Talk:Battle of Majadahonda

Result

If victory were simply a matter of occupying the field after the battle, several allied victories (including Bussaco), which are allied victories by general consensus, would be French victories (this isn't so for obvious reasons). At Majadahonda, the Anglo-Portuguese were attacked by a cavalry force their size, beaten, pursued and routed. The French were not required to hold the field. Now, in every account I have read of this battle, the French were not actually driven off by force, but retired when they saw British reinforcements coming up. The cannons were discovered after the battle, but the carriages were burnt. Nowhere in this action were the allies really 'victorious', except in checking the French around Las Rosas (but the French were not driven off, only halted). Finally, I distrust the casualties given but they come from the only source that provides an accurate answer. It's much more likely that the allied suffered twice as many casualties.

To conclude, this action was certainly not 'indecisive', and in absolutely no way a 'tactical allied victory'.--Guard Chasseur (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010.

I agree with Guard Chausseur it was a french victory and so it says in the article excepting that nonsense in the infobox that it can be a victory and indecisive at the same time. So what if the allies "held the field"? it wasnt a battle to gain a field,french cavalry only retreated because allied reinforcements apperead.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Battles in this time of the age of bayonet were always about winning the field. Bruich (Bruich) 00:22, 24 August 2010 (GMT)

Napoleons era was characterized by an obsesion with destroying the enemy army and not by ridiculuos concepts of the lace wars,the way war was fought in the ancient regime with its avoiding battles,prefering sieges,undecisive campaigns and niceties as winning the field as a proof of winning a battle, but in Majadahonda french cavalry were happy with beating the crap out of wellingtons cavalry not in ancient niceties like taking the field so you're argument is very weak.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Your frustrations are very evident and I would suggest from using such phrases as beating the crap. This not a forum! The French also got a beating when they driven from the battle anyway but then again the French lost in the end and lost most of the battles too. Bruich (Bruich) 00:44, 24 August 2010 (GMT)

I think you should turn off you're frustration radar,seems to be broken i dont care if the french won most of the battles or not,im discussing this one only,can you understand the difference betwen retiring and being kick back?the french cavalry defeated the british cavalry but then retired because the cavalry is not designed to hold ground nor was it they're mission to do that in this village. Every line in the article agrees that the french won so i dont see whats you're dylema.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually they shook the Portuguese cavalry (under British command) pretty bad . The Anglo German cavalry then defeated the French cavalry later arriving were Anglo German soldiers. Bruich (Bruich) 01:27, 24 August 2010 (GMT)

The French won, no question. In many battles the victor didn't end up holding the field, and in this kind of battle it doesn't really matter. The raid was a success, the British did suffer casualties. They were no more driven off than John Moore at Corunna, which I believe to be a British victory.

In no way can it be labelled an allied victory. It was a mere raid and the allies suffered most here.

Careful when stating that the French lost most. They won heaps of engagements against the Brits outside the Peninsular War (and these British campaigns ended in a failure). But in the Peninsular War, not counting this battle, the French won at Fuengirola, Tarragona, the Coa, Redinha, Casal Novo, 1st Almeida, El Boden, Maguilla, Venta del Pozo, Burgos, 1st San Sebastian, Maya, Roncevalles, Lizasso. I can still list more. As for the Brits, they won more in the Peninsular, but then again they had a quite a good general.Guard Chasseur (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between being 'defeated' and being 'checked'. The French raid was checked on the outskirts of Las Rozas by KGL light infantry but they were not beaten. And the allies didn't 'take' the field by force. Spartacus97 (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

therefore it was a draw. Let us not forget that as a result of this battle Jo Bonaparte hastily fled Madrid the next day. That would seem to indicate a strategic allied victory but I think indecisive will do. Bruich (Bruich) 01:27, 25 August 2010 (GMT)

I suppose I shouldn't have to point out that, as usual, Bruich is sorely misinformed (or lying, who knows?) I shouldn't have to — since it's basically outrageous to claim that a mere cavalry skirmish suddenly prompted a strategic operation as momentous as evacuating the Spanish capital — but I will anyway. As it happened, the French constructed extensive earthworks atop the high ground in the centre of the city and would have entrenched themselves there if they meant to fight it out. (Cavalry actions, whether won or lost, would have been largely immaterial to their situation, as they would have yielded the ground anyway.) But obviously, the decision to evacuate the capital had been taken well in advance; Bruich, as elsewhere, is simply grasping at straws (notice how, his previous attempts having failed, he even tries to barter the result down to "Indecisive.")

With only 22,000 troops, many of them mutinous conscripts, there was never any prospect of Joseph holding Madrid; the French cavalry in question, in fact, was part of the screen for his convoy. Majadahonda was a French victory and it's pretty universally described as such in scholarly literature. Of course, since Bruich seems to consider it a "British victory!" each time he successfully pours milk in his cereal in the morning, this latest attempt at distortion is no surprise. In fact, it illustrates his entire modus operandi: mine Google Books for any quote vaguely favourable to the British and proceed to disfigure countless articles each month with the most sanguine possible description of (perceived, extrapolated, or often simply imagined) British successes, usually confined to the Infobox where petty disputes reign and editing takes no effort. Albrecht (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

May I also point out that the KGL British cavalry was involved in the rout and pursuit to Las Rozas, so the statement that only the Portuguese cavalry was defeated here is false.

A very similar incident happened at Campo Maior. The French squadrons were broken and chased over several miles, but the allied cavalry's advance was halted by fire and a sortie from Badajoz. Almost all the lost cannons were recovered. Yet it hardly constitutes and allied victory. At Majadahonda, the French broke the Anglo-Portuguese squadrons and pursued them over several miles, capturing carriage and 3 cannons. They were eventually halted but not driven off. The French then withdrew, being merely a raiding force, and the allies discovered the lost cannon subsequently.

This battle does not constitute an allied victory, neither tactical nor strategic. It was a cavalry fight the French won. Guard Chasseur (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me where I have labelled this as an allied victory? I have always maintained the outcome as indecisive. The French cavalry mauled the allied cavalry in the beginning but the allies then won the second part ergo it is indecisive. I will label sources for this anyway. Bruich (Bruich) 15:33, 26 August 2010 (GMT)

I'm not accusing you of saying anything, but I disagree that it was indecisive, seeing as the allies were chased over a great distance, losing their cannons (initially) and baggage. I also disagree with your statement that the allies defeated the French in the second phase of the battle. All they succeeded in doing was bringing the French advance to a halt. A victory would have meant driving the French off from the field.

The battle ended with the allies having their carriage burnt, being seriously mauled and chased several miles by French cavalry. That's not indecisive. That's a defeat for the Anglo-Portuguese. Considering the battle had no strategic impact, Majadahonda was a tactical French victory. Guard Chasseur (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

General comment: Whether you believe it was a French victory, Allied victory, or a draw is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. As Wikipedia editors, our personal opinions do not matter in the determination of victory. As editors, we can only cite what historians have already written. Smith (p. 385) called this action "a drawn match" and so I (originally) wrote this and cited it. If another author believed that this was a French (or Allied) victory, then please write it into the article and cite it. Djmaschek (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)