Talk:Battle of Salamanca

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 22, 2005, July 22, 2007, July 22, 2008, and July 22, 2009.

Military history: British / European / French / German / Spanish / Napoleonic era C‑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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	German military history task force
	Spanish military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Untitled

This article lacks context. What larger war was this battle a part of? What were three foreign countries doing fighting on Spanish soil? Why are Spanish troops only mentioned for their failure to guard an escape route (and who were they supposed to be guarding it from)? I'm lost! ThePedanticPrick 01:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still lost? The info box or whatever it's called does now say it was in the Peninsular war. L0ngpar1sh (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating the Opportunity

I'd like to take issue with the third para, which says: "...Marmont and his deputy commander General Bonet were wounded by shrapnel in the first few minutes of firing. The French command confusion may have been decisive in creating the opportunity, which Wellington successfully seized..." Surely that is speculation.

Due to downsizing my Peninsular books have gone, but more than one attests that in out-marching the allies the French column became extended. Wellington watched this happening and as he & the staff finished lunch, Wellington snapped his telescope shut and said something like "That will do!" and launched his attack. No cannon fire would yet have started so Marmont & Bonet could not yet have been wounded. L0ngpar1sh (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)l0ngpar1sh[reply]

What?

A Sharpe book as a reference?? O_O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.126.37 (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clausel

Perphaps Clausel should be added in the Commanders list as he became the de facto commander of the French army when Marmont was injured.--Willski72 (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where

I am absolutely lost in this description of the battle. It says that the British were seen to the West of the French, but the map seems to show the main British force to the East. How did the British get between the two wings of the French? It is not at all clear which are the "long" and "short" sides of the "L", and in the description of the various attacks, we have no idea of where they are. Then the French "streamed away": but which way? And where was the important Alba de Tormes bridge?

The contemporary map is interesting, but you can't read the detail

Baska436 (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary map is wrong. The landscape is imaginary and all the phases of the battle are drawn one over the other. I will try to clarify.--Igor21 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where?

Well, the top of the map isn't the North direction, indeed there's a small arrow at the top left of the map marking the North. The orientation of this map is W-NW approx.

The anglo-portuguese didn't manage to get between de french wings, I believe there are depicted two diferent instants at the battle, before and after the british attacked Clausel's left wing

The way to Alba de Tormes is the way that exits the map at the left bottom corner.

By the way, the list of commander casualties is incomplete, Le Marchant died leading his last cavalry charge as shows the text in the article, and General Beresford was wounded in his chest during Clausel's central counterattack.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.162.250 (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong picture

I am going to change the foot note of the picture that is wrong as can be seen here http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/53375648?language=es&location=USA

The offcier on the horse is Sir Edward Packenham not Wellington.--Igor21 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decisive victory claim

I believe that it is incorrect to call this battle a 'decisive' victory. Moreover, I see that no source is quoted to back this claim. While, I agree that Salamanca-Arapiles was a major victory, with significant strategic consequences, I think that none of the prerequisites of a decisive victory were achieved. Such a victory would require the battle to put an end to the campaign or the war, or at least destroy the enemy's force to such extent that its military capacity and will to continue fighting would be shaken beyond repair. This was not the case, as war continued to rage for another 2 years. Wellington's occupation of Madrid was a major political victory, but occupying a capital is not necessarily the hallmark of decisive victories, nor its prerequisite. Think of Napoleon's victories at Eckmuhl or Ratisbon and his subsequent occupation of Vienna. Moreover, Wellington's occupation of Madrid almost ended up in disaster on 13 November 1812, near Salamanca when he was almost surrounded by superior forces under Jean-de-Dieu Soult and escape was only possible due a sudden torrential rain, which made pursuit impossible. This manoeuvre exposed the weakness of the Allied position in the Peninsula. So, unless someone can quote a few solid sources to back this claim, I am going to remove the word 'decisive' from the infobox.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This old chestnut comes up on every notable battle page at one point or another. Many historians have named it as 'decisive', for one of these, and a fully credible source, Richard Holmes (military historian) says it was decisive.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

¿6 deaths?

Dead or wounded:

3,129 British,
2,038 Portuguese
6 Spanish ¿only 6 spanish deaths? Needs to investigate more  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.120.234.203 (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes only 6 Spanish deaths. The Spanish troops played no real part in the battle and were held in reserve.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A battle that took place in Spain and only 6 Spaniards died. That must be a joke! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.138.134 (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's joke it's a Spanish joke too. The same figures appear in the Spanish Wikipedia. METRANGOLO1 (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Salamanca. 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/20070301061414/http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/cruel_war_in_Spain.html to http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/cruel_war_in_Spain.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpe

While I appreciate the Sharpe reference (Bernard Cornwell's fictional rifleman) I'm not sure he was leading riflemen at the battle as the article says. 87.147.168.189 (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Losses in the battle

There is a very strange spread of French casualties, with some reports of 12,000, some of 13,000, some of 14,000, some of 15,000, some of 17,000. What do you think it could be due to? It is surprising that the French side in these numbers from the first (12,000) to the last counts only killed, wounded and prisoners of war, but not missing. It seems to me personally that Bodart, f.e., also accounts marching and combat-vanguard/rearguard losses for the whole Salamanca campaign before the siege of Burgos began, but ignores British losses in this regard. I am Chupacabra (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced casualty figures in infobox/lead

While there are sources for the total coalition casualties, the breakdown by country appears to lack verification? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]