This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Melee article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 April 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The problem with this article is that it does not include the BY FAR most common usage of melee, which is a noun for a disorganized struggle where there never was any idea of discipline, like a barroom brawl or shoppers christmas shopping. The article focuses on a "can-be-a-verb" form such as a military usage where troops go from being disciplined to undisciplined, or online gaming where players melee. OK, these are fine usages. But usually you will see in an ordinary newspaper that a melee broke out in ordinary life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 ( talk) 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I always try to use a French pronunciation, something like [mɛleː]. Even for Mêlée Island™, never mind what the Voodoo Lady says. :-)— Dah31 22:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is there IPA pronunciation at the top and "may-lay" separately in the gaming section? The one in the gaming section helps people like me who don't know IPA, but shouldn't it be at the top? Ian01 ( talk) 23:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The circumflex accent over the first e implies a longer e (as in "met"), the pair of "e"s with the acute accent over the first implies something similar to "ley" (or "lay", if you must, but I'd argue that "lay" implies a wider "a"-sound and stronger dipthong which would not be present in the original). Of course, the bastardised anglicised accent-free version could be pronounced however one wished, as it is arguably a new word - c.f "role" vs. "rôle" (not to mention tomato/tomato, etc.). However, in my non-gaming experience, the non-accented version would still be "meh-ley" - it depends on whether you think correctness is a democratic process or not. Clearly though, if the non-IPA pronunciation is moved to the top, surely it should represent the same thing, which currently it doesn't... ( or a note should be made pointing out that one is the "classical" pronunciation and the other a modern adoption).
The upshot is - if you are saying it out loud it depends on which spelling you are thinking of when you say it :-) Fizzybrain ( talk) 15:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
at editing the first part of this article. While an excellent effort, it appeared that the author was writing it more from a gaming perspective. I left the 2nd half - on mêlée in gaming terms - alone as I have little experience with it.
To my thinking, the key in defining a mêlée is that any kind of plan to fight as a unit has gone out the window and the fighting has degenerated into a mass of single combats. I've attempted to say that a little better in the article. Anyone who can neaten it up is welcome to.
I removed the 'weapons used in a mêlée' as, again, they appeared to refer to gaming terms only as a group of tanks fighting in a mêlée aren't going to be using swords.
Removed Mano-a-mano reference as the phrase means more like 'one on on.' While the direct translation is 'hand to hand', it is a colloquialism in Spanish that is closer to the English phrase 'one-on-one' or 'single combat'. As a mêlée involves a group, it doesn't really apply. -- 63.89.65.98 13:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I did the edit and the above without being signed in. Ooops -- Lepeu1999 13:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The article implies the term w/o accents is used to refer to specific (copyrighted) games and companies. The actual reality is that, like most accented works, "melee" is commonly used in English with no accents at all, and that the use of the term w/ accents is at all usual and certain not unusual enough to distinguish it for specific meanings. While is it right and proper for an encyclopedic entity like Wikipedia to use the proper accented form, it should be noted that that general society is not nearly so observant in the use of accents. Pimlottc 16:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. No one in the incredibly lazy gaming world uses "mêlée attacks" to describe non-ranged attacks in games. -- Raijinili 21:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually it is, the gaming isn't real life - it's a game. I've made a minor adjustment to the article to reflect that. -- Lepeu1999 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This is just about gaming. This needs to have info on melee weapons, when and how melee fights were fought, etc etc. Weapon info on the sword, axe, etc from a real-life perspection need to be added, because right now this is about gaming melee, which is not what I expected for a topic on melee... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.68.139.150 ( talk) 21:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
I know only about gaming, and this teached me a lot about a real melee, BUT... Dunno if it is only in gaming...
divided into two sides, fighting in a free-for-all
Everytime I see (in games) free-for-all it is translated as 'everyone for himself', meaning there are no teams, each one trying to kill everyone else to survive, having no friends nor enemies... Divided by two sides is obviously teaming... Unless they start up at two sides but not as teams thus making the two groups melee in themselves and then engaging the survivors of the other group or something like that or that it is not free-for-all as I understand (seeking the last man standing)... So I got really confused... Or maybe it's jsut missing an OR... I have no idea... 201.72.158.157 00:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Melee is a surname originating from Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.207 ( talk) 15:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. No consensus that other uses challenge this one as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cúchullain t/ c 13:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
– With the several newer usages of the term "melee" in recent times, the primary usage could arguably be the target of the redirect Melee (tournament) or article Melee (gaming) (which seems like a subject that was spun off from the aforementioned redirect.) However, given the historical significance of the currently-established primary topic, the best option would be to move the disambiguation page to the ambiguous title, establishing the lack of a primary topic, so readers can determine which topic they are attempting to locate. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Cúchullain, per WP:NOTMOVED, would you please clarify if you meant "consensus not to move" or "no consensus to move"? Thanks! Red Slash 20:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I have moved these two editor to editor maintenance messages out of article space onto the talk page so that they can be discussed in detail
![]() | This article may relate to
a different subject or has
undue weight on an aspect of the subject. (May 2015) |
![]() | This article or section possibly contains
synthesis of material which does not
verifiably mention or
relate to the main topic. (May 2015) |
@ user:Peter Isotalo what do you mean by "This article may primarily relate to a different subject, or to only one aspect rather than the subject as a whole"?
What is it in this article that you think " possibly contains previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources"?
-- PBS ( talk) 01:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
A Melee is not covered by any of the article that at exits at melee (disambiguation). "concept called "melee" that would be applicable to all forms of combat from Antiquity (or at least the Middle Ages) until modern times." This is not so for example:
I could go on but there are a few examples that clearly refutes your statement. -- PBS ( talk) 16:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
PBS asked me to look at this because I’d recently commented on the RM and added content to the article. First and foremost, I don’t think the tags are appropriate on the article because even as an experience editor, I’m not quite sure what they are telling me. I can’t imagine what the average reader thinks when they see one of these things.
As a term, Melee or mêlée is not a common term, but neither is it a term without clear meaning (see below). There’s ample examples of consistent use for several centuries. What complicates researching it, is that Melee is apparently also a name (surname?) and possibly a place. It is also confused with the biblical name Malec So one has to read it in context to find sources using the term in its historic military sense. Modern usage continues to complicate this, because the term has been co-opted into the gaming world even while it sees occasional use related to civil conflict.
I think the question WP has to decide is this: Does the traditional term Melee pass the hurdle established in WP:NOTDIC and warrant an article? I would oppose its deletion, but would not find it unreasonable to see it at AfD. I believe the article can be improved without OR or Synthesis with some good research.
1802 definition found in A New and Enlarged Military Dictionary: Or, Alphabetical Explanation of Technical Terms: Containing, Among Other Matter, a Succinet Account of the Different Systems of Fortification, Tactics, &c. Also the Various French Phrases and Words that Have an Immediate, Or Relative, Connection with the British Service, Or May Tend to Give General Information on Military Subjects in Either Language, Charles James, 1802, published by T. Egerton, Military Library, London. [5]
MELEE, fr. a military term, which is used among the French to express the hurry and confusion of a battle, thus Un General habile conserve sa tranquillite au milieu du combat, et dans harreur de la melee :—An able General pre serves his presence of mind in the thickest: of the battle, and remains calm during the whole of the conflict. Melee corresponds with the English expression Thick of the Fight.
The following are just a few snippets of use over the centuries:
Svggestiom for improving the Organization of the Yeomanry. …The skirmishers should be armed with dragoon carbines, and cutlasses or sabres of the admirable description called sabre-poignards, with which the French grenadiers and light infantry have recently been furnished by order of Marshal Soult. A weapon more terrific in appearance than the sabrepoignard, more murderous in a street-fight, or melee, more useful in the attack or defence of a building, has never yet been invented. ….. Without opposition the spearmen were allowed to mount the breach, but whilst forming on the ramparts they were fiercely charged by the Moslems, who fired their pistols in their faces, and mixed with them scimitar in hand, before they could close up their disordered fdes. In the melee which ensued, the pikemen were completely overpowered and driven across the ditch, leaving five thousand of their number dead upon the breach. [1]
The Captain, with several other men. came over to this shore, found the Indians who took his boat, and chastised one or two of them with a stick, and in the melee one of his men was severely hurt with a club in the hands of one of the Indians. [2]
Shifting, advancing, wheeling, now meeting in impetuous shock, now mingled in the confusion of the melee, now broken and scattered, now fleeing, now rallied, the aerial combatants acted in the clouds the fierce drama of a hard contested field of battle before the eyes of the astonished soldiers. …The King himself appeared amongst his troops without that surcoat of arms which was borne even by the poorest gentleman on the other side; but in order that he might be known and distinguished in the melee, a large white plume of feathers rose above his casque …The ranks, however, on all parts, were by this time broken; and, perhaps, never was a more complete exemplification of the word melee than the centre of the field of Ivry at that moment. Man to man, and hand to hand, the fight was now continued. …Lost sight of in the melee, his long absence had caused it to be very generally believed that the King was dead; and his approach was greeted by long and reiterated cries of "Vive le Jioi.'" …he also poured his troops into the melee, in the hope of deciding the contest. ….who had joined his corps, and who, keeping close together through the 'melee, without striking a stroke except in self-defence, had followed, as fast as circumstances permitted, ….The ranks, however, on all parts, were by this time broken; and, perhaps, never was a more complete exemplification of the word melee than the centre of the field of Ivry at that moment. [3]
Da Vinci chose for his subject the victory gained by Anghiari over the celebrated Piccinino, the general of the Duke of Milan; the principal objects in the foreground were a melee of cavalry and the taking of a standard. [4]
References
There is no consensus for this placing any maintenance templates on his stub. -- PBS ( talk) 06:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Peter Isotalo you wrote in the history of the article "maintenance template stay until consensus is reached, not the other way around", which policy or guideline gives such guidance? -- PBS ( talk) 08:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I propose to merge the long-time stub Melee weapon here; a melee weapon is merely a weapon suited for melee fighting. Merging the pages will keep closely related topics together and enhance the quality of both. bd2412 T 17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I've heard lots of complaints about this article here on this page. I think this article is simply a WP:STUB, and should be expanded. Also, the lead article is a bit incoherent, but if these two issues were fixed, I think it would be a good article. Compassionate727 ( talk) 12:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Compassionate727 you added a sentence "In other words a dogfight." Are you sure that is correct because a dogfight can involves two combatants (or under modern tactical doctrines usually a fighter and a wingman (making 4)), while a melee involves a fight involving many individual combats (such as happened in the Battle of Britain -- August 30th - Battle of Britain Historical Society), and was very common in the First World War while aerial tactics were sill being developed. So I put it to you while a aerial melee will probably involved dogfights, not all aerial dogfights are melees. -- PBS ( talk) 06:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Are the three things listed under the section "notes" supposed to be references? Compassionate727 ( talk) 12:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Peter Isotalo what is the difference between this potential article and many other military articles. For example apart from the obvious difference in meaning what is the difference between "Melee" as a potential subject and for example and "Reconnaissance"? -- PBS ( talk) 06:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Note the existence of close combat. — Srnec ( talk) 20:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'm late to the party. Came here from the Military History Project. But wow. This article is a mess. This might actually be better suited for a Wiktionary entry. It seems to be about three totally unrelated subjects, but they all just happen to be called a "melee" at some point by someone. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 23:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
This recent addition [10] by PBS is clear WP:COATRACK and/or WP:SYNTHESIS. The source in question (Roemer, 1863) is a 19th century account of combat. It has nothing to do with any definition of melee.
Peter Isotalo 20:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Peter Isotalo "but it could just as well mean fighting between any other type of hand-to-hand fighting." Not so when people fight in a shield wall providing the shield was hold then there is no melee. The Battle of the Tennis Court was not a melee (google book search of ["Battle of the Tennis court" melee] does not return one hit) this is because the two sides were fighting from trenches that the other side was trying to capture, ie there were lines and structure to the battle.
It is well known that organisation of soldiers is a force multiplier. A famous early proponent of this was the exiled Spartan king Demaratus when advising the Persian King Xerxes on what fighting the Spartans would be like: "the same goes for the Spartans. One-against-one, they are as good as anyone in the world. But when they fight in a body, they are the best of all." (Herodotos vii.iv (trans. G. Rawlinson)). A battle involving a melee is one in which organisation has disappeared, so there are many types of hand-to-hand battles which are not a melees (and to go back to the Spartans: hoplite phalanx battles were hand-to-hand but they were not melees -- "The Lakedaimonians [Spartans] despised archery. The Lakedaimonian way was to fight as heavy infantrymen at close quarters; any other form of warfare- was cowardly." Sekunda, Nicholas V.; Sekunda, Nick (1999), The Spartans, Osprey, p. 48, ISBN 978-1-85532-948-5).
I am going to list some example of melees which involved other weapon systems than hand to hand weapons which are going to show why a melee does not involve just hand to hand weapons. But another important point is that in some forms of asymmetric warfare, a melee may favour the less well organised or armed force and this has meant that tactics which force both sides to engage in a melee have also been implemented by other commanders. Two example of this:
A that certain points along the enemy line would be subject to the full weight of the Highland charge. Dundee must have hoped that the engaged enemy battalions would remain stationary and that the attackwould quickly enough render their flanking fire ineffective. The unengaged enemy units would be unable to fire in to the mêlée without endangering friend and foe alike.
From the first, Monmouth had been far from confident of his army's ability to withstand regular troops in pitched battle, but the confusion of a melee in the dark against men suffering from the effects of the local cider seemed to offer a chance of success.
@ Timothyjosephwood there are lots of hand-to-had combat that is not a melee. I have already mentioned the Spartans and their use of the phalanx. Another example is the use of the bayonet at the Battle of Culloden by the British Army. It was hand to hand combat but highly disciplined to avoid a melee with the Scottish clansmen. The soldier were trained to stand in line and thrust at the highlander attacking the soldier to his right, so attacking the highlander's exposed side under his sword arm which was not protected by his shield. But to do this takes great discipline as the soldier as to rely on the soldier to his left to defend him (Starkey, Armstrong (2003), War in the Age of Enlightenment, 1700-1789, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 146, ISBN 978-0-275-97240-0).
Some examples of melees which involved weapon platforms that do not involve Hand-to-hand combat.
-- PBS ( talk) 23:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You write "green|and one time where pell mell is mentioned and assumed to mean melee.}}" Mêlé and Pêle-Mêle are from the same root ("mingled disorder" chaotically). One can see this in an early quote given in the OED
and
So there is no doubt that in the case of Nelson they can be used interchangeably as they are in many histories.
In many military histories, and in discussions by officers (such as General Marbot),melee is a term of art.
As to you other concern the whole point about the systematic development of most tactical doctrines is to avoid a melee, because in most case discipline and tactics are a force multiplier. See for example:
{{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)But of course this is nothing new and can be found in many histories by comparing the fighting style of the Heroic Greek age as described by Homer in the Iliad and comparing that with the disciplined fighting style as described by Demaratus in Herodotos's history (eg https://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i10009.pdf ) -- I am writing this to explain to others who may follow this thread, as I assume that as you seem to know about military history that you already know the difference between the tactics and doctrines the age Homer wrote about, that of Herodotos, and still later Arrian's history of Alexander the Great.
As Potter, E.B. (15 June 2014), Sea Power: A Naval History, 2nd Edition, Naval Institute Press, pp. 80–, ISBN 978-1-61251-767-4 makes clear in this statement:
Royal Navy doctrines of the late 18th century were in the opinion of historians such a Potter are unusual because they flew in the face of military orthodoxy. because the better trained and motivated side were willing to forgo the advantages that two millennia of military orthodoxy on the advantages of unit (fleet) cohesion and discipline, develop a strategy to encourage melees. -- PBS ( talk) 20:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
OED, Brawl: Fight or quarrel in a rough or noisy way.
From The American GI in Europe in World War II: The March to D-Day By J. E. Kaufmann, H. W. Kaufmann page 9:
"It had formerly been the belief that enemy fighters preferred to fight only over land, but these carried the brawl well out over the bay before heading back for land. ... Our group was engaged by a mixed assortment of Me-109s and FW-190s, and we staged quite a brawl."
From US Marine Corps Fighter Squadrons of World War II By Barrett Tillman p. 47:
"'Pappy' eluded the ambush, shoved up the power, armed his guns and began choosing targets. The fight degenerated into a brawl of largely solo combats."
From US Marine Corps Fighter Squadrons of World War II By Barrett Tillman p. 19
"None of thse ships would ever fight back. The fourth carrier was not hit by bombs at all. It launched its own planes to continue the brawl."
From History of United States Naval Operations in World War II: Breaking the ... p. 265
"She vectored 48 Lightnings to the scene, and in the ensuing brawl 23 of the enemy were splashed at a cost of but two Lightnings."
So we agree that "brawl" is not a military term, or formal tactic or strategy, but rather a generic word for an engagement. But yet I can also find it in the OED, and find a number of military histories which use the word to describe various forms of engagement. Like your presentation of melee, these seem to have little or no unifying theme other than the dictionary definition as a generic term for an engagement, and cover ships, plains, you name it. Like melee, brawl can not be found in any formal doctrinal publications explaining in detail the tactic or its use in combat by a commanding officer. All that has been provided are cherry picked passing references, much like the ones I have provided for brawl.
Does this suffice to illustrate the weakness of your argument? The article, at it's heart, is about a word, not about a tactic, not about a phenomenon. Per WP:NAD, the entire article is about the word, usage of the word, and times the word has been used. Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT "That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." Currently the article does not contain any content other than a definition, variations on the word, etymology of the word, and times it has been used to describe an engagement. It does not contain any information or detailed description of what a melee is, how to distinguish a melee from other forms of combat.
Per WP:GNG, the sources provided do not contain melees as their main topic, or even a significant topic, but rather simply mentions the word in passing. This passing mention is assumed to be important for no apparent reason, when it seems that the writer could have just as easily substituted any word that indicates disordered fighting.
The AfD page wanders into discussion of Medieval Tourneys, which may themselves meet WP:NOTE but nonetheless are not the topic of this piece. Per WP:NAD, if the article is nothing more than "check it out, this word may be used to describe x, y, and z, which are all basically totally unrelated", then the article is about a word. If the article is about a word then it must meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT, which this article does not. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 22:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no topic here beyond a dictionary entry. The medieval topic has a page at Melee (tournament). Anything else is just about this being another word for close combat. So, we can either redirect this to close combat, or move the disambiguation page here, but it has become abundantly clear that there is on single identifiable article subject under this heading. -- dab (𒁳) 07:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is a quote from a source about an earlier period than Nelson of when the formal school came into existence and makes it quite clear that in the opinion of the author Melee was a tactic (my bold):
In the Anglo-Dutch Wars, England’s Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, distrusting
naval officers as possibly monarchist, sent his generals to sea to command the fleet. The generals introduced the column, or line ahead to replace the earlier bunching of ships that masked broadsides. During the wars also there arose in the English fleet two opposing schools of naval tactics, the Formal School, which favoured retaining the column throughout the battle, and the Melee School, which preferred dispensing with the column at a favourable opportunity.
The formal—melee division of opinion carried over into the long struggle between England and France. During the War of the English Succession, the English in the Battle of Beachy Head (1650) used melee tactics and lost. in the Battle of Barfleur (1692), the French used melee tactics and lost. Understandably, these defeats cast melee tactics into disrepute. In the ensuing War of the Spanish Succession, England captured Gibraltar and defended her conquest in the formal Battle of Malaga (1704). Malaga was in fact a drawn battle, but Gibraltar remained in English hands.
The above three battles established formal tactics in the Royal Navy. They were prescribed by the Admiralty in the Permanent Fighting Instructions, which required British naval commanders not only to fight in column but in column conterminous with that of the enemy. When Admiral Thomas Mathews in the Battle of Toulon (1744) attacked a Franco-Spanish column with which he was not able to make his line conterminous, he was dismissed from the service for nut obeying instructions. Thereafter it was a bold officer indeed who would risk such a fate by failing to conform to the
inflexible regulations of the Permanent Fighting Instructions.(Potter, E.B. (15 June 2014). Sea Power: A Naval History, 2nd Edition. Naval Institute Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-61251-767-4.)
What is also interesting was that Nelson and other contemporary Royal Navy commanders of the Napoleonic period were reintroducing tactics which had fallen out of use about 100 years earlier with the dominance of the formal school -- PBS ( talk) 21:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
... that the link to "Pell mell" redirects back to this, the very same page?
T 88.89.219.147 ( talk) 19:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Melee article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 April 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The problem with this article is that it does not include the BY FAR most common usage of melee, which is a noun for a disorganized struggle where there never was any idea of discipline, like a barroom brawl or shoppers christmas shopping. The article focuses on a "can-be-a-verb" form such as a military usage where troops go from being disciplined to undisciplined, or online gaming where players melee. OK, these are fine usages. But usually you will see in an ordinary newspaper that a melee broke out in ordinary life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 ( talk) 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I always try to use a French pronunciation, something like [mɛleː]. Even for Mêlée Island™, never mind what the Voodoo Lady says. :-)— Dah31 22:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is there IPA pronunciation at the top and "may-lay" separately in the gaming section? The one in the gaming section helps people like me who don't know IPA, but shouldn't it be at the top? Ian01 ( talk) 23:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The circumflex accent over the first e implies a longer e (as in "met"), the pair of "e"s with the acute accent over the first implies something similar to "ley" (or "lay", if you must, but I'd argue that "lay" implies a wider "a"-sound and stronger dipthong which would not be present in the original). Of course, the bastardised anglicised accent-free version could be pronounced however one wished, as it is arguably a new word - c.f "role" vs. "rôle" (not to mention tomato/tomato, etc.). However, in my non-gaming experience, the non-accented version would still be "meh-ley" - it depends on whether you think correctness is a democratic process or not. Clearly though, if the non-IPA pronunciation is moved to the top, surely it should represent the same thing, which currently it doesn't... ( or a note should be made pointing out that one is the "classical" pronunciation and the other a modern adoption).
The upshot is - if you are saying it out loud it depends on which spelling you are thinking of when you say it :-) Fizzybrain ( talk) 15:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
at editing the first part of this article. While an excellent effort, it appeared that the author was writing it more from a gaming perspective. I left the 2nd half - on mêlée in gaming terms - alone as I have little experience with it.
To my thinking, the key in defining a mêlée is that any kind of plan to fight as a unit has gone out the window and the fighting has degenerated into a mass of single combats. I've attempted to say that a little better in the article. Anyone who can neaten it up is welcome to.
I removed the 'weapons used in a mêlée' as, again, they appeared to refer to gaming terms only as a group of tanks fighting in a mêlée aren't going to be using swords.
Removed Mano-a-mano reference as the phrase means more like 'one on on.' While the direct translation is 'hand to hand', it is a colloquialism in Spanish that is closer to the English phrase 'one-on-one' or 'single combat'. As a mêlée involves a group, it doesn't really apply. -- 63.89.65.98 13:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I did the edit and the above without being signed in. Ooops -- Lepeu1999 13:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The article implies the term w/o accents is used to refer to specific (copyrighted) games and companies. The actual reality is that, like most accented works, "melee" is commonly used in English with no accents at all, and that the use of the term w/ accents is at all usual and certain not unusual enough to distinguish it for specific meanings. While is it right and proper for an encyclopedic entity like Wikipedia to use the proper accented form, it should be noted that that general society is not nearly so observant in the use of accents. Pimlottc 16:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. No one in the incredibly lazy gaming world uses "mêlée attacks" to describe non-ranged attacks in games. -- Raijinili 21:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually it is, the gaming isn't real life - it's a game. I've made a minor adjustment to the article to reflect that. -- Lepeu1999 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This is just about gaming. This needs to have info on melee weapons, when and how melee fights were fought, etc etc. Weapon info on the sword, axe, etc from a real-life perspection need to be added, because right now this is about gaming melee, which is not what I expected for a topic on melee... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.68.139.150 ( talk) 21:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
I know only about gaming, and this teached me a lot about a real melee, BUT... Dunno if it is only in gaming...
divided into two sides, fighting in a free-for-all
Everytime I see (in games) free-for-all it is translated as 'everyone for himself', meaning there are no teams, each one trying to kill everyone else to survive, having no friends nor enemies... Divided by two sides is obviously teaming... Unless they start up at two sides but not as teams thus making the two groups melee in themselves and then engaging the survivors of the other group or something like that or that it is not free-for-all as I understand (seeking the last man standing)... So I got really confused... Or maybe it's jsut missing an OR... I have no idea... 201.72.158.157 00:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Melee is a surname originating from Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.207 ( talk) 15:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. No consensus that other uses challenge this one as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cúchullain t/ c 13:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
– With the several newer usages of the term "melee" in recent times, the primary usage could arguably be the target of the redirect Melee (tournament) or article Melee (gaming) (which seems like a subject that was spun off from the aforementioned redirect.) However, given the historical significance of the currently-established primary topic, the best option would be to move the disambiguation page to the ambiguous title, establishing the lack of a primary topic, so readers can determine which topic they are attempting to locate. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Cúchullain, per WP:NOTMOVED, would you please clarify if you meant "consensus not to move" or "no consensus to move"? Thanks! Red Slash 20:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I have moved these two editor to editor maintenance messages out of article space onto the talk page so that they can be discussed in detail
![]() | This article may relate to
a different subject or has
undue weight on an aspect of the subject. (May 2015) |
![]() | This article or section possibly contains
synthesis of material which does not
verifiably mention or
relate to the main topic. (May 2015) |
@ user:Peter Isotalo what do you mean by "This article may primarily relate to a different subject, or to only one aspect rather than the subject as a whole"?
What is it in this article that you think " possibly contains previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources"?
-- PBS ( talk) 01:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
A Melee is not covered by any of the article that at exits at melee (disambiguation). "concept called "melee" that would be applicable to all forms of combat from Antiquity (or at least the Middle Ages) until modern times." This is not so for example:
I could go on but there are a few examples that clearly refutes your statement. -- PBS ( talk) 16:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
PBS asked me to look at this because I’d recently commented on the RM and added content to the article. First and foremost, I don’t think the tags are appropriate on the article because even as an experience editor, I’m not quite sure what they are telling me. I can’t imagine what the average reader thinks when they see one of these things.
As a term, Melee or mêlée is not a common term, but neither is it a term without clear meaning (see below). There’s ample examples of consistent use for several centuries. What complicates researching it, is that Melee is apparently also a name (surname?) and possibly a place. It is also confused with the biblical name Malec So one has to read it in context to find sources using the term in its historic military sense. Modern usage continues to complicate this, because the term has been co-opted into the gaming world even while it sees occasional use related to civil conflict.
I think the question WP has to decide is this: Does the traditional term Melee pass the hurdle established in WP:NOTDIC and warrant an article? I would oppose its deletion, but would not find it unreasonable to see it at AfD. I believe the article can be improved without OR or Synthesis with some good research.
1802 definition found in A New and Enlarged Military Dictionary: Or, Alphabetical Explanation of Technical Terms: Containing, Among Other Matter, a Succinet Account of the Different Systems of Fortification, Tactics, &c. Also the Various French Phrases and Words that Have an Immediate, Or Relative, Connection with the British Service, Or May Tend to Give General Information on Military Subjects in Either Language, Charles James, 1802, published by T. Egerton, Military Library, London. [5]
MELEE, fr. a military term, which is used among the French to express the hurry and confusion of a battle, thus Un General habile conserve sa tranquillite au milieu du combat, et dans harreur de la melee :—An able General pre serves his presence of mind in the thickest: of the battle, and remains calm during the whole of the conflict. Melee corresponds with the English expression Thick of the Fight.
The following are just a few snippets of use over the centuries:
Svggestiom for improving the Organization of the Yeomanry. …The skirmishers should be armed with dragoon carbines, and cutlasses or sabres of the admirable description called sabre-poignards, with which the French grenadiers and light infantry have recently been furnished by order of Marshal Soult. A weapon more terrific in appearance than the sabrepoignard, more murderous in a street-fight, or melee, more useful in the attack or defence of a building, has never yet been invented. ….. Without opposition the spearmen were allowed to mount the breach, but whilst forming on the ramparts they were fiercely charged by the Moslems, who fired their pistols in their faces, and mixed with them scimitar in hand, before they could close up their disordered fdes. In the melee which ensued, the pikemen were completely overpowered and driven across the ditch, leaving five thousand of their number dead upon the breach. [1]
The Captain, with several other men. came over to this shore, found the Indians who took his boat, and chastised one or two of them with a stick, and in the melee one of his men was severely hurt with a club in the hands of one of the Indians. [2]
Shifting, advancing, wheeling, now meeting in impetuous shock, now mingled in the confusion of the melee, now broken and scattered, now fleeing, now rallied, the aerial combatants acted in the clouds the fierce drama of a hard contested field of battle before the eyes of the astonished soldiers. …The King himself appeared amongst his troops without that surcoat of arms which was borne even by the poorest gentleman on the other side; but in order that he might be known and distinguished in the melee, a large white plume of feathers rose above his casque …The ranks, however, on all parts, were by this time broken; and, perhaps, never was a more complete exemplification of the word melee than the centre of the field of Ivry at that moment. Man to man, and hand to hand, the fight was now continued. …Lost sight of in the melee, his long absence had caused it to be very generally believed that the King was dead; and his approach was greeted by long and reiterated cries of "Vive le Jioi.'" …he also poured his troops into the melee, in the hope of deciding the contest. ….who had joined his corps, and who, keeping close together through the 'melee, without striking a stroke except in self-defence, had followed, as fast as circumstances permitted, ….The ranks, however, on all parts, were by this time broken; and, perhaps, never was a more complete exemplification of the word melee than the centre of the field of Ivry at that moment. [3]
Da Vinci chose for his subject the victory gained by Anghiari over the celebrated Piccinino, the general of the Duke of Milan; the principal objects in the foreground were a melee of cavalry and the taking of a standard. [4]
References
There is no consensus for this placing any maintenance templates on his stub. -- PBS ( talk) 06:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Peter Isotalo you wrote in the history of the article "maintenance template stay until consensus is reached, not the other way around", which policy or guideline gives such guidance? -- PBS ( talk) 08:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I propose to merge the long-time stub Melee weapon here; a melee weapon is merely a weapon suited for melee fighting. Merging the pages will keep closely related topics together and enhance the quality of both. bd2412 T 17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I've heard lots of complaints about this article here on this page. I think this article is simply a WP:STUB, and should be expanded. Also, the lead article is a bit incoherent, but if these two issues were fixed, I think it would be a good article. Compassionate727 ( talk) 12:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Compassionate727 you added a sentence "In other words a dogfight." Are you sure that is correct because a dogfight can involves two combatants (or under modern tactical doctrines usually a fighter and a wingman (making 4)), while a melee involves a fight involving many individual combats (such as happened in the Battle of Britain -- August 30th - Battle of Britain Historical Society), and was very common in the First World War while aerial tactics were sill being developed. So I put it to you while a aerial melee will probably involved dogfights, not all aerial dogfights are melees. -- PBS ( talk) 06:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Are the three things listed under the section "notes" supposed to be references? Compassionate727 ( talk) 12:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Peter Isotalo what is the difference between this potential article and many other military articles. For example apart from the obvious difference in meaning what is the difference between "Melee" as a potential subject and for example and "Reconnaissance"? -- PBS ( talk) 06:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Note the existence of close combat. — Srnec ( talk) 20:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'm late to the party. Came here from the Military History Project. But wow. This article is a mess. This might actually be better suited for a Wiktionary entry. It seems to be about three totally unrelated subjects, but they all just happen to be called a "melee" at some point by someone. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 23:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
This recent addition [10] by PBS is clear WP:COATRACK and/or WP:SYNTHESIS. The source in question (Roemer, 1863) is a 19th century account of combat. It has nothing to do with any definition of melee.
Peter Isotalo 20:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Peter Isotalo "but it could just as well mean fighting between any other type of hand-to-hand fighting." Not so when people fight in a shield wall providing the shield was hold then there is no melee. The Battle of the Tennis Court was not a melee (google book search of ["Battle of the Tennis court" melee] does not return one hit) this is because the two sides were fighting from trenches that the other side was trying to capture, ie there were lines and structure to the battle.
It is well known that organisation of soldiers is a force multiplier. A famous early proponent of this was the exiled Spartan king Demaratus when advising the Persian King Xerxes on what fighting the Spartans would be like: "the same goes for the Spartans. One-against-one, they are as good as anyone in the world. But when they fight in a body, they are the best of all." (Herodotos vii.iv (trans. G. Rawlinson)). A battle involving a melee is one in which organisation has disappeared, so there are many types of hand-to-hand battles which are not a melees (and to go back to the Spartans: hoplite phalanx battles were hand-to-hand but they were not melees -- "The Lakedaimonians [Spartans] despised archery. The Lakedaimonian way was to fight as heavy infantrymen at close quarters; any other form of warfare- was cowardly." Sekunda, Nicholas V.; Sekunda, Nick (1999), The Spartans, Osprey, p. 48, ISBN 978-1-85532-948-5).
I am going to list some example of melees which involved other weapon systems than hand to hand weapons which are going to show why a melee does not involve just hand to hand weapons. But another important point is that in some forms of asymmetric warfare, a melee may favour the less well organised or armed force and this has meant that tactics which force both sides to engage in a melee have also been implemented by other commanders. Two example of this:
A that certain points along the enemy line would be subject to the full weight of the Highland charge. Dundee must have hoped that the engaged enemy battalions would remain stationary and that the attackwould quickly enough render their flanking fire ineffective. The unengaged enemy units would be unable to fire in to the mêlée without endangering friend and foe alike.
From the first, Monmouth had been far from confident of his army's ability to withstand regular troops in pitched battle, but the confusion of a melee in the dark against men suffering from the effects of the local cider seemed to offer a chance of success.
@ Timothyjosephwood there are lots of hand-to-had combat that is not a melee. I have already mentioned the Spartans and their use of the phalanx. Another example is the use of the bayonet at the Battle of Culloden by the British Army. It was hand to hand combat but highly disciplined to avoid a melee with the Scottish clansmen. The soldier were trained to stand in line and thrust at the highlander attacking the soldier to his right, so attacking the highlander's exposed side under his sword arm which was not protected by his shield. But to do this takes great discipline as the soldier as to rely on the soldier to his left to defend him (Starkey, Armstrong (2003), War in the Age of Enlightenment, 1700-1789, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 146, ISBN 978-0-275-97240-0).
Some examples of melees which involved weapon platforms that do not involve Hand-to-hand combat.
-- PBS ( talk) 23:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You write "green|and one time where pell mell is mentioned and assumed to mean melee.}}" Mêlé and Pêle-Mêle are from the same root ("mingled disorder" chaotically). One can see this in an early quote given in the OED
and
So there is no doubt that in the case of Nelson they can be used interchangeably as they are in many histories.
In many military histories, and in discussions by officers (such as General Marbot),melee is a term of art.
As to you other concern the whole point about the systematic development of most tactical doctrines is to avoid a melee, because in most case discipline and tactics are a force multiplier. See for example:
{{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)But of course this is nothing new and can be found in many histories by comparing the fighting style of the Heroic Greek age as described by Homer in the Iliad and comparing that with the disciplined fighting style as described by Demaratus in Herodotos's history (eg https://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i10009.pdf ) -- I am writing this to explain to others who may follow this thread, as I assume that as you seem to know about military history that you already know the difference between the tactics and doctrines the age Homer wrote about, that of Herodotos, and still later Arrian's history of Alexander the Great.
As Potter, E.B. (15 June 2014), Sea Power: A Naval History, 2nd Edition, Naval Institute Press, pp. 80–, ISBN 978-1-61251-767-4 makes clear in this statement:
Royal Navy doctrines of the late 18th century were in the opinion of historians such a Potter are unusual because they flew in the face of military orthodoxy. because the better trained and motivated side were willing to forgo the advantages that two millennia of military orthodoxy on the advantages of unit (fleet) cohesion and discipline, develop a strategy to encourage melees. -- PBS ( talk) 20:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
OED, Brawl: Fight or quarrel in a rough or noisy way.
From The American GI in Europe in World War II: The March to D-Day By J. E. Kaufmann, H. W. Kaufmann page 9:
"It had formerly been the belief that enemy fighters preferred to fight only over land, but these carried the brawl well out over the bay before heading back for land. ... Our group was engaged by a mixed assortment of Me-109s and FW-190s, and we staged quite a brawl."
From US Marine Corps Fighter Squadrons of World War II By Barrett Tillman p. 47:
"'Pappy' eluded the ambush, shoved up the power, armed his guns and began choosing targets. The fight degenerated into a brawl of largely solo combats."
From US Marine Corps Fighter Squadrons of World War II By Barrett Tillman p. 19
"None of thse ships would ever fight back. The fourth carrier was not hit by bombs at all. It launched its own planes to continue the brawl."
From History of United States Naval Operations in World War II: Breaking the ... p. 265
"She vectored 48 Lightnings to the scene, and in the ensuing brawl 23 of the enemy were splashed at a cost of but two Lightnings."
So we agree that "brawl" is not a military term, or formal tactic or strategy, but rather a generic word for an engagement. But yet I can also find it in the OED, and find a number of military histories which use the word to describe various forms of engagement. Like your presentation of melee, these seem to have little or no unifying theme other than the dictionary definition as a generic term for an engagement, and cover ships, plains, you name it. Like melee, brawl can not be found in any formal doctrinal publications explaining in detail the tactic or its use in combat by a commanding officer. All that has been provided are cherry picked passing references, much like the ones I have provided for brawl.
Does this suffice to illustrate the weakness of your argument? The article, at it's heart, is about a word, not about a tactic, not about a phenomenon. Per WP:NAD, the entire article is about the word, usage of the word, and times the word has been used. Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT "That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." Currently the article does not contain any content other than a definition, variations on the word, etymology of the word, and times it has been used to describe an engagement. It does not contain any information or detailed description of what a melee is, how to distinguish a melee from other forms of combat.
Per WP:GNG, the sources provided do not contain melees as their main topic, or even a significant topic, but rather simply mentions the word in passing. This passing mention is assumed to be important for no apparent reason, when it seems that the writer could have just as easily substituted any word that indicates disordered fighting.
The AfD page wanders into discussion of Medieval Tourneys, which may themselves meet WP:NOTE but nonetheless are not the topic of this piece. Per WP:NAD, if the article is nothing more than "check it out, this word may be used to describe x, y, and z, which are all basically totally unrelated", then the article is about a word. If the article is about a word then it must meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT, which this article does not. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 22:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no topic here beyond a dictionary entry. The medieval topic has a page at Melee (tournament). Anything else is just about this being another word for close combat. So, we can either redirect this to close combat, or move the disambiguation page here, but it has become abundantly clear that there is on single identifiable article subject under this heading. -- dab (𒁳) 07:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is a quote from a source about an earlier period than Nelson of when the formal school came into existence and makes it quite clear that in the opinion of the author Melee was a tactic (my bold):
In the Anglo-Dutch Wars, England’s Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, distrusting
naval officers as possibly monarchist, sent his generals to sea to command the fleet. The generals introduced the column, or line ahead to replace the earlier bunching of ships that masked broadsides. During the wars also there arose in the English fleet two opposing schools of naval tactics, the Formal School, which favoured retaining the column throughout the battle, and the Melee School, which preferred dispensing with the column at a favourable opportunity.
The formal—melee division of opinion carried over into the long struggle between England and France. During the War of the English Succession, the English in the Battle of Beachy Head (1650) used melee tactics and lost. in the Battle of Barfleur (1692), the French used melee tactics and lost. Understandably, these defeats cast melee tactics into disrepute. In the ensuing War of the Spanish Succession, England captured Gibraltar and defended her conquest in the formal Battle of Malaga (1704). Malaga was in fact a drawn battle, but Gibraltar remained in English hands.
The above three battles established formal tactics in the Royal Navy. They were prescribed by the Admiralty in the Permanent Fighting Instructions, which required British naval commanders not only to fight in column but in column conterminous with that of the enemy. When Admiral Thomas Mathews in the Battle of Toulon (1744) attacked a Franco-Spanish column with which he was not able to make his line conterminous, he was dismissed from the service for nut obeying instructions. Thereafter it was a bold officer indeed who would risk such a fate by failing to conform to the
inflexible regulations of the Permanent Fighting Instructions.(Potter, E.B. (15 June 2014). Sea Power: A Naval History, 2nd Edition. Naval Institute Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-61251-767-4.)
What is also interesting was that Nelson and other contemporary Royal Navy commanders of the Napoleonic period were reintroducing tactics which had fallen out of use about 100 years earlier with the dominance of the formal school -- PBS ( talk) 21:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
... that the link to "Pell mell" redirects back to this, the very same page?
T 88.89.219.147 ( talk) 19:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)