many King's German Legion participants, as were Polish ones. And the KGL was a part of the British army, as were the Poles one of the French army. So, please either both participants or none! Anne-theater ( talk) 21:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Just to chuck in my 2p worth, it struck me (when I was copyediting) as odd that the Poles should be mentioned in the infobox, mainly because there is only a brief mention of them in the article. They are there in the ORBAT for those readers that are interested, and personally I think that's sufficient. EyeSerene TALK 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As a comparison I have added the casualties sustained by the French infantry at the Battle of Garcia Hernandez in 1812. The situation was quite similar in that two squares of French infantry were broken by cavalry (KGL Dragoons). However of the French casualties the vast majority were made prisoners, wheras at Abuera the majority of British casualties were apparently killed or wounded with a minority made prisoner.
The text I added could possibly be better placed within a footnote, but the clumsy citation system put me off trying.
Urselius ( talk) 14:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Urselius ( talk) 11:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Quoting the text:
"...and a suicidal charge by Long's heavy cavalry against Latour-Maubourg's infantry, formed in square, was only halted by Beresford's timely arrival. Latour-Maubourg was subsequently able to complete his withdrawal.[21]"
This isn't strictly true. The heavies had been stopped and physically moved away from Long's direct control by the action of an aide of Beresford's before Beresford arrived on the scene. Long sent a captain back to the heavies to get them forward, but his intentions (recorded only 3 days after the action and before the censure from Wellington had been received) were to use the heavy cavalry to drive off the remaining French cavalry which were supporting the infantry squares. He then thought that the French infantry, deprived of cavalry cover, would be induced to surrender. Long never mentioned any intention of throwing his cavalry at formed squares of French infantry, this is an insinuation of Beresford/D'Urban and uncritically repeated by Oman. The captain returned to Long to say that Bereford had stopped the heavies personally. Long remained to see, with incredulity, the French column walk away from eight squadrons of British heavy cavalry, three squadrons of Portuguese cavalry and a battery of KGL artillery (which got off a few shots at the French before being halted by Beresford) just as the forward elements of British infantry under Colborne were coming up. It is worth pointing out that a contemporary way of breaking infantry squares was recognised as the co-operation of artillery and cavalry. The threat of cavalry charging forced the infantry to stop moving and adopt a defensive posture, the artillery then used the infantry as target practice until they surrendered or were so knocked about that the cavalry could charge with hope of success.
Urselius ( talk) 13:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
How about a slight expansion of my above suggestion for the body of the text? and the following as a footnote:
"The cavalry clash at Campo Mayor, was to become a very controversial action. Beresford considered that Long had lost control of his light cavalry, which had pursued fleeing French cavalry for up to seven miles until they came within range of the fortress guns of Badajoz. Beresford also claimed that his taking personal command of the heavy dragoon brigade had prevented Long from ordering them to attempt a suicidal charge against French infantry squares (see Oman pp.258-265) Long was of the opinion, and was subsquently supported in this by the historian Napier (see Napier pp. 309-310), that if Beresford had released the British brigade of heavy dragoons he would have been able to drive off the supporting French cavalry and force the French infantry to surrender (see McGuffie, T.H pp. 73-81)."
I can get hold of the missing page numbers etc.
Urselius ( talk) 13:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Done! It's only more succinct if you ignore the stonking great footnote attached. :) Urselius ( talk) 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be kind to the reader to give the alternate spelling in brackets after the first use of the name. I have great mental problems reading histories where Spanish-Portuguese border place-names are used - for Olivenza do I think "oleeventha" or "oleevenzha?" Urselius ( talk) 14:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have read all the traditional histories (French and British) dealing with Albuera and I have also read a meticulously researched book about the battle by G. Dempsey entitled Albuera 1811 -- The Bloodiest Battle of the Peninsula War (2008). The book provides many new facts about the battle and reveals some mistakes made by famous historians such as Oman and Fortescue. My intention is to make changes in the article based on the new book where the evidence for a correction is clear and compelling. Other contributors who are interested in Albuera may want to look at the book before objecting to changes.-- Marshalb ( talk) 22:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The number of sources is never as important as the quality of sources. There is no work about this battle (Fortescue and Oman included) other than the new book that ties its facts and conclusions to primary sources via footnotes. That causes me to conclude that the new book is a better source of information about some facts (such as the date when Wellington sent a letter to Long removing him from command) even if no other book contains that information and other "respected" sources have different stories about why Long was superceded. History is not a popularity contest in which the most votes determine historical truth, especially when newer secondary sources have a tendency to cite the same information without verification from earlier secondary sources. Anyone who cares enough about Albuera to be writing on this discussion page should care enough to read the new book and draw his or her own conclusions before asserting that Oman and Fortescue must always be right because they have been around a long time.
By the way, Andalu cia is the Spanish name of the province and should have been used in this article rather than the English name Andalusia for the same reason that we now call the capital of China Beijing rather than Peking. Marshalb ( talk) 17:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted a recent change to the infobox casualty figures so the article and refs remain in synch, but given that the reason for the change was that Oman's casualty figures may be exaggerated, maybe we can discuss that here? Cheers, EyeSerene talk 11:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
[←]As far as I remember, neither Gates nor Esdaile explain where they get the 7,000 figure from. The reference to Belmas etc is from Jac Weller, who quotes Soult's, Oman's and the 7,000 numbers. Oman is quite explicit in how he came up with his numbers, as also mentioned in Aftermath (extrapolated from regimental returns). Given that extrapolation is just a posh name for an educated / informed guess, we already have a doubt raised to that number in the article. The evidence from Oman is certainly enough to call doubt on either of Soult's figures, comparing Soult's returns of officer casualties with the regimental returns. Fortescue is no use, since he just "borrows" from Oman.
Agree that the discrepancy isn't a French vs Anglo argument Carré ( talk) 12:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
"The aftermath of the battle resulted in two famous quotes from the opposing commanders.
Wellington, while writing up his report of the battle is recorded as saying “This will not do – write me down a victory.”
However, the more famous quote is from a letter Soult wrote after the battle. “There is no beating these troops. I always thought they were bad soldiers, now I am sure of it. I had turned their right, pierced their centre and everywhere victory was mine – but they did not know how to run!” [1]"
These are interesting but I think we need more information to put them into context (esp. for Wellington), and the reference is incomplete. EyeSerene talk 11:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
References
Nothing on the Gates ref says that this was a tactical victory. Reiftyr ( talk) 01:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Fortescue says "Many years later when the battle of Albuera had become a theme of bitter controversy, Beresford admitted...." I came here curious about that later controversy; it seems like if the British (or Allied?) principals were later engaged in argument over the results of the battle something about that would be an appropriate addition to the article. Since I know nothing whatsoever about that myself I'm just leaving this as a suggestion. 71.34.14.42 ( talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The lack of explanatory maps, either of the location or of the development of the battle, make the article very hard to follow. The old maps are more illustrations than contributions to the article. Cyclopaedic ( talk) 11:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
G'day all, just wondering if anyone here can provide a reference for this sentence: "His army was much smaller than that of the Allies, but he hoped the quality of his troops would compensate for his lack of numbers"? I have tagged it in the article with a Cn tag to make it clear what I am referring to. As a featured article, it would be best if this could be dealt with to ensure that the article remains up to scratch with the current FA referencing requirements. Pinging a few editors from the Napoleonic War task force who may be able to assist: @ Auntieruth55, GELongstreet, and Djmaschek:. If any of you can assist, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Too much reliance on antique sources. A lot of Oman (1911), who is sound, but to base so much of the article on him is hardly "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Some 1917, 1841, 1837, and some Napier from 1831. Again, sound enough, but HQ RSs? While I could nit pick, the article is pretty sound, it "just" needs largely resourcing. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)