![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can I resume the debate 8 years on?
It seems very odd to try to work out whose victory it was on the basis of Commanders' intents unless there is contemporary evidence of those intents. Wellington was notoriously secretive about his intentions. And I doubt whether Soult told his commanders that he intended to dispute territory with Wellington and then fall back, whatever he may subsequently have claimed.
Roberts ("Napoleon and Wellington", 2003) says "Soult withdrew the next day [11 April]...leaving most of his guns and 1,600 wounded". Another source says that the Allies took 1,600 prisoners including Generals d'Harispe, Bourot, and St Hilaire.
The normal contemporary way of judging a victory when there was a dispute was whether guns had been taken. I find it hard to believe that Wellington could have taken the main redoubts without capturing a gun. If Soult left behind significant amounts of guns when he withdrew, this would have been a huge reduction in his battle-fighting capacity. The French Army also had severe problems with desertion. Joining up with Suchet (down to 12,000 men) does not seem to me to offset the losses.
I suggest that a kind result for Soult would be "indecisive (tactically) and an allied victory (strategically)". Toulouse looks pretty strategic to me on the map!
Markd999 ( talk) 20:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Calling this battle indecisive is very odd. Calling it a French tactical victory is ludicrous. By the 11th April the French had raised the white flag and evacuated the city (from historical record of the Hertfordshire regiment). Wellington's forces then moved in to take the city. What's indecisive about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.1.180 ( talk) 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
“ | On the morning of the 11th [Soult] was again ready to fight, but the English general was not. The French position...was still inexpugnable on the northern and eastern fronts. The possession of Mont Rave was only a preliminary step to the passage of the canal on the bridge of Demoiselles and other points... But this was a great affair requiring fresh dispositions, ...hence...lord Wellington repaired on the 11th to St. Cyprien. | ” |
21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how this battle can in anyway be a defensive French victory seeing as Wellington successfully took the heights above him and was in no way repulsed or held up by the French army in trying to capture the city. He had hardly begun to lay siege when news of Napoleons abdication came through. Indecisive battle but by any tactical degree a marginal or even clear cut Anglo-Allied Victory ( 74.199.108.123 ( talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)).
Oops! I just made some changes that are highly relevant to the ongoing dispute. Only I did not think to look here, because there was no marker in the article to alert me to the ongoing discussion! I moved a disputed section to "Commentary" and added the POV. The disputed section was added on 20 November 2009, (a) has no source, (b) appears to me to be a pro-French opinion, (c) was added by an IP address but no name, (d) implies that there was an armistice before the city was evacuated, (e) and, worst of all, is contradicted by both David Chandler and Michael Glover. Also on 20 November, one and a half paragraphs that I added earlier were removed. I have replaced the missing material and added footnotes to it so that there is no ambiguity. You will also note that the battle is now called an "Anglo-Allied victory" and a Smith citation is attached. (OK, Smith's work is sometimes sloppy, but it is a printed reference after all.)
For those who disagree with this assessment, the best response would be to add (for example) "Drawn battle" and cite it with a source. This argument should not be about my opinion or yours about who won the battle. This should be about what historians say. My apologies to Carre, Albrecht, Slatersteven and any others who may be offended by my barging in here. Again, I made the changes to the article in blissful ignorance of the ongoing discussion. Djmaschek ( talk) 01:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
To the individual (93.149.236.75) who changed "Anglo-Allied victory" to "French Strategic Victory". It is not kosher to change referenced text and leave the citations intact! Smith and Rothenberg call it an Anglo-Allied victory, not a French Strategic Victory. Here is a suggestion.
You can even put French victory first if you like. But please cite your source. That way the article will keep its intellectual integrity. Thank you. Djmaschek ( talk) 02:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
On the morning of the 11th [Soult] was again ready to fight, but the English general was not. The French position...was still inexpugnable on the northern and eastern fronts. The possession of Mont Rave was only a preliminary step to the passage of the canal on the bridge of Demoiselles and other points... But this was a great affair requiring fresh dispositions, ...hence...lord Wellington repaired on the 11th to St. Cyprien.
So the outcome of the battle should be put as 'indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed'? Because the debate over this battle could go on forever. Spartacus97 ( talk) 14:40, 8 May 2010.
Yes, the result of the battle should be: 'indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed' with the respective references. It is short enough and sums up the different opinions expressed by authors.-- Alexandru Demian ( talk) 09:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems to escape you that the war ended before any committed move could be made like I said in previous talk. And your quote creating the illusion that Wellington's attack was what prompted the French evacuation. Well this is because the Mont Rave on the Calvinet Ridge was taken and there is no other explanation. Both Wellington and Soult knew the Calvient heights (Mont Rave )were the keys to either holding or taking the city. Once taken, which was what Wellington achieved let us not forget, he could if he wanted to bombard Toulouse into submission. So creating the illusion was in fact reality. Surrounded by the Allies on the west, north, and east, Soult held Toulouse during the day of April 11 but decided to pull out of the city to prevent his army from becoming trapped. At 9 pm 11th April (sorry where does the 12th come into it?) the French army marched out of Toulouse by the Carcassonne road, leaving 1600 wounded behind. Yes what Soult was in fact doing was retreating. A French victory are you sure?! -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 21:58, 8 May 2010 (GMT)
Since Toulouse only represented an aspect of Soult's overall position, it is difficult for the allies to claim a tactical victory. Soult's aims were not frustrated, Wellington's were. It's difficult for the French to claim a victory too, as you've pointed out. That's why the battle should be indecisive. Too little was achieved on both sides, and the whole battle was cut short because of Napoleon's abdication. Guard Chasseur 7:25, 9 May 2010.
Soult's overall position was that he was defeated on the heights which meant that he had no choice but to retreat only the day after. -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 22:46, 8 May 2010 (GMT)
Fuentes d'Onoro is a better battle to compare Toulouse with. The allies were driven back and lost a great portion of their original positions, even securing much of the lower half of the Fuentes d'Onoro. True, Massena did give up his attempt to relieve Almeida, but Wellington had still lost a great deal of ground. In this case, Soult lost ground but, much like what happened at Fuentes d'Onoro, the defending army was not broken or beaten, nor were they encircled or trapped by Wellington. Toulouse was only one aspect of the overall picture. So either Fuentes d'Onoro is labelled a tactical French victory or this battle is labelled indecisive.-- Spartacus97 ( talk) 8:05, 9 May 2010.
Allies driven back? Losing ground? Do you have any idea what your saying? You say this even though Wellington decided on a maneuver to straighten his line. Messena was booted out of Fuentes D'Onoro and was repelled throughout the battle and even lost an artillery duel which compelled him to retreat from the field of battle. It was Massena who retreated and Wellington who held his ground. Wellington ADVANCED to the better good and didn't retreat. You compare this to Toulouse where Soult was pushed of the strategic position of Mont Rave (Calvinet Ridge) and as a result was forced to retreat on 11th April because his position was untenable. -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 00:09, 9 May 2010 (GMT)
I'm refering only to initial movements (in both battles, Wellington and Soult lost ground). On the contrary, I don't in any way think that Fuentes d'Onoro was a victory for the French, and I'm not saying it was! The taking of Toulouse was the taking of only one of Soult's positions. As was stated above, Soult didn't intend on holding this position. His army was still ready to fight, like Wellington's at Fuentes d'Onoro. The battle cannot be labelled a tactical victory for Wellington simply because Soult was forced out of Toulouse. The battle was cut short. Spartacus97 ( talk) 9:30, 9 May 2010.
At Fuentes d'Onoro, the French withdrew having already gained ground. At Toulouse, the British gained ground (taking the city). The former was labelled a 'tactical draw', and so was Toulouse. As was previously stated, the battle was cut short by Napoleon's abdication (it was not the battle for Toulouse). Spartacus97 ( talk) 9:45, 9 May 2010.
Movements don't decide battles but the final act on who throws in the towel and on both occasions French retreated. Both sides can lose grounds for whatever reason. What your saying is that the Austrians won the battle of Marengo! The battle cannot be labelled a tactical victory for Wellington simply because Soult was forced out of Toulouse. Can you name a simple reason why he wasn't? Think about what about you have said. The fact was he was forced to retreat even though the most defended position was lost (most of French troops were concentrated here). What tactical advantage did Soult have by retreating from Toulouse or what did Massena have in the same effect at Fuentes D'Onoro? -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 01:36, 9 May 2010 (GMT)
At Fuentes d'Onoro it's true, French gains amounted to nothing. However, Wellington intended to surround the French army in the capture of Toulouse. This was his aim, and because Soult retreated he failed. As previously stated, Soult never intended to really hold Toulouse. Furthermore, the attack on the city would have been, had the battle not been cut short, a preliminary manoeuvre. Instead, it was a manoeuvre that failed in its ultimate plan. Soult army was still holding his overall positions and was intact, whereas Wellington, on the other hand, had consumed supplies and lost more casualties than his adversary. Thus, looking at the big picture, the attack on Toulouse was the capture of one position (like the battles I was comparing this scenario to previously) and was not the final outcome. Finally, when both commanders learned of the fate of the Empire, the battle was cut short. Therefore the result is indecisive, with neither Wellington or Soult being able to claim a tactical victory. And no, the Austrians definetely didn't win at Marengo. Spartacus97 ( talk) 10:55, 9 May 2010.
Therefore the battle should be made 'Indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed'. Guard Chasseur 11:05, 9 May 2010.
Because Soult retreated he lost the battle as the heights were captured like I have previously explained and just like he had been at Orthez. It was the same result albeit with heavier casualties. You say his overall positions; well they were captured. He had no positions to hold which is why Soult retreated on 12th April leaving 1,600 hundred wounded behind. There would have no attack on the city itself it was unnecessary; Soult had retreated BEFORE the news of France's defeat. -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 12:53 9 May 2010 (GMT)
Yes quite! I did quote and reference sources but then an unhappy person decided to change & now we are having this discussion. -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 21:00 9 May 2010 (GMT)
You say his overall positions; well they were captured.
He had no positions to hold which is why Soult retreated on 12th April leaving 1,600 hundred wounded behind.
Funny you should mention that he held it for an entire day which is irrelevant since he retreated anyway as you so put when he detected allied cavalry. This throws everything you have just said out of the water! Under no circumstance can this be claim as any type of success for the French! We don't have a problem because Wellington defeated the French on Mont Rave on 10th and took Toulouse on the 12th after Soult retreated BEFORE the war ended. I rest my case. -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 21:00 9 May 2010 (GMT)
Now that we've all confirmed the outcome of the battle, let's get on with editing and improving it. Guard Chasseur 18:10, 10 May 2010.
Well that is very interesting, it seems Albrecht that you don't deny what I said because those are the historical facts. -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 19:06 10 May 2010 (GMT)
There are two sides of the argument, and the French argument is perfectly valid and plausible. You’ve posed one side of the argument, all very well, but unfortunately I haven’t seen a reasonable answer to 80-90% of what Albrecht and others have said. The French claim: Wellington completely failed to trap the French army. His force had suffered far heavier casualties. He had consumed supplies for little gain and his army was in a sorry state. The French army had fought, in some ways, a kind of 'delaying action' as Soult intended to unite with Suchet before attacking Wellington's army. The Anglo-allies took Toulouse (which Soult never intended to hold) but the battle still hadn't ended, simply because the French lost ground on the battlefield. The battle had not ended when Napoleon's abdication was announced and the French were not in anyway beaten. The capture of Toulouse was only a preliminary move that failed in its ultimate purpose, and it was only territory on the battlefield the French lost. Wellington failed in almost all his aims, Soult achieved his. The Anglo-allied claim: They ended up capturing Toulouse, one of Soult's positions which he didn't intend to hold. The French yielded ground. But I'm going to be fair since British and French historians claimed victory for their respective nations, so both sides should be acknowledged. Victory for either side was not clear cut, the result of the battle is 'Indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed'. Now please, let us all start to improve the article and make it fair and even-handed. -- Guard Chasseur ( talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010.
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can I resume the debate 8 years on?
It seems very odd to try to work out whose victory it was on the basis of Commanders' intents unless there is contemporary evidence of those intents. Wellington was notoriously secretive about his intentions. And I doubt whether Soult told his commanders that he intended to dispute territory with Wellington and then fall back, whatever he may subsequently have claimed.
Roberts ("Napoleon and Wellington", 2003) says "Soult withdrew the next day [11 April]...leaving most of his guns and 1,600 wounded". Another source says that the Allies took 1,600 prisoners including Generals d'Harispe, Bourot, and St Hilaire.
The normal contemporary way of judging a victory when there was a dispute was whether guns had been taken. I find it hard to believe that Wellington could have taken the main redoubts without capturing a gun. If Soult left behind significant amounts of guns when he withdrew, this would have been a huge reduction in his battle-fighting capacity. The French Army also had severe problems with desertion. Joining up with Suchet (down to 12,000 men) does not seem to me to offset the losses.
I suggest that a kind result for Soult would be "indecisive (tactically) and an allied victory (strategically)". Toulouse looks pretty strategic to me on the map!
Markd999 ( talk) 20:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Calling this battle indecisive is very odd. Calling it a French tactical victory is ludicrous. By the 11th April the French had raised the white flag and evacuated the city (from historical record of the Hertfordshire regiment). Wellington's forces then moved in to take the city. What's indecisive about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.1.180 ( talk) 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
“ | On the morning of the 11th [Soult] was again ready to fight, but the English general was not. The French position...was still inexpugnable on the northern and eastern fronts. The possession of Mont Rave was only a preliminary step to the passage of the canal on the bridge of Demoiselles and other points... But this was a great affair requiring fresh dispositions, ...hence...lord Wellington repaired on the 11th to St. Cyprien. | ” |
21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how this battle can in anyway be a defensive French victory seeing as Wellington successfully took the heights above him and was in no way repulsed or held up by the French army in trying to capture the city. He had hardly begun to lay siege when news of Napoleons abdication came through. Indecisive battle but by any tactical degree a marginal or even clear cut Anglo-Allied Victory ( 74.199.108.123 ( talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)).
Oops! I just made some changes that are highly relevant to the ongoing dispute. Only I did not think to look here, because there was no marker in the article to alert me to the ongoing discussion! I moved a disputed section to "Commentary" and added the POV. The disputed section was added on 20 November 2009, (a) has no source, (b) appears to me to be a pro-French opinion, (c) was added by an IP address but no name, (d) implies that there was an armistice before the city was evacuated, (e) and, worst of all, is contradicted by both David Chandler and Michael Glover. Also on 20 November, one and a half paragraphs that I added earlier were removed. I have replaced the missing material and added footnotes to it so that there is no ambiguity. You will also note that the battle is now called an "Anglo-Allied victory" and a Smith citation is attached. (OK, Smith's work is sometimes sloppy, but it is a printed reference after all.)
For those who disagree with this assessment, the best response would be to add (for example) "Drawn battle" and cite it with a source. This argument should not be about my opinion or yours about who won the battle. This should be about what historians say. My apologies to Carre, Albrecht, Slatersteven and any others who may be offended by my barging in here. Again, I made the changes to the article in blissful ignorance of the ongoing discussion. Djmaschek ( talk) 01:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
To the individual (93.149.236.75) who changed "Anglo-Allied victory" to "French Strategic Victory". It is not kosher to change referenced text and leave the citations intact! Smith and Rothenberg call it an Anglo-Allied victory, not a French Strategic Victory. Here is a suggestion.
You can even put French victory first if you like. But please cite your source. That way the article will keep its intellectual integrity. Thank you. Djmaschek ( talk) 02:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
On the morning of the 11th [Soult] was again ready to fight, but the English general was not. The French position...was still inexpugnable on the northern and eastern fronts. The possession of Mont Rave was only a preliminary step to the passage of the canal on the bridge of Demoiselles and other points... But this was a great affair requiring fresh dispositions, ...hence...lord Wellington repaired on the 11th to St. Cyprien.
So the outcome of the battle should be put as 'indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed'? Because the debate over this battle could go on forever. Spartacus97 ( talk) 14:40, 8 May 2010.
Yes, the result of the battle should be: 'indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed' with the respective references. It is short enough and sums up the different opinions expressed by authors.-- Alexandru Demian ( talk) 09:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems to escape you that the war ended before any committed move could be made like I said in previous talk. And your quote creating the illusion that Wellington's attack was what prompted the French evacuation. Well this is because the Mont Rave on the Calvinet Ridge was taken and there is no other explanation. Both Wellington and Soult knew the Calvient heights (Mont Rave )were the keys to either holding or taking the city. Once taken, which was what Wellington achieved let us not forget, he could if he wanted to bombard Toulouse into submission. So creating the illusion was in fact reality. Surrounded by the Allies on the west, north, and east, Soult held Toulouse during the day of April 11 but decided to pull out of the city to prevent his army from becoming trapped. At 9 pm 11th April (sorry where does the 12th come into it?) the French army marched out of Toulouse by the Carcassonne road, leaving 1600 wounded behind. Yes what Soult was in fact doing was retreating. A French victory are you sure?! -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 21:58, 8 May 2010 (GMT)
Since Toulouse only represented an aspect of Soult's overall position, it is difficult for the allies to claim a tactical victory. Soult's aims were not frustrated, Wellington's were. It's difficult for the French to claim a victory too, as you've pointed out. That's why the battle should be indecisive. Too little was achieved on both sides, and the whole battle was cut short because of Napoleon's abdication. Guard Chasseur 7:25, 9 May 2010.
Soult's overall position was that he was defeated on the heights which meant that he had no choice but to retreat only the day after. -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 22:46, 8 May 2010 (GMT)
Fuentes d'Onoro is a better battle to compare Toulouse with. The allies were driven back and lost a great portion of their original positions, even securing much of the lower half of the Fuentes d'Onoro. True, Massena did give up his attempt to relieve Almeida, but Wellington had still lost a great deal of ground. In this case, Soult lost ground but, much like what happened at Fuentes d'Onoro, the defending army was not broken or beaten, nor were they encircled or trapped by Wellington. Toulouse was only one aspect of the overall picture. So either Fuentes d'Onoro is labelled a tactical French victory or this battle is labelled indecisive.-- Spartacus97 ( talk) 8:05, 9 May 2010.
Allies driven back? Losing ground? Do you have any idea what your saying? You say this even though Wellington decided on a maneuver to straighten his line. Messena was booted out of Fuentes D'Onoro and was repelled throughout the battle and even lost an artillery duel which compelled him to retreat from the field of battle. It was Massena who retreated and Wellington who held his ground. Wellington ADVANCED to the better good and didn't retreat. You compare this to Toulouse where Soult was pushed of the strategic position of Mont Rave (Calvinet Ridge) and as a result was forced to retreat on 11th April because his position was untenable. -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 00:09, 9 May 2010 (GMT)
I'm refering only to initial movements (in both battles, Wellington and Soult lost ground). On the contrary, I don't in any way think that Fuentes d'Onoro was a victory for the French, and I'm not saying it was! The taking of Toulouse was the taking of only one of Soult's positions. As was stated above, Soult didn't intend on holding this position. His army was still ready to fight, like Wellington's at Fuentes d'Onoro. The battle cannot be labelled a tactical victory for Wellington simply because Soult was forced out of Toulouse. The battle was cut short. Spartacus97 ( talk) 9:30, 9 May 2010.
At Fuentes d'Onoro, the French withdrew having already gained ground. At Toulouse, the British gained ground (taking the city). The former was labelled a 'tactical draw', and so was Toulouse. As was previously stated, the battle was cut short by Napoleon's abdication (it was not the battle for Toulouse). Spartacus97 ( talk) 9:45, 9 May 2010.
Movements don't decide battles but the final act on who throws in the towel and on both occasions French retreated. Both sides can lose grounds for whatever reason. What your saying is that the Austrians won the battle of Marengo! The battle cannot be labelled a tactical victory for Wellington simply because Soult was forced out of Toulouse. Can you name a simple reason why he wasn't? Think about what about you have said. The fact was he was forced to retreat even though the most defended position was lost (most of French troops were concentrated here). What tactical advantage did Soult have by retreating from Toulouse or what did Massena have in the same effect at Fuentes D'Onoro? -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 01:36, 9 May 2010 (GMT)
At Fuentes d'Onoro it's true, French gains amounted to nothing. However, Wellington intended to surround the French army in the capture of Toulouse. This was his aim, and because Soult retreated he failed. As previously stated, Soult never intended to really hold Toulouse. Furthermore, the attack on the city would have been, had the battle not been cut short, a preliminary manoeuvre. Instead, it was a manoeuvre that failed in its ultimate plan. Soult army was still holding his overall positions and was intact, whereas Wellington, on the other hand, had consumed supplies and lost more casualties than his adversary. Thus, looking at the big picture, the attack on Toulouse was the capture of one position (like the battles I was comparing this scenario to previously) and was not the final outcome. Finally, when both commanders learned of the fate of the Empire, the battle was cut short. Therefore the result is indecisive, with neither Wellington or Soult being able to claim a tactical victory. And no, the Austrians definetely didn't win at Marengo. Spartacus97 ( talk) 10:55, 9 May 2010.
Therefore the battle should be made 'Indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed'. Guard Chasseur 11:05, 9 May 2010.
Because Soult retreated he lost the battle as the heights were captured like I have previously explained and just like he had been at Orthez. It was the same result albeit with heavier casualties. You say his overall positions; well they were captured. He had no positions to hold which is why Soult retreated on 12th April leaving 1,600 hundred wounded behind. There would have no attack on the city itself it was unnecessary; Soult had retreated BEFORE the news of France's defeat. -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 12:53 9 May 2010 (GMT)
Yes quite! I did quote and reference sources but then an unhappy person decided to change & now we are having this discussion. -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 21:00 9 May 2010 (GMT)
You say his overall positions; well they were captured.
He had no positions to hold which is why Soult retreated on 12th April leaving 1,600 hundred wounded behind.
Funny you should mention that he held it for an entire day which is irrelevant since he retreated anyway as you so put when he detected allied cavalry. This throws everything you have just said out of the water! Under no circumstance can this be claim as any type of success for the French! We don't have a problem because Wellington defeated the French on Mont Rave on 10th and took Toulouse on the 12th after Soult retreated BEFORE the war ended. I rest my case. -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 21:00 9 May 2010 (GMT)
Now that we've all confirmed the outcome of the battle, let's get on with editing and improving it. Guard Chasseur 18:10, 10 May 2010.
Well that is very interesting, it seems Albrecht that you don't deny what I said because those are the historical facts. -- Bruichladdich1 ( talk) 19:06 10 May 2010 (GMT)
There are two sides of the argument, and the French argument is perfectly valid and plausible. You’ve posed one side of the argument, all very well, but unfortunately I haven’t seen a reasonable answer to 80-90% of what Albrecht and others have said. The French claim: Wellington completely failed to trap the French army. His force had suffered far heavier casualties. He had consumed supplies for little gain and his army was in a sorry state. The French army had fought, in some ways, a kind of 'delaying action' as Soult intended to unite with Suchet before attacking Wellington's army. The Anglo-allies took Toulouse (which Soult never intended to hold) but the battle still hadn't ended, simply because the French lost ground on the battlefield. The battle had not ended when Napoleon's abdication was announced and the French were not in anyway beaten. The capture of Toulouse was only a preliminary move that failed in its ultimate purpose, and it was only territory on the battlefield the French lost. Wellington failed in almost all his aims, Soult achieved his. The Anglo-allied claim: They ended up capturing Toulouse, one of Soult's positions which he didn't intend to hold. The French yielded ground. But I'm going to be fair since British and French historians claimed victory for their respective nations, so both sides should be acknowledged. Victory for either side was not clear cut, the result of the battle is 'Indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed'. Now please, let us all start to improve the article and make it fair and even-handed. -- Guard Chasseur ( talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010.