Talk:Battle of Talavera

overuse of cliché: pyrrhic

I removed pyrrhic from description - the word is overused throughout military articles for indecisive victories and is not neutral in its point of view as it has a specific meaning related to the results of Pyrrhus' campaign wherein his heavy casualties in victory could not be made up under any circumstances. Not the case here for either side.Tttom1 (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "not neutral in its point of view," (surely a Pyrrhic victory doesn't allude to the exact conditions of Pyrrhus' campaign; in this case Gates obviously meant that any hopes of an Allied campaign into Spain were completely wrecked at Talavera—not exactly what one would expect from a "victory") but for the rest I agree: it's used far too freely and often incorrectly in these pages. In fact, I would not have added it unless it was a verbatim citation from Gates, and this is a criterion I'd like to see extended across all MilHist articles. Anyway, in this case, I thought I could strike a compromise between plain "Indecisive," which would infuriate the Wellesleyites (and which can be challenged easily by dipping into the Wellesleyite scholarship), and plain "Allied victory," which is just as problematic for reasons cited above. Albrecht (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not neutral like indecisive, costly, inconclusive or even bloody, or pointless, would be, these qualifiers don't carry the trunks of legendary baggage 'pyrrhic' does. While its not as bad as say 'massacre', the implication is there in the same way as a neutral qualifier like 'decisive defeat' is a better description for Little Big Horn than say 'the Custer Massacre'. I can't speak to Gate's opinion (and the article or footnote doesn't tell me its his opinion) except to ask - is it supported by any other qualified historians or is it a minority view from Gates? There are other ways to qualify this. Perhaps say Allied Tactical victory, strategically inconclusive?Tttom1 (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

Intro information needlessly bloats article by repeating aftermath info while also contradicts the info in the rest of the article. Intro slants against Wellington while promoting Cuesta (@Albrecht: your above comments on 'Wellesleyites'?). Intro omits basic info while doing so, example: it was Cuesta who caused the failure to attack Victor and allowed the reinforcement (multiple sources for this) Intro has been edited. 62.239.159.6 (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A wish to start a conversation with the primary contributers of this article.

The push to discredit Wellington and lessen the British impact in this battle seems apparent to me in this article. Would anyone like to discuss? I just undid a revision I made because it was a precipitous reaction. Before I start to contribute I would like to hear from those who have already sweated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banesheim (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a hint 2 years on. I shouldn't bother contributing toward articles on Wikipedia that have anything to do with Military History, particularly British Military History. The entire spectrum is full of misinformation, heavy anti-British bias and so on.

Pyrrhic?

I found the old tactical allied victory/strategic French victory a thousand times better than the current version. Cryfe (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

French Foraging

aftermath has "incapable of living off the land like the French" as a reason for the allied army not reassembling in force in spain.

I suspect this statement needs a citation, or perhaps someone could explain to me if it is meant to be self-evident. Discussing with historians, I'm given to suspect it alludes in old-fashioned language to the lack of prohibition on the french military against pillage compared to the famous Wellesley penalties for looting or misconduct of any kind by all ranks. Is this correct? If so, why "incapable"? Clearly a euphemism in that instance, would be better to be more explicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdJ343 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

copy edit required

"He complained more about the failure of the Spanish to provide transport for the provisions than food attributing this to maliciousness."

This sentence does not make sense.

JF42 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty figures

These casualty figures are all wrong. Napier's figures are too high by about 1,000 men. In a careful analysis Oman concludes 5363 British casualties over the two days of the battle. Weller and Fortescue agree. Unless someone can provide compelling evidence as to why the aged, flawed, and biased account by Napier should be preferred I will amend. HenryPulleine (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to prove that Napier is biased.
The fact that his figures are older does not necessarily mean that they are wrong, unless you have reliable evidence from another reliable source that they are wrong. In that case, let's delete Bodart's estimate of 17,000 French casualties at the Battle of Salamanca, or Chandler's estimate of allied losses at the Battle of Austerlitz.
It happens, like in the Battle of Leipzig, that the losses differ greatly (for completely different reasons); in this case it is better to put an average number between two – if a reliable source indicates an average number – than to put 54,000-80,000.
"Cautious analysis" is hard to say – official estimates are very often may be far from complete, underestimated, like the Russian losses in the Battle of Stavuchany for good example (see Battle of Stavuchany#Aftermath), or the German in the Battle of Tannenberg, or the Russian in the Siege of Izmail. You deleted one historian's figures and replaced them with another historian's, although you could have neutrally presented both points of view, as is customary here. Kolya Muratov (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty with that is that not all historians are equal, and should not be accorded equal weight. For example, no-one now believes that David Irving's figure of 250,000 dead in an air raid on Dresden is accurate- and I note that the wikipedia entry for that engagement now reflects current historical thinking that the dead numbered 25,000.
With regards to Napier, his biases against Wellington (in favour of Sir John Moore) are well known and require no further elucidation. His figures are no longer accepted as accurate, and I am unclear why you reject Oman's careful (and empirical) analysis. However, I shall not press the point, though what is good for the goose is good for the gander and I shall update with any examples of larger French casualties to present both points of view as is customary.
French artillery losses will be added in, neutrally of course. HenryPulleine (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say I also do not hide my bias towards Suvorov or Napoleon as the superb generals, but that does not engage me in lying about numbers, losses, or in general (in their favor). This is the English wiki, and it is often noticeable in articles of military history how the speech of the editor supports the British side when writing articles. Similar can be said about the Russian wikip. It is not surprising. I also do not hide that I do not "fall in love" with the British military in history, it is just personal petty prejudices. In the very interesting Franco-British rivalry, I personally support the French and consider them dominant (that is just how the sympathy turned out over time).
Again, which expert did not accept Napier's figures?... Is it meant that they are less common in use? Napier is a recognized historian himself. And I do not reject Oman's figures, they have the same place of possible existence. Kolya Muratov (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Talavera