Talk:Hundred Days

WikiProject Military history

(Rated B-Class)

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): French military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Sources and references

I have renamed these sections given reflist refers to references. Several sources are missing although referred to. Would be nice if someone added them without me having to go looking for them--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the "Health" section is wholly wrong to suggest that Napoleon could not be in the saddle for long periods. I quote verbatim from Andrew Roberts "the Emperor spent several hours in the saddle on the 17th and 18th June...and was in the saddle to enthuse...his men" (Roberts, Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Gamble). This should be changed. Nod19912 (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Nod19912Nod19912 (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)4th May 2009

Why did he leave the battle of Waterloo in a coach when riding would have been a far quicker method of flight? --PBS (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Deployments

I think that the section Hundred Days#Deployments is becoming too large for this article. I propose the we move the information about those armies not directly engaged in the major campaign into the minor campaign article.

For example the article Minor campaigns of 1815 which already includes a section on Russian Army and the German Corps which would seem to me a better place to put in the details about the Russian Armies and NORTH GERMAN FEDERAL ARMY. There are also other sections in that article where quite a lot of the other information could go and if needs be we could create a new section for details about Spain and Portugal etc.

The details of the French army below corps level, I think should also be moved into the Minor campaigns of 1815 article.

I am currently working on a detailed Waterloo campaign article (largely copied from William Siborne's book -- as I did for the minor campaigns). I hope that editors interested in these campaigns will start to edit the minor campaigns article and add in details from others authors as they will in due course on the Waterloo campaign. some of the information I am proposing to move into the minor campaign article might in the long run be better off in the new Waterloo Campaign article, but we can decide that at a later date.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the deployments article is too large for the Hundred Days article. It just needs details of the French Army of the North, and those of Welligton and Blucher with their cantonments. Rather than the deletion of the surplus info, I second your decision to place it all in to the Minor Campaigns of 1815 article as the forces detailed participated in those other campigns.--Assisting Wiki (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I copied the information into the Minor campaigns of 1815, I was not too satisfied with the results, so I have created another article called Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days into which I have copied the new information. Having done that I have reverted the section on deployment to the version 21:05, 5 June 2008. The numbers in the new article and this one may not be quite the same so some checking will be needed to match up the two sets of numbers. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I do have a nice source for the North German Federated Army and its campaign but its half a book long. I have very little on much else on the minor campaigns though. Tirronan (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

When is 100 days not 100 days

See /Archive 1#Timeline. "I took the start and end of the 100 days from this and another article. But it does not add up. ..." --PBS (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

20 March, Entry to Paris, to 8 July, Abdication

20-31	March	12
01-30	April	30
01-31	May	31
01-30	June	30
01-08	July	8
Total		111

1 March, Landed in France at Golfe-Juan, to 18 June Battle of Waterloo

01-31	March	31
01-30	April	30
01-31	May	31
01-18	June	18
Total		110

--PBS (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A search of Google books shows that "The Hundred Days, March 20 to June 29, 1815." is used in some sources (eg A history of France: from the earliest times to the establishment of the ..., by William Henley Jervis, p. 655 -- From Napoleon entering Paris to the the Prussians entering Paris

20-31	March	12
01-30	April	30
01-31	May	31
01-29	June	29
Total		102

For the other two there are also examples with a Google book search, here are two with a "limited and full view" returned by the search:

• "The Hundred Days, March 20 to July 8, 1815": The Reader's Companion to Military History', by Robert Cowley, Geoffrey Parker p. 214 "denotes the length of time King Louis VIII was absent from Paris"
• "The Hundred Days, March 1 to June 18, 1815", The French Revolution By Linda Frey, p. xxii

--PBS (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Given these numbers and the sources presented here on the talk page I am removing the request for sources in the article, because the are in the lead and not in anyway controversial as they are well know. If anyone insists on wanting sources for those dates then they can take them from this talk page. -- PBS (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Four days later

currently the article says:

Napoleon returned while the Congress of Vienna was sitting. On 13 March, seven days before Napoleon reached Paris, the powers at the Congress of Vienna declared him an outlaw; four days later the United Kingdom, Russia, Austria and Prussia, members of the Seventh Coalition, bound themselves to put 150,000 men each into the field to end his rule (Williams, David p. 59)

But the Treaty of Vienna was signed on 25 March, and AFAICT it was Article II of that treaty which bound the four powers to put 150,000 men into the field. Is there another treaty or deceleration on 17 March or is it that the powers signed this treaty four days after Napoleon arrived in Paris on 21 March which would be the Treaty of Vienna? -- PBS (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Congress of Vienna went on for sometime so the time-line for treaties coming from there were probably a bit more flexible than you might imagine. Tirronan (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I realised that the wording in the lead was ambiguous. It could either be taken as four days after the first step or four days after Bonaparte's arrival in Paris. I have changed it to be more explicit. I am not sure how the 4 days was worked out because any way I do the maths 20 to the 25 is five days. It is possible that the treaties were initialled on the 24th but I could not find a source that said it was. To date the only source that puts it before the 25th is:

• Brown, Goold; Cobb, Lyman; Williams, Edwin (1834). Williams, Edwin. ed. The Treasury of Knowledge, and Library of Reference. 1 (3 ed.). Conner & Cooke. p. 128. :

That puts the date at the 23rd. -- PBS (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did Michel Ney join Napoleon

Why did Michel Ney join Napoleon after Ney, wanting to show his devotion to King Loius XVIII? CHUCKNORRISKNOWSWHEREYOULIVE matt 03:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt5000matt (talk • contribs)

The snubbing of his wife in court, and a general feeling that he was being mearly tolerated by his betters may have gone a long way towards his actions with Napoleon. Chuck Norris lives about one hour and 15 minutes from my address so I am sure we could find each other, matter of fact I saw him at the Mesquite Rodeo last summer.Tirronan (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1 million Allied Troops?

The total allied man power may well have been 1 million. But a note should be made that the number of Allied troops participating in combat in the Low Countries would have included the 100,000 Anglo-Dutch & the Prussians own force.

At the moment, the impression is given that the Allies had 1 million troops to fight Napoleon, but he face less than that (before he was defeated). A note should be made stating how many deployed in action. Soldiers aren't much good if they don't fight! 98.176.11.141 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a difficult question to answer accurately because apart from the Waterloo campaign and the invasion of France by those armies (about 200,000), several other Collation armies converged on France and were involved in skirmishes. The two largest of those armies consisted of 250,000 (Army of the Upper Rhine (Austo-German Army)) and 200,000 (Russian) see Minor campaigns of 1815. So with the minor armies etc it is easy to see how the number quite easily exceeded half a million men and was probably the range given in the source. -- PBS (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The North German Federal Army was involved in the fortress campaign that followed Waterloo. It was about 40,000 troops. In addition it was my understanding that Spain and Portugal were both mobilizing. Europe as a whole had more than enough of the French adventures and intended to put an end to it. I have little doubt that 1 million were at some point of organizing or marching towards the French borders.Tirronan (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)