Talk:Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days

Hundred Days
I have placed a condensed version of this at Hundred Days with the usual hatnote directing here for the full treatment. Editors working at this article should fix my cobbled-together version at Hundred Days. Thank you. --Wetman (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

d'Osasco

 * See sections Austro-Sardinian Army (Army of Upper Italy) and Austrian Army (Army of Naples)

William Siborne in ''The Waterloo Campaign. 1815.'' (Fourth Edition (1894)) also mentions d'Osasco on page 779 Last paragraph

Note that he spells the name d'Osasca doing a search of the net throws up it:Policarpo Cacherano d'Osasco as a possible full name for this man. --PBS (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a link that suggests his name may be Policarpo Cacherano d'Osasco, Napoleon Series Archive 2006, Piemontese army 1815, (Forum, 15 September 2006):

--PBS (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Another possible contender is "Lieutenant-General Louis Cacherano d'Osasco, Governor of the Comte de Nice" One hundred days: Napoleon's road to Waterloo, by Alan Schom p. 19:

also --PBS (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bulletin de la Société d'etudes scientifiques et archéologiques de Draguignan et du Var v. 42, pt. 1, by Société d'etudes scientifiques et archéologiques de Draquignan et du Var, Published by Imp. C. et A. Latil.,  1938 p. 146 (French)
 * Piemont's Militair-geschichte vom Frieden von Aachen bis auf unsere Tage by Ferdinando Augusto Pinelli, published by O. Wigand, 1856 p. 324 (last ¶) (German)


 * There is an article about:
 * Policarpo Cacherano d'Osasco (1744 in Cantarana – 27 August 1824, in Turin)
 * However although probably related, It seems that the two names:
 * Louis Cacherano d'Osasco
 * Giovanni Pietro Luigi Cacherano d'Osasco(Asti, novembre 1740 – Torino, 7 giugno 1831)
 * are all about the same man, but translated differently by different sources depending on the language used. See the Wikipedia article "Luigi (name)":

-- PBS (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The napoleon-series.org quote above seems to have gone (and was not archived -- Re: Piemontese army 1815) but see also -- PBS (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Organization of the Savoy-Piedmont-Sardinian Armies 1792-1815 Part V: 1814--1815 The Restoration www.napoleon-series.org

Hofschroer
Just for information: Copied from here:


 * A Danish contingent known as the 'Royal Danish Auxiliary Corps' commanded by Prince Frederick of Hessen-Kassel and a hanseatic contingent (from the free cities of Bremen, Lubeck and Hamburg) commanded by the British Colonel Sir Neil Campbell were also on their way to join this army (Plotho, Carl appendix p34 and p35) both however, joined the army in July having missed the conflict (Hofschroer, Peter p82 and 83). The Hofschroer reference here is Volume One.


 * Fearing that Napoleon was going to strike him first, Blucher ordered [the North German Federal Army] to march north to join the rest of his own army (Hofschroer, Peter p182). The Prussian General Kleist initially commanded this army before he fell ill on June 18th and was replaced by the Hessen-Kassel General Von Engelhardt (Hofschroer, Peter p182). The Hofschroer reference here is Volume Two.


 * Thanks
 * --Assisting Wiki (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

SOURCES- Military Mobilisation During the Hundred Days
Another note this one taken from here


 * Les Cent Jours en Vendee: Le General Lamarque et l'Insurrection Royaliste by Bertrand Lasserre 1906.


 * Wellington and Wellesley (I've never refered to it as the latter myself) refers to the Supplementary Despatches of Wellington. --Assisting Wiki (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Coalition or Anglo-allied
Using Coalition is just confusing, if there had been no Prussians in Belgium, then perhaps it would be OK, but at the Prussians were there simple Coalition does not work.

Anglo-allied is the best name unless we go with either British or "Wellington's army". The commander was British, and so was his general staff, and as this is an English language page most readers are going to come to it with the traditional English language bias that it was the British Army with limited help form its allies that made up the army and won the battle. Further your numbers are not really accurate because the Hanoverians were more than simple Allies and can be seen as an adjunct to the British Army. -- PBS (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I like that you have really no shame when it comes to propose a version blatanly biased "this is an English language page most readers are going to come to it with the traditional English language bias that it was the British Army with limited help form its allies that made up the army and won the battle. " right so we must taylor history to suit the bias of the people,to hell with them.By the way Hannover was an independent kingdom and never was a part of the british union or the british empire you better read more.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

To address your points:

Hanover was in a personal union with United Kingdom, many of its regiments contained British officers, which is why I say "Hanoverians were more than simple Allies and can be seen as an adjunct to the British Army." I am not sure why you say "Hannover was an independent kingdom" when you must know it was in a personal union, which makes its relationship closer to the UK than other allies such as the Dutch.

It is not a matter of tailoring history, it is a matter of common usage in English language sources:
 * Waterloo "coalition army" About 38 results
 * Waterloo "Anglo-Allied Army" About 2,210 results
 * Waterloo "army allied" About 9,830 results

In these there are clearly false positives and if those are taken out of the [Waterloo "coalition army"] then there are so few books that it is possible to list them there are a total of 15:
 * The Prussian Army, 1640-1871, - Page 261 -- Jonathan Randall White - 1996
 * The Hutchinson atlas of battle plans: before and after - Page 80 -- Richard Holmes, John Pimlott - 1999
 * Strategy for Chaos: Revolutions in Military Affairs and the ... - Page 274 -- Colin Gray - 2004
 * Navies in history - Page 103 -- Clark G. Reynolds - 1998 - 267 pages
 * The Greenwood dictionary of world history - Page 123 -- John J. Butt - 2006
 * Europe, 1780-1830 - page 223 -- Franklin Lewis Ford - 1970 -
 * Reappraisals in history: new views on history and society in early ... -- Jack H. Hexter - 1963
 * History and American society: essays of David M. Potter -- David Morris Potter - 1973 (listed twice)
 * The World and its peoples: United Kingdom, Ireland -- -- 1963
 * Secrets of the Gotha, Ghislain de Diesbach - 1968
 * ''Historiography: secular and religious - -- Gordon Haddon Clark, John W. Robbins - 1994
 * 10 avril 1814, la bataille de Toulouse - --Jean-Paul Escalettes - 1999
 * From Gaul to De Gaulle: an outline of French civilization - --Monique Wagner - 1993
 * A dictionary of British history - Page 545 -- John Cannon - 2009
 * Military review - -- U.S. Army Command and General Staff College - 1991

And some listed there are clearly include the Prussians as in:
 * Napoleon - page 166 -- Bernard Chevallier, Jean Tulard, Christophe ... - 1993 - "Wellington Museum, Apsley House, London At Waterloo, Napoleon had only 124000 men to fight the coalition army made up of Wellington's 95000 English and Dutch soldiers and Blucher's 124000 Prussians."

So the sources indicate that Anlgo-allied is supported by Reliable English Language sources is clear, concise and unambiguous. What is your justification for Coalition other than you think it is correct? -- PBS (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hannover was an independent kingdom it was the king of hanover who became king of britain not the other way around,period.also where the dutch too part of the british empire?stop being so self centered--Andres rojas22 (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have explained using sources that coalition is not a common name for Wellington's army and that to us it is confusing. Do you have any sources to contradict that statement? -- PBS (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a matter of sources,although even if it were i could point out that all you're sources are english biased an a dutch or german source says something very different,but a simple fact that if you cant single out the british contingent saying "anglo"-allied and let the other two contingents that were as numerous as the british obscured with just "allied" thats double standards.Theres no honest reason for singling out the british contingent instead of the german and dutch.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a matter of sources. Wikipedia content is source derived. That Dutch or German sources use different expressions for the same thing is quite usual, and there is no reason why an English language expression should be used in a Dutch or German version of the same article any more than using a non common English name is correct in an English language version of the same article. It is not a matter of singling out any any contingent it is about using the most common descriptions used in English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've heard all those arguments before and they were allways a façade for imposing an anglisiced pov disregarding the others with the excuse that this a british/american enciclopedia(thats what they mean when they say english language,yeah right) and no other pov that conflicts with them is accepted,the british contribution was no more important than the german and dutch, and anglo-allied isnt the most common neither and even if it was this is just an article section so there would be no excuse to crying "how are the readers gonna find this article?".Waterloo could have been won without the british and was actually won by the germans but the british couldnt have won it without them cause their army was so insignificant in numbers so how can someone dare to call an army british- when the british where a tiny bitty minority of it,more like german-allied or dutch-allied,this stupid retelling of all the fake british myths of waterloo cant be accepted if the articles want to be taken seriously wellington's army had litle british in it,the prussians saved his ass they arrived in the afternoon and not at night as wellington claimed,napoleon lost cause he was outnumbered allmost 2 to 1 and outflanked not for being outgeneralded by wellington and the dutch and belgians did a fine job.Andres rojas22 (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To argue that "the prussians saved his ass" is silly (he did not have a donkey there). Wellington would not have fought at Waterloo if he had not thought that the. Prussians would not come ("Give me night or give me the Blücher") German-allied would be a bad name for Wellington's army as the Prussians are Germans. Dutch-Allied would be a reasonable name if it were used in the sources, but AFAICT it is not. (Perhaps it is used in Dutch sources and is the name used in Dutch articles -- I have no idea).

It does not matter what you think, what matters is what the sources commonly state and you have not done anything but introduce your preferred name not the name commonly used in the the sources. -- PBS (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Gabriel Peltier
In the article before I edited it today there was an in-line reference: but is an unlikely to be volume 1 because volume 1 was published long before 1815.
 * "Peltier, Jean-Gabriel, L'Ambigu Vol I, p. 743"

The year after 1815 volume 53 was published: But AFAICT page 743 is not the correct page. So the correct page number and or volume number is needed. -- PBS (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

OK I have finally (10 years later!) found the source. Thanks to the Internet Archive improving its search algorithms. The sources is



BTW "le comte d'Abisbal"  translates on Wikipedia to "Count de La Bisbal" -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)