Talk:Battle

The article as it currently stands is poorly written. Besides occasional spelling and grammar errors, the article presents itself as a high school essay-esque study in opposites, complete with gems such as, "An army that can trust the commands of their leader's with convinction in its success invariably has a higher morale than an army that doubts its every move." I suggest a lengthy overhaul. Radishes 19:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article dominated by western battles only? There doesn't seem to be any eastern battle mentioned at all. --80.227.100.62 11:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Somebody (IP: 208.183.144.155) Vandalized the page.

Restored the previous article.

Question of definition

British military historian Sir John Keegan suggested an ideal definition of battle as "something which happens between two armies leading to the moral then physical disintegration of one or the other of them" though the origins and outcomes of battles can rarely be summarised so neatly.

Why the emphasis on armies? Would an armed conflict between any two groups be also a battle? What if one side had little or no weapons, such as in an assault on a city or a colonial war - would it still be a battle?

Herne nz 09:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right. The article does not really address the question as to how to define a battle. Another example of a queston you could add: how many combatants need to be involved before a 'fight' become a battle?.

Judging by the date of your above comments, it would seem that parts of this article are long overdue for a rewrite!. Inchiquin (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

overwhelmingly pro-English

Hello,

After reading this article I decided to share with you my thoughts. It feels that this article is overwhelmingly pro-English. The importance of the English battles is overinflated at the expense of continental Europe and the great battles fought in Asia. After all England is an island country and most known for her naval battles. I also wish there is more balance between the battles fought in the so-called "west" and "east".

There are three pictures, with two of them representing English battles (Gibraltar 1607 and Waterloo 1815) and the third battle (Gettysburg 1863) where both sides of the conflict spoke English. I would rather replace the picture of Waterloo (Napoleon in 1815 was much weaker than in earlier years, and France was alone) with the battle of Stalingrad (Germany was in its peak of military might and occupying almost the whole continent). I would also suggest to replace the picture of the little known battle of Gibraltar with battle of a greater significance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Little Bison (talk • contribs) 14:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree...too many of the examples given deal with battles fought by the United States or Britain. As such the focus seems too narrow. Ideally, the examples should be taken from different corners of the globe and also from a mix of historical periods. Inchiquin (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hase there ever been a battle or war fought where you have more than 2 opposing armies. As in 3+ separate nations all fighting each other, not where 2 nation team up as allies such as WWI & 2. Or hase there ever been a battle fought where a small army wipes out a much larger army, but conciquently looses the war thank to the casulaties. I once heard a saying where some historicle charicter hade aparantly said to the enemy King who defeated, "well, the "BATTLE" is one, byt the "WAR" is lost. Civilian knowledge (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I really can't see the similarities with Gettysburg and Waterloo, apart from the language which is completely irrelevant as they are two separate countries. (Actually far more, Prussia, France, united Netherlands, the United Kingdom, CSA, and USA have direct combatants in the two battles.) One represents perhaps the most famous European battle, the other the most famous battle in the Americas. The problem is not the selection, but the lack of examples. We should not do away or claim an article is "pro anything" simply because of examples being present while others are less so. I would suggest the addition of battles such as Sekigahara, chibi, Gaugamela, and Tsushima. This would provide numerous examples of both large, famous, and decisive battles in the Asianic theater of historical warfare. In short, do not subtract from the articl to make it less focused, but rather add to it and expand other areas.

76.181.103.83 (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Jade rat

retreat

during a battle, it was said if a soldier retreat, the supervisor can execute (kill) the soldier right away. Can someone talk about this in the article? Jack Zhp 16:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a rule of warfare, or have you forgotten that this is how battles are typically won, with one side holding the field in the face of the other routing from battle. Only the Romans and Soviets post order 227 executed men for running from battle that i can think of. I'm sure there are other examples as well, but not many more as is far from the norm. You might be thinking of desertion, where it is normal for a soldier to be executed for the act.

76.181.103.83 (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Jade rat

decisive battle

In editing the Armoured warfare article, I found it necessary to add that it was prompted by the desire to return to 19th century manoeuvre warfare and the idea of "decisive battle", this being reson d'être for the manoeuvre warfare. It would seem to me that there needs to be a separate article on the "decisive battle", because it illustrates more then singular events in history.--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)