Talk:Battle of Redinha

Fortescue reports British casualties as having been 205 and as there is no source as to the figure of 1,800 so therefore i am changing it. I highly doubt a casualty rate as disparagingly uneven as that. Also though Ney's rearguard actions were very well handled and heroically fought by the French, what i've read it can be argued against as clear cut French victories. (74.199.108.123 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)).

British casualties were 205 as to 227 French and its in perfect print which can be read up online in the Fortescues history of the British army which is ironically being used in the article. Before reverting to the figure of 1,800, provide a source. A credible source.(74.199.108.123 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)).


 * Fortescue's figure of 205 has been restored. All the same, it amuses me that British historians may revise French casualty returns almost at will, almost by fiat (e.g. Charles Oman with Albuera); yet when French historians return the favour, our fiery indignation immediately sets off. Albrecht (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

All of these battles seem to be getting hijacked by a certain bunch, namely those from that horrifically biased website www.napolun.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.0.223 (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that website's biased, but where is the bias in these battle articles, and what does this site have anything to do with the battle of Redinha? Guard Chasseur (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

French victory
Acording to the sources the battle of Redinha was a succes by the Frenchs and a failure for the British, (also known as) French Victory. The multiple attempts who had been done in the last half year on the premise of an "undefeated Wellington", broke the criteria of each other claim, now acoridng to the sources, and being textual to those here is the justification.

"Ney had achieved his objectives, he had protected the rear of the army, his own corps rearguard had been safely withdrawn and Wellington had been delayed by a day." Chartrand, René (2002). Fuentes de Oñoro: Wellington's Liberation of Portugal. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84176-311-8.

The conduct of Ney's retreat drew much praise from several British commanders, including Sir Thomas Picton, who thought Ney handled the business well. ... At Redinha Ney again turned, using Mermet and Marchand in another skilful rearguard action, ...causing further delays to Wellington." Fletcher, Ian (2003). The Lines of Torres Vedras 1809-11. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84176-576-1.

"The day's work had been a very pretty piece of manoeuvring on both sides. Ney hung on to his two successive positions just so long as was safe, and absconded on each occasion at the critical moment, when his flanks were turned. A quarter of an hour's more delay would have been ruin, but the retreat was made just in time. The two stands had delayed Wellington for a day, and his army had only advanced ten miles in the twenty-four hours. Yet it is unjust to accuse the British general of over-caution, as Napier and all the French annalists have done. He was quite right not to attack with the first division that came up, and to wait till he had three and a half in line. For he was aware that great strength lay in front of him, and, for all he knew, the troops of Mermet might have been supported not only by Marchand, as was actually the case, but by the whole of Junofs corps." Oman, Charles (1911). A History of the Peninsular War. IV. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp 143

Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At what point does it say a 'French victory'? The battle is what it is - a French delaying action following a retreat. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At no point that I can see. Nuevousuario1011 has a tendency to provide quotes that they choose to interpret as meaning French victory. FDW777 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It have to literally say "French Victory"?, because so far "sucess", and "achieve his objectives", imply a victory at some point, as there is no contradiction, with the sources, like "Achieved a sucess but..", instead we have the French doing it as planed, achieving victory, and then continue with the retreating, while the British failed to break the line, until the battle was ended.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Besides FDW777, literally put a "French victory" in a sucess who shouldn't have that. Still angry because i chalenge his "British Victory" at Quatre Bras, (who by the ways, if wining the field to then retreat is a "Victory", it is at Quatre Bras the same as at Redinha. (despite some contradictions who seem to made Wellington a kind of undefeated comander, at this point i must admit who is probably who i am not so good faith edit, because there are no good faith edits on the others, rather trying to made a point.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not angry about anything. I see you edit disruptively on an article I've watchlisted, I see you doing disruptive things on other articles, your disruptive edits get reverted on those articles too. The simple answer is for you to stop being disruptive. FDW777 (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed a consensus has to be reached. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * FDW777, Glad to know who you are not angry, besides the fact of being me who ask you to come here, to give your opinion, before you ranted against me. My edits, are based on what normally was mantained before, Besides the results via consensus and talks, on some cases like Quatre Bras, was something agreed in 2006, by the talk page, and now in 2021, because the new rules it have been totally changed the decition to change the rules to define results, without decisive, pyrric or even more complex issues, like the tactical and strategic goals, is what actually have disrupted many of those articles, as the results on the battles become so simplified until there are just A or B, in many battles who are more complex than just A or B. Yet more important is the other alleged "disruptions", is bad to take out, not the battle box, (with comanders and sides) when there was no battle for an ocupation of a city?) but all the the comanders and results, when of course it was not a victory or defeat either, is just an historical event, but like many cases before and after, the fall of a city is just a consequence of the abandonment of it to the invader after a battle or by political reasons, but there "was not a battle for it". And is also wrong to point who a kind of hero, or character involved in a battle is *not* the comander, even if that information still lacking?.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes a consensus of course must be reached, but there are someone who is part of the taskforce, of the era or warfare who could actually set the rules? and why not follow the same premises in all the cases?. Because is not supossed who there are "task forces" for those kind of articles?Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Since you are intent on bringing up the Battle of Quatre Bras here, so be it. I will show Eastfarthingan exactly how you disrupted that article.


 * On 22 January you changed the result from "Coalition tactical victory, Strategic French victory" to "Strategic French victory, Tactically Indecisive". You did this by ignoring the references that don't suit your POV, and misrepresenting others.
 * On 8 June you changed the result from "Coalition victory" to "Coalition tactical victory, Strategic French victory". You did this by misrepresenting at least two references.
 * On 13 June you changed the result from "Coalition victory" to "Inconclusive". You did this by deleting the references that don't suit your POV
 * On 14 June you changed the result from "Coalition victory" to "French victory". You did this by misrepresentibng two references.

So there it is. You've tried to add four different results to the infobox at that article (because you are unable to accept it was a Coalition victory, despite one of the reference you used saying It was decidedly a false step, from which no advantage resulted on his [Napoleon] own Field of Battle, whilst there can be very little doubt that it lost him that of Quatre Bras which is clear and not open to debate about its meaning). Rather curiously, there are four different results yet other than the third result ("Inconclusive", which had no references at all) you cite the same page (378) of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica for whatever variety of French victory you're adding every time. Your editing is disruptive, and I am a whisker away from filing a report at ANI regarding you. FDW777 (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As you wish, still the only thing here is who i made those changes after failing to get an answer from you after some days on the talk page. You changed something who was already aceptable by the 2006 talk page. the only difference of the results where because i tried to hear you, first one is not aceptable, then the other either then another one is not, so the disruption begun because you changed everything, you asked me for sources, and when i gave you you never answer, until i change the things. Yet that again show who you are not even following the same premises who you put fowards for Quatre Bras. And still showing who you are angry about that. On the Fall of Berlin and Valdepeñas you where disruptive by taking out logical corrections, because you do what you want. (those still bad and should be modified) Now over the article, the point is one, But then you sudenly came with that bullshit of me being "pro French".
 * For a reason i am talking here instead of changing the things again. Stop sabotaging good works because you want to be right on other issues.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And by the way, i will going to do the proper edits on the other articles again as so far you didn't explain a single reason (except trashing me) who have a single issue to seriously contest my edits, in wich the majority of issues are more technical than any other thing.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Now you could continue throwing trash in the talk page of Redinha or just answer when i talk to you in a proper way.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I could not care less what was supposedly decided on a talk page in 2006. If the references cited do not support the text, it will be changed so the text is accurately cited. FDW777 (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As for your "i made those changes after failing to get an answer from you after some days on the talk page" claim. That's largely irrelevant, since it's the content of your changes that is the problem. You will also find people might reply if you didn't post lengthy talk pages messages that are of no relevance. You seem to think a quote that says something like "Ney also successfully stopped" equals "French victory", or "French tactical victory", or any other fantasy result you'd like to add. That is not the case. FDW777 (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

BlackSerpentIC (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Hello editors, I would like to respectfully put forward my own opinion regarding the claims of French bias in this article, which for the record I believe has been the case. For the following reasons:

1.) The account of the battle (actually, a combat would be more appropriate) was painted in such a way as to make it appear that the French had gained a spectacular victory (almost claimed as much in fact), the handful of battalions heroically pushing back into confusion tenfold their own number again and again. It was, I'm sorry, blatantly biased and inaccurate, did not make much sense, and it did not even match the map provided. 2.) The casualty rates provided (150 Fr vs 1,800! UK) seem to be based solely on the work of a French historian and politician, Monsieur Adolphe Thiers (who has had plenty of accusations of deliberate nationalist inaccuracies in his works by the way) 3.) The claim was made that the British were so shocked that they required an additional day to rest - this is objectively false, they made contact with Ney's VI corps *the next day* (13th) at Condeixa. Where as a matter of fact Masséna himself was surprised the same day while having a meal, by a vedette of the KGL hussars, not having been warned by Ney that he had withdrawn from Condeixa because he was outmaneuvered by Picton.

The combat was in fact a textbook rearguard action brilliantly executed by Ney, who showed remarkable tactical skill and control of his troops and fully fulfilled his objective: to turn back his rearguard and force Wellington's pursuing columns to stop their pursuit and deploy to fight him. He keenly noted the right moment when (eventually and inevitably) Mermet's division was about to be overwhelmed, pulled back in good order and resumed the retreat. In my opinion, to blow out of proportion with fantastic accounts and numbers is to give this action a caricaturesque and ridiculous note that fundamentally undermines the true value of Ney's achievement.

Although several sources are referenced, somehow it was carefully avoided to mention that Ney lost significantly when Mermet's division recrossed the river, although this is clearly stated in these sources e.g. Chartrand (not to mention many other historians).

Regarding 2): Charles Oman's work was the product of 30 years of study of the 7 year period of the Peninsular war, he visited the site of every battle and aside from the British sources he meticulously collected personal correspondence of British, Portuguese, Spanish, French officers, generals, Marshals, muster rolls, huge amounts of archival data from Madrid and Paris. He quotes the British loss (206 total, though broken down per regiment, and officers/men) from the Army's returns, detailed losses from every regiment, the wounded, killed and missing. Happy to provide these numbers, they are available online. I am not sure what exact source Monsieur Thiers has for the fantastic 1800 British losses, given that the French had to pull out towards Condeixa immediately that day after the action and could hardly count the British casualties.

It is hard for anyone who understands Napoleonic warfare to accept 10 times greater casualties for one side (in an open field at least) without an outright rout and pursuit with cavalry having taken place, when that same side with 10 times more casualties essentially dislodged and chased away their opponents twice that day, albeit with the loss of time (the only objective for the French, which was achieved).

The action was straightforward - Ney forced Wellington to stop, held out in order of battle as long as it was prudent, fell back, then did the same thing a second time. That was all he could hope with 7,000 men, and was very well done indeed, well timed and achieving maximum damage before retiring in good order. The same happened in every such rearguard action, and it speaks to Ney's skill as it did in the retreat from Russia. To make inflated claims based on tenuous sources is not only egregious, but as I said before, it simply damages and ridicules the merit of this action.