Talk:Military career of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington/Archive 1

Note for Editor/GA review
This sentence could do with rewording:


 * "In cases where the direct lack of his presence is established or unconfirmed, such engagements are not included in his battle record."

Makes it sound like cases where the direct lack of Wellington's presence is unconfirmed aren't counted i.e. times when he definitely was there. Maybe be better to say "Engagments where the direct lack of his presence is established, or where his presence is unconfirmed, are not included in his battle record."? 129.11.76.229 (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that is somewhat clearer wording and has been applied.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 12:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As a list this article is not eligible as a Good Article see Good article criteria.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have already discussed nominating this article for GA, long ago, with a MilHist coord. It's not a full list, anyway, only half the page constitutes a list - making it an article supported with a list. We'll let an independent reviewer decide.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 17:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Scum
Wellington's "scum of the earth" comment is "a well known opinion" because it has become a cliché, as have many dicta ascribed to Wellington, and ought properly to be set in context. To quote it in a short, passing generalisation gives a skewed impression of Wellington's opinion of his troops.

The juxtaposition with the reference to volunteers just seems odd. It implies that the soldiery being 'mostly volunteers' was the reason Wellington thought they were scum. The reference to volunteers is itself is a curious oversimplification of a complex situation. The use of 'Volunteers' in the context of the British army in this period relates to forces raised primarily for home defence. Do you mean to say that, unlike the French, British troops were not conscripts? -JF42 (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)JF42 (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Scum
Wellington's "scum of the earth" comment is "a well known opinion" because it has become a cliché, as have many dicta ascribed to Wellington, and ought properly to be set in context. To quote it in a short, passing generalisation gives a skewed impression of Wellington's opinion of his troops.

The juxtaposition with the reference to volunteers just seems odd. It implies that the soldiery being 'mostly volunteers' was the reason Wellington thought they were scum. The reference to volunteers is itself is a curious oversimplification of a complex situation. The use of 'Volunteers' in the context of the British army in this period relates to forces raised primarily for home defence. Do you mean to say that, unlike the French, British troops were not conscripts? -JF42 (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)JF42 (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)JF42 (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005022428/http://www.waterloocommittee.org.uk/wellington.html to http://www.waterloocommittee.org.uk/wellington.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723083233/http://www.95thrifles.com/Old-Website/Articles/Tarbes/ to http://www.95thrifles.com/Old-Website/Articles/Tarbes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
I disagree partially about the recent revert. The reverted edit had removed an entirely out of place quote, "scum of the earth", which was said in 1813 after vitoria in anger at looting (Wellington to Bathurst, dispatches, p. 496) not in 1809 as implied by the text. Point being that it was said after a specific incident late in the war. The inclusion of it in the context it is being used gives the impression he landed in Spain with the words on his lips. He later added that "it is really wonderful that we should have made them to the fine fellows they are" (Haythornthwaite p. 7) which puts it in an entirely new light. Also, as to the line that there were never more than 40,00 British troops in the Peninsular War how to account for the 57,000 British troops at the Battle of Vitoria? As to the quality of french troops in the Peninsular, this is a highly debatable subject but stating that they were a "second line" in terms of everything is far too simplistic a viewpoint. There were many excellent units in Spain even after Napoleon, a real decline in terms of quality was felt after Napoleons Russian disaster as troops were creamed off in order to make up for the enormous losses in Russia. But sources are indeed needed for any contention of the source used here that generalises Peninsular French troops as low quality. As it stands however the impression is given that from 1809 onwards the French in the war were of uniform low standard, an obvious falsehood. I have removed the "scum of the earth" quote as it is entirely irrelevant in the context it is being used here and fixed some overuse of commas but left the French quality sentence alone.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There were no overused commas, but thanks muchly for the mistaken critique of my use of English. Removal of those commas resulted in running sentences, which is not a good standard of English, and affects quality and sometimes meaning becomes ambiguous. As for the "scum of the Earth" quote.. he didn't say it just the once, it was an opinion he upheld often, which is now cited from Longford. It is a common misconception that he said it in one time and place, it would seem, and that leads to debates over the time, place and meaning. Generally speaking, such an opinion is not "time sensitive" in terms of context.. if he apparently said it in 1815, for example, it doesn't matter if it's mentioned earlier, as it's a notable opinion, not an event. I see no need to eradicate a view he held, as though it were a dirty word, or offensive remark against his troops. It is a well known opinion, despite it being related to one incident.
 * As for the 40k vs 57k discrepancy, I shall look into it. No idea why he would claim that, if a battle had more. Maybe an error in the book and he missed it, perhaps he meant 60,000 but typed 40,000 accidentally. These things do happen.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 17:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Also, as to the line that there were never more than 40,00 British troops in the Peninsular War how to account for the 57,000 British troops at the Battle of Vitoria?" – I expect this relates to "40,000 British" nationals in the War, and your total refers to 57,000 in British uniform, which doesn't account for nationality. The sentences after refer to Brits at Waterloo and British politicians, so it seems clear that it refers to nationality, not allegiance. Rothenberg is not particularly clear on the matter, though he does talk a bit about voluntary enlistment from "England and Scotland" a few pages earlier, which hints at his meaning of "British" here being 40,000 from Britain, not just in British uniform from any old place.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 17:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just been looking over Digby Smith's Data Book breakdown of Vittoria. A great number of those listed under "British Army" are either Caçadores or Brunswick companies. Whether by fault or design, I do not believe, given the order of battle, that "57,000" actually represents the British-born contribution to the total, which may well be far less.. once you discount those two groups, and possibly militia. Historians are often lazy in their provision of numbers, throwing out whole totals without a detailed breakdown of what that total embodies. Wikipedians are often just as lazy to cite those totals, and IMO it's a disregard for absolute accuracy and amounts to synth, and there's often some motive behind it. Given that Rothenburg's claim of 40,000 is citable, I'll stand by it for now unless something else comes up.. I've dug through a half-dozen books, and no one has given an alternative figure to contradict the claim. As for the comments on the standard of French troops in Spain, again, your opinions seem more personal than factual, and I see nothing that proves an "obvious falsehood" on my behalf, so I'll take that to be poor wording on your behalf.. I choose my sources carefully, and without bias or personal feeling towards the British or French, because I respect both. The impression that the troops left in Spain were poor comes directly from the source. The source even goes on to say that Napoleon re-equipped his Guard with newer "Year XI model" guns and that the Gribeauval cannons used in the Peninsular were old. That kind of sums it up.. yes, they were crap in some regards, there's no generalisation at all, and he states why. I don't see the need to go into specific details of French weapons, however, given that the article is about Wellington's role, and that with claim cited readers are free to verify and expand on their knowledge from the source. If and when I return to this article to expand it ten-fold with a longer prose section, as I am with the lengthy Napoleon battle record I'm working on, it may be more important to the context.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 04:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased article
Hi. This is an amazingly biased and jingoistic article, marked by that peculiar brand of jingoism that distinguishes the British Empire. Someone who is not British and not an advocate for war and murder needs to vet this article line-by-line, so that it can achieve an encyclopedic quality... It currently has no objectivity at all. Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)