Talk:Robert Ballard Long

Balance
I've extensively edited the page because it took all of its information from the Beresford side of the argument. A balanced assessment cannot be reached on any military career if the writings of a personal enemy, and his supporters, on the subject are taken as the only source.

There were some factual innacuracies surrounding Long's dismissal. Wellington does not appear to have actively petitioned for Long's replacement as a brigade commander, on the other hand he did nothing to hinder the process.

The opinion of the Duke of Cumberland (at the time commonly suspected of being a murderer and rapist and having an incestuous relationship with one of his sisters) cannot be taken as particularly reliable.

I suspect that the source used by the writer of this wiki page was somewhat lacking in its primary sources and balance in the first instance.

Urselius (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The sole source used by the writer of this page was hardly the work of Beresford or one of his supporters but in fact the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry for Robert Ballard Long, which can be seen here if you have a UK library card.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't criticising the writer of the wiki page, but the writer or writers of the source. If this source was the "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" then the authors and editors of this work did not do a very thorough job and only looked at the sources, including Oman, supporting Beresford's side of the argument.

Napier, Fortesque and indeed Long's own writing (which was at least contemporary with events - if not totally unbiased) give the other side of the story and should have been consulted by the Oxford writers.

Urselius (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I got drawn here after a similar comment at Battle of Albuera, although there it was more about Long's replacement as the commander of the Allied cavalry. I only recently read the Napier account, and indeed it is quite compelling for the Campo Maior skirmish, but with Napier one must always take into account that Napier and Beresford weren't exactly the best of friends.  As Weller puts it:

"Napier, for all his brilliant writing, was violently partisan. He idolized Sir John Moore, Napoleon, and all Whig statesmen, but was unfair to many personal enemies in the British army and made Beresford his special devil." (Weller, Wellington in the Peninsular, 1962, p. 181 footnote 2.)


 * Oman, indeed, used several pages of his account of Albuera simply rebutting Napier's version. Albuera, indeed, is one of the few occasions where Oman and Fortescue differ significantly.  Carre (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult where sources differ to give a definitive answer to historical questions, however, I think that at the very least both sides of an argument should be presented. Which is what I have attempted to do here. Except where, as in Welligton's correspondence with Long about his loss of the brigade, evidence has definitely run counter to the "anti-Long" camp I have let the criticisms stand, merely giving the counter arguments.

I would refer you to the final arbiters of Long's abilities, the soldiers he led. Long was known to his men as "Bobby Long;" British soldiers do not bestow affectionate nicknames on commanders whom they do not like, they also do not like commanders who are incompetent and would tend to put their lives at risk for no reason.

Urselius (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can certainly sympathise with the latter (in fact, all of the above), and for Albuera it is probably telling that, when Wellington showed up afterwards, the soldiers are recorded as having said "we would have beaten them if you'd been here", or words to that affect. 'Course, "Black Bob" was hardly an affectionate nickname, but you only have to see what the Light Division did after Craufurd's funeral to realise the esteem in which the common soldier held him, and Beresford never attained that level of respect.  A fine administrator, a fine organiser, perfect to bring the Portuguese army into shape, but as a field general?  Nope. Carre (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)