Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

more BBC television trivia

On 11 March 2012 BBC’s Antiques Roadshow featured a Coutts Bank cash cheque, written by Wellington, dated 12 March 1823 (verified by the bank as genuine) for a sum of £195. The expert at hand, Clive Stewart-Lockhart, claimed that, using an "average earnings index", the cheque was worth £100,000. But this seems wrong by a factor of 10 - the wikipedia inflation conversion template gives £. Stewart-Lockhart also speculated, however, that the purpose of such a large amount of cash might have been (a) to buy the silence of a mistress, or (b) to buy an army commission for his son. Having rushed over to this article to check it all out, I was surprised to see that son Arthur was not mentioned, nor even the year of 1823. But Arthur’s article does indeed say that he ".. became an ensign in the 81st Regiment of Foot in 1823.. " Any ideas? I realise it's rather trivial, but it is quite intriguing. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Regrettably, it seems that the early 1820s are not really covered at all here. This source [1] tells us that "In 1822 he had had an operation to improve the hearing of the left ear, with the result that he became permanently deaf on that side, and was never quite well afterwards." This could usefully be added to the article, I suggest. Also that he was heaviy involved in Franco-Spanish diplomacy in this period. The famous "published and be damned" incident was in 1824 (and that publisher must have had suspicions that Wellington was open to offering a bribe?) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes

Some problems with the footnotes:

• FN 134 Siborne (1990) - Not in references
• FN 135 Summerville (2007) - Not in references
• FN 139 page needed
• FN 140 Chesney (1907) - Not in references
• FN 141 Parry (1900) - Not in references

I've moved all the books which are not apparently being referenced into the Further Reading. At a glance, several are being used, but because the citation templates are not consistently used, it is not easy to tell which one. Recommend replacing all the footnotes with the templates, so they are all in a consistent format, and which book is referred to is known. Also, the web references need access dates. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now resolved the problems with the footnotes and have inserted access dates for all web references. I am not familiar with the Harvard style templates so am struggling with that. I hope this is OK. Dormskirk (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from using the US-centric "Retrieved 2012-03-10" style dates, they don't make any sense in the long-term: is that supposed to mean 3rd October or 10th March to the rest of us? All dates, including retrieved/access dates should be using a full DMY format style, i.e. 10 March 2012 or 3 October 2012, which anyone in the world can make sense of, especially for a primarily British themed ENGVAR article. Also, page ranges need an ndash between them, not a hyphen, as was the practice previously. Please maintain consistence with referencing, and styling. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 23:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now applied the Harvard templates and will also look at converting the US style dates. Dormskirk (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I might add that this date format is always assumed to be ISO 8601 ie never US date. But I agree with Marcus. Still some bodgey footnotes:

• FN 3. Add this to the bibliography.
• FN 16. Use the template and remove the ISBN.
• FN 17. I think this should be Wellesley (2008)
• FN 158. Add this to the bibliography

Anyhowm that is good enough for me. Re-rating as a B now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

One has to be aware of the various ISO standards in order to assume them.. easier to assume that the format is always based on the articles closest related ENGVAR. Personally, I don't know or trust in ISO standards, and given the US spellings of "standardization organization" am not sure I would. Not that I don't like US spellings per se, just that I don't appreciate Draconian foreign bodies setting standards for other countries altogether, except for commercial reasons. Sounds like the EU, and we all know what complete arseholes they are in trying to influence everything. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 02:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 and MarcusBritish - Thanks for all your guidance. I have now dealt with FNs 3, 16, 17 and 158 and applied British dates and ndashes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Battle

What in pity sake does, "the loss of two eagles," in the first ¶ mean?

Addressing, without actually answering, my own question, I quote from the Wikipedia entry Battle of Waterloo, Charge of the British heavy cavalry, 4th ¶, "From the centre leftwards, the Royal Dragoons destroyed Bourgeois' brigade, capturing the eagle of the 105th Ligne. The Inniskillings routed the other brigade of Quoit's division, and the Greys destroyed most of Nogue's brigade, capturing the eagle of the 45th Ligne." Dick Kimball (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

these? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The French Army under Napoleon aspired to emulate the Roman Empire, the legions of Rome had a battle standard known as an Eagle/Imperial Eagle which was extremely important to the individual legions itself for a number of reasons.Sheodred 21:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That sounds like the sort of knowledgeable and considered WP:OR that, unfortunately, we can't use? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The Distribution of the Eagle Standards

Napoleon tried to shape France based on earlier empires which had done well and prolonged, particularly the Roman and Greek empires. See: Empire style for details on the architecture of empires. The Eagle is a symbol that has been used as a sign of strength by many countries, not just the Romans, see: Eagle (heraldry). The Eagle should not be confused with the fact that French infantry battle formations closely represent the Phalanx formation, again, of Roman and Greek origin. Napoleon's intention was not so much as to emulate anyone directly, as he was very much in favour of using massed artillery against his enemy before an attack, but to use French columns as huge human battering-rams with which to crush thin enemy lines swiftly. And for a time, under less disciplined troops like the Spanish, it worked to great effect. Come Waterloo, the Brits and their allies were more than familiar with the weaknesses of such a formation, were very stubborn and knew how to deny a column's advance effectively. To answer the original question more directly, "the loss of two eagles" is similar to saying "two French standards were captured" - at that time in history, the loss of a regimental flag was deemed a great dishonour to any army and often affected morale. Officers could be discharged for losing their standard in some armies. French eagles were issued by Napoleon personally, and so were highly protected by his troops, and prized trophies by the enemy. Nobody risks their lives these days for a flag in battle, they are ceremonial, but they were also a means of identification in those days, as standards were often unique - if you capture an enemy standard, it makes it difficult for a general to issue orders regarding that units actions, so there are tactical benefits to understand also. The capture of standards in Napoleonic battles is often a notable event, warranting their mention to some degree. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 01:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be quite a long footnote! Martinevans123 (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you're simply seeking to make the article more clear to non-Napoleonic historian readers, who like yourself might have no idea what "the loss of two eagles" refers to, I would simply suggest rewording it to "the loss of two French Imperial Eagle standards" - the addition of "standards" alone explains what an "eagle" serves as, the added wikilink gives those readers a chance to look into it further, if needs be, and the French Imperial Eagle article is fairly decent. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 08:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I had a vague idea, before someone else asked, above. So I added the current link. But yes, it would be better to spell it out. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Napoleonic "eagles" were just regimental standards, every European army at the time used them. A regimental standard represented the regiment itself, capturing one shows that you defeated that particular regiment. Every European army at the time used to tally the standards they captured along with enemy guns and casualties inflicted. If change should be made for clarification then the term "eagles" should be replaced with "standards", if you still don't understand then you should read an article about battle standards, an article on the 1st Duke of Wellington is no place for a lengthy discussion on the symbolic importance of regimental standards. 123.243.215.92 (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

On Wellington's Personality

Should there be no mentioning of Wellington's rather peculiar relationship to Siborne who was commissioned to work a model of the Battle of Waterloo as Mr. Hofschroer desribed it in "Wellington's Smallest Victory"? I thought this amounted to truly important revelations regarding Wellington's personality! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.192.11 (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Grey - Not Peel - succeeded as PM

In 1830, Earl Grey succeeded the Duke as Prime Minister. You have Peel shown. Also, this error is repeated at the page for Peel. And maybe other places. Grey was PM from Nov 1830 through July 1834. Also the succession to Malbourne - sp? - may be mixed up in all this. John Servais (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC) John Servais

Wellington was Prime Minister on 2 occasions. The first time he was succeeded by Grey in 1830. The second time he was succeeded by Peel in 1834. I think it is reported correctly in the article but I will be happy to check again if you can point out the paragraph with the error. Road Wizard (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I was in error. Missed the double service. After posting above, I went back looking carefully. My apology for that. And my other items are also errors flowing from the first one. John Servais (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth

Arthur’s date of birth is stated as either the 29th of April or the 1st of May. Should it not have been the 30th of April? Can anyone explain this to me?

2013-08-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.154.30 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)