Talk:Battle of Toulouse (1814)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	France Portal Battle of Toulouse (1814) is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)

	Portugal Portal Battle of Toulouse (1814) is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Portugal To-do: edit purge Improve to Featured status Portugal Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Requests See Requested articles Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force French military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792–1815)

[edit] 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)