Talk:Hundred Days/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Anecdote: Blanks?

No anecdotes ever serve to demonstrate xyz, they serve to illustrate. Many people will understand the difference. The anecdote, if it is apocryphal, is just as good as an illustration of Napoleonic propaganda. So it serves equally well whether true or false. By setting it in context, it deserves to stay. Wetman 02:17, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The qualification to this anecdote only makes sense if Napolean handed the weaponry to the troops he was talking to. Why would one side of 2 lines of opposing troops be armed with "blanks"? If powder-only isn't the period equivalent of a blank, then does the qualification to the anecdote mean anything? Couldn't they just have loaded and shot him? The anecdote in itself seems fine right now. --MJW 10:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The section regarding the anecdote seems weak. It initially suggests that the events described may not have happened at all; but at the end it states that "it is however now established that Napoleon knew the weapons were loaded with powder only". Did it happen, or not? Established by whom? -Ashley Pomeroy 06:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Grammar & Section Breaks

I think this is a great article. Just moved some commas and added some apostrophes. Usual picky stuff. In addition, it could really do with some section breaks but I'm probably not equal to the task. --MJW 10:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I am unclear what the term "unequally" adds to the phrase "This was the last conflict and it was fought between a coalition of Britain, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria and a number of German States and unequally against the person of Napoleon Bonaparte". Presumably, the coalition didn't think it was unequal or there wouldn't have been so many of them. I have removed it. --MJW 10:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Section Breaks

Someone should go to school on this one.--Nick Catalano 03:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done, although the article itself could use a polish and more citations. Durova 04:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

wasn't the constitution called the 'liberal empire'

I believe it was.( 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC))

After Waterloo

I don't know, if Britannica may be wrong or the source misread, but I remember reading that Carnot insisted on declaring the dictatorship and Napoléon himself didn't really support the idea. Ataxerxes 10:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations and Sourcing

Not a single book listed in sources? Not an inline citation in the entire article? There were 7th coalition troups besieging fortesses until 09/1815... and everyone thinks this article is a good one? I am not sure that anyone has looked at this article in over a year. If anyone cares let me know otherwise I am rewriting it. Tirronan 01:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it's pretty poor. If you're rewriting it, I'd say the first thing to mention is that the period given in the first paragraph isn't actually 100 days long! --Rpeh 07:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


I see that the Waterloo Campaign redirects to the 100 days article. Though the 2 are inter-woven I think they are separate subjects. Much of the 100 days is the political rise and fall of Napoleon within French Republic. As such though it impacts and is impacted by the campaign it is still a subject in and of itself that needs to be worked up to the proper size to give it the attention that it needs. The military campaign spans from June 14th to September 15th 1815 with the fall of the last pro-Napoleon fortress to seige. I think the two should be separated. Tirronan 15:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Tribute of Hundred Days

I was hoping someone was able to fill in information about the one hundred stones in a roundabout in France, which is a tribute to Napoleon's military campaign revival. The name of the place in France, I have forgotten. Ths, Dailly Rubbings 00:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


It seems we make changes here without consulting let along citing, the henchmen comment is POV the statements about other armies in Europe is typical British hogwash thrown about without thought or comment. I expect better history than this to be frank, and if this pisses a few people of so much the better... start thinking before you start leaving your opinions as fact here. I strongly advise that you consider your statements from a NPOV or I'll start yanking them, further the citation, well the complete lack thereof here allows this level of crap to exist in Wikipedia. Tirronan 20:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this, and was a bit unhappy with it, the more I read it the less happy I get. I agree, quite a bit of it is heavy POV, and also could do with a rewrite to improve the style. There are potentially useful bits here, but the whole prelude and recap of the events of the sixth coalition I'd suggest aren't needed here, as these are covered in that specific article. If bits of it could be rewritten, I'd suggest they'd be placed in more appropriate articles. He's gone right back to 1792 in places, and this all reads like an introduction to an extensive history of the Napoleonic wars, not to a encyclopedia article on a specific section. I'd suggest someone had a look at this, deleted anything extraneous and rewrite the rest. What do you think? Benea 21:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree there is something to be salvaged here but most of the 1814 stuff is either a gross simplification or written to support a POV. You'd never gather that Paris was completely surrounded by armies (or that Napoleon was battered back from Moscow to Paris by those supposedly inferior armies) and that the Marshallete demanded Napoleon's abdication. Sorry for blowing up its just that I expect a level of historical accuracy and a level of scholarship that is completely lacking in this article, hell I have seen better essays by British 15 year old boys. Here is where I am at, I've had it with this urban myth as history we put up with. If they can't supply accurate citation to support this crap within 24 hours I am yanking it. We can rebuild from there. Tirronan 21:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

More sorry crap

Napoleon, meanwhile, took the reserve and the right wing of the army and defeated the Prussians, under the command of General Blücher, at the Battle of Ligny on the same day. The Prussian centre gave way under heavy French attack, but the flanks held their ground. Had Ney intervened at this point as planned, the Prussians would have been partially encircled from the west and would almost certainly have been forced to fall back to the east, along their lines of communication.

  • Element 101 to writing, know your subject, in this case Napoleon's orders to Marshall Ney were to attack and hold Quatra Bra not support his left flank at Ligny and his letter to Ney the following morning took Ney to Task for allowing D'Erlon to be so out of position instead of supporting Ney's attack.
  • Element 101 again, Battle of Wavre, Groucy was ordered to march to keep a sword at the back of the Prussians at or about 6am ON THE 18TH! This was followed by further orders arriving about 4PM on the 18TH to drive the Prussians through Wavre to his right flank. Only until 6pm was an order received to rush to his side, and since he was 6 hours away by march with 15,000 troops across his way that wasn't going to happen now was it?

Now how about we do what we are supposed to and start researching BEFORE WE WRITE and cite to source. In both cases above you will find what you are looking for in a Chesney, Charles Waterloo lectures, it has only been available since 1870... Then again Barbaro, Hofschroer, Chandler, Naugfzinger, Etting, or about 50 other historians might give you a bit of a clue about this. Tirronan 22:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats Wikipedia for you! I wrote the original text (Revision as of 12:16, 2 November 2004 )in this section and made a couple of alterations 2 days later. As you will see if things are left alone on Wikipedia there is a tendency for entropy to set in!
There is a problem with the current version because it has collected lots of POV that are not sourced (I had some excuse back in 2004 because little if anything was sourced!). I am going to do a light edit and mark the comments with {{fact}} although for this article I would not choose to include them but keep it to a plain factual account similar to the one I originally wrote. --PBS 12:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You see this in the American Civil War articles as well, mostly that every American ever born assumes he knows about every battle and feels free to contribute regardless of fact and in the face of any attempt at historical accuracy. I think we are facing much the same thing about Waterloo, and I would hate to think what the Pensular war articles are going through. The Groucy thing I can at least understand since Nappy himself tried to lay off blame on Ney and Groucy for his mistakes therefor there is at least a source for bad information and God knows 90% of the period French authors of the period took it as fact. I have the actually worded orders between Chesney and Hofschroer between both commanders which makes it pretty obvious that Groucy was trying to advise him that he was following cohesive Prussian corps and that they were assembled in Wavre and asking for orders, he received them in unequivical terms twice, and followed them as he should have. I really didn't understand that till last week and pieced together the sequence of events. I liked how we handled things in the Waterloo with "just the facts" style and left everything contraversial out of it. Tirronan 16:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Nice job in deleting a lot of POV and unsupported crap! I should have already done this myself but it is really nice to see IP addresses doing something really good! Thanks guys this was much appreciated. Tirronan 23:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


I've begun editing this somewhat the section about his return to power and the section right after both marked with Essays would both be canidates for extensive revision or deletion as they are just out right sorry excuses for a encyclopedic article. Mostly just unsupported conjecture at best. The section on what brought about such discontent with the royalist's efforts to return the the "Ancient Reigme" needs to be brought out in more detail. I've removed another henchmen comment... sheesh that is just sorry... and hopefully we can have this cleared up in a few days. Tirronan 19:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Useful online source

At the 'Napoleon Series' there is a very fine, and as it was written by a Belgian not very biased, account of the Hundred Days:

Might be worth a look at.

Urselius 12:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently using the above link freezes the internal navigation from the page.

Go to the home page then navigate through the 'Military' then 'Battles and Campaigns' sections to get to the article, then the internal navigation works. It is worth the effort.

Urselius 12:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How come there is not mention of the war between Naples and Austria? This was very much an important part of the War of the Seventh Coalition (indeed there is NO mention in the article where Naples contributed to the French effort). Centyreplycontribs – 13:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move Duja 09:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Topic originally raised at Napoleonic_era_task_force#Hundred_Days_v._War_of_the_Seventh_Coalition but got no response. I think it's a valid point and some discussion about this should happen. I for one feel War of the Seventh Coalition more accurately describes the focus of the page. Centyreplycontribs – 13:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The War of the Seventh Coalition is not the common name for this period it is either known as the/Napeleon's Hundred Days or the Waterloo Campaign and WP:NC says use the common name. --PBS 15:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree. I guess technicaly "War of the Seventh Coalition" would be correct, but as a common name, no way. --Eye of the Mind 23:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose No one but historians could tell you what campaign happen in which coalition I think we should stay with the Hundred Days. Tirronan 22:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose (above reasons). -Gomm 17:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomm (talkcontribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

References and citations

See above #Citations and Sourcing

From the revison history of the article:

  • 14:23, 11 October 2007 PBS (Reverted to last version by Swedish fusilier. Replacing old uncited text with new uncited text is not the way to improve the article)
  • 17:48, 11 October 2007 Relata refero (I hope I am doing this right: the new text is mainly from Grant and Temperly, and Agatha Ramm, as noted in the text. The old text is the notoriously Francophobic '11 EB,)
  • 08:18, 12 October 2007 PBS (rv to last version by PBS reason the new text does not have citations see WP:V)

From the talk pages of Relata refero and PBS

[Relata refero,] you might like to read Wikipedia:Citing sources and have a look at the Battle of Waterloo for a related page with lots of citations. Also you might interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history --PBS 14:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You may not have actually read the text I added. It's a clear improvement on the very dated and frankly quite idiosyncratic material it replaced, even if it appeared as 'uncited' at first look. It did actually mention the historians in question a couple of times, though I did not add the books to the bibliography at the end. Certainly, a wholesale excision and return to the text of the 1911 EB (!) seems counterproductive.

I certainly don't expect this article to reach the level of the Waterloo article. The latter is a favourite subject with armchair generals; the former, especially the political aspects, which are the only really relevant parts, are of no such interest to the general public.

Thank you for your links.

Relata refero 17:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Waterloo in January, it is only this year that it has had citations included. Of course it will take time for the Hundred Days to reach the same standard, but it was thanks to User:Tirronan insisting on citations that the article Battle of Waterloo is in the state it is today. Tirronan started the same process on the Hundred days, and I agree with him/her. ... --PBS 07:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

--PBS 08:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Facts in the battle can be difficult to substantiate, but they are essentially only a question of accuracy. With the political aspects you mention, they are so open to interpretation it is essential that they have a citation if the article is to be credible. --PBS 08:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Relata refero, writes in the edit history "Return, with additional inline references " but a diff between this version and a previous version you added shows that you have only put in citations for one of the paragraphs you are adding. I will revert the rest of your changes including your removal of a citation, but will leave in place you cited paragraph. --PBS 11:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am reverting the recent changes for two reasons.

  • The first is that yet again changes have been introduced without citations. If this article is to be brought up to a better standard (like WP:good article) the changes will have to be cited.
  • The change to the introduction "The end of this period saw the series of military engagements known as the Waterloo Campaign or the War of the Seventh Coalition." is not correct. Many English language sources call this whole period the Waterloo Campaign -- an on line example: [Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition: Waterloo Campaign]); and the War of the 7th Coalition started the "13 March, seven days before Napoleon reached Paris".

--PBS 08:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Can you point out which 'changes' have been introduced without citations? I have mainly added cited material and removed essay-like material.
    • You quote the 1911 entry, which is clearly about the actual military campaign leading up to the battle of Waterloo. It is not an appropriate comparison for the subject matter of this article, unless, as I said earlier, you wish to create a new article on the military aspects of the period.

Failing, a response, I will revert the ill-judged re-introduction of fact-tagged paragraphs and essay-like rants. Relata refero 17:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I will respond but not till after the Rugby World Cup between England and France match that starts shortly[1]. --PBS 18:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I did you a wrong. Most of the changes you have made are to reorganise various paragraphs. There are however minor additions which are not sourced and I do not agree with your your analysis that the Waterloo Campaign is only the military aspect of the 100 days. But to show good will I will add your changes without the changes to the introduction. --PBS 22:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I'll start adding additional citations tonight however let me make this very clear, adding text without citation is opinion not fact. So much to the point that [citation needed] an unsuported declaritive statement is grounds for removal within a few days. I've been remiss in this on this article and this was due to my starting a new job. If you add something please inline cite it or you have my promise to remove it. There was much about this article when I stumbled upon it to litteraly make me see red. My preferred style is to simply state what happened when and with whom without trying to add anything additional where possible. This keeps it to "just the facts" and leaves the rest to the reader to infer or not as they choose. Waterloo has plenty to argue about the authors there all work together pretty closely and I would hope we would here as well. I'll leave it at this, add it, cite it, talk about it here so we know why. Tirronan 00:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with you, but most of what you have tagged as needing citation is from the 1911 EB. Relata refero 09:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

100 Days and the Waterloo Campaign

Well, I went away, thought about it, and re-read the 1911 EB text. It seems clear to me that the EB deals specifically with the military campaign. The remainder is dismissed in a few sentences. Other sources, even other sources of the time that actually use the phrase Hundred Days, like the 1906 Cambridge Modern History, spend an enormous amount of space on diplomatic reactions and domestic French upheaval, as well as the consequences for the French polity post-Waterloo. So I don't think its a reasonable comparison, or a basis for the statement that the Waterloo Campaign is synonymous with the Hundred Days. I'll wait for you to respond, in case you are crushed by yesterday's dodgy decision about Cueto. Relata refero 08:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is largely a question of nationalism. British histories tend to emphasise the military campaign with the other stuff bolted on as an adjunct. Each nation tends to empasis history to suit their national identity. I remember one User:Ghirlandajo (a Russian) arguing that the Russian campaign was THE turning point in the wars and that the "Battle of Trafalgar has been hyped up tremendously in Britain and other English-speaking countries."(Talk:French_invasion_of_Russia#turning-point). I think we are a long way from needing to split this article and there is a real danger that such a split would be a PVO fork with two unbalanced articles. --PBS 13:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree, both about the inadvisability of splitting the article, and about various differing emphases on history. (I have run into trouble with Ghirla in the past, about Central Asia or the Crimea, I can't recall, though on this point I imagine I might agree with him.) I do think, however, that modern scholarship tends to focus more on the non-military aspects of things even in the Anglosphere; and, as I suggested earlier, even the Cambridge Modern History, which was about the same time as the 1911 EB, chooses to give equivalent time to the military and the diplomatic history. (French reaction to Napoleon's return, for example, had many major ramifications that have been the subject of study: for example, it caused attitudes to harden in Vienna, and led Alexander to accept a demand for reparations, as well as scarring French society itself deeply.) That being said, I think the only thing is to ensure that, in the lead, the fact that the Waterloo Campaign was conducted during the Hundred Days, but is not synonymous with it, be made clear, so the scope of the article is properly defined. Relata refero 16:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the international military campaign started no later than 13 March, seven days before Napoleon reached Paris and did not end until the occupying forces left Paris, or the Treaty of Paris. --PBS 19:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said the scope of this article, and of the phrase 'Hundred Days' is considerably more than just the military campaign, and thus implying they are the same is misleading. Relata refero 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mr Chamberlain views everything through the wrong end of a municipal drain-pipe." It depends if one see the other stuff as an adjunct to the military campaign or something more substantial, neither view is wrong, it just a different emphasis. --PBS 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither is wrong, but they're two different things. You will not find a book on the Waterloo Campaign discussing the same things as a book on the Hundred Days. (You will rarely find it referred to as the Waterloo Campaign these days anyway.) This is not because of a change in emphasis, but a change in subject. Relata refero 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess where I would weigh in here is how would you separate the two? Without the Congress of Vienna you don't get allied armies rolling towards the borders of France and Louie the XVIII still leaves. Without the Waterloo Campaign you don't get Napoleon's abdication. The political influenced the military campaigns and the military campaigns effected the political realities. The Congress of Vienna certainly effected the outlook of the Prussians towards the allied army under Wellington because of it. Even the composition of forces were effected by it. Half of the fortesses surrendered to representatives of the King and not to force of arms. Loss of Napoleon effected the French Army to the extent that desertions became more the norm than the exception, again this was politics not the effect of opposing armies. Attemping to put one over the other or having articles that leave military operations out of the political isn't going to work very well. If Louie wasn't reinstalled at the point of a sword it was a close thing to it. Tirronan 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The two - by which I presume you mean the military and the diplomatic - are separated quite easily, even if each affects the other. I do not desire an article that leaves the military out of it - I merely wish to ensure that the lead reflects the current scholarly consensus using the term Waterloo Campaign to refer to the military aspects of what was a diplomatic, military and political convulsion, generally known as the Hundred Days. Relata refero 15:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What is "these days"? I have recently purchased a book called "Waterloo: The Hundred Days" by D. Chandler (1980) which as the title implies combines both, with Waterloo and the other 3 battles taking up about half the book. One reason why more recent scholarship my be looking at the political events in more details is that the more interesting features of the military campaign have been researched in depth and one does not get a doctorate by summing up others research unless one can add a new facet to that research. I suspect that there is more room for original research in the more obscure political events than the military area -- although Tirronan and I are having a hard time finding a book that looks at other areas of the military campaign much beyond the four major battles. --PBS 14:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice that even the book title you suggest doesn't use the phrase "Waterloo Campaign". I simply would like to see a reference that indicates that in the academic world today, the two terms are used interchangeably. (Incidentally, I fear that the dicide between military and more political history is more profound than you imply. If 70 years ago there was a 50-50 split, now its more 10-90. Not because the military history's been done, but because of changing patterns of interest. But that is neither here nor there.)
"War is merely a continuation of politics" (Clausewitz). I chose it deliberately to show that military campaign and the political campaign are mixed together --PBS 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
A simple test is a Google scholar search for "Waterloo Campaign" since 2002, and for "Hundred Days"+Napoleon since 2002. There are 29 links for the latter, all about specific military matters, and most of them discussing the English campaigns in particular. The latter is used, in contrast, in 224 recent publications, and discusses both the military and political aspects, as well as people's response to it subsequently. Relata refero 15:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Since 2002 there have been "about 1,310 for waterloo napoleon -hundred-days" and "about 69 for waterloo napoleon hundred-days" . I am not going to trawl through them to make a point as I think it has already been made here. The two are mixed and to try to divide them is artificial. This article covers both, and as such the events before and after the four major battles can equally be described as part of the Waterloo Campaign, just as the four major battles can be described as part of the Hundred Days. --PBS 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You have made no point other than that Waterloo is a major part of the history of Napoleon, and is frequently refered to without reference to the Hundred Days. That is not relevant. We have an article on Waterloo; and the military movement leading up to the battle is certainly part of this article. What you seem to fail to understand is that the military movements - which is all that the phrase 'waterloo campaign' denotes - is only one part of the developments of the Hundred Days and to imply the terms refer to the same thing in the lead is unencyclopaedic and misleading. If you can find even one reference backing you up, we can discuss that. But all your references so far have been about the military campaign, and not one talks about the equivalence of the terms. I'm afraid that's insufficient. Relata refero 05:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the military books go into it lightly and article fairly screams for in depth sourcing. The personalilties of Tallyrand and Metternich with Castlereigh (I hope I spelled that right) alone are quite amazing. The personal cowardice of Louie XVIII and the future Charles II and the acts of his sons, all make for an interesting article. The clash of "Nobility" with the French military elite again is something I would also like covered. I'll continue to look. Tirronan 14:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've read this section about 5 time and reread the article. I wrote the congress of vienna section but here is the rub, I don't have a great source on the political sections of this event. This article is weighted to the military side because that is what Phillip and I have available on this at this time. Tirronan 00:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Quite so, and I hope to expand on the non-military parts in time. My purpose at the moment is simply to ensure that the lead accurately reflects current terminology. Relata refero 05:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I could understand your arguments if they were about the name of the article, but we are not discussing that. We are discussing if the military campaign is more than Napoleon getting in his coach to go and meet his Waterloo. I think that it is, and it seems from what you are saying that you think it is not. Almost all accounts of the Battle of Waterloo start and edit with a summary of the events of the 100 days. If we were to claim that the campaign only started with the French military marching to the border, then that would be one point of view, but how does one explain that there were two Coalition armies on the border and more massing to attack? But I am putting words into you mouth on what date do you think the Waterloo Campaign started?--PBS 21:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have misunderstood me: I certainly agree that the military campaign is much more than Napoleon's actions: in fact, the formation of the coalition armies is crucial. However, my claim is that the Hundred Days itself is much more than just the military campaign. Thus we need to rewrite the lead to remove that implication from it. Relata refero 05:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets salami slice it. The lead starts: The Hundred Days [snip] was the period between Napoleon Bonaparte’s return to Paris (20 March 1815) from his exile on Elba, and the restoration of the Bourbon Dynasty under King Louis XVIII (8 July 1815). do you disagree with this sentence? --PBS 07:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable, I think. Relata refero 09:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that it can be said that the Waterloo campaign started 7 days before Napoleon reached Paris, when Napoleon was declared an outlaw and it was agreed by the Coalition to raise a number of armies to give him a dam good thrashing capture him? --PBS 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that one of the things that started happening before Napoleon reached Paris was the mobilisation of the armies; that would be the Waterloo Campaign bit. There was, of course, lots of other stuff happening relevant to the article over the same period that was not related to mobilisation of armies. Relata refero 21:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you Happy with the new introduction? --PBS 01:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It'll do, I suppose. Thanks for engaging. Relata refero 09:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


  • This section is wrong. Ney was assigned command the night before the attack began on Quatra Bras which goes some way to explaining his lack of control of his assembling army ie de'Erlon. Groucy commanded somewhat earlier.

Napoleon moved two armies, the Army of the North (AotN) and the Reserve Army (RA) 128,000 men, up to the French Belgium frontier without alerting the coalition forces.[17] The left wing of the Army of the North (I and II corps) was under the command of Marshal Ney, and the right wing (III and IV corps) under the command of Marshal Grouchy. Napoleon was in direct command of the Reserve (French Imperial Guard, VI Corps, and the I, II, III, and IV cavalry corps). During the initial advance all three elements remained close enough to support each another.

  • This section is also wrong, the Prussians were very aware that something was up and were most vocal that they expected an attack at any moment for about a week before the event.
  • The timing of orders needs to be assessed, some years after the event Wellington deliberately attempted to look like he had been less fooled than in fact he was. This included retiming events to earlier than they were ect. Effective orders did not arrive at unit until the morning of the Battle of Quatra Bras and only the independent command decisions of the Dutch/Nassau group saved the day and bought the time for Wellington to bring up help. It was after the ball that Wellington really started dashing out orders.
  • Wellington is not the only thing to watch out for here, both Groucy and Ney are thrown under the bus by Napoleon to attempt to rescue his reputation. The most agregious is against Groucy who was doing and acting exactly as to his orders and strongly attempted to complete every action that was assigned to him, further he extracted his Corps when he should have been wiped out and rallied the army around him to the best that it could be. Ney's reputation didn't fair as well but he did not order the calvary charge either.

Moving up to the frontier without alerting the Coalition, Napoleon crossed the frontier at Thuin near Charleroi, the French drove in Coalition outposts and secured Napoleon’s favoured “central position” - at the junction between Wellington’s Allied army to his north-west, and Blücher’s Prussian to his north-east. Wellington had expected Napoleon to try to envelop the Allied armies by moving through Mons to the west of Brussels.[citation needed] Napoleon encouraged this view with false intelligence.[citation needed] A message from Wellington’s intelligence chief, Sir Colquhoun Grant, was delayed by General Dörnberg, and Wellington first heard of the capture of Charleroi at 15:00 shortly followed by another message from the Prince of Orange. Wellington ordered his army to collect at their divisional headquarters, but was still unsure whether the attack in Charleroi was a feint and the main assault would come from Mons, and Wellington only found out with certainty Napoleon’s intentions and sent out orders for the mustering of his army near Nivelles and Quatre Bras just before midnight on the 15 June.[18]

Tirronan 14:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I see the Grant myth is given credibility here:

"A message from Wellington’s intelligence chief, Sir Colquhoun Grant, was delayed by General Dörnberg, and Wellington first heard of the capture of Charleroi at 15:00 shortly followed by another message from the Prince of Orange. Wellington ordered his army to collect at their divisional headquarters, but was still unsure whether the attack in Charleroi was a feint and the main assault would come from Mons, and Wellington only found out with certainty Napoleon’s intentions and sent out orders for the mustering of his army near Nivelles and Quatre Bras just before midnight on the 15 June."

This was shown to be fantasy in an article published in JSAHR years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Last warning

I've let this section sit here pretty well unmolested but I am not about to start citing paragraphs I don't for a minute believe to be true. If anyone has strong feelings about the matter this is your last chance to speak up before I start a rewrite on it tomorrow evening. Both Napoleon and Wellington attempted to rewrite history to better serve their purposes but that isn't history and I don't tolerate urban myths in place of actual eventes. Tirronan (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of the Hundred Days

In the lead it says the Hundred Days began on March 20 and in the infobox it says March 10, which one is correct ? Thanks, have a nice day. Rosenknospe 12:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hot issue that, I would put it when Nappy set a foot on French soil again, even professional historians debate this one. That said however we need to reach agreement and change it. Tirronan 20:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


the timeline which was added covers the fall of the empire in 1814 and ends with Napoleon's banishment to Elba. This article however is about the Hundred Days of 1815, when Napoleon returned from exile in Elba. The timeline is thus distinctively out of time/place and should be deleted or altered. -- fdewaele, Christmas 2007, 13:28.

I'd favor deletion with a link to a page that referred to the history of the broad overview of the Napoleonic conflict. Tirronan (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've altered it to the key dates of the 100 days. Needs some more work but I think it is an improvement on the old timeline -- PBS (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I took the start and end of the 100 days from this and another article. But it does not add up. The three months of April (30) May (31) June (30) makes 91 days. This leaves a week and a couple of days to play with. So is there a reliable source that gives the start and end date that makes 100 days or is it just an approximate number for poetic/political usage? --PBS (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

its been noted that the hundered days was not in fact a 100 days by several historians. Tirronan (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I prefer Landing in France to Waterloo. But whatever we use we should put in an explanation with footnotes noting the different start and end dates and that it was not exactly 100 days whatever notable start and end dates are used. --PBS (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Concure with a small exception, I would date it from his landing to his abdication, without him the revolution couldn't continue. Tirronan (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked up the French page and give the dates I suggested fr:Cent-Jours ;-) --PBS (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


I added Hanover. It may have been a member of the German Confederation but was in Waterloo not only with its own army, but also with the KGL.Therefore I think it should be listed as part of the coalition Anne-theater (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, nice to see you again Anne. Tirronan (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Other campaigns

I feel that the section on the Neapolitan war should be merged into this section or at least placed before it. It puts into context the fact the Austrians massing in Italy had already been involved in one campaign even before Suchet moved against them. Also, mentions why the Neapolitans were fighting for the Austrians against Brune even though they are listed as pro-French in the infobox. Centyreplycontribs – 03:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the new paragraphs are just an attempt to get the ball rolling. I think the first thing that needs doing is a couple of sentences in the ==Aftermath== section of the Neapolitan War explaining the immediate aftermath of the war and Neapolitan involvement in the invasion of France. I look forward to reading it when it is done. Meanwhile I have had a go at integrating the Neapolitan War into the new section which I have now renamed "Other campaigns and wars". --PBS (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

100 Days and the Waterloo Campaign again

I may as well mention it here since I see Philip here also. There were never "100 days" in contemporary literature, and there was never a "Waterloo Campaign".

The Original purpose of British and Prussian troops for being in Belgium and on the borders of France was as a precautionary measure in case Napoleon chose to return. The British troops were in fact a part of the Special Observation Corps, so the larger strategic significance was not in the time it took to subdue Napoleon, but the the imperative of the Allied troops being there in the first place.

The campaign was intended to be that of Belgium and Northern France, but Napoleon moved faster. Waterloo was not even a reference for the Brussels Manoeuvre, so called as it was intended to prevent Napoleon taking Brussels, and Mont St. Jean was the reference point for the British and Prussian Staffs during the pre-battle correspondence as was the convention to use a major geographic reference point.

The battle itself was only named so after the fact. During the engagement it was called the Waterloo position, the reference here being to the defensive position assumed by the Allied forces. In the contemporary use the word position referred only to a preparation for a defensive engagement. In fact the contemporary English used two phrases to refer to defensive and offensive battles, the former being "to give battle", and the later "to gain a battle".--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 04:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How could the people involved on day fifty of the Hundred Days possibly have called it the Hundred Days? Battles are not usually named until after they are fought (If not we would have thousands of battles that never took place). Given that it was not possible to know that there would be a Battle of Waterloo until after it was fought, how could the contemporaries of called it the "Waterloo Campaign"?
Waterloo was no chance battle field just chosen because it was a "reference point for the British and Prussian Staffs during the pre-battle correspondence as was the convention to use a major geographic reference point", it is a very good example of Wellington's preference for reverse slope defence and it was named Waterloo in English because of Wellington's preference for naming battles, (the Germans preferred the more politically correct Belle Alliance).
mrg3105, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that as there was no Hundred Days and as there was no Waterloo Campaign before they happened we should not name the article Hundred Days and describe the Waterloo Campaign as the Waterloo Campaign? --PBS (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I am suggesting that the campaign wasn't known as Hundred Days for decades after the fact, although I'm not sure who was the first to name it so.
Use of reverse slopes does not make Waterloo a field of Battle. As you say, the name was selected by Wellington, however it certainly does not apply to naming a campaign. A campaign is named after the overall strategic objective set at its commencement, or the time it is expected to take such as the season, or the larger general area of operations, such as the Iberian Campaign, but not after its second-last, even if determining of the outcome, battle! I am certainly not aware of who begun to call it the Waterloo Campaign, but I find it fascinating that The Waterloo Campaign, 1815 is by William Siborne, and it would make perfect sense because he had become destitute and was desperate in selling the Waterloo diorama so had a very personal reason for naming it so. I'm amazed that Major Basil Jackson, HP, ROYAL STAFF CORPS, calls it that in the United Service Magazine, but the United Service was set up largely to be a support for Wellington's public image. Archibald Alison uses it, but he is not a military person. Jomini also called it a Waterloo campaign, but also a battle, and it can not be both. However, many less politically or economically concerned contemporaries call it the Campaign of 1815, or the Campaign of Flanders, including Napier, because that is what it was. The Hansard of Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons confirm this (1838) by reminding that the Waterloo Medal was issued only to those who were participants in the battle, and not those that had been assigned to Wellington's force during the campaign, but were not on the field of battle on the day.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 12:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
"A campaign is named after the overall strategic objective set at its commencement" I think that is a very narrow interpretation and that would be in a world were plans and reality did not vary, and it of course does not include the loosing sides perspective. Also it does not include campaigns were the objectives are limited and tactical, or where the unexpected occurs and improvisation and adaptability is the order of the day (As the old adage goes "No plan survives first contact with the enemy"). The OED definition is "The continuance and operations of an army ‘in the field’ for a season or other definite portion of time, or while engaged in one continuous series of military operations constituting the whole, or a distinct part, of a war."
But interesting as this is it does not get us any further in naming this article or the section called Waterloo Campaign as they are common names in English and unless you have a suggestion to make about the article I think we should stop discussing abstracts as to what a campaign is. --PBS (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Philip, I am not suggesting the article be renamed because I know how entrenched the use of Hundred Days is in English although it makes no sense in any way one looks at it.
However, I would suggest that there are alternatives to the Waterloo Campaign which also makes no sense what with the Battle of Waterloo.
It is because no plan survives the first contact with the enemy that campaigns are not named with nay precision. The vast majority of campaigns in the period were very generally named, and only people who had something to gain chose to call them after their concluding actions, such as the Jena Campaign, which clearly was not one, etc. I note that the OED definition you quoted fails to specify purpose ;o) In any case, Waterloo does not fit the description given even there as it was the terminating point of hardly a season in the field, engaging in only a few relatively closely following combats that were not a part of a war, but fulfilling the purpose they were there for, to prevent Napoleon's return to the throne as a Corps of Observation. All in all, a Grand Tactical operations for Wellington since Napoleon determined the strategy by heading for Brussels.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 14:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm completely lost as to what you are suggesting here. The 100 days is pretty well cemented in English and the Waterloo campaign I have heard of only one variation and that being Ligny-Quatrabra-Waterloo-Wavre, and that only in certain military journals and that isn't widespread to say the least. I believe that it is also the popular label for it in French which would seem to end the discussion. Certainly we have better things to discuss? Tirronan (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
So mrg3105 the Hundred days is off the agenda then. As for the "Waterloo Campaign" not only is it the most common name for the campaign it is also more convenient as a section heading as it allows us to section off the other wars and campaigns of 1815 and only describe the movements of Napoleon, Wellington and Blucher's armies in that section. Did you realise that you are showing a Coalition bias? Who is to say that the campaign is named after what you call the "Grand Tactical operations for Wellington" rather than as you put it Napoleon "strategy by heading for Brussels". Luckily we can bypass that whole debate by simply calling it by its common neutral name the "Waterloo Campaign" :-) --PBS (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I am only too familiar with idiosyncrasies of English and British history and historiography. I don't show bias at all I think. If the articles were named with truly neutral POV, then they would be named according to the historical actors that initiated the events, and therefore the French name for Napoleon's 1815 campaign, and not some whimsical period that describes nothing besides being a week off the mark. That Waterloo Campaign is the most used name for the series of manoeuvres and engagements only supports the assertion made in the Talk:Prague Offensive that the English language reader is mostly ignorant of the military science and theory, and the prowess of Wellington in public attention-seeking to compensate for his lacklustre performance as a general, and self-promotion as if the Prussians had nothing to do with the defeat of Napoleon, an issue many British historians find quite unpalatable. Oh well, I find little to get excited about anything that is common.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 04:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105: What exactly are you trying to say? You've gone on for many a paragraph basically saying that both the Hundred Days and Waterloo Campaign are misnomers? Firstly as Philip has pointed out, no one called it the Hundred Days until the 100 Days were finished. But it's commonly called that, re: discussion to rename this page as the War of the Seventh Coalition (a more correct title). The fact is that the 100 Days is the common name for this period and as an encyclopedia, we need to recognise that. Secondly, the Battle of Waterloo is known and only known by that name is the English speaking world. Thus why we call it that. The campaign in Brussels culminated in a decisive confrontation known as the Battle of Waterloo, hence the name Waterloo Campaign. What's wrong with that name? Why should we take the naming from a "neutral" French POV when the above name is so widely used in English.

Also how is it NPOV? It merely mentions that this was the campaign with the Battle of Waterloo? Please cold you be clearer as to what point you are trying to make. Centyreplycontribs – 19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To sum's how I see it. The whole period of European history between the return of Napoleon exile to his surrender and the Treaty of Paris is called The Hundred Days. Doesn't matter what's it contemporary name was...all that matters is how it is called here and now. For British historians, the campaign in Belgium leading up to Waterloo was the most military important part of this period, so much so that in British literature it has virtually become synonymous. However, the second most crucial part of the Hundred Days is the Neapolitan War, which I have attempted to bring from obscurity partially to remind people that there's more to the 100 Days than the Waterloo Campaign. So you tell me, what do we call the Waterloo Campaign? It must somehow relate the fact it happened during the 100 Days but was not the whole 100 Days. Calling it as you say the Campaign of 1815 basically implies the Neapolitan War as a unimportant sideshow - not so to anyone who knows about the history of Italian unification. Also it must be a widely used name. Hence the Waterloo Campaign. There is nothing wrong with calling a battle and campaign the same thing - especially if that battle was the single most important part, see Gettysburg Campaign. Centyreplycontribs – 19:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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)