![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
I have placed a condensed version of this at Hundred Days with the usual hatnote directing here for the full treatment. Editors working at this article should fix my cobbled-together version at Hundred Days. Thank you. -- Wetman ( talk) 17:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
William Siborne in The Waterloo Campaign. 1815. (Fourth Edition (1894)) also mentions d'Osasco on page 779 Last paragraph
The Sardinian General D'OSASCA, who had been detached to Nice, concluded on the 9th of July an Armistice with Marshal BRUNE, who commanded the Army of the Var, in front of the Maritime Alps ; and thus terminated all hostilities on that side of France.
Note that he spells the name d'Osasca doing a search of the net throws up it:Policarpo Cacherano d'Osasco as a possible full name for this man. -- PBS ( talk) 23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The Austrian Commander Frimont commanded an Austro-Italian army of between 50 and 100,000 men. This army contained a corps of between 12 and 15,000 men under General Latour. There was an additional force under the command of the Piedmontese commander D'Osasco (Full name possibly Policarpo Cacherano D'Osasco -though this still needs verifying!)
Just out of interset I may point out that so far I have been unable to find any mention of a 20 odd thousand strong Army of Naples in 1815 commanded by a General Onasco that is mentioned in a few recent books. What I have found out is that the Piedmontese had a force under D'Osasco (as I've mentioned) and that Bianchi commanded an Army of Naples (part of Frimont's army) which was of a strength of about 20 odd thousand. It appears to me that the latter two have been confused with one an other and the end result was Onasco's Army of Naples.
-- PBS ( talk) 12:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Another possible contender is "Lieutenant-General Louis Cacherano d'Osasco, Governor of the Comte de Nice" One hundred days: Napoleon's road to Waterloo, by Alan Schom p. 19:
In fact, Napoleon probably would have encountered stiff resistance in Nice, where Lieutenant-General Louis Cacherano d'Osasco, Governor of the Comte de Nice, summoned 600-man-strong Queen's Regiment, along with two companies of Chsseurs de Savoie, and the city's National Guard ...
also
-- PBS ( talk) 14:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Luigi is a masculine Italian given name. It is the Italian form of the German name Ludwig, through the Latinization Ludovicus, corresponding to the French form Louis and its anglicized variant Lewis.
-- PBS ( talk) 23:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The napoleon-series.org quote above seems to have gone (and was not archived -- Re: Piemontese army 1815) but see also
-- PBS ( talk) 00:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Just for information: Copied from here:
-- PBS ( talk) 00:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Another note this one taken from here
-- PBS ( talk) 00:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Using Coalition is just confusing, if there had been no Prussians in Belgium, then perhaps it would be OK, but at the Prussians were there simple Coalition does not work.
Anglo-allied is the best name unless we go with either British or "Wellington's army". The commander was British, and so was his general staff, and as this is an English language page most readers are going to come to it with the traditional English language bias that it was the British Army with limited help form its allies that made up the army and won the battle. Further your numbers are not really accurate because the Hanoverians were more than simple Allies and can be seen as an adjunct to the British Army. -- PBS ( talk) 10:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
To address your points:
Hanover was in a personal union with United Kingdom, many of its regiments contained British officers, which is why I say "Hanoverians were more than simple Allies and can be seen as an adjunct to the British Army." I am not sure why you say "Hannover was an independent kingdom" when you must know it was in a personal union, which makes its relationship closer to the UK than other allies such as the Dutch.
It is not a matter of tailoring history, it is a matter of common usage in English language sources:
In these there are clearly false positives and if those are taken out of the [Waterloo "coalition army"] then there are so few books that it is possible to list them there are a total of 15:
And some listed there are clearly include the Prussians as in:
So the sources indicate that Anlgo-allied is supported by Reliable English Language sources is clear, concise and unambiguous. What is your justification for Coalition other than you think it is correct? -- PBS ( talk) 01:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
To argue that "the prussians saved his ass" is silly (he did not have a donkey there). Wellington would not have fought at Waterloo if he had not thought that the. Prussians would not come ("Give me night or give me the Blücher") German-allied would be a bad name for Wellington's army as the Prussians are Germans. Dutch-Allied would be a reasonable name if it were used in the sources, but AFAICT it is not. (Perhaps it is used in Dutch sources and is the name used in Dutch articles -- I have no idea).
It does not matter what you think, what matters is what the sources commonly state and you have not done anything but introduce your preferred name not the name commonly used in the the sources. -- PBS ( talk) 22:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
In the article before I edited it today there was an in-line reference:
but
is an unlikely to be volume 1 because volume 1 was published long before 1815.
The year after 1815 volume 53 was published:
But AFAICT page 743 is not the correct page. So the correct page number and or volume number is needed. -- PBS ( talk) 23:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
OK I have finally (10 years later!) found the source. Thanks to the Internet Archive improving its search algorithms. The sources is
Une armée espagnole, sous-les ordres du gé-néral Castanos, était entrée dans le Roussillon; mais cet officier, après avoir eu une longue entrevue avec Mgr. le duc d'Angoulême, à Perpignan, est retourné en Espagne.A Spanish army, under the command of General Castanos, had entered Roussillon; but this officer, after having had a long meeting with Mgr. the Duke of Angoulême, in Perpignan, returned to Spain.
D'un autre côté, le comte d'Abisbal a passé la Bidassoa et est entré en France, mais en annonçant les intentions les plus amicales, et le désir de servir les intérête du Roi de France.
On the other hand, the Count of Abisbal passed over the [river] Bidassoa and entered France, but announcing the most friendly intentions, and the desire to serve the interests of the King of France.
BTW "le comte d'Abisbal" translates on Wikipedia to " Count de La Bisbal" -- PBS ( talk) 19:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
I have placed a condensed version of this at Hundred Days with the usual hatnote directing here for the full treatment. Editors working at this article should fix my cobbled-together version at Hundred Days. Thank you. -- Wetman ( talk) 17:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
William Siborne in The Waterloo Campaign. 1815. (Fourth Edition (1894)) also mentions d'Osasco on page 779 Last paragraph
The Sardinian General D'OSASCA, who had been detached to Nice, concluded on the 9th of July an Armistice with Marshal BRUNE, who commanded the Army of the Var, in front of the Maritime Alps ; and thus terminated all hostilities on that side of France.
Note that he spells the name d'Osasca doing a search of the net throws up it:Policarpo Cacherano d'Osasco as a possible full name for this man. -- PBS ( talk) 23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The Austrian Commander Frimont commanded an Austro-Italian army of between 50 and 100,000 men. This army contained a corps of between 12 and 15,000 men under General Latour. There was an additional force under the command of the Piedmontese commander D'Osasco (Full name possibly Policarpo Cacherano D'Osasco -though this still needs verifying!)
Just out of interset I may point out that so far I have been unable to find any mention of a 20 odd thousand strong Army of Naples in 1815 commanded by a General Onasco that is mentioned in a few recent books. What I have found out is that the Piedmontese had a force under D'Osasco (as I've mentioned) and that Bianchi commanded an Army of Naples (part of Frimont's army) which was of a strength of about 20 odd thousand. It appears to me that the latter two have been confused with one an other and the end result was Onasco's Army of Naples.
-- PBS ( talk) 12:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Another possible contender is "Lieutenant-General Louis Cacherano d'Osasco, Governor of the Comte de Nice" One hundred days: Napoleon's road to Waterloo, by Alan Schom p. 19:
In fact, Napoleon probably would have encountered stiff resistance in Nice, where Lieutenant-General Louis Cacherano d'Osasco, Governor of the Comte de Nice, summoned 600-man-strong Queen's Regiment, along with two companies of Chsseurs de Savoie, and the city's National Guard ...
also
-- PBS ( talk) 14:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Luigi is a masculine Italian given name. It is the Italian form of the German name Ludwig, through the Latinization Ludovicus, corresponding to the French form Louis and its anglicized variant Lewis.
-- PBS ( talk) 23:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The napoleon-series.org quote above seems to have gone (and was not archived -- Re: Piemontese army 1815) but see also
-- PBS ( talk) 00:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Just for information: Copied from here:
-- PBS ( talk) 00:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Another note this one taken from here
-- PBS ( talk) 00:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Using Coalition is just confusing, if there had been no Prussians in Belgium, then perhaps it would be OK, but at the Prussians were there simple Coalition does not work.
Anglo-allied is the best name unless we go with either British or "Wellington's army". The commander was British, and so was his general staff, and as this is an English language page most readers are going to come to it with the traditional English language bias that it was the British Army with limited help form its allies that made up the army and won the battle. Further your numbers are not really accurate because the Hanoverians were more than simple Allies and can be seen as an adjunct to the British Army. -- PBS ( talk) 10:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
To address your points:
Hanover was in a personal union with United Kingdom, many of its regiments contained British officers, which is why I say "Hanoverians were more than simple Allies and can be seen as an adjunct to the British Army." I am not sure why you say "Hannover was an independent kingdom" when you must know it was in a personal union, which makes its relationship closer to the UK than other allies such as the Dutch.
It is not a matter of tailoring history, it is a matter of common usage in English language sources:
In these there are clearly false positives and if those are taken out of the [Waterloo "coalition army"] then there are so few books that it is possible to list them there are a total of 15:
And some listed there are clearly include the Prussians as in:
So the sources indicate that Anlgo-allied is supported by Reliable English Language sources is clear, concise and unambiguous. What is your justification for Coalition other than you think it is correct? -- PBS ( talk) 01:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
To argue that "the prussians saved his ass" is silly (he did not have a donkey there). Wellington would not have fought at Waterloo if he had not thought that the. Prussians would not come ("Give me night or give me the Blücher") German-allied would be a bad name for Wellington's army as the Prussians are Germans. Dutch-Allied would be a reasonable name if it were used in the sources, but AFAICT it is not. (Perhaps it is used in Dutch sources and is the name used in Dutch articles -- I have no idea).
It does not matter what you think, what matters is what the sources commonly state and you have not done anything but introduce your preferred name not the name commonly used in the the sources. -- PBS ( talk) 22:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
In the article before I edited it today there was an in-line reference:
but
is an unlikely to be volume 1 because volume 1 was published long before 1815.
The year after 1815 volume 53 was published:
But AFAICT page 743 is not the correct page. So the correct page number and or volume number is needed. -- PBS ( talk) 23:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
OK I have finally (10 years later!) found the source. Thanks to the Internet Archive improving its search algorithms. The sources is
Une armée espagnole, sous-les ordres du gé-néral Castanos, était entrée dans le Roussillon; mais cet officier, après avoir eu une longue entrevue avec Mgr. le duc d'Angoulême, à Perpignan, est retourné en Espagne.A Spanish army, under the command of General Castanos, had entered Roussillon; but this officer, after having had a long meeting with Mgr. the Duke of Angoulême, in Perpignan, returned to Spain.
D'un autre côté, le comte d'Abisbal a passé la Bidassoa et est entré en France, mais en annonçant les intentions les plus amicales, et le désir de servir les intérête du Roi de France.
On the other hand, the Count of Abisbal passed over the [river] Bidassoa and entered France, but announcing the most friendly intentions, and the desire to serve the interests of the King of France.
BTW "le comte d'Abisbal" translates on Wikipedia to " Count de La Bisbal" -- PBS ( talk) 19:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)