Talk:Battle of Quatre Bras

Dissent over the changes of the outcome of the battle.
since the last revisions made to this page there was a series of changes on the outcome of the battle. It show an undisputed and clear "Coalition Victory", as the result of the battle, that of course contradict not only it's sister pages in other languages, but the entire article before those modifications. It is however well knowed who something could be wrong and corrected, in a way that expands not only the knowledge of the community, but the reliability of the page as a source. However this does not seem to be the case, some changes on the rules in what should be and should not be acepted in the infobox have resulted in changes of the result section, thus forcing certain members of the comunity, to made some adjustments, in spite of some liberties taken by other members. Since a mixed result is not an aviable option anymore. Some have decided on their own basis to pick a winner. That also contradict the nature of the scope of the battle am wars. While we are adjusting history acording to the rules of wikipedia, we are not showing a wiki who demonstrate history, but one who follow more the change of the (internal) rules. I am complaining about this issue, because the result of the battles should not be adjusted to the requirements of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia to the battle and historical facts. In this particular case we have a battle who was a "Coalition Victory", only if we ignore some facts, and some sources, in the same ways who we could said "French Victory", if we ignore some facts and sources. Remember who the previous sources pointed towards a mixed result, and some pointed the "French Vicrory" who actually is more credible as the French achieve their scope, while the battle itself ended with both sides holding their grounds, the French failed to advance beyond the crossroads, but the British withdrew and left it to the Frenchs. Even at the time of this being writen and by a long time before, the map of the campaign show a "French Victory", in any case some contradicting sources pointed who the "Coalition achieve a tactical victory"; but it was mantained who the French achieve a "Strategic Victory", but since the changes of rules narrowed the complex results to X or Y, now we have to "select, or hand pick the sources, and the results". Under this criteria the users picked who the battle of Quatre Bras was a "Coalition VIctory", I of course believe who that was slanted, and undoed this, but i was quickly corrected and it was pointed who "i should not do it", and being "biased towards the Frenchs". So i tied to explain myself, with no avail, But as it is not a debate about the user views, perceptions or works i understand who i should not comply to an user about something who is in my view percived wrong, but rather i, decide to point it in the page to the comunity to hear about it. I don't want the quality of the article being brought down by those new rules. Now i want to be clear with my disagreement and dissent over the edits on the results. I am calling you to review the results, and either acpet the fact pointed by historians and sources, of a mixed result, or a more neutral term to describe the results. Do not dismiss this because i am rather inexperienced at wikipedia, the books and sources are not. Regards, and sorry if my english is a bit precarious,Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have any actual evidence the article is inaccurate? What do the references already cited say? FDW777 (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources cited at least until the change of results. And the sources who i can quote right now. Becke, Archibald Frank (1911), "Waterloo Campaign", in Chisholm, Hugh (ed.), Encyclopædia Britannica, 28 (11th ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 371–381 : "So true is it that a tactical failure encountered in carrying out a sound strategical plan matters but little. Again Napoleon's plan of campaign had succeeded" "Napoleon achieved his larger strategic aim of preventing Wellington's forces from aiding the Prussian army at the Battle of Ligny, which the French won the same day"

Niderost, Eric (31 July 2006), Napoleonic Wars: Battle of Quatre Bras, History Net, "Night was approaching, and Wellington now had some 36,000 effectives against Ney’s decimated 19,000. At 6:30, the duke went over to the offensive. The elite British Foot Guards cleared the Bois de Bossu, and the French were forced back to their original starting point. The Battle of Quatre Bras was over by 9 p.m., technically a draw, but a tactical victory for Wellington because it literally enabled him to survive and fight another day. Casualties had been heavy; the Allies lost 5,200, the French 4,100. On balance, the French still had the strategic upper hand. Napoleon had won a victory, albeit an incomplete one, and Wellington had been prevented from helping his Prussian ally. Wellington was a brilliant general, but his obsession with a French flanking sweep to his right was almost his undoing"

"Hundred Days Campaign 1815 and the Combats at Thuin and Gilly, Storming of Charleroi Bridgeand the Battle of Quatre Bras", Napoleon, His Army and Enemies,

"The next day Wellingon's army fell back, the French troops were left masters of the battlefield. Wellington reported Quatre Bras as an English victory, won over superior forces [actually the Duke enjoyed 2 to 1 advantage], and so it has remained in British history." At Quatre Bras Marshal Ney lost 4,140 men. The French captured British color. Ney also successfully stopped any of Wellington's forces going to the aid of Blücher's Prussians. Wellington losses were approx. 4,800 killed and wounded"(Elting - "Swords Around a Throne" p 732)

"Marshal Ney had little to reproach himself for in the day's proceedings. Thrown into his command at the eleventh hour, with only three infantry divisions and small cavalry force, he had succeeded in fulfilling the intent of his original orders: he had prevented Wellington from aiding the Prussians for the whole of the 16th. At Ligny the Prussians stood alone and were crushed (beated). Ney however can be partially blamed for the mess with deErlon's corps". John Elting - "Swords Around a Throne" p 644

Siborne, William (1895), The Waterloo Campaign, 1815 (4th ed.), Westminster: A. Constable p 201. "Ney had succeeded in preventing the junction of the Anglo-Allied Army with the Prussians" (intresting enough it is the main source to claim the British tactical victory, who ironically is cited in the article)Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Besides the sources cited who prove the current article to be misguided the talk archieved talk page have already deal with that issue, and there was not a "Coalition Victory", there where discussions even of a tactical French victory (meaning a French victory), but I prefer to relate to the "sources" rather than opinions, and just what i said yesterday is enough, to show, who of the many possible results. "Coalition Victory", does not fit any consideration of the development of the battle campaign or war, itself,.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I've asked you repeatedly to stop violating WP:MILMOS. Since you don't appear to be disputed that "Coalition victory" is properly referenced, that's how it remains. We don't add "Strategic French victory" as well. FDW777 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I give you the sources who said who the french did indeed achieve it's strategic goals. And who those sources, are contradicting, and some are against the "Coalition Victory".Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Supposed French straetgic goals do not change the fact they lost the battle. You, here, changed the text to "Coalition tactical victory" thereby admitting those references say that. If you claim they do not, please provide the full passages rather than short sentences which are very much open to interpretation. For example, I checked your claimed EB quote and it isn't even obvious which battle it applies to. FDW777 (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It's true i probably should not claimed who the British won at a tactical level either, those quotes are the same ones who anybody can read directly from the wikipedia notes and citations, references etc. And of course it is refering to Quatre Bras, especially on chapters over the battle itself. About losing the battle that is not what many of the sources claim, actually say who the British who left the field in the face of the enemy first, is not a "victory", so the French did not lose Quatre Bras either. At this stage you are acting more to defend an erroneous affirmation, who is product of your interpretation of the rules, rather than acting as an "experienced wikipedist" if it is something. I am here to change it not because i begun with the idea of changing the results for it's "ambiguity", that was you. And yet you didn't provide sources to back your claim, you just left the same ones who were before as a reference to the tactical level who not only is up to the especific interpretation of each author, but not even claim such results, they said who it was a "tactical victory", because the British "survived to fight another day", or they hold their positions, nothing more than that. On the other hand the sources cleary said, "The French achieved their objectives". So it is more a victory for the French acording to the sources. Even there are some debates from 2006, in the talk page who have already agree, who it was a French victory, until some said, "but it was a coalition tactical victory". Now you came here and say it was a coalition victory, period. Before this you acused me of partiality, and i believed who maybe you were just wrong, but now, i am seeing who you are being partial in favour of some "British myths", and if some contributed to the article being a bit contradictory it was because the last series of edits, in wich you got to be a lot. Thus said, i must add, all the wikipedias in other idioms are pointing to "Allied retreat", "French Victory", "Inconclusive", including an "A article", (who is not the case with this idiom page, now all the sudden, In English the reality is an alternative one? or is because you are more focused on dismissing the true, logical and sourced facts?. Giving your little intrest on the discussion until i change something. i must change the results, to those who are the right ones, it was not a coalition victory, so how i must refer to that?.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Making it up as you go along
First it was "Strategic French victory, Tactically Indecisive". This was reverted by, saying "Not what the sources say"

Then it was "Coalition tactical victory, Strategic French victory" (citing EB, more on that soon).

Then it was "Inconclusive"

Now it becomes "French Victory" (again citing EB).

The EB page is here. There is nothing there about the battle of Quatre Bras being a French victory, nor on the previous page or subsequent page that I can see. The passage youy quoted in support of your claim ("So true is it that a tactical failure encountered in carrying out a sound strategical plan matters but little") isn't even clearly talking about the battle of Quatre Bras, per WP:BURDEN The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. It does not.

As you have demonstrably added one false reference in support of your fantasy result, and failed to provide full quotes that come close to supporting your version, I have restored the consensus version. FDW777 (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I see you were even citing napoleonistyka 2021 in support of your claim of French victory, are you trolling now? There is the (unreliable) page, Had Davout, instead of Ney, commanded Napoleon's left wing, there can be little doubt that Quatre Bras would have been a French victory, "would have been" quite obviously meaning it was not a French victory. FDW777 (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Here you add another claimed reference. There is page 201, I can't see any text on the page that supports your claim, can you provide the exact quote? FDW777 (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

In spite of the bullshit who you said, the page napoleonistyka 2021 There, was already cited, not by me but by the editors who are doing bullshit, in the last editions, so if the source could not be taken as reliable, it should not be used in the first place. (for anything).

The consensus version so far appear to include your opinion only, because before June 2 the result was the other, but then you are the only one who insist with Coalition Victory. Consensus is what i am looking for, but as you are the only one and seems to have more intrest in a version rather than on the history is impossible to have. Consensus however was reached by other ussers on previous talks.

There are no sources who especifically say who The coalition, allies, british, Wellington or wherever won the battle. Thus Coalition Victory is not aceptable.

Considering who you are the one who changed the results it should be up to you to justify the fantasy result who you wrote. Not from me because i defended the previous one.

About the changes who i made the reason is simple, it was either a French victory or inconclusive acoridng to some sources. You said who Wellington won the field, ok, i put tactical victory for him. Then you said who there was no Strategic and tactical victory, ok, i put inconclusive, then who it was not, so i put French Victory.

Then i did not write anything who is maded on air, like the narrow rules who are now in place, and who you use to promote a contested result.

The EB source, who is one of the most used and acepted in wikipedia, should not be a problem. And over which action is spoken is said exactly when it talk about Quatre Bras, where claiming such result.

Yet i provided more than one source, or two or three.

The page who said "Would had been", was deemed by you as unreliable. so there is nothing who you could claim from there now. But even it's reference spoke of a victory on the field not of an inconclusive battle. Thus said it never admit an Allied Victory. But at least we know who the Allied plans where screw by Ney's stand at Quatre Bras.

Page 201, is by the redirecting towards the source. https://archive.org/details/waterloocampaig01sibogoog. As diferent editions and papers have different pages, yet, while speaking of Quatre Bras, it said who both armies gained something and lose something.

The last issue is again. Why Wikipedia.en is totally different than wikipedia in X idiom? All the others are wrong i must supouse, even the +Articles, who Wikipedia.en did not have here (Speaking of Quatre Bras, if there are some doubts).

I believed who you where a kind of "professional" on the matter, and who would listen to the points, as well as try to reach a consensus, but it seems who yoy have an agenda, so what can i do? I hear your claims, and pointed as a Coalition Tactical Victory, i hear your claims and put it on indesicive, i hear you, but not the other way, if you reverted it anyways i will point it simpe as French Victory, what did you expect?. You change an article who had been the same from 2006, and ask the other about the sources. You speak of consensus but, the consensus was reached on this talk page, by just looking at the archive. Still, cordially regards, and pointing towards coperationNuevousuario1011 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The page numbers on archive appear on the page as part of the text, we don't use archive.org's page numbers that appear at the bottom of their viewer.


 * I'm struggling to understand anything else you've written. If you would like to change the article, please state which references you would like to cite and provide quotes that clearly support the change you want to make. FDW777 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Also please stop going on about EB unless you're prepeared to provide quotes from it that support your change. So true is it that a tactical failure encountered in carrying out a sound strategical plan matters but little does not support anything, since it's not clear what battle is even being talked about. FDW777 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In addition, there is the version before I edited the article. The lead says While the battle was a coalition victory. The aftermath section says The allied victory at Quatre Bras. All I did was amend the infobox to match those, per the instructions. FDW777 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay i'm still searching about sources to properly made a claim, however i was delayed by a similar situation with the battles of Redinha and Pombal on the talk page. We need consensus, i provide the quotes and sources, would you want to help?Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Cordially regards


 * You provided quotes and references that I refuted, since they do not say what you think they do. FDW777 (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that Anglo-allied victory is correct for a one day battle, because in the evening the Allies held the field of slaughter, however if considered as a two day battle then the French won as the Allies had to retreat. To simply state one or the other is misleading because Nay's wing had thwarted the Allied army going to the aid of the Prussians. -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

From EB1911

— PBS (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)"

FDW777 in reference to the above you wrote in this section " to User:Nuevousuario1011, however I think it is obvious because where was Ney, the French marshal in command of French forces during the battle, camped overnight, if not just south of Quatre Bras at Frasnes? -- PBS (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * MOS:MIL gives guidance on the result parameter to be used in the infobox and specifically refers to the infobox documentation in this respect. Specifically, it refers to the "immediate" outcome.  The immediate result was an allied victory.  However, this is somewhat qualified by the greater context but did not ultimately change the outcome of the campaign.  Consequently (with reference to the guidance), the result is: "Anglo-allied victory (see Aftermath)".  The infobox is not the place for nuance.  The lead has greater scope to accommodate nuance – and it does this.  The Aftermath section is somewhat ambiguous when it states: The allied victory at Quatre Bras did prevent Ney from controlling these strategic crossroads. This in turn slowed down the French advance ... While we might debate the result here, the body of the article must reflect both the lead and the infobox.  Futhermore, the article is about a battle that occurred on 16 June 1815. This is the scope of the article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Saying Coalition victory is even worse that saying Anglo-allied victory because it implies that the Prussians were involved in the battle. The immediate outcome was simultaneously a tactical victory for Wellington and a strategic victory for the French. "The infobox is not the place for nuance". The infobox should briefly sum up the battle and not mislead people who have no knowledge of the battle.
 * The outcome was a tactical victory for Wellington. He held the field at the end of the day. However if Ney had not attacked him there he would have turned to his left and aided Blucher, much in the way that Blucher did two day later at Waterloo. The whole point of Ney's advance was to block Wellington doing that as Napoleon's strategic aim, was with his smaller force to defeat one army then the other. If as happened at Waterloo the Coalition forces combined then their superior numbers would defeat him. So Ney did not succeed in capturing and holding the crossroads,and so can not be said to have one the battle. However his attack pinned Wellington to that cross roads and so gained the strategic victory that Napoleon needed so the he could win the Battle of Ligney. -- PBS (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * If we can't agree on how to fill the result parameter in accordance with the guidance at MOS:MIL, then the guidance is to omit the parameter. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I suggest to write the result as "Inconclusive. See Waterloo campaign: Quatre Bras to Waterloo" as the description is very Ruedi33a (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Ruedi33a, to put in inconclusive is innacurate. The battle was not inconclusive. There was a conclusion to the battle which resulted in a tactical victory for the Anglo-allies and a simultanious strategic victory for the French. . — PBS (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I can live with that, though I am inclined to the "see Aftermath" option. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Cinderella157 Let us salami slice it. Do you agree or disagree that it was a tactical victory for Wellington? If you disagree why? — PBS (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that in respect to the infobox and the result parameter, we should be following the guidance at MOS:MIL. It was a victory for Wellington. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Cinderella157 Do you agree or disagree that it was strategic victory for the French? If you disagree why? -- PBS (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain that it was. While Ney may have prevented Wellington from joining Blucher, on the other hand, Wellington denied Ney the vital ground.  This allowed Wellington to assemble his force on a battlefield of his choice and ultimately defeat Napoleon's army and win the war.  However, it is neither your opinion nor mine that counts, since this is WP:OR.  Conflicting terms in an infobox cannot capture nuance. This is precisely the type of discussion for which the guidance at MOS:MIL was intended to address. There are several options under MOS:MIL that I could support given that they are consistent with the body of the article.  I would note however, that your edit to the lead is not supported by the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I always am quite amused about these discussions that are often more heated than the battle itself ever was. I see that the current "result" in the info box is listed as "indecisive". In the French version of the article (which I myself wrote ten years ago; see general statistics, authorship still 48% of the edits) I kept far away from this kind of assessment, because I didn't want to be shot at dawn by the French editors. In any case, at first the consensus was that it was a "draw" at least tactically. But now they seem to have settled on "statu quo tactique; Victoire stratégique française". It is all fine by me. Ereunetes (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Did Saxe-Weimar act on his own initiative?
Veronica Baker-Smith writes: ''Rebècque had received the news of the fall of Charleroi twelve hours earlier, and correctly deduced that this confirmed the line of Napoleon’s main advance since he would hardly have used his élite Imperial Guard for a feint. He had been as conscious as Wellington of the danger of a flanking attack, but he was now able to dismiss the idea long before Wellington did. Rebècque did not have to consult a map to see the danger; he sent an order to Perponcher to station his 1st and 2nd Brigades at or near Quatre Bras itself.

''Simultaneously, Bernard of Saxe-Weimar was acting on his own initiative. He commanded a Nassau regiment, consisting of men who had fought well in the Peninsula under Imperial command, and switched to British service when Napoleon was defeated at Leipzig. It now formed part of the Netherlands force as an independent unit in Perponcher’s 2nd Division, and had been cantoned on the extreme left of the British line in the village of Genappe. Through the morning of 15 June Bernard noticed increased movement from the south on the main road, and in mid-afternoon as an officer from the Maréchaussee (Dutch police) panted in to say that the French were past Charleroi, and those on the road were refugees, he heard the cannon fi re from the south (against the Prussian outposts) and, realising the danger, used his own initiative and instructed his battalion commanders to concentrate at Quatre Bras immediately: ‘Ik ben volstrekt zonder bevelen, maar ik heb nooit gehoord dat men een veldtocht met een terugtocht begint.’ (Gentlemen, I have been given no orders whatsoever but I have never heard of a campaign which began with a retreat.)''

''Due to the previous orders for a state of high alert, he reached Quatre Bras within the hour and joined the 3rd Nassau battalion, whose commander, Major Heckman, had ‘through his military instinct’ marched to the same place before receiving orders. As they surveyed the ground, a non- commissioned offi cer came in at full gallop to report the engagement between the French and the Nassauers at Frasnes.''

Knoop also highlights this, but the article doesn't reflect it DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * See also De Bas and Wommersom, Quatre Bras, p. 406 (available in the references) about the information Weimar and Perponcher possessed about the French movements, on which they acted "without orders" (but who needs orders in such circumstances?) to ignore the order to concentrate on Nivelle, and instead reinforced Quatre Bras. I think De Bas and Wommersom could be used far more. When I wrote the French version of the article I used the book extensively, especially on the tardiness of the British in getting to Quatre Bras. Incidentally, in Order of battle of the Waterloo campaign the commander of the 2nd Brigade, 2nd Netherlands division is still given as Friedrich Wilhelm von Goedecke, which is far too formalistic, as Goedecke was already hors de combat before the battle and Weimar was designated acting commander. What is the policy on this? Could we edit that nonsense? Ereunetes (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Why only start class?
The unanimous assessment of this article is "start class". But if one looks at the assessment categories b2 through B5 it is all "yes", whereas only "b1" (scope) is "no". I have seen articles where C-class was given with both b1 and b2 ("references") as "no". So isn't it time to assess this article as at least C-class (and B-class seems justified also, as I don't see why it doesn't qualify on the "scope" criterion; or otherwise we could improve it in that respect)? Ereunetes (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Strength
the strength of the dutch army in the beginning was only 8,000 but later 31k i think this should be mentioned at the strengh. Fxzeds (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * An infobox is not the place for (intricate) detail. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)