Talk:Siege of Badajoz (1812)

Ian Fletcher as a source

He is the only historian to write a book solely dedicated this battle. I don't see how he can be objected to as a source for this article?KingOfAfrica (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple. His justification of war crimes. Even by early 19th Century standards, what happened was disgusting. The thousands of civilians killed and Raped were not collateral damage. Under Fletcher's reasoning you could justify anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.198.5 (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You go to war. you watch your friends die. you see your own leg blown off. then say that. 2.216.232.181 (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT here to judge the past, nor judge others on their standards. We must be careful not to apply 21st century standards to 18th and 19th century actions, nor to ignore accurate historical sources simply because we do not agree with their opinions. I may not agree with Fletcher's opinions, but his historical knowledge and research is excellent, and certainly valid as a source where facts and events are concerned. His discussion of why things happened is immaterial, and have no place in an encyclopedia anyway. Wikipedia does not judge history, it merely describes it. Please don't attempt to give modern context to historical events, or discounts valid sources simply because you disagree with the author. Audigex (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong to use Fletcher as a source, however I do think his defense of the British troops' behavior should not be in the article. As Audigex said above, "His discussion of why things happened is immaterial, and have no place in an encyclopedia anyway. Wikipedia does not judge history, it merely describes it." Checkn8 (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Wellington's belief that the British Army consisted of the "scum of the earth" made him understand the need to allow the troops free rein was needed to insure that they would obey orders to assault the next fortress. He allowed the troop riot to continue for over 2 days before he had gallows constructed to warn that mlitary discipline was restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.244.53.140 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, Wellingtons "scum of the earth" quote is an often repeated but highly selective one taken out of context. It was made in anger in the aftermath of Vitoria when many troops looted the French bagage rather than pursue the beaten enemy. He went onto say it again later but added, "but look what fine fellows we have made of them". It was in fact a nod of respect to the men. He did not "allow the troops free reign", he simply could not stop them. They were steaming drunk, bloodied and half mad from seeing their friends slaughtered hideously and simply killed any officer that persisted in attempting to halt the rampage.

Fletcher is a highly respected historian and is a perfectly acceptable source.

Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, taking Wellington's comment out of context and applying it to a siege 18 months earlier, proves nothing. Besides which, all armies of this period were susceptible to the same things. Wellington was annoyed as his troops at Vitoria, but he wasn't judging them to be any worse than troops of other nations. And he certainly wasn't commenting on Badajoz. Audigex (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Wellington's listing in the infobox

During the Siege, Wellington was either the "Earl of Wellington" or the "Viscount Wellington of Talavera and Wellington" (depending on which source you refer to) - but certianly not Duke. Should the article not call him accordingly? Wefa (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit by anonymous user 86.241.175.56

I have noted that you have edited this page on the basis of 'Reverted to pre-vandalism numbers.' Please be aware that the revised figures are based on research data provided by an accredited Spanish military historian who actually lives in Badajoz. (Please refer to and read the other data included in my edit.) These findings in his recent paper have been accepted by the Encyclopædia Britannica - as you can see from the link to the paper by Adrian Gilbert. At the recent Wellington Congress at Southampton University the following academics verified the research and mandated EB to make their changes :

   > Professor Bruce Collins, Sheffield Hallam University, UK
   > Professor Ed Coss, US Army Command & General Staff College, USA
   > Professor Charles Esdaile, Liverpool University, UK
   > Professor Alicia Laspra, University of Oviedo, Spain
   > Dr Rory Muir, University of Adelaide, Australia
   > Professor Chris Woolgar, Southampton University, UK
   > Dr Mark Thompson, author of several books on the period.
   > Andrew Grainger, Secretary General of the British Commission for Military History

Please advise me of your verifiable sources to justify the 4,000 civilian casualties.

Richard Tennant (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You state in your recent edit : "The source mentions the 4,000 figure without formally disproving it. Btw a source less biased than Encyclopædia Britannica would be very welcome when discussing British war crimes."

So I must ask you again - Please advise us of your (own 'less biased') verifiable sources to justify the 4,000 civilian casualties. This can then be correctly registered in the 'Notes'.

Richard Tennant (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit : 29 October 2019 By : 86.241.165.10

Following your edit in the ‘info box’ of the Siege of Badajoz (1812) you state: “The source mentions the 4,000 figure without formally disproving it. Btw a source less biased than Encyclopædia Britannica would be very welcome when discussing British war crimes.”

I note that this wording is the same as has been previously used :
On : 14 May 2019 By : 86.241.175.56‎
“The source mentions the 4,000 figure without formally disproving it. Btw a source less biased than Encyclopædia Britannica would be very welcome when discussing British war crimes.”
This same editor has previously reverted edits using particularly provocative phrasing :
On : 7 May 2019 “Reverted to pre-vandalism numbers.”
On : 5 January 2015 “restored numbers from before british revisionism.”

As the Australian historian, Gavin Daly of the University of Tasmania, states “Trying to quantify the number of victims is very difficult indeed given the nature of the British sources and the dearth of Spanish sources.” However an authentic contemporary Spanish source has been found in Badajoz. The full text of the research article can be viewed at:
http://www.dip-badajoz.es/cultura/ceex/reex_digital/reex_XXXIX/1983/T.%20XXXIX%20n.%201%201983%20en.-abr/RV10767.pdf
A summary blog had been compiled by the Badajoz military historians Andrés Lloret, Col. Fernando Ortiz, José María Monreal & Javier Fernández Díaz at :
http://badajoz1812.blogspot.com.es/2012/04/lista-con-los-civiles-muertos-durante.html
Both of these papers are, understandably, in Spanish. Colonel Ortiz made a translation and summary in English which was published by, the American based, The Napoleon Series :
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/battles/1812/Peninsula/Badajoz/CivilianCasualtiesBadajoz/c_civiliancasuatiessackofBadajoz.html
In the report by the Badajoz priest it list, street by street, the numbers of casualties and, in the majority, their actual names.

For the purposed of the Wikipedia article this research has been summaries as : The most detailed study of the effects of the British riot and looting of Badajoz is undoubtedly the one published in 1983 by Eladio Méndez Venegas from data collected in the Diocesan Archives of Badajoz. Research into the local archives have established that only about 300 families (between 1,200 and 1,500 people) had remained in the city. A document drawn up at the time by the priest of the Parish of Conception, which is signed ‘Bances’, presents in two folios the detailed list, per street/per parish, of the civilian dead and injured. The conclusion is that the total could be as high as 250, possibly even 280. This number may seem small but it means that there could have been between 20% and 30% of the Spanish civilians who were within the walls of Badajoz were killed or injured.

Finally, you have stated “a source less biased than Encyclopædia Britannica would be very welcome when discussing British war crimes.”
The link to EB had been included, probably, as a reliable source. This content in EN is written by Adrian Gilbert. However, as they state : ‘This contribution has not yet been formally edited by Britannica - These articles have not yet undergone the rigorous in-house editing or fact-checking and styling process to which most Britannica articles are customarily subjected.’
There was extended communication with the editors of EB. They, as requested, went back to the Adrian Gilbert and replied “Adrian does not remember where he originally got that figure—it’s been some years.” Because of this prevaricated reply from Gilbert they modified the text of the paper to read : some 200–300 civilians had likely been killed or injured. (There are sources that put the civilian casualty rate as high as 4,000, but recent research shows this estimate to be highly inflated.)

So, as you state, EB mentions the 4,000 figure without 'formally disproving' it.
So, in accordance with Wikipedia requirements, I must ask you to 'formally prove' the figure of 4,000 from your own 'less biased' but verifiable sources.

Richard Tennant (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Another map

From Charles Stewart's 1828 account of the campaign - Plan of Badajoz and its environs, invested March 17th 1812: https://archive.org/details/narrativeofpenin00lond/page/n680/mode/1up Shtove (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)