Talk:Peninsular War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spain Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Portugal Portal
Peninsular War 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Portugal To-do:
MILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Term Napoleonic War

This term to describe the time period is at best academically offensive to any that have studied the subject, and at worst dismissed out of hand. The Peninsula War was a large part in French plans in Europe, however Napoleon was far away. The term Napoleonic Wars is offensive to all but Napoleons supporters. Londo06 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem right - Napoleon was the leader of one side throughout the war, and the term Napoleonic War is widely used, googling in at double the hits for Peninsula War. We sometimes still see the term Hitler War for WW2, not implying approval, but acknowledging the prime focus. And the Romans used the term Punic War, though not approving of the Carthaginians! John Wheater 09:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a Napoleon supporter, and I don't find it offensive. :) -Gomm 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up bad usage of the term 'Napoleonic Wars' to not be incorrect. Grammatical change, not removal of the term. Londo06 17:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosh. Napoleon campaigned in Spain against Sir John Moore, and Napoleonic Wars is the conventional term in English. Londo06 may be thinking of the genuine difference whether it should apply to the wars before 1800, when Napoleon is only one of many generals; but this is not one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Above is true. Napoleonic Wars as a term is largely a redirect if you like. It could be placed in the back of a book to point you towards a specific page. You will find little of it as a term in a book referring to the period that involved the likes of Sir John Moore, Arthur Wellesley. Londo06 10:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no trouble with the term and neither does Richard Holmes [1] It seems to be understood by most as the period when France under Napoleon was at war with most of the rest of Europe.GraemeLeggett 11:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I was harsh in my assertion that the term was offensive. I have spoken with Richard Holmes at Cranfield, (although never being enrolled there) about this fact. He is not a great supporter of my initial position. But I now fall in line with the redirect edict, and that it is okay to use the term when talking about the reasons and actions of the British forces involved on the continent. I do not contend that the term is not useful to getting people to read about the role of forces against the French. Londo06 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Irregulars

'Peninsular War...Its course was largely dictated by Spanish irregulars and the failure of Napoleon's large armies to pacify the people of Spain.[1]' - This flies in the face of the accepted historiography, they were certainly effective and greatly more than nuisance value.

I think that phrasing certainly warrants attention. Not sure that British (and Irish forces) were acting in a diversionary capacity over any great length of time. Londo06 06:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding your objection. (Who are "they" in your first paragraph, the Spanish or the British?)
Do you feel that the present citation does not adequately illustrate or substantiate the statement in question? What, in your mind, constitutes the "accepted historiography?" (Esdaille? Gates? Chandler? Solis?) Different historians have certainly promoted competing interpretations of the conduct of military operations by the various belligerents in Spain, but as far as I'm aware, none would seriously doubt the fundamental points set out in the introduction. Albrecht 06:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the role of the British army, I can only answer that the introduction does go on to say:
“ In the final years of war, with the French seriously weakened, the Allies drove into Spain from Portugal and pursued a series of offensives that ultimately brought them to the Pyrenees and liberated the country. ”
However, the Allied war effort only took on this character in 1812 and 1813. I think it's clear that for much of the conflict Wellington's campaigns were either defensive or diversionary in nature (I'm pretty sure the Chandler citation says this explicitly, but in any event it's repeated elsewhere). And while I hate to invite these comparisons, let's be honest, this article has had a far graver tendency to overplay the British role than the Spanish one (which, until I added material, hardly existed at all). Here's what it used to say about the guerrillas:
“ During the war the British gave aid to Portuguese Milicia Levies and Spanish guerrillas who tied down thousands of French troops. The British gave this aid because it cost them much less than it would have done to equip British soldiers to face the French troops in conventional warfare. ”
Wow, I'm sold. Albrecht 06:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

They, being the Spanish and Portuguese forces. I just believe the articles early section places too much emphasis on the Spanish irregulars. The later work by years is better.Londo06 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I honestly just don't see this. In fact, apart from a razor-thin summary in the introduction, which I believe is appropriate, there's very little perspective on the guerrilla war. The sections "Invasion by Stealth" and "Imperial intervention" do discuss the Spanish regular forces in some detail, which is only fair considering they were doing most of the fighting in 1808 and 1809. And frankly, I'm a little shocked that you'd suggest the later sections have better material or are more balanced in these respects. Some of the later stuff gives way to shameful episodes of Anglocentric Wellington-worship (i.e. the Talavera campaign, which gives voice to insidious and thoroughly discredited anti-Spanish accounts of Cuesta, see Longford) and ignores entire theatres to the prejudice of the Spaniards (Valencian and Andalusian campaigns, Cadiz, Asturias). Albrecht 21:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is a subscribe to the standard British historiography. However I have looked at the introduction with an open mind, and I think there is certainly room to give credit to both Spanish irregulars, British forces and Spanish and Portuguese regular forces. Honestly believe it is too biased towards Spanish irregulars. Londo06 21:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


'The Peninsular War was one of the first wars of national liberation and the first GUERILLA CONFLICT (a term coined for this war). Its course was largely dictated by Spanish irregulars and the failure of Napoleon's large armies to pacify the people of Spain'

After re-reading the second sentence above. I believe the paragraph is badly worded and refers solely to the GUERILLA CONFLICT. I believed the second sentence was referring to the entire Peninslar War. I would have no problem with the sentiment, think the wording needings attention.Londo06 22:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The previous edit had a weird sentence before, makes for better English and also historical sense, before you could read it and think that the guerilla's were the reason for Wellesley's defeat of French forces in Portugal and Spain. 90.197.27.253 15:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


Traditionally, in anglo-saxon historiography, the importance of the guerrillas in the final defeat of the French Empire has been minimized. In his essay about the guerrilla phenomena during the war, "Como lobos hambrientos", Fernando Martínez Laínez states that the contribution of the guerrilla to the final victory is not only because the demoralization and killing of french soldiers. Probably the main contribution is the large number of French troops (some 75.000) which kept stuck in different positions in an attempt of mantaining the control over the country, which was conquered in theory only. These troops, mainly formed by veteran soldiers, couldnt engage the allied forces in battle. The guerrilla denied the French the pacification of the country. The french only feel themselves in charge of the land which they were stepping in the moment. As soon as they left, the guerrillas overrun the field. If the French could include these 75.000 veteran troops or even the half in the regular engagements with allied troops, the result of the war and the destine of Europe could have been very different. The constant complains about this fact of French officers have been registered to History in their diaries and letters to their families. Napoleón itself in his memories bitterly blame the guerrilla in the Peninsular War, which he calls the Spanish "ulcer", as the first cause of the destruction of his Empire. In think, given its importance, the guerrilla deserves an appart chapter in the article, more than this mere mention. Just an example. A letter of a French soldier to his mother, written on may 18th 1810:

[...]Since the day I became a soldier, I have never felt myself so badly like now. During the last month and a half, we had been on the mountains running behind the guerrilla. All this mountains have been looted and sacked, so here is not a single soul who is not opposed to us. We never find peasants in the villages, so we are the only inhabitants. [...] Here all the peasants are bandits. Each day they kill some one of us. We burn their villages, but all in vain. This people is incorrigible.

Laínez quotes in his book dozens of testimonies like this one. As a matter of fact, the guerrilla was a key phenomena in the French defeat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.39.123 (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Run-on sentence

Fought for control of the Iberian Peninsula. Not sure thematically that is correct, given Britains reasons for landing there and fighting through to France. It may just want a tweak. Londo06 17:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese Army Numbers

I have read (The Portuguese Seabone Empire, Charles Boxer) that the Portuguese Military numbered 200,000-250,000 strong during the war, and about 120,000 of those troops were involved in the Napoleanic Wars. Can someone please put this statistic in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.203.90 (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One of the first wars of national liberation

What is the source for this statment: "The Spanish struggle was one of the first wars of national liberation"

Because I can think of half a dozen of wars national liberation without even trying that predate this one. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

For example the disambiguation page Irish Rebellion gives half a dozen before this war and that is just one country and that list does not list all the Irish rebellions and it is only for one country! --Philip Baird Shearer 23:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That you would equate an unsuccessful ancien regime rebellion with a full scale war of national liberation suggests that you must not have a very clear idea of what the term means (and without even trying!). We can quibble about the wording all we want, but every historian who wrote about the war reached the conclusion that the Spanish independence struggle set the example for a new phenomenon in Revolutionary Europe (read, for example, Chandler p. 658-660, Gates p. 33-37, Churchill p. 258). Albrecht 03:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is convinient to dismiss other's struggles for independence as unsuccessful ancien regime rebellions. What exactly is an ancien regime? If you are arguing that the nation state did not exist until the French invented it, then how do you explain the Declaration of Arbroath and the wars that surrounded it, and Shakespeare's Richard II "This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, ..."? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's much more convenient to derive material from historical literature. (And I in no way accept that I'm committed to "dismissing" Medieval or early modern Irish/Scottish independence conflicts simply by stating that they were not national liberation wars in the commonly accepted sense of the term.) This isn't a discussion forum. I don't debate original research, nor am I inclined to analyse Shakespeare. If you dispose of scholarly material that indicates that something on this page is in error, then we'll discuss changes. If you don't, then there's nothing more to be said about it. Albrecht 21:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What is what do you think is an ancient regime? I have given you examples of both rebellions and nationalism from one very small restricted geographical area of the word that shows it was not one of the first. I would point out that the claim in the article does not have a citation to back it up.

Sorry, no game. I'm not here to educate you. (Read a book on early modern Europe, or, you know, look it up on Wikipedia.) And I would point out that it's totally unreasonable to demand a citation in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Your consistently disruptive behaviour here suggests you're taking a contrarian position on everything within reach just for the sake of being a nuisance. Stop it.
Please read WP:V Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. It is reasonable to demand a citation, and WP:V places the emphasis on the person wishing to keep information in an article to provide a source. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You have your citation. Now you can go ahead and complain that it's not clear enough, and ask for a second one, and once that one is found unsatisfactory, a third. Albrecht 07:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Now to another sentence:

"[the wars] outcome was largely decided by Spanish irregulars and the failure of Napoleon's large armies to pacify the people of Spain: (source:Gates, p. 33-34. Gates notes that much of the Grande Armée "was rendered unavailable for operations against Wellington because innumerable Spanish contingents kept materialising all over the country. In 1810, for example, when Massena invaded Portugal, the Imperial forces in the Peninsula totalled a massive 325,000 men, but only about one quarter of these could be spared for the offensive—the rest were required to contain the Spanish insurgents and regulars. This was the greatest single contribution that the Spaniards were to make and, without it, Wellington could not have maintained himself on the continent for long—let alone emerge triumphant from the conflict.)

The source does not say that the outcome was "largely decided by Spanish irregulars". One could just as easily write "The outcome was largely decided by British regulars", or the defeat was "largely due to French mistakes". One or all of them may be correct but, to draw any of these conclusions from the source provided in my opinion the conclusion drawn breaks WP:OR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. --Philip Baird Shearer 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. "Largely deciding the course of a war" is a palpably reasonable extrapolation from (or rephrasing of) "rendering a colossal percentage of [the enemy army] unavailable for strategic operations" and allowing an ally to "maintain himself on the continent." Add to that: "without the Spanish Army it is doubtful the allies would have won the war." (p. 33) Throw in, "the Spanish 'nation in arms' presented the French with a host of virtually insuperable political and military problems. ...In the long run, they probably inflicted considerably more damage on the French forces than all of Wellington's pitched battles combined." Of course, this is just Gates; crack open any book on the topic and you'll find all the substantiation you need. And I sincerely hope you will put up or shut up next time instead of challenging me on every little detail, in obvious bad faith, when I could be writing articles. Now let's hear you justify your ridiculous crusade against the names. Albrecht 06:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that you (Albrecht) had written the sentence. Like most wars there are a combination of things which lead to victory and defeat. If it is true and common knowledge that "[the war's] outcome was largely decided by Spanish irregulars" you will have no problem finding a source which says this, without having to use "reasonable extrapolation from" the source provided, because what you see as "reasonable extrapolation from" I see as "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". --Philip Baird Shearer 07:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Quit reaching so hard, you'll strain something. Any rewording of published material will employ a degree of linguistic extrapolation, or do you suggest we simply plagiarize Gates? Once again, you resort to rules lawyering in obvious and consistent bad faith; it's abundantly clear from the three quotes above that Gates is saying the guerrillas largely (not exclusively, as you conveniently misrepresent in your strawman above) decided the course of the war; demanding that I search for those exact words is an outrageously impertinent request from someone whose only recent contribution to the article involves shoving the names of the war to the bottom of the page. Consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, find other editors who agree with you, and I'll consider your objection. Albrecht 07:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with rewording something - of course this has to be done, but the rewording should not advance a position that is not in the source. Take the Battle of Waterloo as an example. Wellington may well have lost the battle if the Prussians had not turned up, but of course he would not have fought the battle unless he thought they would. So to extrapolate from an author who writes "If the Prussians had not turned up Wellington may well have lost the battle of Waterloo" to "The Prussians won the battle of Waterloo" is more than a rewording. From my reading of the text quoted from Gates, to your interpretation of that text is in my opinion similar to the Waterloo example. Also I am not the only one who thinks this as the recent edit by user:Londo06 (rv bizzare claim that Guerrillas won the Peninsular war) shows. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More distortion and misrepresentation on your part. Gates, of course, says much more than you seem ready to admit; following your analogy, he would also contend that, "because of Blucher's Prussians, a colossal percentage of the French army at Waterloo was unable to fight Wellington," that "the Prussians allowed Wellington to maintain himself in the field," and that "Blucher's Prussians inflicted considerably more damage on the French at Waterloo than all of Wellington's actions combined." If this were the case, saying that the Prussians "largely decided the course of the battle," (and not "won the battle," as you persist in saying—why would you do it, when you know that it's inaccurate? You're either lying, or not paying attention. Both are plausible.) would be a perfectly accurate way to represent the author's stance. And, in one final irony, that is in fact the position typically promoted by military historians. Witness Chandler: "Wellington's army had hardly any chance of ultimate victory on its own, and the opportune arrival of a growing number of Prussian troops on the French right flank undoubtedly swung the fortunes of the day." Are we clear? Because I don't want to see these misconceived, unsourced, "discussion forum" objections again.
And finally, if you'd done more than glance at my Talk page in your frenzy to drop frivolous WP:3R notices, you might have noticed part of this exchange:
“ Incidentally, the sentence reads "the course of the Spanish struggle," i.e. not necessarilly the invasions of Portugal (of course the two were vitally related affairs). Your alternative, "the guerrilla war was won by guerrillas," is somehow short of an ideal encyclopaedic sentence. Albrecht 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. Previous edits from a while back had all the names of the Peninsular War, and from further back it read that they were responsible for French defeat. My apologies, and acknowledgement that it was poor english on my behalf. Londo06 18:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I really ought to apologize as well; I was frustrated on other grounds and snapped at you somewhat inadvertently. Just to resolve the matter further, I don't subscribe to the notion that Spanish irregulars and militia levies could have triumphed over the French army unaided; people like Charles Esdaile and Geoffrey Best (in line with the thought of mainstream military historians, such as Keegan) have concluded that French counterinsurgency operations in 1811-1812 would probably have succeeded in stamping out resistance movements if not for the pressure exerted by Wellington and the Anglo-Portuguese. The question of "who won" is too simplistic since it ignores the context in which either side could pursue military operations with any chance of success, namely the presence of powerful regular armies relieving pressure off indigenous resistance movements, while in turn maintaining themselves courtesy of the massive attrition, disruption, harassment, and strategic limitations imposed on their enemies by the guerrillas. I will aim to describe all this at length in the future, and you're most welcome to help. Cheers, Albrecht 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 ”
Nice try, chief. Albrecht 15:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please exaplain why you reverted the changes I and others made to the second paragraph:

  • From "Winston Churchill considered the unified universal Spanish uprising to be the first time that this had occured in a large European nation." back to "The Spanish struggle was one of the first "wars of national liberation"
The citation functions as an example substantiating the narrative text. Its purpose is not to replace the text—the question is most definitely not what Winston Churchill himself said or thought.
Then find a better source. As I said in the edit history, Churchill is not the person to use as a source for this as he was an British imperialist, but if you do use him, because I think it is a controversial point then the author of the point should be attributed in the text.. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No. While I actually agree with you about Churchill's Anglo-Imperialist sympathies, and use his work (much of which is utter garbage) with great care and reluctance (being bludgeoned into turning out citations left and right for your little Inquisition), the truth of this empirical statement does not depend on an assessment of Churchill's character. You want to challenge him? Fine. You find a better citation. Lots of luck. Albrecht 21:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • From "The English language borrowed the word guerrilla from its use in this conflict." (back) to similar words used before "and the first modern, large-scale guerrilla conflict, from which the English language borrowed the word" -- Because the new source given says "one of the first occasions" not the first modern (what is "modern"?).
A fair point at face value, although if you read the article, you'll see that those other occasions were Revolutionary-era Fabian tactics employed by franc-tireurs and partisans in the Tyrol and the Vendée, etc., i.e. nothing on the scale we're discussing here. But "one of the first" instead of "the first" is fine.
You have not defined modern -- I would take modern to be from 22 August 1485. --Philip Baird Shearer
Oh, okay. Good for you. For someone who cries wolf at every turn, you sure are fond of original research. Albrecht 21:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not original research it is widely accepted that "On August 22 1485 Richard III's army met with forces supporting Henry Tudor's claim to the throne in a battle that ushered in the modern era."[2] Besides I do not have to source a statment on the talk page. As the same article says "As every good schoolchild knows, the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 brought an end to Richard III’s reign and ushered in the Tudor dynasty which brought us some of the most colourful monarchs to grace the throne." So it is not exactly original research to say that "I would take modern to be from 22 August 1485". --Philip Baird Shearer 11:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating. But if you want an indication of when the modern period started, try the article on modernity. Albrecht 13:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That should be Modern Times not modernity. GraemeLeggett 14:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Today the most common periodization of European history is Classical antiquity (800 BC - AD 500), Middle Ages (500-1500), Early Modern period (1500-1789) and finally Modern period (1789- ). Although it is highly regional, for example in my country, Sweden, the middle age ended with the dissolving of the Kalmar Union. Carl Logan 15:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • From "Its outcome was in part decided by Spanish irregulars and the failure of Napoleon Bonapart's large armies to pacify the people of Spain" back to "Its outcome was largely decided by Spanish irregulars and the failure of Napoleon's large armies to pacify the people of Spain:"
I suppose I could compromise on partly decided. If you have suggestions for rewriting the sentence entirely, I'd be glad to hear them (the fundamental point is to highlight the vital importance of the Spanish national war, but nothing necessarily compels us to use the word "outcome," etc.) Albrecht 18:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
"in part decided" means what is says neither more or less. The size of the contribution like that of French mistakes and British involvement can be discussed in depth in the article sections. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No. The guerrilla war was a decisive cause of the French defeat, not just "one of many." I have made this abundantly clear above, and it's up to you to come to grips with the historical literature. Albrecht 21:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
"In part decided" encompasses that interpretation. ---Philip Baird Shearer 22:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

--Philip Baird Shearer 17:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign names for the war

There is no need to clutter up the introduction with lots of information on what other nations call the Peninsular War. This information if it is worth including can be placed in a separate paragraph. For example the Portuguese, Spanish and the French articles do not clutter up the introductions by including each others name for the war and mentioning that in English it is known as the Peninsular War, why should they? It is of marginal interest to most people and if it needs to be included at all then putting it into a section means that the page will still show up in Internet searches without needlessly disrupting the flow of the introduction. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal has no real foundation on which to rest, considering that no other article on wars uses skeleton sections for foreign names; instead they list multiple names right in the intro as I did (three picked at random: Italian War of 1494-1498, Yom Kippur War, Russo-Swedish War (1741–1743)). Also, we should bear in mind the ubiquity of the name "Spanish War of Independence" in other languages; if every language but English used "Great Patriotic War," I don't think we would object to an intro reading: "The Eastern Front of World War II or Great Patriotic War was a...". Once again: Do you deny that a sizeable number of present-day English-language historians and scholarly publications (Esdaile, Gates, Tone, Britannica, Revolutionary Spain) employ the term? Is it not enough that Spanish War of Independence is used in the German, French, Italian, and Hungarian wikis (besides Castilian and other Spanish dialects)? Do you suppose you have any precedent for burying alternate names in footnotes? (go ahead, pick more articles at random: Seven Years' War, Austro-Prussian War, War of the Grand Alliance—all list a variety of names right in the introductory paragraph). Your ad hoc argument about clutter takes no account of realities; the names (they are only three, I don't know why you insist on speaking as if there were twelve) are smoothly written into the flow of the prose, and removing them is a demonstrably misguided, unprecedented, and counterintuitive project. Albrecht 07:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The English Civil War it has a section called terminology, to discuss names other than the English Civil War as does the Seven Years' War with a section called "Names". Battles like the Battle of Spion Kop do so as well. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
(This is it? This is your response? This cop out is your only excuse for two days of disruption, headaches, and brute reverts? Wow, three exceptions. Truly, a masterpiece.)
Evidently drops in the bucket. Here's twenty more that fit my description: American Revolutionary War, Tecumseh's War, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Taiping Rebellion, Indian Rebellion of 1857, Second Italian War of Independence, Spanish-Moroccan War (1859), Rif War (1920), Rif War (1893), Ifni War, Dakota War of 1862, Second Schleswig War, Chincha Islands War, War of the Triple Alliance, North-West Rebellion, First Boer War, War of the Pacific, Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), Chinese Civil War.
So you've found a handful of quasi-exceptions to the rule (one not even being a war). So what? You have yet to say a single word demonstrating that this article ought be one of those exceptions. (What you probably failed to notice, or simply ignored, as you do everything that conflicts with your erroneous assumptions and impressions, is that topics such as the Seven Years' War or the English Civil War take genuine historiographical interest in issues of nomenclature, often for political reasons, which might in fact allow for a section discussing these phenomena. In some cases, such as the American Civil War, it might even require an entire article to set out in full. That's fine, only it's nothing like what you're proposing, which is to dump names that need no further clarification down near the bottom of the page, for no real reason. In brief, nothing in your excuses is in the slightest related to the real, glaring weakness of your position.
You made the statment no other article, I just wanted to show you that it "ain't necessarily so". --Philip Baird Shearer 19:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
And you did a poor job, based on manipulated evidence. Albrecht 19:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I would also remark that in the case of the Seven Years' War, you recently added an obnoxious link to conform to your would-be style. (!) Did you honestly believe we wouldn't notice? That I wouldn't check? How stupid do you assume Wikipedia editors to be?
I never assume that another editor is stupid --Philip Baird Shearer 19:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
(If it changes anything, I personally wouldn't mind removing "War of the French," as from what I understand to term is neither politically neutral nor terribly frequent in Catalonia—which, in any case, is not a country. That would just leave three names. However, a Catalan editor was very upset when I removed it several months back. Albrecht 08:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

In response to your editorial comment:

  • 07:29, 14 May 2007 Albrecht (Two reverts after two invites to discuss. Never replied to my points. Reported.)

Plese notice that I created this section before I had made an edit at "07:23, 14 May 2007 Philip Baird Shearer (Other names for the war)"

Also I had already made my position clear in the edit history:

  • 19:47, 12 May 2007 Philip Baird Shearer(Move the spanish name into footnote because otherwise it could be mistaken as a name used in English texts.)
    19:53, 12 May 2007 Albrecht (It _is_ used in English texts, and in many other languages beside.)
  • intermidiate edit by PBS
    20:21, 12 May 2007 Albrecht (... Restore Spanish name; no reason for removing it.)
  • 20:54, 12 May 2007 Philip Baird Shearer (The spanish name is not deleted but moved to a footnote. ...)
    21:50, 12 May 2007 Albrecht (Restore name used almost in every other wiki: Zero justification for burying it in a footnote (and improper use thereof).)
  • 23:24, 12 May 2007 Philip Baird Shearer (Moved more of theforeign names for the war into a footnote. Why is the French name for the war not in this list?)
  • 10:08, 13 May 2007 Philip Baird Shearer (new section "Other names for the war")
  • 10:18, 13 May 2007 Philip Baird Shearer (→Other names for the war - Not shure that this section is needed as the links to other languages in Wikipedia covers this and other languages do not bother with other names in other languages.)
    21:09, 13 May 2007 Albrecht (Returning names to intro, as is the practice in _every other war article_. I sincerely hope you discuss instead of reverting.)
  • 05:53, 14 May 2007 Philip Baird Shearer (puttting foreign names for the conflict back into their own section. ...)
    06:17, 14 May 2007 Albrecht (Once again, please discuss your edit. I await your reply.)
  • 07:23, 14 May 2007 Philip Baird Shearer (Other names for the war)
    Note that I have already started this section -- 07:10, 14 May 2007 -- (as you requested it in the edit history), before made this edit.
    07:29, 14 May 2007 Albrecht (Two reverts after two invites to discuss. Never replied to my points. Reported.)
    So it was not two reverts without a reply from me!

Now personally I think that what we said in the edit history explained our positions. If Albrecht you did not understand anyting I had writtten in the edit history, or thought I had not understood you, why did you not ask a detaild question on this talk page? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Because your obstinacy in mutilating an introduction to which no one had objected, when you clearly held a deficient and inferior reason to do so, your persistent edit warring, and your utter refusal to reply to my comments elsewhere, required immediate exposure. Albrecht 16:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm, guys, please stop with the reverting for the time being. The article can sit at the wrong version for a few days while you discuss the matter; I'd really prefer not to have to protect it. Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In return, I expect a genuine effort on Philip's part to work constructively toward a solution, meaning an end to his trademark filibustering and disproportionate, bad faith demands and objections (How many citations has he provided? How many sections has he written? Where is his reasoning?). Albrecht 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Without getting into this too much. First you complain in the history of the article that "[I] never replied to [your] points" (although I had replied in both the history of the article and on this talk page) now you complain that I am "filibustering and [have] disproportionate, bad faith demands". Which is it? Please see WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable. Please also look throught the history of the article, my first edit was to introduce the section on the "The Guerrilla War" (Revision as of 11:08, 6 August 2004 ) and to include Charles Oman, into further reading. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Rather, it took repeated and sustained efforts to drag you, kicking and screaming, onto this talk page (you never replied to my message except by pasting obnoxious WP:3R warnings while continuing your revert war (editing the page after I commented on your User talk)), and once here you obsessively began challenging me on every little phrase set out in the introduction, however trivial or obvious, to the point of insinuating bias and rejecting citations seemingly out of spite. You don't have to look too far for "unacceptable behaviour"; your witchhunt above is strewn with it. Not that I own the article, but as a contributor who's expended considerably more effort than anyone else on expanding and improving it, I think I should have been approached with a tad more respect than was shown here. Albrecht 19:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The terminology has to be neutral and representative of all the relevant sides involved, if is notable enough. I suggest including only the British, French, and Spanish names for the war in the lead (it is not a pressing enough matter for the world to know what it's known in Portugal or Catalonia, but it's definitely important for France and Spain).UberCryxic 18:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an English language Wikipedia there is no more reason to include other languages names for the conflict in the introduction than there is for the Spanish or French language articles to include the English name in their introductions. If this were the norm then consider how many names would be needed in articles like the Gulf War! --Philip Baird Shearer 19:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Truly, the marginalization and elimination of other nations' points of view will be a glorious service to this encyclopaedia. (...) Once again you generalize from a bizarre example with no bearing on the current article, ignoring or distorting whatever fails to support your prejudices (the Gulf War introduction does, in fact, list a number of alternative names. Oops!). Sorry chief, but your personal preference for what should or should not be in the intro can't overcome brute facts. If this is all that you can say in defence of your edits then I suggest you desist from trying to force them through, because they are neither workable nor acceptable. Albrecht 19:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think they are different alternative English names, of which there are many for that particlular conflict. but even so only 2 of all the English names that are listed lower down the article, are listed in the first paragraph.--Philip Baird Shearer 20:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
How different is that from what we had previously? UberCryxic has already suggested eliminating two of the names that are less relevant globally. Even your hand-picked, rather extreme example (of the Gulf War), to which I don't assign much weight, looks a lot like what we're proposing. Albrecht 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Extreme examples tend to focus the mind on why what may seem like sensible suggestion is not. Looking at the Spanish article on the war I do not see other languages names mentioned. Why do you think that English Wikipedia should have them? Because I do not think that any foreign names need to be mentioned in this article, as anyone who wants to know that they are can follow the links to the other language Wikipedias. However as a compromise I am willing to leave them in a subsection if you insist on them remaining in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, that's hardly any compromise at all. (If I understand you, your solution is...to leave the article exactly the way you decided it should be. Some concession.) Given the number of English articles I cited above that incorporate foreign or alternate names right in the lead section, I find your appeal to a foreign wiki extremely suspect and unconvincing. (Although I will remark that the German, French, Italian, Hungarian, and Dutch wikis have multiple language names in the introduction—once more, your pick was amazingly selective!) Not to assign fictitious importance to one example, but striking a comparison between two extremely dissimilar articles in terms of scope and content hardly "focuses the mind on what is sensible or not." I think it's time you recognize that you're clearly the minority here, because it's long been obvious to the rest of us. Albrecht 13:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It is a compromise because my first preference was to remove them. The second which I implemented was to place them in a footnote and the third was to place them in their own section because you complained about them being in a footnote. Your compromise seems to be to move them back into the introduction which is where they started! The problem of "eliminating two of the names" is that these things are like a hydra (or wack a rat). Who is to judge which foreign names get in and which do not (I for example added the French name for the conflict)? If there are any names at all, it is only time before all the participants in the war will have all their alternative names listed. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Another would-be slippery slope which flies in the face of all known precedent (apparently the editors of those thirty-odd articles above were willing to take this awesome risk!). Please. Be serious. In a war between only four countries (and which in languages worldwide is still principally known only as "Peninsular War" and "Spanish War of Independence"), I somehow doubt we need to worry about Macedonians, Maori, and Mayans cramming their nations' names into the introduction. But it's great to see that you were able to faux-compromise between three of your own decisions. Albrecht 17:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
As for the problem of choosing which names to include, I don't think the terrifying ambiguity and relativity to which you constantly appeal corresponds at all with the facts. To begin with, there's absolutely no reason why non-participant countries ought to have their names (presuming they even have distinct nomenclature; you seem to be persistently missing the point that "Peninsular War" and "Spanish War of Independence" are ubiquitous) included, and I sincerely doubt that anyone would suggest the contrary. Beyond this, we can probably agree, as UberCryxic suggested, on the very reasonable decision to limit ourselves to the most globally relevant names, i.e. "Spanish War of Independence" and perhaps Guerre d'Espagne. This leaves you with a "worst-case" maximum of three extra names and a likelihood of one or two. Hardly the doomsday scenario you describe. Albrecht 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
About time you flagged this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force. GraemeLeggett 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

From from the talk pages of Philip Baird Shearer and Albrecht:

More eyes the better. You might also consider an RfC. However before we do that I will offer you one last compromise. We can move the text from the section back into the introduction providing it is in a stand alone paragraph not attached to the first paragraph. Personally I don't see where we can put it without it breaking up the flow of the introduction. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm almost amazed that you can speak of protecting the "flow" when the introduction begins like this:
“ The Peninsular War was a war in the Iberian Peninsula. An alliance of Spain, Portugal, and the United Kingdom battled the French Empire during the Napoleonic Wars. The... ”
I'd say choppiness is the main issue at present, which the addition of an extra name or two could hardly exacerbate. I have considered your suggestion of putting the names in a separate paragraph but I can't find a place that sits well; having the reader pause to read a paragraph exclusively on the names seems like an unforgivable interruption, especially in the introduction, where space is so precious. You may be right, though, about the removal of parenthetical translations (i.e. Spanish War of Independence (Guerre de la independencia espanola)); like you said, the interested reader can simply consult the non-English wiki of his choice.
For the moment, I would propose something like this (the precise phrasing can be subject to considerable revision):
“ The Peninsular War or Spanish War of Independence was a Napoleonic war in the Iberian Peninsula that involved an alliance of Spain, Portugal, and the United Kingdom against the French Empire. The... ”
I'm not particularly concerned about Guerre d'Espagne as it seems to be a fairly unassuming term applied to any conflict in Spain—and mainly the Spanish Civil War. I can find another place. The Portuguese name, meanwhile, can be used in "Consequences in Portugal," which should please everybody. But I remain convinced in my case for Spanish War of Independence. Again, you have my assurance that in no circumstance would I approve of additional names entering the introduction. Albrecht 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem with "The Peninsular War or Spanish War of Independence" gives them an equal weighting which even a simple google search proves is not true:
  • about 457 English pages for "Spanish War of Independence" -wikipedia -- but a look through those pages shows that most of them are one way or another either attached to a Spanish source or in the case of Encyclopaedia Britannica is being restricted to the guerrilla war.
  • about 220,000 English pages for "Peninsular War" -wikipedia
Just taking a raw number from that (forgetting the quality of the pages and assume the rubbish pages are in proportion) that gives a ratio of 0.2%. To include the "Spanish War of Independence" in the first paragraph when it is so infrequently used is in my opinion not appropriate. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
That's an excellent point in principle, except Wikipedia does not operate this way: We name pages in line with the most common English name, but we consider contents based on global importance. Concerning wars specifically, I am not aware of any rule that a foreign name has to be anywhere near as common as the English one before we put it in bold; judging by the examples I showed you before, editors consistently have been very liberal. For example, "Second Italian War of Independence" (-wikipedia) occurs on Google only 547 times, "la invasión estadounidense de mexico" only twice, "Saskatchewan Rebellion" only 770, "Saltpeter War" 291/64,400 (proportion to main name), "Nationalist-Communist Civil War" 78/116,000, "Second Moroccan War" 59, "Rebellion of Great Peace" 2/110,000, "Charles VIII's Italian War" 6/68,000, "Fourth Arab-Israeli War" 1,860/365,000, "Third Italian Independence War" 135/36,000. In brief, you're holding this article to standards that clearly are not in force anywhere else. Albrecht 22:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets see if anyone else wants to comment on this exchange :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 14:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


My concern for alternate names is that may not have the same scope. To my understanding Peninisular War covers all the activities of the period across the Iberian Peninsular. Did a Spaniard of the time or later consider the actions by the Portugese on their own territory as part of the Spanish War Of Independence? GraemeLeggett 15:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that that's a question with which we should be concerned. Does "Third Italian Independence War" connote a struggle played out almost exclusively between Prussia and Austria in Bohemia? Does "Peninsular War" offer any indication of the (admittedly brief) campaigns in southern France? Albrecht 17:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any even remotely common term used by people who have English as their first language apart from 'Peninsular War'. If you want to stick in other countries' names for the conflict in there's no harm but they should go in an out-of-the-way section, such as exists at the end currently. And even then, they are of trivial importance. That's my opinion, for what it's worth. Agema 14:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What you personally have or have not seen is not a subject for discussion. Additional names for conflicts have appeared, and do appear, in the introduction, in bold. They are not, and should not be, shoved into a rump, sterile section inserted at the end for the purpose. That has never been Wikipedia practice; evidence in abundance above. And I generously invite you to explain to the dozens of millions of Spaniards, Latin Americans, and Continental Europeans why anything outside the insular English nomenclature is "of trivial importance." (In a war fought primarily by Spanish-speakers. In Spain.) At the same time, maybe you could tell me why Britannica writers, who, I dare presume, are native English speakers, dared draft an entry for "Spanish War of Independence?" Albrecht 16:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Verbose, rhetorical, accusatory outrage over small-mindedness are not conducive to debate. This is an English language Wikipedia, and users should expect to know English language terms. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Philip Baird Shearer has provided all the evidence for why his position is right, he asked for opinions, I agreed with him.Agema (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correction

The article says: "The combined allied force had a sterling opportunity to defeat the French corps of Victor at Talevera, but Cuesta's insistence that the Spanish would not fight on a Sunday (July 25)..."

It doesn't give any sources about where this information comes from. I don't know that much about history, but even if the quote is right, I don't think the reason because the Spanish would not fight was because it was Sunday, but because it was Saint James day, patron saint of Spain.

No question, the section on Talavera is extremely questionable and inaccurate. (for starters, the Sunday in question was the 23rd, not the 25th) Beyond that, it's also embarrassingly dense and bloated at 324 words for one battle (even Saragossa, a 3-month siege, only claimed 161 words. Most battles have been limited to one or two sentences.) Needless to say, I will rewrite it if corrections are not forthcoming. Regarding the incident in question, Longford explains Cuesta's refusal in these terms: "His army was too tired; he had not reconnoitered sufficiently; the bridge might not bear his artillery." While she agrees that "the Allies missed a unique chance" because of the delay, she points out that Wellesley's initial reaction was hardly disappointment: "that omission I consider fortunate, as we have dislodged the enemy without a battle, in which the chances were not much in our favour." (237)
I ditched the completely wrong dates, removed anything about "not fighting on a Sunday", tweaked the text a bit, and provided a couple of refs. I didn't do a lot about the density of the text though - that could still do with looking at. Carre (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Is it peninsula or peninsular?--Moonlight Mile 12:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campaignbox

This article probably needs a campaignbox listing the battles of the Peninsular War. -Gomm 18:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It has nine. Albrecht 19:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And yet none of them are on this page. Shouldn't there be a campaignbox on this page that lists the battles of the Peninsular War? Do we need a new page for the Battles of the Peninsular War? What is the point of having a campaignbox, if we hide them from the readers. If the page needs nine campaignboxes, then shouldn't we put them on the page where we can see them? -Gomm 22:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomm (talk • contribs)
We could try that, but the page layout might suffer—I'm not aware of other articles listing so many. Editors typically make a meta box (i.e.) featuring the war's campaigns and theatres (a bit impractical here, since we have no articles on the different theatres, nor is the existing literature very consistent about what they might be) rather than a universal list of battles. Albrecht 22:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not a clever formating expert, but I think there is a way to set the default status to 'hide' so each box will only take up one line of space, until the reader clicks to 'unhide' it. The extra nine lines probably wouldn't be too bad. Gomm 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomm (talk • contribs)
Since they're derived from the standard navbox format now, they'll automatically collapse when a certain number is on the page at once. I don't know whether that helps or not, though; an alternative idea might be to position them individually, in the relevant sections. Kirill 23:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to shorten the titles, so they are more likely that each take only a single line. They are almost all taking two lines on my browser. Gomm (talk • contribs) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes and references

Quick request first: there are a few publications used in <ref></ref> tags that aren't in the References or Further reading section (Churchill, Chandler's The Art of Warfare on Land, Laquer and a source for Napoleon's Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène). Could they be added to References, please? In addition, I would guess that the Esdaile refs are to The Peninsular War: A New History rather than the other two Esdaile works listed in Further reading. Again, should be clarified.

As a final thing, would there be any objections to me changing the References and Further reading sections to use {{citation}}, just to ensure all the books are detailed consistently? Carre (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I went back and found the Laquer one (though further research discovered that it is actually Laqueur), but it was a pain in the rear to find. Unsurprisingly it was the victim of a revert war.  :( good luck finding the others! Charles (Kznf) (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allies crossed into France

Did "the allies finally crossed into France, fording the Bidasoa river." Did troops from all three allied nations cross into France? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. Gates (p. 438, Pimlico edition) speaks about "Anglo-Portuguese" battalions attacking Maucune's camp, and later on that page states that "Alten's Light Division, backed by several of Giron's Spanish regiments" had to make a serious frontal assault at Vera. Gates also consistently refers to "the Allies" in the description of events. HTH. Carre (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
They did! In Beamish Vol 2 p 253 : ..while the Spaniards under Don Manuel Frere crossed higher up in front of Buriston. Anne-theater (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quality drive

Ladies and Gentlemen watching this page,

I believe that it should be pretty straight forward to take this article up to FA standard. I don't wish to "take over" this article to achieve that goal, so would like to call for a collaboration, if people agree that it's worthwhile trying for it.

To my mind, there are a few things that need addressing:

  • Referencing, obviously. I personally can bring something like 20 reputable reference sources to fill the holes, but I don't have all of the sources currently being used (see the thread a couple above this one); that said, I don't see any reason why, between us all, we can't properly inline cite everything in this article.
  • Prose: there are some problems here, but I know a few decent copy-editors who would be able to polish up the prose relatively quickly, and I'm sure you lot also do.
  • Accuracy: I have noticed a few inaccuracies in the article – not, I think, down to any POV pushing or anything like that, but simply errors that creep in while trying to use summary style and missing important pieces, or getting timelines slightly wrong.

There may be MOS issues in the article, but I should be able to fix most of those myself, and if not I'm sure anything we miss would be picked up and sorted at FAC.

Would anyone be interested in working with me on this? I'd suggest polishing it up first, then going for a peer review (whether milhist, or general PR). The article already has a Portugal project A-class, so GA wouldn't be worth the delay. Milhist A-class only takes a few days, so that could be the next step, and finally the FAC itself. Anyone? Carre (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1812

The real tipping point of the whole war was the campaign of 1812. The capture of the two fortress towns of Rodrigo and Badajoz and the Battle of Salamanca put the French onto the strategic defensive, they never recovered any real offensive capability. To have this campaign under the heading 'Stalemate' is misleading at the very least.

Though the French rallied and forced the Anglo-Portuguese army to fall back to the Leon-Portugal frontier they lost the whole of Andalusia, the interminable seige of Cadiz was broken and the campaign of 1813 showed how precarious their renewed hold on central Spain really was.

I think the Salamanca campaign should be given a little more prominence and, at the very least, the irrevocable French loss of Andalusia, a direct result of the Salamanca victory, should be mentioned.

Urselius (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this. I think certainly the latter part of 1810 (Torres Vedras), and pretty much the whole of 1811 (Badajoz, more Badajoz, Albuera, and yet more Badajoz) could be fairly described as "stalemate", but not 1812. For a precedent, Gates refers to 1812 as "the turning of the tide" – no reason why we can't use the same/similar section header for that year. Carre (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image balance

I cannot help noticing that there is hardly a single image showing either a British or Portuguese soldier (excepting Wellington) in the whole piece. The war was to liberate both Spain AND Portugal, and while the willingness to fight of the Spanish people was a pre-requisite for the war to begin and continue the presence of the Anglo-Portuguese field armies was equally vital for a French defeat to be accomplished.

Also a relatively minor clash, Somosierra, has two images whilst the two most crucial battles of the whole war, Salamanca (Arapiles) and Vitoria, have no images at all.

Is it really necessary to have quite so many images of memorials? Urselius (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)