Talk:Battle of Toulouse (1814)

Result (II)

Can I resume the debate 8 years on?

It seems very odd to try to work out whose victory it was on the basis of Commanders' intents unless there is contemporary evidence of those intents. Wellington was notoriously secretive about his intentions. And I doubt whether Soult told his commanders that he intended to dispute territory with Wellington and then fall back, whatever he may subsequently have claimed.

Roberts ("Napoleon and Wellington", 2003) says "Soult withdrew the next day [11 April]...leaving most of his guns and 1,600 wounded". Another source says that the Allies took 1,600 prisoners including Generals d'Harispe, Bourot, and St Hilaire.

The normal contemporary way of judging a victory when there was a dispute was whether guns had been taken. I find it hard to believe that Wellington could have taken the main redoubts without capturing a gun. If Soult left behind significant amounts of guns when he withdrew, this would have been a huge reduction in his battle-fighting capacity. The French Army also had severe problems with desertion. Joining up with Suchet (down to 12,000 men) does not seem to me to offset the losses.

I suggest that a kind result for Soult would be "indecisive (tactically) and an allied victory (strategically)". Toulouse looks pretty strategic to me on the map!

Markd999 (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Result

Calling this battle indecisive is very odd. Calling it a French tactical victory is ludicrous. By the 11th April the French had raised the white flag and evacuated the city (from historical record of the Hertfordshire regiment). Wellington's forces then moved in to take the city. What's indecisive about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.1.180 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think Gates has the same idea when he labels the battle of April 10 a victory for Soult. The Allies did, of course, manage to push the French back behind the canal, taking Calvinet, Colombette, Mont Rave, etc., but with Soult maintaining himself at Cambon and Sacarin, fully expecting to continue the battle the next day, it's not clear what "victory" you think Wellington won. Gates probably evaluated the battle on the basis that, as Longford observes, "with only 3,200 casualties to the Allied 4,500, ...the French proclaimed themselves the victors." Napier, who (surprise, surprise!) credits the victory to Wellington, observes:

“ On the morning of the 11th [Soult] was again ready to fight, but the English general was not. The French position...was still inexpugnable on the northern and eastern fronts. The possession of Mont Rave was only a preliminary step to the passage of the canal on the bridge of Demoiselles and other points... But this was a great affair requiring fresh dispositions, ...hence...lord Wellington repaired on the 11th to St. Cyprien. ”

Soult's troops in position to fight; Wellington removing his command to St. Cyprien and needing another day to reorganize and reprovision the Allied army; this was the result of the battle of the 10th. Only on April 12, with Allied cavalry moving up the Toulouse—Carcassone road, did Soult orchestrate his escape from the town to combine with Suchet, but since it was never a question of defending Toulouse indefinitely, it's a bit overzealous to paint his escape as defeat. He did not surrender. He was not captured. When you say he "raised the white flag" you're being disingenuous, considering he did so after a successful sortie, only to keep bombs [edit: from] raining down on French civilians and French wounded. I think the historiography has simply outgrown the view of Wellington as Christ in a red tunic. Albrecht (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, that is extremely tenuous. Firstly, citing Gates suggesting a French victory is reasonable per se. But you've stated above at least one other historian doesn't agree. So to declare "French tactical victory" on the basis of sources is cherry-picking evidence, therefore biased. Secondly, contextually this battle was part of a siege operation, a limited-aim action to secure the eastern heights as preparation. It is not unusual in sieges for the attacker to take their time, not fling themselves at the next line of fortifications the next day. As history shows, the allies a) took the heights and b) started to besiege the town (why else would the French sortie?). Therefore they achieved their aims, whether or not they needed a day to change their dispositions to put the next phase of the siege into action or took more casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agema (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agema, it was me who reverted the last change back to the cited version, although I'm not going to change your re-doing of it until we can get some consensus. I must admit to have being a little surprised to see Gates describing it as a French victory, but I wouldn't like to see Napier being held up as a counterpoint; Napier isn't exactly renowned for his neutral writing!

I've looked through a lot of the sources I have available to me (don't, however, have the relevant Oman volume :( ), and here's my thoughts: tactically, the battle must be classed as a victory for the French – they still held the town, they had caused more casualties on the allies, they had numerically similar forces remaining, they had supplies enough to garrison Toulouse for about a month. In contrast, Wellington's army was split, running out of supplies (if not already out), including ammunition, and in no fit state to fight on the 11th. The true siege of Toulouse hadn't started yet, with siegeworks required facing the town. The allied cavalry, by evening of the 11th, had advanced onto the Toulouse–Carcassonne road, but they didn't have time to cut off Soult's escape routed. Even if they had, the numerical similarity between the two armies meant that Soult could probably still have got away.

Strategically, and taking a wider view than the battle itself, you are of course quite right. Soult was forced to withdraw, and the allies entered the town on the 12th. Most of the sources I have seem to follow the strategic result, rather than the instantaneous tactical result of the battle. But then, of course, it's possible to argue that strategy didn't really mean a lot at this point, given Napoleon had already abdicated, but neither Soult nor Wellington knew that at the time.

Now, rather than arguing about it all, and engaging in revert warring, how about we work out a way to best express this? Carre (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

PS, from Volume X of Sir John Fortescue's History of the British Army, pp. 91–91: "It would be unprofitable to add to the controversy whether or not Wellington won a victory at Toulouse. [...] But it may freely be confessed that this was the most unsatisfactory action that Wellington ever fought, and the worst managed." – we ain't the first to debate this ;) Carre (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a look through my collection, and I don't have a source which states outright who won the battle (or describes it in considerable detail), although a couple lean towards the allies by saying they succeeded in taking the heights. And yes, Wellington may have needed to reprovision his army, but that's not a battlefield result any more than Soult later withdrawing is. Secondly, whilst the allies appear to have been in no position to attack the next day, Soult appears to have been in no position to take advantage of the disorder of the allied army or to prevent them starting a siege; so can the French really be considered to have won a meaningful battlefield victory? I would maintain that this action seems to have been indecisive, and also considering the lack of consensus over 200 years, a draw seems like a reasonable statement.Agema (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have no objection to seeing it as "indecisive" - better than the "allied victory" that's been hanging around recently. By the way, you can see Fortescue's account here, as well as a bit of an analysis of what could have happened and the difficulties faced by both sides. Cheers. Carre (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a certain difference of interpretation, unconfortable for Wikipedians, between the french and english versions about the results. Let correct both of them to edit that the tactical result was undecided?

21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if your French is good enough to make the argument - mine isn't. It's bad enough that people keep fiddling this one to a victory for one side or another, presumably depending on their nationalistic interpretations. Which, incidentally, means I'm turning the result back to "indecisive".Agema (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote: 'I think the historiography has simply outgrown the view of Wellington as Christ in a red tunic'. Oh! please Albrecht :) I love your contributions to wiki, but give us some credit. You know, sometimes, the British did get it right. Wellington is up there with Marlborough and Slim as the greatest Brit general, deny that here, and you're on to a loser. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Its an indecisive battle, as to Welington as a general, all I will say is that he had lerant how to beat the French before leaving Ireland, Napolean had not learnt how to beat the British by the time of Waterlo.Slatersteven (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this battle can in anyway be a defensive French victory seeing as Wellington successfully took the heights above him and was in no way repulsed or held up by the French army in trying to capture the city. He had hardly begun to lay siege when news of Napoleons abdication came through. Indecisive battle but by any tactical degree a marginal or even clear cut Anglo-Allied Victory (74.199.108.123 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)).

Add POV, restore deleted material

Oops! I just made some changes that are highly relevant to the ongoing dispute. Only I did not think to look here, because there was no marker in the article to alert me to the ongoing discussion! I moved a disputed section to "Commentary" and added the POV. The disputed section was added on 20 November 2009, (a) has no source, (b) appears to me to be a pro-French opinion, (c) was added by an IP address but no name, (d) implies that there was an armistice before the city was evacuated, (e) and, worst of all, is contradicted by both David Chandler and Michael Glover. Also on 20 November, one and a half paragraphs that I added earlier were removed. I have replaced the missing material and added footnotes to it so that there is no ambiguity. You will also note that the battle is now called an "Anglo-Allied victory" and a Smith citation is attached. (OK, Smith's work is sometimes sloppy, but it is a printed reference after all.)

For those who disagree with this assessment, the best response would be to add (for example) "Drawn battle" and cite it with a source. This argument should not be about my opinion or yours about who won the battle. This should be about what historians say. My apologies to Carre, Albrecht, Slatersteven and any others who may be offended by my barging in here. Again, I made the changes to the article in blissful ignorance of the ongoing discussion. Djmaschek (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not alter referenced text

To the individual (93.149.236.75) who changed "Anglo-Allied victory" to "French Strategic Victory". It is not kosher to change referenced text and leave the citations intact! Smith and Rothenberg call it an Anglo-Allied victory, not a French Strategic Victory. Here is a suggestion.

• Results:
  • Anglo-Allied victory [1][2]
  • French victory [3] <<< author (Gates?) who supports your view that it was a French victory.

You can even put French victory first if you like. But please cite your source. That way the article will keep its intellectual integrity. Thank you. Djmaschek (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added in the point of view of French historians Jean Tulard, Andre Palluel-Guillard and Alfredo Fierro, according to which it was a French victory.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The French were defeated and driven off the Calvinet Ridge.. how is this a French victory? How can French historians claim 'victory' when the town was not laid siege to because of the timing of other events. Bruichladdich1 (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2010.

It seems wrong to say that this was a French victory, but I can't say that it was much of an allied victory either. By the end of the war, Soult held his positions, despite losing the heights, and Wellington had not been able to take them or compell the French to surrender by force. What was the point in fighting when France had lost the war in Europe and was being occupied? Besides, the allies retreated after Bussaco, didn't they? And at Corunna, yet British historians claim both these as victories. At Toulouse, the French army was not broken. Just call the overall result of the battle indecisive, because it was, and this settles historical debate that could go on forever. Spartacus97 (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2010.

Comparisons with said battles seems odd. At Bussaco the French were repelled at every attempt to take British positions and never took the field. Afterwards the French invasion Portugal ended in another fiasco with the loss of 25,000 men. At Corruna again the French tactically never evicted the British from their positions and were repulsed at every point. At Toulouse the allies managed to take the heights during the battle despite heaver losses and the French retreated. Soult was in no position to hold the city and was preparing for it's evacuation. The allies were never repelled in any attempt to take the city itself because Wellington was laying preparation for siege. The French 'victory' comes from the excuses because of word of the French surrender in Paris and Napoleons abdication the day after the battle therefore terminating any siege of Toulouse. Bruichladdich1 (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2010.

OK, maybe I shouldn't have used these examples, the scenario here isn't quite the same. However, I've come to understand that even though it lost the heights after hard fighting, Soult's army held his overall positions until the news of Napoleon's abdication, and then Toulouse was handed over to the allies. Spartacus97 (talk) 9:40, 8 May 2010.

Unfortunately, your interpretation relies on a mendacious re-inscription of the battle into some false context (as if Soult was somehow required, or even intended, to hold Toulouse), huge distortions ("The allies were never repelled in any attempt to take the city itself" If their attack was not repulsed, what happened? Did Toulouse fall April 10? Were the French overrun and ejected from the city? Was Soult put to the sword?), and several sleights of hand—specifically your amalgamation of events of April 11 and April 12 into "the battle [of April 10]," creating the illusion that Wellington's attack was what prompted the French evacuation.

As has been cited ad nauseum,

On the morning of the 11th [Soult] was again ready to fight, but the English general was not. The French position...was still inexpugnable on the northern and eastern fronts. The possession of Mont Rave was only a preliminary step to the passage of the canal on the bridge of Demoiselles and other points... But this was a great affair requiring fresh dispositions, ...hence...lord Wellington repaired on the 11th to St. Cyprien.

In other words, the taking of Calvinet amounted to exactly nothing, and Wellington's attack of April 10 had unmistakeably failed. At the end of the engagement Soult's troops were still in position to fight; Wellington gave up in disgust and removed his headquarters to St. Cyprien. He needed an entire day to reorganize and reprovision the desperately-mauled Allied army before it could be ready for action.

On an operational or strategic level, Soult escaped with his army intact; did not allow himself to be surrounded (as Wellington attempted April 12); he did not surrender; he was not captured (Wellington's aim). Soult never intended to hold Toulouse against the Allies, but rather to preserve his army. It is difficult to find a "British victory" in this picture except as a wish-fulfillment fantasy, and one is cornered into tortured logic in trying to explain that Soult's aims were frustrated and Wellington's realized. Albrecht (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So the outcome of the battle should be put as 'indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed'? Because the debate over this battle could go on forever. Spartacus97 (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2010.

Yes, the result of the battle should be: 'indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed' with the respective references. It is short enough and sums up the different opinions expressed by authors.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to escape you that the war ended before any committed move could be made like I said in previous talk. And your quote creating the illusion that Wellington's attack was what prompted the French evacuation. Well this is because the Mont Rave on the Calvinet Ridge was taken and there is no other explanation. Both Wellington and Soult knew the Calvient heights (Mont Rave )were the keys to either holding or taking the city. Once taken, which was what Wellington achieved let us not forget, he could if he wanted to bombard Toulouse into submission. So creating the illusion was in fact reality. Surrounded by the Allies on the west, north, and east, Soult held Toulouse during the day of April 11 but decided to pull out of the city to prevent his army from becoming trapped. At 9 pm 11th April (sorry where does the 12th come into it?) the French army marched out of Toulouse by the Carcassonne road, leaving 1600 wounded behind. Yes what Soult was in fact doing was retreating. A French victory are you sure?! --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2010 (GMT)

Since Toulouse only represented an aspect of Soult's overall position, it is difficult for the allies to claim a tactical victory. Soult's aims were not frustrated, Wellington's were. It's difficult for the French to claim a victory too, as you've pointed out. That's why the battle should be indecisive. Too little was achieved on both sides, and the whole battle was cut short because of Napoleon's abdication. Guard Chasseur 7:25, 9 May 2010.

Soult's overall position was that he was defeated on the heights which meant that he had no choice but to retreat only the day after. --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2010 (GMT)

Fuentes d'Onoro is a better battle to compare Toulouse with. The allies were driven back and lost a great portion of their original positions, even securing much of the lower half of the Fuentes d'Onoro. True, Massena did give up his attempt to relieve Almeida, but Wellington had still lost a great deal of ground. In this case, Soult lost ground but, much like what happened at Fuentes d'Onoro, the defending army was not broken or beaten, nor were they encircled or trapped by Wellington. Toulouse was only one aspect of the overall picture. So either Fuentes d'Onoro is labelled a tactical French victory or this battle is labelled indecisive.--Spartacus97 (talk) 8:05, 9 May 2010.

Allies driven back? Losing ground? Do you have any idea what your saying? You say this even though Wellington decided on a maneuver to straighten his line. Messena was booted out of Fuentes D'Onoro and was repelled throughout the battle and even lost an artillery duel which compelled him to retreat from the field of battle. It was Massena who retreated and Wellington who held his ground. Wellington ADVANCED to the better good and didn't retreat. You compare this to Toulouse where Soult was pushed of the strategic position of Mont Rave (Calvinet Ridge) and as a result was forced to retreat on 11th April because his position was untenable. --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2010 (GMT)

I'm refering only to initial movements (in both battles, Wellington and Soult lost ground). On the contrary, I don't in any way think that Fuentes d'Onoro was a victory for the French, and I'm not saying it was! The taking of Toulouse was the taking of only one of Soult's positions. As was stated above, Soult didn't intend on holding this position. His army was still ready to fight, like Wellington's at Fuentes d'Onoro. The battle cannot be labelled a tactical victory for Wellington simply because Soult was forced out of Toulouse. The battle was cut short. Spartacus97 (talk) 9:30, 9 May 2010.

At Fuentes d'Onoro, the French withdrew having already gained ground. At Toulouse, the British gained ground (taking the city). The former was labelled a 'tactical draw', and so was Toulouse. As was previously stated, the battle was cut short by Napoleon's abdication (it was not the battle for Toulouse). Spartacus97 (talk) 9:45, 9 May 2010.

Movements don't decide battles but the final act on who throws in the towel and on both occasions French retreated. Both sides can lose grounds for whatever reason. What your saying is that the Austrians won the battle of Marengo! The battle cannot be labelled a tactical victory for Wellington simply because Soult was forced out of Toulouse. Can you name a simple reason why he wasn't? Think about what about you have said. The fact was he was forced to retreat even though the most defended position was lost (most of French troops were concentrated here). What tactical advantage did Soult have by retreating from Toulouse or what did Massena have in the same effect at Fuentes D'Onoro? --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2010 (GMT)

At Fuentes d'Onoro it's true, French gains amounted to nothing. However, Wellington intended to surround the French army in the capture of Toulouse. This was his aim, and because Soult retreated he failed. As previously stated, Soult never intended to really hold Toulouse. Furthermore, the attack on the city would have been, had the battle not been cut short, a preliminary manoeuvre. Instead, it was a manoeuvre that failed in its ultimate plan. Soult army was still holding his overall positions and was intact, whereas Wellington, on the other hand, had consumed supplies and lost more casualties than his adversary. Thus, looking at the big picture, the attack on Toulouse was the capture of one position (like the battles I was comparing this scenario to previously) and was not the final outcome. Finally, when both commanders learned of the fate of the Empire, the battle was cut short. Therefore the result is indecisive, with neither Wellington or Soult being able to claim a tactical victory. And no, the Austrians definetely didn't win at Marengo. Spartacus97 (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2010.

Therefore the battle should be made 'Indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed'. Guard Chasseur 11:05, 9 May 2010.

Bruichladdich1, how come you keep insisting that the result of the battle be changed? Reputable sources were quoted to support both the Anglo-Portuguese and the French victory. Do you suggest that we should disregard the opinion of Fierro, Palluel-Guillard, Tulard and embrace yours instead?--Alexandru Demian (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Because Soult retreated he lost the battle as the heights were captured like I have previously explained and just like he had been at Orthez. It was the same result albeit with heavier casualties. You say his overall positions; well they were captured. He had no positions to hold which is why Soult retreated on 12th April leaving 1,600 hundred wounded behind. There would have no attack on the city itself it was unnecessary; Soult had retreated BEFORE the news of France's defeat. --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 12:53 9 May 2010 (GMT)

Again, wikipedia works on the principle that quoting reputable sources is the best way to write articles. In such cases, where historians disagree on issues such as results of battles, a common sense best practice says that both points of view have to be quoted. The formula we had before you made the edits we are talking about accounts for both points of view (Anglo-Allied victory; French victory). There is no third option, except for nuances of these two possible outcomes (e.g. tactical victory, strategic victory). If you wish to give further details on the result of the battle, why don't you do it, with sources, in the appropriate section of the body of the article? In my opinion, any further discussion on the topic is just a waste of time and energy.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes quite! I did quote and reference sources but then an unhappy person decided to change & now we are having this discussion. --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 21:00 9 May 2010 (GMT)

I understand. I suggest that you insert the referenced information that you added to the section "Result" in the body of the article. In doing so, please make sure to word it in a neutral and objective way. Thanks! Cheers,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Again and again you skip over or try to dissimulate the actual sequence of events and to substitute a false causality which credits the Allied effort with more than it actually achieved. The Allied attacks of April 10 were stopped because they simply could not continue; Wellington drew his army and his HQ back; Soult's troops stuck to their defences. That was the "Battle of Toulouse." April 10. Wellington moves back. Soult stays put. Do you understand?

You say his overall positions; well they were captured.

Well, the problem is, they weren't: The French position was still inexpugnable on the northern and eastern fronts. The possession of Mont Rave was only a preliminary step to the passage of the canal on the bridge of Demoiselles and other points. If they had been, the Allied army would have entered the city and captured Soult, and we wouldn't have this problem.

He had no positions to hold which is why Soult retreated on 12th April leaving 1,600 hundred wounded behind.

Once more: this is your wishful extrapolation and bears no relation to the actual sequence of events. Soult retreated April 11-12 when he detected Allied cavalry moving up the Toulouse—Carcassonne road to cut off his communications; he would under no circumstances have allowed himself to be bottled up in a Royalist or anti-Bonapartist city when his intention all along had been to unite with Suchet and confront Wellington on equal terms. This has nothing to do with the dispositions or results of April 10. The fact that the French held the city for an entire day following Wellington's attack should alert you to the hollowness of your claims, were you not so desperate to declare a "British victory" everywhere you look. Soult was frustrated in none of his aims; Wellington, in all of his.

Of course, since different historians (for whatever reason) have labelled it an Allied victory, the only thing to do is to cite each of their interpretations. But the Infobox result should definitely not represent one side over another. Albrecht (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that he held it for an entire day which is irrelevant since he retreated anyway as you so put when he detected allied cavalry. This throws everything you have just said out of the water! Under no circumstance can this be claim as any type of success for the French! We don't have a problem because Wellington defeated the French on Mont Rave on 10th and took Toulouse on the 12th after Soult retreated BEFORE the war ended. I rest my case. --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 21:00 9 May 2010 (GMT)

You may indeed rest your case, the sum of which is zero. Albrecht (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that we've all confirmed the outcome of the battle, let's get on with editing and improving it. Guard Chasseur 18:10, 10 May 2010.

Well that is very interesting, it seems Albrecht that you don't deny what I said because those are the historical facts. --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 19:06 10 May 2010 (GMT)

There are two sides of the argument, and the French argument is perfectly valid and plausible. You’ve posed one side of the argument, all very well, but unfortunately I haven’t seen a reasonable answer to 80-90% of what Albrecht and others have said. The French claim: Wellington completely failed to trap the French army. His force had suffered far heavier casualties. He had consumed supplies for little gain and his army was in a sorry state. The French army had fought, in some ways, a kind of 'delaying action' as Soult intended to unite with Suchet before attacking Wellington's army. The Anglo-allies took Toulouse (which Soult never intended to hold) but the battle still hadn't ended, simply because the French lost ground on the battlefield. The battle had not ended when Napoleon's abdication was announced and the French were not in anyway beaten. The capture of Toulouse was only a preliminary move that failed in its ultimate purpose, and it was only territory on the battlefield the French lost. Wellington failed in almost all his aims, Soult achieved his. The Anglo-allied claim: They ended up capturing Toulouse, one of Soult's positions which he didn't intend to hold. The French yielded ground. But I'm going to be fair since British and French historians claimed victory for their respective nations, so both sides should be acknowledged. Victory for either side was not clear cut, the result of the battle is 'Indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed'. Now please, let us all start to improve the article and make it fair and even-handed. --Guard Chasseur (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010.