Talk:Battle of Albuera

Copy-edit discussion
Copy-edit discussion archived to Talk:Battle of Albuera/copyedit, since it got pretty big :) Carre 13:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Order of battle
I was thinking of that table...I like it enough now to not want to get rid of it, but it looks clunky where it is. I was thinking of moving it to a daughter article, with a see also at the very start of Battle, then putting some words around the table in the new article. That way, in the prose, I could perhaps explain Godinot's and Werlé's large brigades, and provide more detail on the other units. Any thoughts or opinions? Carre 10:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A very good idea, like on the Battle of Austerlitz article and its order of battle. Carl Logan 11:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed; either that, or put it at the end of the article (although I think splitting it off would be better). Small tables can be made to float in an infobox and don't disrupt the flow so much, but that would be nigh-on impossible with this one. As Carl Logan says, most other such articles (see Battle of Waterloo as well) follow this format. EyeSerene TALK 10:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, will do this during the coming week. I have full details, all the way down to the regimental level.  It seems like the two examples go to this level, so I guess I'll do the same this time too.  A bit of text about how some of the divisions/brigades came about (eg provisional Portuguese, Godinot, Werlé) will wrap it fairly well too. Carre 14:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
Hi there, another truly excellent article on a Napoleonic War battle and one I was happy to pass for GA. I have a few notes below on issues to be addressed before taking the article further (as I suggest you do) but just to say well done to Carre and EyeSerene (and anybody else involved) for an informative, interesting and intelligent article.

Replacement of Brigadier Long
According to Long's letters (which are contemporary), Long himself alerted Beresford to an anomaly of rank. Long was a brigadier-general, which was something of a courtesy title (like commodore in the navy) not a rank, in terms of substantive rank he was a colonel. As the allied Spanish cavalry were commanded by a major-general, Long considered that the Spanish might object to being placed under the command of a mere colonel. As a result of this Beresford decided that Lumley, a British major-general, should take over over-all command of the cavalry, to which Long acceded. However, Beresford decided to implement the replacement of Long on the very day of the Battle of Albuera, during combat, which Long took as a mortal insult.

The earlier clash at Campo Mayor had soured relations between Beresford and Long and a great deal of resentment had built up between the two men, partly based on Long's scathing comments on the Portuguese cavalry he commanded (Beresford was commander in chief of the Portuguese Army). As D'Urban was closely attached to Beresford it is of no surprise that he chose to put a slant on the supersession of Long that suggested that Long was removed for incompetency.

See: McGuffie, T.H (Ed). Peninsular Cavalry General (1811-1813): The Correspondence of Lieutenant-General Robert Ballard Long, London (1951).

Fletcher, I. Galloping at Everything: The British Cavalry in the Peninsula and at Waterloo 1808-15, Spellmount, Staplehurst (1999).

Urselius (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha - that was changed, and changed back again a few days ago (I did the change back). See the talk page of the editor who made the change.  After the change, I went through all my sources, and found that Napier, Oman, Glover and Weller all support the version currently in the article (I added additional sources to the ref), and only Fortescue mentioning the agreed upon plan.  Fortescue relies on d'Urban's letters during the Long/Napier/Beresford wrangle for his view, while the others rely on other d'Urban letters to support their view.


 * I did look for d'Urban's letters online, and came across reference to McGuffie's publication of Long's letters, but am certainly not prepared to pay the asking price for a copy! (library calls, I guess).  Now, I personally don't rate d'Urban as a source (Napier used him for a lot of his data for his history, and a lot of Napier's errors in his account are down to d'Urban's errors), but I'm also not convinced that Long is that reliable a source to discuss his own replacement as cavalry commander.  Ian Fletcher, on the other hand, I would accept as a source, although I don't have any of his works myself.


 * Suggestions as to how to proceed? I have listed 4 separate sources, 3 in favour of the current account, and Fortescue dissenting in the footnote.  I can add Weller to the "in favour" count.  It's clear that historians disagree, and I'd very much like this article to be as accurate as possible, while keeping the prose nice and neat.  More in the footnote about the disagreement?  Or move it to prose? Carre (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I think the footnote is probably still the place for this at present. From WP:SOURCES, the article should fairly represent "all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." (my italics)
 * I agree that Fletcher has to be taken seriously though (can you provide a full reference, Urselius?). If the current format is unacceptable, to avoid breaking up the article flow perhaps it would be possible to rewrite the section mentioning Long's dismissal in a more non-committal way, and devote a footnote to both sides of the dispute? EyeSerene TALK 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Depending on what Urselius comes up with, I was thinking much the same: just go for the "unreasonable haste" (Beresford's opinion, as already mentioned, and not contested I think), and end that sentence there.  Then mention the replacement, and say that Long claimed it was a planned replacement, per Fortescue, Fletcher and some d'Urban letters, while Napier, Oman, Glover, Weller and other d'Urban letters claim the replacement was for incompetence (I don't think I ever saw Beresford's own view on this).  Whether that goes in a footnote or in prose then has to be decided - I think it can be made to fit in either. Carre (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * [edit] I'd also be interested in seeing if Fletcher cites his sources - Long or d'Urban, or something else? Of the current cited sources, only Napier doesn't say where he got it from, and all the others use, as I say, d'Urban. Carre (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that crossed my mind too. I'm nowhere near as familiar with this as you, but I get the impression that there aren't too many WP:RS/WP:NPOV sources that support Long's version. Fletcher has a first-class reputation, but I have to confess to being slightly sceptical about 'pop-historians' (I'm probably being hugely unfair!). Still, with WP:VERIFY, all we need to be able to say is 'according to X, Y happened'... EyeSerene TALK 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have McGuffie (it cost about 30 pounds sterling - second-hand) and Fletcher.

Interestingly, Fletcher (p. 149 - referencing Fortesque) attributes the precipitate withdrawal of Long's men back over to the Albuera town side of the river to a mix up by Beresford's staff officers. Long received two orders, the first from D'Urban telling him to remain on the right bank of the river and dispute his withdrawal until hard pressed by the French, the second order came from Beresford's Adjutant General, Colonel Rooke, this told Long to retire across the river and form on its left bank. Long obviously responded to the later order, which he assumed would supercede the earlier one.

This would tend to negate the argument that the primary reason for Long being relieved of his command was that Beresford was unduly displeased with his handling of his cavalry in the opening stages of the battle.

McGuffie p. 106 - a letter from Long dated 22nd May 1811:

"In consequence of the union of the Spanish Cavalry, and to prevent disputes about rank, General Beresford directed Major General Lumley to take command of the whole Cavalry, and, in my opinion, rather indelicately, permitted this command to be assumed after the action had commenced, and whilst I was manoeuvring the Troops. This I can never forgive and thus has fortune deprived me again of what I am free to think and hope might have been my hard-earned reward. Though deeply hurt, I did not abate my zeal and endeavours to promote the Marshal's glory, and to my perfect knowledge of the ground, which I had reconnoitred the night before, enabled me I believe to be of assistance to the officer who thus superseeded me."

Urselius (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's excellent Urselius. Does Fletcher say where he saw that in Fortescue's account?  (The whole of the relevant volume of Fortescue is Public Domain, linked in the article, and can be downloaded as a PDF for free).


 * For what it's worth, I find the most compelling of Fortescue's sources for Long's replacement is the first of d'Urban's letters, which dates from a couple of days before the battle. Unfortunately, I never managed to find the originals, so I don't know exactly what in that letter brought Fortescue to his conclusion (he cites 2 d'Urban letters, so knowing what was in which is important).


 * How would you like to go ahead with this? Would an extra source in the ref (#35, I think, which mentions Napier, Oman, Glover and Fortescue) do?  We can add Fletcher easily enough, if you can provide the details for the citation template in "References".  Or would you prefer the contention to be in the main prose?  I can help with the params in either citation or  the harv family of templates if you're unsure about them.  Carre (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, I think you was robbed at £30 for McGuffie! Carre (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fletcher reference: Fortesque, British Army, VIII, p.186.

Fletcher, I. Galloping at Everything: The British Cavalry in the Peninsula and at Waterloo 1808-15, Spellmount, Staplehurst (1999). ISBN# 1862270163.

McGuffie, T.H. (ed.) Peninsular Cavalry General: (1811-13) The Correspondence of Lieutenant General Robert Ballard Long London : George G. Harrap; 1951. (pre ISBN)

I think that if there are two versions of an event, both supported by at least one primary source, then they should both go in the body of the text. This would be my opinion about the best way of treating the problem.

Just to muddy the water even more, I have grave doubts over Beresford's formal ability to relieve a British general of his command in the field. Considering the difficulties Wellington had in getting rid of people such as William Erskine I imagine that Beresford, who was not even C-in-C of the British forces, would have been even more hamstrung. After all Long was sent out by Horseguards and invested with his command by Wellington. I would imagine that a general would have had to commit an indictable criminal offence to be removed or superceded by Beresford without reference to higher authority. Given that this sort of situation existed, it seems to me that Beresford must have had some form of agreement from Long that he was willing to be put under Lumley's authority. If the reason for this move was given out that it was because Long was incompetent then that agreement would not have been forthcoming. It must be remembered that D'Urban's letters were not public, or official.

Templates - far too technical for me, what's wrong with simple citations these days?

I needed the McGuffie quickly for something I was writing, I got a good price on a copy of Tomkinson though.

Urselius (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the Fortescue p. 186 reference is already in there (in reference #35), but I'll add Fletcher too, and see if I can come up with some nice words for the prose. Carre (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There, done. That ok?


 * Eye, if you're watching, you may want to work your magic on my prose :) Carre (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PS - the templates are just for consistency, really. When juggling 90+ references, and now 11 sources, it's easy to make little formatting slips that would be pounced on with glee by the FAC reviewers.  The templates, while a pain the proverbial, just make sure everything looks the same :)


 * Am I right in assuming you're more into the Cavalry side of things, rather than the Peninsular War itself? If you have decent info on the whole war, you might want to have a look at Peninsular War - I'm gradually trying to bring it up to scratch, add references, fix errors, and so on, with the view to taking it through the quality process to GA/A/FA. Carre (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The text etc. looks fine to me.

By a series of accidents I seem to have become a cavalry specialist, but my interests are, in fact, quite wide: including naval matters (I suspect my next article will have a naval subject). I'll have a look at the Peninsular War page.

Urselius (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've given the addition a tweak, mainly trying to be more concise so as not to disrupt the narrative too much; please correct/reword as necessary ;) EyeSerene TALK 17:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta for that Eye.
 * (non sequitur : "rudderless" - tee hee, I like it) Carre (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Duchy of Warsaw
Looking for opinions, if anyone's watching...

Should the Duchy of Warsaw be included in the infobox? It was there in the article version before I got my hands on it, and only removed after Jacky's comment at the GA review. The Vistula Uhlans were the only Polish troops present, I believe (unless there were any infantrymen amongst the French conscripts), but they weren't there as an independent entity. They were part of the French army.

I removed a recent re-addition of them in the infobox, but then reverted myself. I figured, eventually, that just as they weren't there independently, the same could, just about and at a stretch, be argued about the Portuguese (yes, a much more tenuous argument there!).

In the end, I decided I didn't want to partake in any revert warring, so do any watchers have any opinions? Cheers Carré (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I originally thought the Duchy should be removed because Polish troops were not operating as an independant faction or even as an independant army under the command of an officer of another faction (as the Portuguese were), but were solely present at the action as a part of the larger French army. Their stake in the battle was, I felt, nowhere near big enough to merit an appearance in the infobox and I haven't seen anything to contradict this impression since. The Polish troops can of course be mentioned in the article, but I see no reason why they should have parity with the nations which contributed significant military forces with independant command structures (outside the very highest ranks).--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning follows my own Jacky, so thanks for that. I'm just looking to avoid edit wars :)  But the Poles seem to visit here only occasionally, so I think a re-revert of my self-revert is in order.  I'll leave it a little while to see if anyone else has an opinion. Carré (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and looking back, I didn't mean to imply that I only removed the Duchy cos of your GA review. That isn't the case at all - it was something I'd meant to remove, and never got round to til reminded by your GA comment.  Just in case you thought I was pointing fingers or anything :)  Carré (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No no, nothing like that, I just felt that I should give the reasoning behind my request for its removal to explain to anyone who was curious.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's not just the Poles, although I've heard this particular tune before. There's this obsession with the multinational components of the Grande Armée which seems to make people forget that all armies incorporated foreign elements in their ranks. (I don't see anyone scrambling to list the French Huguenot regiments in Marlborough's forces!) We could go on all day counting the Swiss, German, Flemish, Italian (etc.) components in any given army, but to what purpose? The rule of thumb should be only to list the nationalities of troops in "Combatants" when they constitute a fair proportion of allied strength (e.g. Waterloo). Albrecht (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you put the Poles in, then you can also add Hanover. There were at least as many King's German Legion participants, as were Polish ones. And the KGL was a part of the British army, as were the Poles one of the French army. So, please either both participants or none! Anne-theater (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both Anne-theater and Albrecht. Maybe Albrecht remembers the version of this article before I re-wrote it – so firmly in the perspective of the Poles, it made you wonder if anyone else was even there!  The KGL, as ever, played an important role in the battle, but I'm not about to include them in the infobox, so I think it's bye-bye to Warsaw once again.


 * Thank you all, once again, for your assistance. Carré (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First of we can’t add nations based on the ethnicity or nationality of the soldiers, ever battle involving the French Foreign Legion would be a nightmare if we did that. My solution, which I have used on the First Indochina War article, is to add states with an separate armed forces.


 * As I understand it, and I am no expert, the Polish forces was part of the Polish Army of the Duchy of Warsaw, a state with a armed forces same as France, Prussia, Russia, Austria and the United Kingdom. The Duchy of Warsaw sent some of their troops down to Spain to be a part of the French field armies there, that doesn’t mean that those troops become part of the French Armed forces. The German Legion on the other hand was a unit in the British Army, which happened to be maede up of Hanoverians. So no separated Armed forces, no state and no bloody infobox combatant place. In my humble opinion any other solution to this problem would be madness. Carl Logan (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blimey, I didn't realise so many people were watching here! I'm a little confused by your post Carl - are you suggesting that the Duchy should have an entry in the infobox, because they had an army separate from the French, even though they weren't in the Peninsular in their own right?  Or have I misunderstood?  Carré (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Was the Britsh on the Western Front, in both World Wars, there in "their own right"? Same thing with the Free French Forces, they might have been part of a Britsh or American formation, but never of there armed forces. So my answer would be yes, the Polish should be in the infobox, if they contributed a significant force. For example I don’t think the United Kingdom should be in the Battle of Leipzig because their contribution was so small compared to the total force committed to the battle. Carl Logan (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so ~600 Uhlans out of the total French force of ~25,000, and against ~35,000 Anglo-Spanish-Portuguese. Small, I think. Carré (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Just to chuck in my 2p worth, it struck me (when I was copyediting) as odd that the Poles should be mentioned in the infobox, mainly because there is only a brief mention of them in the article. They are there in the ORBAT for those readers that are interested, and personally I think that's sufficient. EyeSerene TALK 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Claims that lancers did not give quarter
As a comparison I have added the casualties sustained by the French infantry at the Battle of Garcia Hernandez in 1812. The situation was quite similar in that two squares of French infantry were broken by cavalry (KGL Dragoons). However of the French casualties the vast majority were made prisoners, wheras at Abuera the majority of British casualties were apparently killed or wounded with a minority made prisoner.

The text I added could possibly be better placed within a footnote, but the clumsy citation system put me off trying.

Urselius (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with what you've written, or where it is, from what I can see. I was encouraged at either the MilHist peer review or A-class review to put more historiography around that piece, but I never did.  Your comparison with Garcia Hernandez is interesting;  strangely, Oman's History seems to lean towards letting the Uhlan's off the brutality charge, but your citation is from Oman's Army – I'll have to have a look!  Carré (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The charge of being unusually brutal seems to have affected all lance-armed cavalry in the period, the ethnically French lancers at Waterloo were also crticised for spearing wounded and not taking prisoners. Perhaps the greater physical distance from the victim afforded by the length of the lance tended to make casual brutality more pyschologically acceptable.

Urselius (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good article overall - well written, but this part of the Colborne brigade's section is likely Original research and/or Synthesis. Further, the comparison is inapplicable on its face - Colborne's Brigade is in line advancing and taken in the flank not in square, the whole point of being in square is to prevent what happened to Colborne - as the 31st's square demonstrates. The high casualties seem just a result of infantry being caught by cavalry in the worst possible position. I suggest removing it or, at least, rewriting with sources substantiating actual slaughter of surrendered wounded and tradition of no quarter and kia to prisoner ratios.Tttom1 (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Long again :)
Quoting the text:

"...and a suicidal charge by Long's heavy cavalry against Latour-Maubourg's infantry, formed in square, was only halted by Beresford's timely arrival. Latour-Maubourg was subsequently able to complete his withdrawal.[21]"

This isn't strictly true. The heavies had been stopped and physically moved away from Long's direct control by the action of an aide of Beresford's before Beresford arrived on the scene. Long sent a captain back to the heavies to get them forward, but his intentions (recorded only 3 days after the action and before the censure from Wellington had been received) were to use the heavy cavalry to drive off the remaining French cavalry which were supporting the infantry squares. He then thought that the French infantry, deprived of cavalry cover, would be induced to surrender. Long never mentioned any intention of throwing his cavalry at formed squares of French infantry, this is an insinuation of Beresford/D'Urban and uncritically repeated by Oman. The captain returned to Long to say that Bereford had stopped the heavies personally. Long remained to see, with incredulity, the French column walk away from eight squadrons of British heavy cavalry, three squadrons of Portuguese cavalry and a battery of KGL artillery (which got off a few shots at the French before being halted by Beresford) just as the forward elements of British infantry under Colborne were coming up. It is worth pointing out that a contemporary way of breaking infantry squares was recognised as the co-operation of artillery and cavalry. The threat of cavalry charging forced the infantry to stop moving and adopt a defensive posture, the artillery then used the infantry as target practice until they surrendered or were so knocked about that the cavalry could charge with hope of success.

Urselius (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think Long would have written about wanting to use his cavalry against infantry in square, even if that was his intention at the time. However, one has to question D'Urban's account of anything involving Long too. Thanks to self-serving testimony on both sides of this rather childish dispute, we're always going to be able to write two versions of everything! Is this Fletcher again for the above? (BTW, Carre is not editing much at the moment, though I think he does check in from time to time.) EyeSerene talk 20:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's from McGuffie and Fletcher, and also Napier (to some extent). The main indication of Long's intent was a letter he wrote only three days after the action.  At the time he would have merely been unhappy about Beresford's handling of the action, he would not have known of Beresford's very self-serving report to Wellington and would not, of course, have received Wellington's stern censure of the 13th LD (and by extrapolation of himself).  There would be no particular reason for Long to have been defensive in his letter, there is also no reason to doubt that what he expressed was what he felt at the time.  If he felt that he could have broken the French infantry with the heavies I think he would have said so, but he didn't, he merely said that he would have used them to drive off the remaining French cavalry and then, he considered, that he would have been able to force the infantry to surrender.  The French column needed to keep moving towards Badajoz as it knew it had a whole Anglo-Portuguese army coming up behind it.  Without cavalry cover, and menaced by no less than 11 British and Portuguese squadrons, the French infantry would have been forced to stop or at least made to move very very slowly.  Long had every reason to expect, in these circumstances, that British artillery and infantry would have been able to close with the French long before they reached the safety of Badajoz, and the game would have been over for them. Urselius (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, Long's explanation of his intent is tactically sound, and would probably have left the French infantry in serious trouble (although Craufurd showed how it could be done at Fuentes de Oñoro - but unlike our hypothetical situation he still had cavalry support). Beresford clearly felt he had to justify his actions, which according to Long's version directly led to L-M's escape, and Wellington was, perhaps understandably, always ready to believe the worst about the cavalry! However, back to the topic... if you want to work this into the article, feel free; how would you suggest going about it? EyeSerene talk 09:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't a page on Campo Mayor, which is something I've been contemplating remedying for some time, though it would be a considerable effort. Once this page is in existence then linking would be easy from here, and a full discussion of the controversy would be readily available for the interested reader. As it is I think watering down the rather bald statement into something on the lines of: "The pursuit of L-M's force was poorly co-ordinated and the greater part of the French force managed to reach the safety of Badajoz. The reason behind this failure was subsequently disputed between supporters of Brigadier Long and Marshal Beresford."  Or words to that effect. The KGL hussars fought very well against vastly superior numbers of French cavalry at Fuentes, the two squadrons of French hussars directly supporting L-M's infantry did similarly good work at Campo Mayor, but there's little doubt that 8 squadrons of British heavies could have broken them very easily. Urselius (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Poorly coordinated pursuit' pretty much sums up the British side of the Peninsular war ;) Your suggestion sounds good to me - maybe we could provide further explanation in a footnote? Something like: "According to Oman, Beresford had to intervene to prevent Long sending his cavalry in a suicidal charge against L-M's formed infantry, but Long's account (reported by McGuffie and Fletcher) has Beresford preventing him from driving off the remaining French cavalry, thus leaving L-M's infantry exposed to a combined-arms assault that would likely have seen a complete French capitulation." EyeSerene talk 11:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a slight expansion of my above suggestion for the body of the text? and the following as a footnote:

"The cavalry clash at Campo Mayor, was to become a very controversial action. Beresford considered that Long had lost control of his light cavalry, which had pursued fleeing French cavalry for up to seven miles until they came within range of the fortress guns of Badajoz. Beresford also claimed that his taking personal command of the heavy dragoon brigade had prevented Long from ordering them to attempt a suicidal charge against French infantry squares (see Oman pp.258-265) Long was of the opinion, and was subsquently supported in this by the historian Napier (see Napier pp. 309-310), that if Beresford had released the British brigade of heavy dragoons he would have been able to drive off the supporting French cavalry and force the French infantry to surrender (see McGuffie, T.H pp. 73-81)."

I can get hold of the missing page numbers etc.


 * Great, and more succinct than my version ;) Let's go with that then. EyeSerene talk 17:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Urselius (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! It's only more succinct if you ignore the stonking great footnote attached. :) Urselius (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you check the Napier details for the new footnote please? Which edition of Vol II in particular, I think.  Just checked my copy (1st edition), and pp 309-310 isn't about Albuera / Campo Maior, but later editions had changes in.  Then I'll add Vol II to the references section, and mosify the new footnote. Cheers. Carré (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a later edition, the 4th, in the early editions Napier holds back on his criticisms of Beresford's record. Even the moderate tone of his first edition provoked a storm from the Beresford camp, Napier didn't pull his punches in later editions.  Indeed in the various prefaces and "letters" included in the later editions Napier positively insults Beresford. Urselius (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks for that. Found a 4th edition on google books, so I'll link that in the citation. Carré (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me ;) EyeSerene talk 12:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Great! I don't know how you want to treat the spelling of the name of the action.  'Campo Maior' is the modern Portuguese name for the town.  However, 'Campo Mayor' (a more Spanish style of spelling) is still the English usage for the name of the action eg. The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book by Digby Smith (1998).  Of course it is also the spelling used by Napier and Oman. Urselius (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's Mayor in all of my references too, all 15 of em :D, but I'd already used Maior in the article, so consistency. Similarly, don't really want to go talking about things like Badajos;  perpetuating century old British misconceptions on spelling, I don't feel, really has a place in an encyclopaedia.  I actually have a vague recollection of reading this version of events before, probably in Fortescue, so it's good to have the viewpoint in the article.  Thanks for bringing it up and putting the words in. Carré (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I think Maior is correct despite the sources (that's what the linked article is called, and is consistent with Badajoz rather than Badajos) EyeSerene talk 13:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be kind to the reader to give the alternate spelling in brackets after the first use of the name. I have great mental problems reading histories where Spanish-Portuguese border place-names are used - for Olivenza do I think "oleeventha" or "oleevenzha?" Urselius (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

New facts about Albuera Based on New Research
I have read all the traditional histories (French and British) dealing with Albuera and I have also read a meticulously researched book about the battle by G. Dempsey entitled Albuera 1811 -- The Bloodiest Battle of the Peninsula War (2008). The book provides many new facts about the battle and reveals some mistakes made by famous historians such as Oman and Fortescue. My intention is to make changes in the article based on the new book where the evidence for a correction is clear and compelling. Other contributors who are interested in Albuera may want to look at the book before objecting to changes.--Marshalb (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As I explained on your talk page, these "corrections" should not removed sourced material from the article. The historical debate is not conclusively proven one way or another and both sides should remain present in the article, with the evidence and proponents for each clearly described and sourced. Your participation in the article is welcome, but you cannot make significant content changes unilaterally based on a single source: Wikipedia should reflect the whole spectrum of scholarship on the issue at hand, not the view of just one author. Perhaps a good start would be for you to draft your intended version of the section below so that other editors can comment on it and suggest/make changes?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Only about a month late; just had to go through and correct all the new Dempsey reference formats, as well as some spelling mistakes (how much of that was just copied from Dempsey's book, I wonder? (Andalusia/Andalucia for example)).  Very little, if any, of the additional information is "new" - most of it is referred to by at least Oman or Fortescue, but most of it I considered irrelevant to the battle.  However, it's not badly written, and so I have no objections.  Jacky has it spot on though - just because Dempsey says something, when there are 4 or 5 other, respected, sources saying something else, you should most certainly not have removed the previously cited details.


 * Wish I'd never done this bloomin' article - it's so controversial, even nearly 200 years later, no wonder I gave up on wikipedia! Carré (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The number of sources is never as important as the quality of sources. There is no work about this battle (Fortescue and Oman included) other than the new book that ties its facts and conclusions to primary sources via footnotes. That causes me to conclude that the new book is a better source of information about some facts (such as the date when Wellington sent a letter to Long removing him from command) even if no other book contains that information and other "respected" sources have different stories about why Long was superceded. History is not a popularity contest in which the most votes determine historical truth, especially when newer secondary sources have a tendency to cite the same information without verification from earlier secondary sources. Anyone who cares enough about Albuera to be writing on this discussion page should care enough to read the new book and draw his or her own conclusions before asserting that Oman and Fortescue must always be right because they have been around a long time.

By the way, Andalucia is the Spanish name of the province and should have been used in this article rather than the English name Andalusia for the same reason that we now call the capital of China Beijing rather than Peking. Marshalb (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is saying that Oman and Fortescue are right (necessarily). What is being said is that they are long standing, well respected histories and their points of view should be represented, whether or not they agree with the "latest research". This is not intended to exclude more recent research - that too has a place in the article, but only alongside the traditional sources, never instead of them.


 * On your second point, while you may be correct about "Andalucia", your analogy is incorrect. The term Beijing should only be used to describe that city during periods in its history when it was known by that name. Peking is appropriate for those periods when that term was in use and as Beijing makes clear, the city has had quite a number of other names, all of which are appropriate in their correct context. Another example is London: During the Roman period the city was known as Londinium, and that term should be used when referring to that time period.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If memory serves, the part of the article in question is Long's replacement. If that is the case, you are completely wrong in stating that neither Oman or Fortescue cite their sources.  In fact, both do, and strangely, the footnotes in the article (44 and 45 I think) actually refer to the sources Oman and Fortescue are citing.  And have a look at Andalusia. Carré (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Casualty figures
I've reverted a recent change to the infobox casualty figures so the article and refs remain in synch, but given that the reason for the change was that Oman's casualty figures may be exaggerated, maybe we can discuss that here? Cheers, EyeSerene talk 11:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw this as well. I understand and to an extent sympathise with Albrecht's point (although I think he is a bit hard on Oman). I have experience with outlandish casualty reports and it is tempting to ignore those that look a bit too high or low. However, on Wikipedia we report what sources say, not what we assume based on the author. Therefore the full range of statistics need to be supplied in the infobox, and then discussed in context the appropriate section below, as the article was prior to the recent changes.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, often the best we can do is give a range. Because it wasn't only the casualty figures that were changed, but strengths as well, I thought this might be something that needed further examination. EyeSerene talk 12:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The strengths weren't actually changed, just the format of them tweaked to tidy up a bit. With respect to the casualty figures, my first instinct was to revert also.  There's little doubt that Oman's figures are exaggerated, but Soult's figures which are also given in the info-box are also clearly nonsense.  Those are the upper and lower ranges supported by references though, while the Aftermath (I think) section explains further and quotes the more realistic figure of 7,000. Carré (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, apologies for the somewhat abrupt edit: I realize that ideally, this step should have come first. I certainly won't insist on the change, but it struck me this week that neither Gates nor Esdaile nor (for instance) Cayuela Fernández (La Guerra de la Independencia: historia bélica, pueblo y nación en España, 1808-1814) seem to give much credence to Oman's calculation, all settling for 7,000 as the revised figure. (On the other hand, recent sources do tend to cite Soult's report, but it's not always clear to what degree they would revise the casualties upwards or whether they find Soult more credible than Oman or less so). Having said that, I accept the reasoning whereby the full range should be given if Soult's figures are stated. Albrecht (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The aftermath section already quotes two French historians as giving the 7000 figure. Might it be worth adding to that sentence/section that Gates, Esdaile and Cayuela Fernández also prefer this estimate? EyeSerene talk 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it's by no means essential. It might help prevent the misinterpretation that it's a matter of French versus Anglo-Saxon "blocs" or "schools," which is definitely not the case. Tell you what: I'll do the field work myself, double-check the sources, and propose the change here. Albrecht (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[←]As far as I remember, neither Gates nor Esdaile explain where they get the 7,000 figure from. The reference to Belmas etc is from Jac Weller, who quotes Soult's, Oman's and the 7,000 numbers. Oman is quite explicit in how he came up with his numbers, as also mentioned in Aftermath (extrapolated from regimental returns). Given that extrapolation is just a posh name for an educated / informed guess, we already have a doubt raised to that number in the article. The evidence from Oman is certainly enough to call doubt on either of Soult's figures, comparing Soult's returns of officer casualties with the regimental returns. Fortescue is no use, since he just "borrows" from Oman.

Agree that the discrepancy isn't a French vs Anglo argument Carré (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved from the article
"The aftermath of the battle resulted in two famous quotes from the opposing commanders.

Wellington, while writing up his report of the battle is recorded as saying “This will not do – write me down a victory.”

However, the more famous quote is from a letter Soult wrote after the battle. “There is no beating these troops. I always thought they were bad soldiers, now I am sure of it. I had turned their right, pierced their centre and everywhere victory was mine – but they did not know how to run!” "

These are interesting but I think we need more information to put them into context (esp. for Wellington), and the reference is incomplete. EyeSerene talk 11:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The quote, according to Napoleon and Wellington: the Battle of Waterloo- and the great commanders By Andrew Roberts 2001, ISBN 0743228324 p.63, goes: "This won't do. It will drive the people in England mad. Write me down a victory." So too, Christopher Herold in The Age of Napoleon p.227. Wellington: A Personal History By Christopher Hibbert p.106, gives more context and the first part as "This won't do, write me down a victory". I believe that this is the more famous of the two quotes. It also states that Wellington complained that another such battle would ruin his army, p.105. This ought to be enough to put this quote back in. Tttom1 (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's very helpful. I wonder if we could expand the context a little more though? Why did Wellington say what he did? The quote implies the original after-action report perhaps wasn't triumphalist enough for him; why not? Who wrote it? Also, is the Soult quote covered by the same reference? EyeSerene talk 08:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The original despatch was Beresford's, and characterized by Wellington & historians as too gloomy, or despondent. W's comment was to a staff officer who then rewrote it. In Stanhope's Notes of conversations with the Duke of Wellington, 1831-1851, p.90, W, with hindsight and in a sanguine manner, much later recounts the episode. I think the two quotes, each in their own way, demonstrate the closeness of the outcome. Soult's with his usual generosity to his enemy and W's rewriting of Beresford. According to Napoleon's Marshals By R. P. Dunn-Pattison, 1909, p. 108, Soult (presumably in an official despatch) claims, on the basis higher allied casualties, claims "a signal victory". The contradictory quote in the article can be found on p.5, Chamber's Journal 6th series V.4 1900-1901. Also, History of the Peninsular War, By Robert Southey, V.5, p.241. I do not know its origin. In any case, the Soult quote may be misapplied to the British as its the performance of the Spanish under Zayas that saves the day. Interesting to note, both sides remain on the field the next day.Tttom1 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've written the content back in to the Aftermath section; your opinion would be appreciated :) Please also feel free to make any tweaks you see fit.
 * Some of the references I've added from your posts above are incomplete (Dunn-Pattison, Herold, Hibbert and Southey). Would you be able to flesh them out a little? I had a look at worldcat, but wasn't sure which editions you used and didn't like to guess. EyeSerene talk 13:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added info to most of the refs. Originally found most using google, but often indirectly by content, not title. Nap's Marshals was a google book original edition as was Chamber's Journal but I didn't bookmark them and can't find yet. Nap's Marshals has been republished but with different pagination.Tttom1 (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'signal victory' is probably from Gurwood, or a translation of the despatch text in one of the books, not sure its Dunn-pattison. The others are fine. It reads much better now, good work.Tttom1 (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Dunn-P on p.118, not 108.Tttom1 (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad - is 108.Tttom1 (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally found it, Dunn-Pattison is of the opinion that if Soult had just held his ground, Beresford would have been compelled to retire. See: Tttom1 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Tactical?
Nothing on the Gates ref says that this was a tactical victory. Reiftyr (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Several authors I've read call it inconclusive, so I agree.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Later Controversy
Fortescue says "Many years later when the battle of Albuera had become a theme of bitter controversy, Beresford admitted...." I came here curious about that later controversy; it seems like if the British (or Allied?) principals were later engaged in argument over the results of the battle something about that would be an appropriate addition to the article. Since I know nothing whatsoever about that myself I'm just leaving this as a suggestion. 71.34.14.42 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Lack of maps
The lack of explanatory maps, either of the location or of the development of the battle, make the article very hard to follow. The old maps are more illustrations than contributions to the article. Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed
G'day all, just wondering if anyone here can provide a reference for this sentence: "His army was much smaller than that of the Allies, but he hoped the quality of his troops would compensate for his lack of numbers"? I have tagged it in the article with a Cn tag to make it clear what I am referring to. As a featured article, it would be best if this could be dealt with to ensure that the article remains up to scratch with the current FA referencing requirements. Pinging a few editors from the Napoleonic War task force who may be able to assist:. If any of you can assist, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Somewhat similar in content, though not definite in regards to Soult's thoughts about the numbers, is found over here. Meanwhile Soult himself said in his report that he was outnumbered, even without Blake on the field, but didn´t doubt victory (translated over here) though of course his report is regarded as self-serving and incorrect in several aspects. ...GELongstreet (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, thanks for this, would rewording the sentence like this potentially work: "His army was much smaller than that of the Allies, but believed he had sufficient numbers to be successful", cited to the two sources you list above? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)(
 * I´m not sure I´d write it this way at that point in the article, after all the situation is just developing. Soult wrote the numerical disadvantage to be much smaller (as he thought the Allied forces hadn´t united yet) and planned to defeat them in detail (so the thought of sufficient numbers is conditioned to a parted enemy). I´d probably write something to that effect. Meanwhile something somewhat similar (but without a comparison of strengths) is already in the last paragraph of the section (and the beginning of the next) so it could be worked into those as well. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. Given that the point has been removed now, and I don't know enough about the topic to re-add it, I will leave as is. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Marshal Soult's report to the Emperor, he did not realize that he was outnumbered (that is, his opponents had been reinforced without his knowledge) until the fighting had started. (Oman, History of the Peninsular War, Vol 4, p. 388) Oman concludes that Soult froze at that point and let the battle fight itself. So I think it would be appropriate for the statement in question to be removed altogether. It seems to be unsupported. Djmaschek (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
Too much reliance on antique sources. A lot of Oman (1911), who is sound, but to base so much of the article on him is hardly "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Some 1917, 1841, 1837, and some Napier from 1831. Again, sound enough, but HQ RSs? While I could nit pick, the article is pretty sound, it "just" needs largely resourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If anyone can suggest reliable and accessible sources that could replace Oman etc then I'd be happy to do some of the grunt work replacing sources, but I do not myself have a good enough grasp of the literature to know where or where not to start with other works. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)