Talk:Battle of Corunna
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
|
Related task forces...
|
|
[edit] Errors
This article is full of misinformation, the most significant is within the context of the casualties. The casualties for the British are more in the line of 900 rather than 8,000. Total British casualties can be attributed to roughly 6,000 (adding Corunna) taking into account privations suffered within the campaign as a whole, but within this single battle, ths casualties were 900. I would also not classify this battle as a French victory. This battle was fought in a rearguard fashion to allow the British army to successfully evacuate to the sea. In this strategic aim, they succeeded. Also, in doing so, the British defeated the French assaults upon their positions, reflecting a tactical superiority as well. If French victory is to remain within the article, it can be better qualified as "Phyrric" victor or what not.
- I think this argument holds up. Changing result to "British victory", plain and simple. Albrecht 21:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I quibble on some of the details which I shall have a think about before editing. The last section of this article needs serious work the Dunkirk analogy is especially troublesome. Far from giving a positive bounce the death of John Moore (a whig) permanantly destroyed Whig support for the War making the existence of the Tory government tenuous. The whigs contained many who had never wanted a war but from 1789 had wanted the revolution of france imported to Britain. Moore's death brought most of the remaining whigs into open hostility to the war. Where the comparison is stronger is wrt to the rescued troops making up part of the army that landed in portugal under wellington.Alci12 11:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alan Neal, MD. Lugo 1809
I am sorry, my English is very limited.
I am the author of the book: "The Aio report", a documented study on the roman walls of Lugo, with a special dedication to topology, geometry and military engineering.
Alan Neal was an English doctor who accompanied to General Moore in his campaign against Napoleón in 1809. I would like to have more information about Mr. Neal as well as of the interesting drawings that he made of the campaign in the northwest of Spain. In the book I have used an engraving of Neal to make a topographic study (virtual space 3D) You can see it at: http://www.cartesia.org/article.php?sid=71
The book is also a denunciation of the form as it is interpreted today, the fortress, by the "active forces and the official institutions". (To see: "The Chinese Tower ", clear sample of a rooted error).
The book tries to demonstrate that the roman wall was an unconquerable technological strength, that their towers had a essential function and like, its only existence, horrifies to those "overwhelming institutions".
The last remainders of the towers disappeared in 1836, when the wall was adapted for the modern war. The time and lack of memory they caused erroneous current military interpretation.
See the summary: http://www.3dnauta.com
See: ROMAN WALL of LUGO (Trilogy. Experimental simultaneous translation)
IN PRAESENTIA (The Aio report) PRESENT of the wall and its documented links.
Warm greetings --Ulises Sarry 22:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC) --Ulises Sarry 21:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV summary outcome
There seems to be a dispute over describing the outcome. Different people regard it as a British victory (the British achieved their objective of withdrawing) and others as a French victory (the French held the battlefieid at the end). Why is "British withdrawal" not the best NPOV description? --Henrygb 10:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
