Talk:Battle of Charleroi

Few comments/assessment
1. The order of battle is faulty by not being precise enough (the whole of the 5 French armies certainly didn't participate in this one, why are they all listed?). The whole of it seems simply copied from other topic pages (namely, German Army order of battle (1914) and French Army order of battle (1914)). An effort could be made to go through the OHs or the maps of the Tome Premier of the French OH (here). The map provided in the article infobox is also probably a valid source of information.

2. The coverage of the battle is again broad and could be further developed (in addition to lacking inline citations). The cited sources could be checked for further details. The official histories (of which even the first volume of the British OH is available online) could be checked as well. The recently added link to history.com could also be a valid potential source if the OHs aren't enough.

3. Regarding assessment: Fails B1 (lack of inline citations) and B2 (coverage, omissions/inaccuracies), therefore is still start class. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lots of French-German battles are underwritten because of lack of interest and lack of sources in English (Apart from Spears, Tyng, Terraine, Doughty, Strachan and Foley on early 1914, that is). I can do something for the fighting in early 1914 and 1915 because Humphries and Maker have published an abridged translation of GOH 1915 and there's a bit more on the French available than when I started on Great War articles but I'm busy elsewhere. The OH online is the first edition (1922-1925) and the Battery Press-IWM reprint is of the third edition (1933 [1996]); my copy is the 1926 repr of the 1925 2nd edition.Keith-264 (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Published sources have priority on Wiki.Keith-264 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can do the work about the French OH since I speak French fluently and I can probably also get something from the full version of the GOH with my summary knowledge of the language. Published sources have priority on WP in the sense that books are generally more scholarly and more in depth efforts than a short internet page (therefore 'score' higher on the scale of reliable sources), but a source being (or not being) on the internet is not sufficient grounds for discarding it. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I rather envy you your languages, I have to plod through online translators and dictionaries to use the online GOH. I was surprised to find a General of the Cooling that I'd never encountered, until I realised he was Herman von Kuhl. Keith-264 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That made my day (General of the Cooling...). Regarding the OHs - this might take a long time: the German OH has about 75 pages on the battles of Mons and Namur, from 21 to 24 August (p. 346 to 430). The French OH also has a chapter of about 25 pages about the "Bataille de Charleroi" in the first volume (Tome Premier, Premier Volume, Chapitre XV, p. 471 to 498). I'll read through it summarily to get a more detailed outline than what is presently in the article. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fnar! Imagine how mind-bending it was to use the GOH and a translation from the French in the Times Encyclopaeda (a RS a mere 100 years old) for the Battle of the Monts 1917 and get east and west mixed up, until I realised that there were German names for the French monts as well as French ones and that the online translator was translating the German terms literally. Luckily GOH 1914 part I is in English but it doesn't give the same significance as us to casualties (possibly in Part II) and my English sources are in storage until tomorrow. May I mention that our disagreements are much more palatable to me than the deafening silence on these articles that has lasted for years? I hope that you stick around and get as much out of working on the Great War articles as I do. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 3. Garde-Infanterie-Division translates as 3. Guard Infantry Division, nb Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Fifth or 5th Army?
There's a convention that one side's armies are worded and the opposition's are numbered. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Just wasn't sure because the First (German) Army was written in the article using "First" while the 2nd and 3rd were using the numbers. That solves the issue. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Order of battle (per French OH, possibly too detailed)
(AFGG, Part I, First Volume, pp. 468-469, 471-473)

Preliminaries (pp. 471-472)

-6 German Corps (II, IX, X, VII, IV, Gd) and 3 cavalry divisions (2, 4, 9th, i.e. HKK 2) were reported north of the Meuse, moving west, 2 divisions reportedly passing through Louvain towards Brussels. The Germans had also begun surrounding Namur. -In light of this, at 0700 21/08, Joffre gave the following report to Lanrezac (commander, Fifth Army) and to the BEF:
 * The Third and Fourth (French Armies) were respectively moving towards Arlon and Neufchateau, with objective of engaging enemy forces in Belgian Luxembourg
 * The Fifth Army was to cover to Meuse up to Namur
 * The BEF was expected to cooperate in this objective, moving in the general direction of Soignies (NE of Mons)

Order of battle/deployment on 21 August 1914 (pp. 471-474)
 * Fifth Army (Gen. Lanrezac)
 * 1st [French] Corps (p. 472): to the right, holding the Meuse
 * 348th. Inf. Rgt.: Covering Fumay - Agimont
 * 1st Division: Hermeton - Anseremme
 * 2nd Division: Anseremme - Anhée
 * 8th Brigade: Yvoir - Profondeville
 * 51st Reserve Division (attached the day before): Area of Olloy, Matagne-la-Petite, supposed to relieve 1st/2nd Divs on the Meuse 22nd/23rd Aug.
 * 10th Corps - HQ at Florennes (Gen. Defforges) (not having moved since the 20th) (p. 468)
 * 19th Division: Area of Mettet - Saint-Gerard - Ermeton sur Biert - Stave
 * 20th Division: '   '  Biesme - Hanzinne - Laneffe - Morialme
 * 37th Division: '   '  Florennes - Fraire - Philippeville
 * Other sub-units as follows:
 * Elements of 19th Division as vanguard on the Sambre at Fosse, having earlier relieved the 284th Inf. Regt. and the 3rd Cav. Brigade
 * A provisory brigade formed with the cavalry regts. from the 19th and 37th Divisions, covering crossings of the Sambre from Floriffoux to Jemeppe
 * A battalion [not specified which] guarding bridges at Arsimont
 * 3rd Corps - HQ Walcourt (Gen Sauret) (not having moved, as the 10th) (p. 469)
 * Column heads: Villers-Poterie - Joneret - Jamioulx
 * 5th Division (HQ Somzée)
 * 6th Division (HQ Nalinnes): Staggered along routes leading to Charleroi together with the 5th
 * 38th Division: in the rear, area of Walcourt and Silenrieux, holding Sambre with vanguards from Pont-de-Loup to Marchinnes-au-Pont
 * 18th Corps (HQ Solre-le-Château): Still forming
 * Cavalry Corps (Gen. Sordet): Covering left of Fifth army and BEF in area of Fontaine-Levèque and Courcelles
 * BEF (p. 473)
 * I Corps: moving, frontline from Avesnes to Noyelles
 * II Corps: '  ' from Goegnies to Bavai
 * Territorials (Gen. d'Amade) making preparations further north

And that's just the ORBAT, there's a further 15 pages of narrative 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

German Guard/s divisions
The Histories of Two Hundred and Fifty-One Divisions of the German Army which Participated in the War (1914-1918) has them as Guard divisions. Keith-264 (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put all my faith into that source, it does state "The information comes chiefly from the front-line troops, resulting from their observation, reconnaissance, and the interrogation of the prisoners they take. This evidence is often fragmentary and inconclusive, [...]". But that's a minor issue. The reason I kept the s is for convenience with the linking (since that is how the pages are currently named). I wouldn't be opposed to a move of all related pages from "(number) Guards (division/corps/...)" to "[...] Guard [...]", but we'd need to judge what RS say. The BOH gives "Guard" for the corps (Vol I, p. 20-22) but I don't know if it keeps the same practice with the divisions. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a source, Wiki isn't; the Humphries and Maker translation of GOH 1914 I p. 167 1st Guard, p. 520 (Index) has Guard for all Guard divisions.Keith-264 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then you can boldly go (were no one has gone before) ahead and just move all the German Guard Divisions (and other units) to the relevant title without an s, and keep the old page as a redirect. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I Know but I prefer to decide for myself. Keith-264 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

French OH/level of detail
In the following, is the detail about aviation (in italics) relevant or should I just remove it since it had a minor effect in the grand scheme of things?

'Lanrezac was told that the Germans were still moving west, and in consequence ordered his aviation to reconnoiter enemy troop movements and informed his subordinates that they should "be ready to launch an attack [...] by crossing the Sambre, towards Namur and Nivelles."'

The variant without aviation:

'Lanrezac was told that the Germans were still moving west, and in consequence ordered his subordinates "to be ready to launch an attack [...] by crossing the Sambre, towards Namur and Nivelles."'

The information is naturally from the French OH, as cited in the article (comment). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * And how should we go ahead with hours? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would put the air war in because of its importance to the ground commanders; orders to reconnoitre and the effect are as important as troop movements. By defining the area to be observed from above, Lanrezac was being cautious about the advance to the Sambre. I use the 12-hour clock 9:50 p.m. but other editors like the 24-hour 09:50; either way, there's a colon so times don't look like years. Since you're doing the work, I'm content to leave it to your discretion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Casualties
I've found a bit about casualties but the sources I've got are very vague about it; could it be that in the chaos, no figure for that battle was calculated? Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)