Jump to content

Talk:Minor campaigns of 1815

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page views

[edit]

Merge articles?

[edit]

There is an overlap between this entry and Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days. Should they perhaps be merged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tailvik (talk • contribs) 13:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is about the campaign the other is the order of battle. I am in the process of putting together a very detailed article on the Waterloo Campaign, also based on Siborne's Waterloo Campaign 1815, so this division will then make more sense. --PBS (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on possible names

[edit]

Notes on possible names in the article for which I could not find a specific link in Wikipedia:

--PBS (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days#d'Osasco --PBS (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To help other with how we got here from there

[edit]

Just for information: copied from from here:

==Danish and Portuguese==
Hi Philip!
Just thought I'd give a quick mention that Sorensen says NOTHING about the Portuguese Contingent.
The sources consulted for the Portuguese Contingent are Wellington's Despatches and the Supplementary Despatches of the Duke of Wellington.
Sorensen forms part of my Danish sources, showing that the Royal Danish Auxiliary Corps joined Wellington's Army in July. Its Order of battle can be found in Plotho. Thanks --Assisting Wiki (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From here

== Judgement ==
"we do not judge who is right or wrong we merely report what the sources say"
This is very true. However I do have this to say...
I make particular reference to the Portuguese Contingent and the Army of Naples:
To report that the Portuguese mobilised a contingent for the coalition is simply untrue.
To report that the Army of Naples was commanded by Onasco and was composed of Neapolitans is also untrue.
I consider it irresponsible to state such things as fact when one knows better simply because one or more sources state them as being so and incase one appears as judgemental to other Wikipedians by addressing this. This is afterall an encyclopedia and correct information is paramount!
I have not challenged the opinions of any authors or given my own opinion, what I have done is corrected the 'facts' that some authors have given as they are incorrect and are proven to be so.
In no way do I judge the sources or the authors of the sources (infact I love Chandler, Barbero and Adkins' work) but I do state the common misunderstandings that are commonly believed through such popular works, and offer citations mentioning the works which offer the correct facts backing up my claims (as citations are always needed), in this case collected and published Primary Sources.
Simply stating the facts without addressing the myths and why the myths are what they are, would result in facts being edited in favour of popular myths. Let's face it, more people will have read Chandler's and Barbero's work than those who will have browsed through Wellington's Despatches.
By addressing both (stating the belief then stating the fact) people can see the truth for themselves thus preventing the oh so familiar "That's wrong" EDIT, "Actually it's right" COUNTER-EDIT, "No, I tell you it's wrong" EDIT, "And I tell you its right" COUNTER-EDIT 'battle'.
--Assisting Wiki (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--PBS (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently links to a large number of disambiguation pages

[edit]

I moved this tempate (edited into the article by user: DPL bot):

{{dablinks}}

to the talk page as it is a maintaince template and is not part of the subject of the article. Anyone want to fix the links that are there because I do not know which is the correct village that should be the subject of the link. -- PBS (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to refactor but that template should not be placed on talk pages. --JaGatalk 18:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a reactor to move a comment from article space into talk space. It is a refactor to remove a comment placed there by another!. Why should the template not be placed on the talk page? -- PBS (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress of Bitsch

[edit]

IP 216.99.115.242, how do you know that Siborne was referring to Charles Auguste Creutzer when he wrote General Kreutzer and not some other General Kreutzer? What is your source for saying he was the commandant of the Fortress of Bitsch? -- PBS (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress of "Bitsch" & some more generals

[edit]

Fortress of "Bitsch" & some more generals (refactored text)

[edit]

The primary source is Dictionnaire biographique des généraux & amiraux Français de la Révolution et de l'Empire (1792-1814) Author Georges Six (vol.I pg.272)

  • (in French) Six, Georges (1934). Dictionnaire biographique des généraux & amiraux Français de la Révolution et de l'Empire (1792-1814). Paris, Librairie Saffroy, 1934. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Here are 2 internet sites that refer to Creutzer:

  • French Wikipedia entry for Erbsenthal: fr:Erbsenthal#Famille de Creutzer
  • Title 1808-1815 Histoire des idées et critique littéraire ; v. 170, 201, 372, 417 Volume 7 Journal Authors Marc marquis de Bombelles, Marc Bombelles (marquis de), Jean Grassion, Frans Durif, Jeannine Charon-Bordas p. 319.

I apologize for being a computer Luddite. I'm slowly trying to learn the ways of WIKI. The database I'm using to identify these fellows is one I've compiled myself over a number of years in an attempt to figure out what the former generals of the Empire were up to during the Hundred Days. Other possible links:

I hope this helps & that someone with more computer skills than myself can link it all together.

Why "Bitsch"(German) instead of Bitche? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.115.242 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 25 January 2013‎

OK I have refactored your reply. You have provided a lot of information and it will take time to put together a comment on it. In the mean time I suggest that you create an account. I see from the IP address that you have used you would probably make English Wikipedia your main Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? and Wikipedia:Username policy. However as you clearly are familiar with other languages you might like to consider making it a universal account which means you can log into other language wikipedia as well as Wikisource etc (see Help:Unified login). If however you are more comfortable in French then you can always create you main account on the Fr:wikiepdia, make it a universal account and then login here. -- PBS (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

refactored out a section heading and copied the comment below to suitable place above. PBS (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will log in but I found a mistake already & want to correct it. I got the wrong "Osasco" as well. The correct name is Giovanni Pietro Luigi Cacherano d'Osasco (1740-1831). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.115.242 (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not create a new section header for ever[y] comment you make. Next to the section you wish to add your comment you will see [edit] if you click on that it will open up the section to edit, and then just add an indent the comment at the bottom of the section as I have done here (to indent use ":" at the start of the line each colon represents a tab). Secondly please sign you comments by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post -- the software will auto-magically expand it into a signature. PBS (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are three things you will need to read before we can advance. The first two are WP:SOURCES and WP:PSTS (The Napoleon Series by itself is not a "reliable source"). The second is WP:SYN -- we can not assume that the spelling used by Siborne is wrong and that he meant a different person unless that can be shown in the reliable sources without using SYN.
You asked why "Bitsch"(German) instead of Bitche. Why Battle of Stalingrad and not "Battle of Volgograd"? Ans. we (Wikipedia editors) use the name as it is used in English language reliable sources, only if the sources diverge and there there is not a clear choice can we use discretion. In this case we will need other (preferably modern reliable sources) about the Waterloo Campaign that use "Fortress Bitche" for the name. -- PBS (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To illuminate what I have written above you gave a source with a comment
  • Joseph Marie Quérard, et al, (1854) La littérature française contemporaine. XIXe siècle: Le tout accompagné de notes biographiques et littéraires, Volume 5, pp. 75-6, Daguin frères. -- states that he [Lemoine, Louis (comte)(1754-1842)], the minister of war in 1815, and Comandant of Mézières responsible for the defence of Mézières and its and the citadel.
That ticks both boxes it is a reliable sourcecheckY and it explicitly tells us that he was responsible for the defence of Mézières in 1815.checkY So we can add that fact to the article. -- PBS (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SAWme (talk • contribs) 11:42, 3 February 2013‎

That was a lot of information to flush that does pertain to individuals mentioned in this article & it seems like it could go somewhere within the page, rather than just "away". I say more information is better information, but of course, "rules are rules"SAWme (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit clash] This is not the place to develop you text. This is a page for discussing changes to the page. In the first few days to help you get started (and so that others could under understand your post some alterations were acceptable). But now you have a better idea of what you are doing, so I have hatted this text and copied it into your sandbox where you can develop if further. -- PBS (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of "Rules are rules". One has to keep in mind that this is an encyclopaedia not a discussion forum. This particular article is a detailed description of the minor campaigns (about the most detailed easily available on the internet although more detail and sub-articles can always be added or created. To develop it with more detail and sub-articles takes time and effort. We have been working together to develop further the article on Charles Auguste Creutzer we have now established in his biography through the use of reliable sources Creutzer is the man who William Siborne called "Kreutzer" and that Siborne had is rank wrong. But as I mentioned to you before this has to be done through the use of reliable sources and no WP:SYN. We now have a choice. We can either link "Kreutzer" like this [[Charles Auguste Creutzer|Kreutzer]] which will produce Kreutzer. Or we can replace Kreutzer with [[Charles Auguste Creutzer|Creutzer]] which will procide Creutzer but if we go with that option then we need to also include the Bombelles, p. 319. reference used in the Creutzer biography. Which would you prefer?
So we can now amend this article to include the Creutzer biography. This is how to develop this article. What we do not need to do is just dump a random list into the "See also" section. Attached to articles like the Battle of Waterloo is another article called Order of battle of the Waterloo Campaign which may be the sort of article you are considering. If you are then perhaps you should look at Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days and add names of commanders (found in reliable sources) to the formation listed in that article instead of adding a list to this one. -- PBS (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German Corps

[edit]
  • Rau, Karl Ferdinand von; Cronenthal, Emil Heinrich Hänel von (1826), Der Krieg der Verbündeten gegen Frankreich in den Jahren 1813, 1814 und 1815: als Erläuterung der beiden Tableaus, welche die Schlachtplane jenes Krieges darstellen. ¬Der Krieg in Frankreich in den Jahren 1814 und 1815, Maurer, p. 285

A German source on the German Corps. It contains a few more details the then current text contains:

i. Dem Nordteutschen Bundes-Korps, unter dem Oberbefehle des General der Infanterie Grafen Kleist von Nollendorf. Es bestand aus:

  1. Dem Kurhessischen Korps, unter dem General-Lieutenant von Engelhardt, bestehend aus der lsien Brigade, General-Major Prinz von Solms; der 2ten Brigade, General-Major von Müller; der Kavalerie-Brigade des Obersten Prinzen Friedrich von Hessen-Kassel, und der Artillerie-Brigade unter dem Major von Katzler.
  2. Der Thüringschen Brigade, unter dem Weimarschen General-Major von Egloffstein.
  3. Dem Großherzoglich Meklenburgschen Kontingent, unter dem GeneralLieutenant Erbprinzen von Meklenburg-Schwerin.

Das Nordteutsche Bundes-Korps hatte eine Stärke von 26,200 Mann, in 30 Bataillons, 12 Eskadrons und 21⁄2 Batterie.

Google translation with a couple of obvious changes:

i. The North Germans Federal Corps, under the command of General of Infantry Count Kleist von Nollendorf. It consisted of:

  1. The Kurhessische Corps, under Lieutenant-General von Engelhardt, consisting of:
    the 1st Brigade, Major-General Prince of Solms;
    the 2nd Brigade, Major-General of Müller;
    the cavalry brigade of Colonel Prince Frederick of Hesse-Kassel,
    and the Artillery Brigade under Major von Katzler
  2. The Thüring 's Brigade, under the Weimar's major-general of Egloffstein.
  3. The Großherzoglich Meklenburgschen contingent, under the lieutenant-general hereditary prince of Meklenburg-Schwerin.

The North Germans Federal Corps had a strength of 26,200 men in 30 battalions, 12 squadrons and 21⁄2 batteries.

-- PBS (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minor_campaigns_of_1815&oldid=1204018659"