Talk:Battle of Mons

Result:

The battle favoured neither side!!! It was an overall German victory because the Allies retreated & lost so many people. It was only a successful retreat for the Allies!! So on this note, Stop Saying It Was A British Victory!!!!! Spawn Man 06:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

True 129.0.103.17 (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

I beg to differ. One must consider the situation the BEF was put under before the battle; being outnumbered, outgunned, and left with the possibility of encirclement. The BEF inflicted roughly a 4-1 casualty rate on the Germans despite being half their number. This had a dramatic effect on German morale, effectively stopping Von Kluck's Army in tracks; giving the Allies time to regroup and consolidate. If you read the individual dispatches and letters of both British and German officers after the battle (not to mention the Kaiser's fury at the result of the engagement!) one can conclude that Mons was a vital, if costly British victory. - Morden279

YAWN!.... Spawn Man 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Spawn Man but the blinkered view is unlikely to be the best informed.

In reading the following, it should be remembered that forces other than the BEF were doing things at the same time but we are discussing Mons.

I don't think there is much room for doubt: it was not a strategic victory for the Entente. That had to wait for the Marne.

Neither is there much room for doubt that Mons was a tactical victory for the Entente.

In judging the truth of these opinions it is important to keep the broad picture in mind.

A new caution was engendered in the Central Powers' thinking by the combination of fatigue, lengthening lines of communication and the un-planned-for setbacks of which Mons was an important example. The delays enabled the Entente forces to position themselves. In this, the delays at Mons and Le Cateau were more directly relevant in connection with the French Army's resilience on the Marne and Aisne. It also allowed the retention of the BEF's integrity so that it was able to move rapidly back to the North to support the preparations already begun by the Belgian Army and the British Admiralty in Flanders, with a view to keeping the invasion away from the northern French coast. Without this, it is doubtful that Britain could have long continued maintaining an army in France owing to the difficulty of keeping U-boats away from the cross-Channel shipping required.

The German High Command clearly learned from this. In the invasion of 1940, before turning south against the French army, the German forces made sure that they reached the coast so as to prevent a combined Franco-British resistance. The two allied armies were then dealt with in turn.

While the following is not a claim which can reasonably be made, owing to the long chain of imponderables, it is not beyond possibility that Mons won the War. Or, to put it more sensibly, Mons was a link in the chain of events which won the War. Break one of those links and the chain is broken. Tactical victory though it was, a small event at a key moment can be important. (RJP 11:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

Second response to Spawn Man

If "yawn" is the finest riposte you can conjure up, sir, then you really have no right to enter into historical debates such as this. I responded with due care and consideration to the evidence at hand, and considering that veterans of the Great War are still alive today, I'd like to think that submissions to Wikipedia would reflect the respect such individuals deserve. May I pass my thanks onto RJP for providing a concise an well-informed evaluation of the battle itself

The number of casualties on the German side is unknown, but the given number of 5.000 is certainly wrong. According to official German documents the number of casualties of all six corps of the 1st army between the 20th and 31st of august amounts to 2.145, 4.932 were wounded. Source: Heeres-Sanitätsinspektion im Reichswehrministerium (ed.), Sanitätsbericht über das Deutsche Heer im Weltkriege 1914/1918 (Deutscher Kriegssanitätsbericht 1914/1918). Volume 3. Die Krankenbewegung bei dem Deutschen Feld- und Besatzungsheer im Weltkriege 1914/1918, Berlin 1934, p. 36 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.37.230 (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. You say that the total number of casualties was 2,145, but you also say that 4,932 were wounded. Casualties include individuals killed, wounded, or otherwise made unavailable for duty (through capture, etc.). Do you mean that your source states that 2,145 German soldiers were killed, and 4,932 were wounded? Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, sorry if I didn't put it clearly. But in any case the numbers for the Battle of Mons are unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.145.86 (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the 5,000-casualty figure given by Keegan is an estimate. But it's worth pointing out that your source, which apparently states that the German First Army suffered 7,077 casualties during the period 20-31 August, is not inconsistent with that estimate. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@Groundsquirrel13 How come? It would mean that the Germans lost only around 2000 men at Tirlemont, La Cateau, and all the other skirmishes. For German casualties I recommend Terence Zuber's book on the Mons battle, and the following links: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=142793 http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=105402 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archijerej (talk • contribs) 03:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that it is possible that the Germans suffered 5,000 casualties at Mons. The original contention to which I was responding was that it is impossible that the Germans could have suffered 5,000 casualties at Mons because the German First Army supposedly didn't suffer that many casualties in the entire period 20-31 August. As I think I explained, though, that is not the case.Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The general problem being that those casualties account a ten day period for the fighting of an entire German Army along the front when the Battle of Mons was just one of several actions that army fought in the period. In essence the British hog a lot of credit there 188.174.165.28 (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice Of Possible Innacuracy?

The Article mentions: Kaiser Wilhelm's 'Order of the Day' on August 19, 1914 was for "my soldiers to exterminate first the treacherous English; walk over General French's contemptible little Army." This led to the British "Tommies" of the BEF proudly labelling themselves "The Old Contemptibles". In the BEF article, it tells the whole story:

The Kaiser had apparently described the force as "contemptibly little", referring to its size, but it got reported as "contemptible". The name stuck and the BEF proudly referred to themselves as the "Old Contemptibles".

But no evidence of such an order was ever found in the German archives after the war, and the ex-Kaiser denied having said it. He remarked

On the contrary, I continually emphasised the high value of the British Army, and often, indeed, in peace-time gave warning against underestimating it. The order was, it seems, created by Frederick Maurice in the British War Office for propaganda purposes. (Reference: Nigel Rees citing Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in War-Time, 1928.)

Maybe a mention of the innacuracy of the statement, or simply the removal of that paragraph? It doesnt seem to offer much information, although information on the Mons Star could be fleshed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.132.2 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 26 January 2006

G'day, looking at the article, I think this has been rectified at sometime by another editor. If you still have concerns, please let us know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

New sections

I've added a couple of sections to contain some gleanings from British and German sources but OH 1914 I is quite modest and doesn't make all that much of Mons. I'll add more as I find it.Keith-264 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Keith, thanks for adding that information. I appreciate you taking a look. Given that the battle's 100 year anniversary is next year, it would be fantastic if the article could be brought up to B class or GA status before then. If a few people were keen to get involved, it probably wouldn't be too onerous. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot to mention that I've used sfn's for so long that I don't remember how to use the <> style. I had a quick look at the GOH which had some material on Mons so when I get a moment I'll glean what I can. I was quite surprised that the British OH doesn't make much of the battle, it seems like it was bigged up in retrospect.Keith-264 (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Did a CE but revert anything, if desired.Keith-264 (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Added a Further reading section to include material somewhat critical of the orthodox school of 1914 and the BEF. Added a notes section to question an assertion in the main text. If anyone has the Zuber book it would be helpful to refer to it re: German casualties.Keith-264 (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Keith, cheers. I've added a short sentence on the German casualty estimate that appears in the infobox for completeness, but as I don't have the work, I unfortunately can't verify it. I will try to see if I can get Zuber out of the library some time, but unfortunately I won't be able to get to a library for another couple of months as I am moving house. Thanks for all your work on this article so far. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while for this discussion, but I have Zuber's book - I can have a look if it's still needed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

GOH 1914 I

Moved the narrative to the article and ce'd, altered German army numbers from words to numbers for consistency.Keith-264 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

casualties

the german casualties numbers are definitely wrong. according to german archives the 6 corps of the 1. german army lost 2145 soldiers between 20. and 31. of august 1914. so there is no chance in hell that only 4 out of the 6 corps lost 5000 soldiers between 23. and 24. of august. these hight numbers are made up by british authors. source: Siehe Heeres-Sanitätsinspektion im Reichswehrministerium (Hrsg.), Sanitätsbericht über das Deutsche Heer im Weltkriege 1914/1918 (Deutscher Kriegssanitätsbericht 1914/1918). Band 3. Die Krankenbewegung bei dem Deutschen Feld- und Besatzungsheer im Weltkriege 1914/1918, Berlin 1934, S. 36. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.253.52 (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Mons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222165152/http://ww1cemeteries.com/ww1cemeteries/stymphorienmilitarycemetery.htm to http://www.ww1cemeteries.com/ww1cemeteries/stymphorienmilitarycemetery.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

References

As mentioned in my latest edit, I have added some references from Max Hastings' book, citing them with the page I gathered the information from. I have found it quite tough to understand how to properly adress those in the References section. If someone informs me I'll update them accordingly. --SRAbian (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

* {{cite book |title= |last= |first= |author-link= |year= |publisher= |location= |edition= |isbn=}} fill this in and paste it into the References section alphabetically. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It has been done. Thanks! SRAbian (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

My pleasure, this [1] takes you to a page which puts hyphens into ISBN numbers. Keith-264 (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Edward Thomas

In the article it's stated that "Drummer" Edward Thomas fired the first British shot of the war whereas on the Edward Thomas (British Army soldier) it states he was a corporal. As an historian in a minor sort of way I have read a bit about this over the years and would say, if asked, that he was a corporal. I would also be surprised to find the rank of Drummer in any cavalry unit or indeed prior to 1921. In WW1 non-ranking cavalrymen were simply called "Private" plus the cavalry didn't have a corps of drums. I'm quite sure written sources can be found to back up almost anything these days but in the interests of accuracy I'd like to have other opinions before changing the fact on the article. Leitrim Lad (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)