Template talk:Campaignbox Waterloo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] major minor split

From the history of the article:

01:07, 5 September 2007 Kirill Lokshin @Shouldn't really do major/minor splits, per WP:CAMPAIGN; but if truly needed, there's already a conventional format for it"

As WP:CAMPAIGN says:

The use of special formatting (such as bolding or changes in font size) in the list of battles—particularly to mark battles as "important"—is generally discouraged; while there are a few cases where such approaches may be both helpful to the reader and sufficiently well-sourced that they do not constitute original research, they are both unnecessary and confusing in most circumstances.

I think in this case it is necessary as most histories -- particularly British histories -- of the campaign are very limited after the Battle of Waterloo. They seem to assume (probably correctly) that it was all over bar the shouting. But I think that battles where there were thousands casualties ought be included in a campaign box even if they are not well known.

However I think the Neapolitan War should be broken out into its own campaign box. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If the Neapolitan War gets its own campaignbox, it should still be included on the Hundred Days page as it was after all part of the War of the Seventh Coalition. The problem is that the coverage on Wikipedia of the Hundred Days is terribly Anglocentric. There's no mention of the Austrian invasion of southern France and occupation of Lyon and Monaco, and apart from the infobox, there's no mention of the Neapolitan War. Centy – reply• contribs – 19:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that mention of the Neapolitan War should be included in the Hundred Days as should include the Austrian invasion (did the Russians and the Spanish cross the border?) as should a campaign box.If you have a reliable source why not add a paragraph or two about these events to the Hundred Days article.

But as this is a campaign box about the Waterloo campaign, I do not think that the Neapolitan War should but included in this one. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't insisting that there be no major/minor distinction; you're in a better position to determine whether it's appropriate from a historiographic standpoint here. My thought was more for the formatting; it's neater, I think, if the distinction can be made without doing away with the overall chronological ordering of the list.

(If you have any good ideas about the formatting, incidentally, you might want to drop by WT:MILHIST#Marking major/minor engagements in campaignboxes.) Kirill 03:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Conflans

I said that I did not find a reference to the Battle of Conflans in the history of the article, but I did find

Frederick C. Schneid (2002). Napoleon's Italian Campaigns: 1805-1815 Page 160 via Google Books Result. "Albertville was attacked by Austrian flying columns, who pursued the retreating French to Conflans. Suchet tried to save the situation. ..."

But I don't know if that counts as a battle. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

C. H. Gifford History of the Wars Occasioned by the French Revolution, from the ... Page 1517 also mentions this engagement:

General Bubna advanced from mount Cenis, and on the 29th, attacked the tete-du-point of Arly, near Conflans, which the enemy held with 3,000 men. The Sardinian general, Dandceaire, occupied the enemy's attention on his right; while General Frank, with the Austrian regiment, Du?as, carried the position of the tete-du-pont by assault. In this affair the Austrians lost 1,000 men. The Piedmontese behaved with great bravery. Continuing his advance, the positions of Conflans and Le Hopital were forced, and the enemy driven out of them. At the latter place, the defence was very obstinate; the allies three times took it by assault, and were three times driven back, but finally succeeded. The position of Aguibella was turned; and, without sustaining any loss, the allied army forced the enemy to abandon it. An armistice was solicited and granted for only forty-eight hours, in consequence of which the Austrians occupied Montleiiau (?), and the enemy Gregis, Tournonz, and Gily. At the same time, Suchet renewed, with greater earnestness, his desire for an armistice,...

The action is described from a different perspective by William Siborne in The Waterloo Campaign, 1815 page 776 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)