Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 3

Eurodates
Looking at the article, I am puzzled as to why it uses U.S. date format (month-day-year), when all participating countries use International Dating format (day-month year). The Manual of Style indicates that articles should use the style appropriate for the country, and I consider U.S. Dating inappropriate for this article. --Jumbo 03:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it uses two different dating systems. It would seem reasonable to chenge it to a single one while I personally prefer the (month-day-year) system in English (probably because I went to college in the US) I'd have no problem with (day-month-year) (assuming this is the system used in Britain).--Caranorn 13:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, as Mr Spock would have pointed out, the American dating system is "highly illogical." Urselius 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Allies
Please see the article on Allies:
 * Allies spelled with a capital A, usually denotes the countries who fought together against the Central Powers in World War I (see Triple Entente or Allies of World War I) or those who fought against the Axis Powers in World War II.

I think that this article should refrain from using allies with a capital A. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

British Cavalry Attack
I don't know how to create a new subject so I'm sticking my remarks about the British Cavalry Attack in here. There are a few points I'd like to raise. The totals for the two British heavy cavalry brigades was about 2500, there may have been less actually in line as an eyewitness (Clark-Kennedy of the Royals) claimed there were only 900 sabres in the Union Brigade. The curassier brigade to receive the brunt of the attack by the Household Brigade, and to have been routed, was that of Dubois. Travers' brigade was to the rear of La Haye Sainte at the time and remained substantially intact, though part of the brigade seems to have been attacked by the 2nd Lifeguards - the large numbers of infantry to the brigade's front probably insulated them from the British charge. Traver's brigade was one of the formations involved in the French counterattack after the British had become disorganised.

In regard to citations:

French infantry and their unpreparedness for receiving cavalry:

Houssaye, Henri. Waterloo p.198, London, 1900.

The breaking of Dubois' two regiments of cuirassiers:

Fletcher, Ian. Galloping at Everything, Spellmount, Staplehurst, 1999.

French infantry losses and capture of Eagles:

Siborne, HT. The Waterloo Letters, Cassell, London 1891, reprinted Greenhill Books London, 1993.

Smith, Digby. The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book, London 1998. This is the only single volume authority for casualty figures and losses of standards and cannon for the period.

The activity of the British Heavy cavalry Brigades later in the battle and their charging enemy cavalry and infantry, also their use in bolstering the morale of nearby units:

Anglesey, George Charles Henry Victor Paget, Marquess of. One-Leg: The Life and Letters of Henry William Paget, First Marquess of Anglesey, KG, 1768-1854. The Reprint Society, London, 1961.

Siborne, HT. The Waterloo Letters, Cassell, London 1891, reprinted Greenhill Books London, 1993.

Glover, Gareth. Letters from the Battle of Waterloo, Greenhill Books London, 2004.

Urselius 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The attack of the British cavalry was split into two parts. Most of the Household Brigade clashed with Dubois' cuirassiers, the 1st Lifeguards, Blues and most of the King's Dragoon Guards remained to the west of La Haye Sainte and did not contact any French infantry. The 2nd Lifeguards and, one squadron (possibly two) of the King's hit some of Dubois' cuirassiers and pursued them to the east of La Haye Sainte, they then became intermixed with the Royals and others of the Union Brigade and participated in the costly assault on the French "Grande Battery." The Union Brigade was confined entirely to the east of La Haye Sainte and destroyed the columns of French infantry (2 divisional columns and one brigade column). The Union Brigade, or elements of them, then rode up to the French artillery pushing clumps of French infantry before them. At this point the French counterattacked. Jaquinot's lancers and chasseurs a cheval (3 regmts.) attacked from the east and Traver's and Farine's brigades of cuirassiers from behind the French battery. The major part of Household Brigade, west of La Haye Sainte, retired in relatively good order covered by the Blues who had retained their formation. The rest of the two Brigades were badly cut up. Their fate would have been worse but for the intervention of Vandeleur's brigade of British light dragoons, and De Ghigny's brigade of Dutch-Belgian light cavalry, who moved forward to support the scattered elements of the heavies as they tried to regain the Alied position.

Urselius 15:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Copenhagen
A Wikipedia article is surely no place for inconsequential anecdotes. The name of Wellington's horse, and the fact (if fact it be) that it was his favourite mount, add nothing to our understanding of the battle and its importance. I suggest deletion. pmr 13:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ever since Bucephalus it has been considered of some importance that the name of a great commanders horse is mentioned. A quick Google will confirm just how many pages there are on this topic. (about 119,000 English pages for Wellington Copenhagen horse). Of course there are also a lot of pages on Napoleons horses as well, see for example FAQ: What was the name of Napoleon's horse? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In point of fact most American's can name Robert E. Lee's horse, some of us can name Sheridan's horse, ect. Its a common in military history to the point of no commentary on it.  I support Philip's statement. Tirronan 18:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Times
Note that the British watches were kept on London time, and so the times given in some British accounts can be one hour before the true time. (A. Barbero, The Battle, Atlantic Books, p.95) So were does he get that figure from? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First what is "true time"?
 * Second assuming it is sun time. Using some back of an envelope calculations: The difference between Waterloo and London is about 17 minutes (a degree being 4 minutes). The difference between Paris time and London time would have been less. GMT can differ from Sun time: Equation of time, assuming that there is a lag of 8 days (192/24.3) [10 June] gives 0 minutes . So the time difference AFAICT would have been about 20 minutes or less.


 * All a bit OR this. Barbero clearly states that Greenwich observatory time was one hour behind of continental time (defined by a French official body as with measurements?), however that was determined.  This ties in with the battle accounts:  Wellington says that the attack on Hougoumont started around 10; at this time Napoleon was apparently sending obscure dispatches to Grouchy; Napoleon wrote his general order for the battle at 11:00 (not likely to happen before hostilities had opened); Reille said he received orders to attack Hougoumont at about 11:15.  These can only be approximately reconciled with the hour's difference between British and French watches.  Of course, if anyone can come up with a verifiable source that contradicts Barbero, then this then it needs to go in (incidentally, Longford also times the attack on Hougoumont as 11:30).  MAG1 00:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not OR, (a) because it is not in the article and (b) it is not a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." But leaving that aside, what is the "true time" that Barbero refers to? What makes you think that there was a generally accepted "continental time" in 1815 that was not based on local sun time? If it is only the time that French sources use, then the reliability of the times given can not be assumed. Also I am puzzled how the French could have a time one hour in advance of the British given that the Paris Meridian is only 2°20′14.025″ east of the Greenwich Meridian ie just over 8 minutes. The Paris Meridian article mentions a Antwerp meridian (first time I have heard of it) which presumably was close to 04.30E which would similar to Waterloo and be about 20 minutes different from GMT time. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wellington only gives two times in his report the other is "about seven in the evening, when the enemy made a desperate effort with cavalry and infantry, supported by the fire of artillery, to force our left centre" do your (MAG1) sources say that this took place at around 20:00? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Historical time is a pretty specialised topic, and so I think we need to depend on references. The "about seven in the evening" should not be taken too seriously:  the paragraph covers an awful lot of action from the final attack on La Haye Sainte until the general advance, and I think it is safe to say that Wellington was not making careful notes (and he was nearly the only person in his staff to get through the battle unscathed, so I doubt if anyone else was either).  MAG1 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You can not have it both ways either both times are accurate or they are both one hour out. From the Greenwich Mean Time article:
 * Greenwich Mean Time was adopted across the island of Great Britain by the Railway Clearing House in 1847, and by almost all railway companies by the following year. It was gradually adopted for other purposes, but a legal case in 1858 held "local mean time" to be the official time. This changed in 1880, when GMT was legally adopted throughout Great Britain.

So as I said before what time did the evening attacks take place according to your sources and what time does Barbero maintain was "true time"? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Locking down the page
Given the amount of vandalism we deal with would it be possible to lock down the page to long term accounts and admins —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tirronan (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 February 2007  (UTC)


 * Compared to the vandalism on English Civil War I don't think there is not a lot of vandalism this page. However you can make a request at "Requests for page protection" if you think it is more than should be tolerated. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Philip you see far more of this than I do so I will bow to your judgement. If you think this is fairly light vandalism then lets not bother the good folks. Tirronan 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
Rewrote the Prussian arrival and footnoted both Prussian sections. The rest of the citations need to be by someone more familier with the British than I am. Tirronan 02:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Being a Dutch-speaker myself,I feel a bit awkward mentioning this, but I think quoting the Dutch pronunciation is wrong. Though the name is obviously Dutch etymologically (meaning Water Wood), the place has been French-speaking for centuries. The only reasonable rationale for using Dutch would be the fact that King William was at home and fighting there. I suggest changing Quatre Bras into Vier Armen then. Of course, not. But make that "ouattèr-l'eau", please.--Pan Gerwazy 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't feel awkward! It is the 1st good laugh I have had all day and I can not begin to tell you how badly I needed it! Tirronan 01:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did't mean to be funny, but I am glad you liked it. :>) Now, to make sure you are not laughing for the wrong reasons:


 * "Waterloo" (Modern Dutch spelling would be "Waterlo" - there are hundreds of place names in Flanders and the Netherlands ending in -lo or -loo), really does mean "Water Wood" or better "Wood near some water" of course. That "loo" in French is pronounced in the same way as "l'eau" is pure coincidence.
 * With King William, I was (comma to avoid ambiguity) of course being a bit too concise - I meant of course the Prince of Orange, who would later become King William II, but no longer of Belgium, since after 1830, Belgium seceded and Waterloo was no longer "home" for him.
 * The battle of Quatre Bras is really called "De slag bij Vier Armen" in most Dutch history books. Of course, this is the English Wikipedia, we typically only mention variants like that in the article on the place itself, not in all articles on a treaty signed or a battle fought there. But switching from Dutch to French in one and the same English Wikipedia article also sounds a bit strange.
 * Again, thanks. But someone who knows French phonetics should correct this reference to the pronunciation, otherwise it should be deleted as irrelevant. --Pan Gerwazy 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)