Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Battle of Waterloo

2007-07-14T21:25:02Z

Tirronan: /* Notes and conclusions */

[[Image:waterloo.jpg|350px|thumb|The Battle of Waterloo]]
The '''Battle of Waterloo''' took place on June 18, 1815 in Belgium. It marked the beginning of the end of [[The Hundred Days]], [[Napoleon]]'s attempt at regaining power after his initial defeat and exile the previous year.

Once the [[United Kingdom]]'s 67,000-strong army, under the Duke of Wellington, had forced a precarious stalemate against Napoleon's 73,000, [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher]]'s Prussian forces arrived and were able to achieve decisive numerical superiority, forcing Napoleon out.

The battle marked the end of [[Napoleon]]'s reign and his exile to the island of [[Saint Helena]] in the South Atlantic.

==Preliminary==
Napoleon's return from [[Elba]] marked the beginning of The Hundred Days and on March 18, 1815 he was declared an outlaw by the [[Congress of Vienna]]. This marked the mobilization of the Seventh Coalition armies. The British formed an army consisting of British, Nassau and Dutch troops. The Prussians created two armies, one under Prince Blucher and another under General Kliest with Prussian, and North German allied states. Russia assembled an army of 250,000 men under Prince Barcley de Tolly and the Austrians provided two additional armies under General Schwarzenburg and Archduke Charles. The King of Spain assembled an army placing it under English officers and began moving to the frontier.
==The Waterloo Campaign==
Napoleon began a massive call up and soon had Le Armie Du Nord (Army of the North) prepared. The Army of the North was about 117,000 strong. This was moved with great stealth to the northern border of Belgium. In this area the British had assembled an army of some 97,000 and the Prussians another army of 105,000. Both allied armies had been spread out in an effort to be easier on the population they depended on for assistance.
===Wellington's Army===
Wellington led an multinational army that he would describe as "an infamous army, very weak and ill equipped, and a very inexperienced Staff".<ref>Longford, p.485</ref> It was in no case more than 30% British, the rest coming from the Neatherlands, Hanover, Nassau, and Brunswick. The Duke of Wellington would express reservations about the loyality of some of his troops, but in point of fact all of his troops would give outstanding performances in battle.
===The Prussian Army===
The Prussian army was in the throes of reorganization as its reserve regiments became line regiments along with many of the previous 1814 Landwehr regiments and its artillery was also reorganizing and would not perform at peak level, though its militia, the ''Landwehr'', was significantly better than other militias.<ref>Barbero, p.39</ref> It was under the command of Blücher, though in fact much of its operation was directed by his chief-of-staff, [[August von Gneisenau|Gneisenau]], who greatly distrusted Wellington.<ref>Barbero, p.21</ref> Two and a half Prussian army corps or 48,000 men, were engaged in the battle by about 18:00. (Two brigades under [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Friedrich von Bülow]], commander of the IV Corps, attacked Lobau at 16:30, [[Georg Dubislav Ludwig von Pirch|Georg von Pirch's]] II Corps and parts of [[Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Ziethen|Graf von Ziethen's]] I Corps engaged at about 18:00.)
===June 16th===
Despite the efforts at deception by the French to hide their whereabouts, the Prussians quickly understood where the French army was and proceeded to interfere with it. The Prussian 1st Corp began an all day delaying effort while the Prussian army assembled. The British army was somewhat slower to react as Wellington's spy network was either interfered with or was actively giving him disinformation. Lord Wellington did not begin assembly of his army until the evening.
====Battle of Quatra Bra====
Marshall Ney in command of the French Army's left wing marched to Quatra Bra and found it defended by Dutch units who were determined to hold their ground. The Prince of Orange arrived and disregarded orders to retreat, choosing to reinforce the position. Marshall Ney believing that he was facing far more troops than was the case was tentative in his attacks at first. Lord Wellington was rushing formations to assist with all speed. As evening fell the British forces outnumbered the French and the position was held.
====Battle of Ligny====
Napoleon had wished to attack the British first, but this was impossible as the Prussians were by now already assembled with 3/4 of their forces in and around the village of Ligny. In a four hour battle Napoleon would earn his last victory. The Prussian position was a strong one, but the execution of the dispositions was poor. The Prussian left was strongly held by the III Corps, but was never in danger given the marshy ground in front of it. The Prussian center and right contained the intermingled I and II Corps with the right strung out waiting for Wellington's army that would never show up. After several repulses, Napoleon launched the combinded Guard at the Prussian center. Despite several counter attacks, the center fell and the battle was won by the French. The carnage was great with 11,000 French and 22,000 Prussians lost on the field. A great deal of the Prussian losses were deserters from formations recruited from newly aqquired lands by the Kingdom of Prussia. The retreat of the Prussians was never interrupted, and was seemingly unnoticed by the French.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> By nightfall, at about 2100, almost all of the Prussian formations had left the field. On the Prussian right, Lieutenant-General [[Hans Ernest Ziethen|Ziethen's]] I Corps retreated slowly with most of its artillery, leaving a rearguard close to [[Brye]] to slow the French pursuit. On the left, Lieutenant-General [[Johann von Thielmann|Thielemann's]] III Corps retreated unharmed, leaving a strong rearguard at [[Sombreffe]]. The bulk of the rearguard held their positions until about midnight, before following the rest of the retreating army. In fact, Zieten's 1st Corps rearguard units only left the battlefield in the early morning of 17 June, as the exhausted French failed to press on.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> Napoleon, thinking Ney had already seized Quatre-Bras, ordered Ney to strike Blucher's right flank and complete the victory. But Ney's procrastination at Quatre-Bras had ruined the opportunity.<ref>Dupuy & Dupuy, The Encyclopedia of Military History, 1977, Pg. 767</ref> Pirchs II Corps followed the 1st Corp off the battlefield and Thielemans III Corps moved last with the armies various parks in tow. It should be noted that the last of III Corps was moved in the morning completely ignored. <ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Von Bülow's]] IV Corps moved south of Wavre and setup strong rear guard positions for the army to quickly reasemble.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> General Blücher was already in communications with General Wellington. Great though the victory was (as the Prussians had more men on the field than the French) it contained all the seeds for the eventual defeat at Waterloo. While the Prussians were defeated they were not routed and proceeded to calmly march off the battlefield with some units not leaving until the next morning. This left a organized and determined army ready to act against the French army.

===June 17th===
This day saw the British forces move to the Mont Saint Jean (Waterloo) position and prepare to receive the French attack. The Prussian Army moved to the Village of Wavre with all 4 corps now assembled.

===June 18th===

[[Image:map-6.jpg]]

===Wellington's deployment===
Wellington worked his normal deployment using reverse slopes to hide the majority of his units behind the crest of the ridge that defined the British position. In addition he fortified the farm house complexe of Le Haye Saint in front of his position to the right of his line. The left of the line was held by the fortified positions of Hougoumont and Papelotte. This secured the road by which Wellington expected the Prussian to arrive.<ref>Barbero, p.141, p.235</ref>

===The battle begins===
Wellington's dispatches give the start of the battle at 10am other sources would have it at 1130am. (This will be a recurring issue throughout the battle with the actual time of events being disputed by the participents as well as by later historians.)<ref>[[Arthur Wellesley|Wellesley, Arthur]] [http://www.wtj.com/archives/wellington/1815_06f.htm Wellington's Dispatches] [[19 June]] [[1815]] </ref>

===The arrival of the Prussians IV Corps: Plancenoit===
The first Prussian corp to arrive was the IV Corps and its objective was Plancenoit as a launch point into the rear of the French positions. It was Blücher's intention to secure his left upon Frichermont using the Bois de Paris road. <ref name=Hofschroer-116>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 116</ref> Blücher and Wellington had been exchanging communications since 10:00 and had agreed to this advance on Frichermont if Wellington's centre was under attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-95>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 95</ref><ref>Chasney, Waterloo Lectures p-165</ref> General Bülow noted that Plancenoit lay open and that the time was 16:30.<ref name=Hofschroer-116/> At about this time the 15th Brigade IV Corps linked up with the Nassauers of Wellington's left flank with the brigade artillery, horse artillery deployed to the left in support.<ref name=Hofschroer-117>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 117</ref> Napoleon sent Lobau's Division to intercept Bülow's IV Corps. Therefore Napoleon sent his 10-battalion-strong Young Guard to beat the Prussians back. The 15th Brigade threw Lobau's troops out of Frichermont with a determined bayonet charge. The 15th proceeded up the Frichermont heights battering French Chasseurs with 12 pounder artillery fire and pushed on to Plancenoit. Napoleon had dispatched the entire 8 battalions of Young Guard and 2 battalions of the Old Guard to reinforce Lobau's Division. Hiller's 16th Brigade had 6 battalions available and pushed forward to attempt to take Plancenoit. The Young Guard counter-attacked and after very hard fighting, the Young Guard recaptured Plancenoit but were themselves counter-attacked and driven out.<ref name=Hofschroer-122>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 122</ref> Napoleon sent two battalions of the Old Guard and after ferocious bayonet fighting - they did not deign to fire their muskets - they recaptured the village.<ref name=Hofschroer-122/> The dogged Prussians were still not beaten, and approximately 30,000 troops under Bülow and Pirch attacked Plancenoit again. It was defended by 20,000 Frenchmen in and around the village.
===Prussian advance===
Throughout the late afternoon, Zieten's I Corps had been arriving in greater strength in the area just north of Le Haye. This allowed Wellington to reinforce his centre in time to repulse Napoleon's attack. At the time the French Guard was being repulsed from the British centre, the Prussian I Corps was breaking through the French centre. <ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> By 19:30, the French position was bent into a rough horseshoe shape. The ends of the U were now based on Hougomont on the French left, Plancenoit on the French right, and the centre on La Haye.<ref name=Hofschroer-139>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 139</ref> The French had retaken the positions of La Haye and Papelotte in a series of attacks by General Durette's Division.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> Oberst von Hofmann's 24th regiment led an advance towards Le Haye and Papelotte; the French forces retreated behind Smohain without contesting the advance.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> The 24th Regiment advanced against the new French position but was seen off after some early success. The Silesian Schützen and the F/1st Landwehr moved up in support as the 24th regiment returned to the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-140>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 140</ref> The French fell back before the renewed assault without much of an attempt at defense. At this point, the French began to seriously contest ground, attempting to regain Smohain and hold on to the ridgeline along Papelotte and the last few houses of Papelotte.<ref name=Hofschroer-140/> The 24th Regiment linked up with a Highlander battalion on its far right. Determined attacks by the 24th Regiment and the 13th Landwehr regiment with cavalry support threw the French out of these positions and further attacks by the 13th Landwehr and the 15th brigade expelled them from Fichermont.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> Durutte’s division was beginning to unravel under the assaults when General Zieten’s I Corps cavalry poured through the gap.<ref name=Hofschroer-144>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 144 </ref> Durutte's division, finding itself about to be charged by massed cavalry of Ziethen's I Corps cavalry reserve, retreated quickly from the battlefield. I Corps then attained the Brussels road and the only line of retreat available to the French.
===The Capture of Plancenoit===
At about the same time, the Prussians were pushing through Plancenoit, in the third assault of the day upon the town.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussian 5th, 14th, and 16th brigades, were involved in the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> Each Prussian brigade would be about 9 battalions strong, roughly the size of a French division. The church was fully involved in a fire, with house to house fighting leaving bodies from both sides lying about.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The French Guard battalions, a Guard Chasseur and 1/2e Grenadiers were identified as holding the position. Virtually all of the Young Guard was now involved in the defence, along with remnants of Lobau's Division.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The key to the position proved to be the woods to the south of Plancenoit. The 25th regiment's musketeer battalions threw the 1/2e Grenadiers (Old Guard) out of the Chantelet woods, flanking Plancenoit and forcing a retreat.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussians IV Corps advanced beyond Plancenoit to find masses of French retreating in a jumbled mass from pursuing British units.<ref name=Hofschroer-145> [[#References|References]] p. 145</ref> The Prussians were unable to fire for fear of hitting allied units. It was now seen that the French right, left, and centre, were failing.<ref name=Hofschroer-145/>
===Disintegration===
The whole of the French front started to disintegrate under the general advance of Wellington's army and the Prussians following the capture of Plancenoit.<ref name=Hofschroer-146>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 146</ref> The last coherent French force consisted of two battalions of the Old Guard stationed around the inn called ''La Belle Alliance''. This was a final reserve and a personal bodyguard for Napoleon. For a time, Napoleon hoped that if they held firm, the French army could rally behind them.<ref>http://home.iprimus.com.au/cpcook/letters/pages/waterfini.htm</ref> But as the retreat turned into a rout, they were forced to withdraw and form squares as protection against the leading elements of allied cavalry. They formed two squares, one on either side of ''La Belle Alliance''. Until he was persuaded that the battle was lost and he should leave, Napoleon commanded the square which was formed on rising ground to the (French) left of the inn.<ref>http://www.napoleonbonaparte.nl/newspaper/dedham/drouet.html</ref><ref>http://www.standin.se/fifteen15a.htm</ref> The Prussians engaged the square to the (French) right, and General Adam's Brigade charged the square on the right, forcing it to withdraw.<ref name=Hofschroer-149>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 149</ref> As dusk fell, both squares retreated away from the battlefield towards France in relatively good order, but the French artillery and everything else fell into the hands of the Allies and Prussians. The retreating Guards were surrounded by thousands of fleeing Frenchmen who were no longer part of any coherent unit. Allied cavalry harried the fleeing French until about 23:00. The Prussians, led by [[August von Gneisenau|General von Gneisenau]], pursued them as far as Genappe before ordering a halt. By that point, some 78 guns had been captured along with about 2,000 prisoners, including more Generals.<ref name=Hofschroer-150>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 150</ref> At Genappe, Napoleon's carriage was found abandoned still containing diamonds left in the rush. These became part of King Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia's crown jewels, one Major Keller of the F/15th receiving the [[Pour le Mérite]] with oak leaves for the feat.<ref name=Hofschroer-151>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 151</ref>

===Notes and conclusions===
By November 20th, 1815 the Treaty of Paris was signed bringing an end to the Hundred Days. Of the leading Generals only the Duke of Wellington would survive more than a dozen years. Blucher would pass away within 4 years; Bulow von Deniwitz would beat him to the grave. Napoleon would spend his final years writing from St. Helens railing against the failure of others that had led him to such a fate. What happened?
*Napoleon showed his old flash of brilliance assembling a large army and launching it to attack the Prussian army at Ligny. This was the French army of old, artillery moved with speed and daring to support the infantry and the Guard used in mass to seal a victory.
*What happened after defies explanation; there was not a pursuit after either Qutra Bra or Ligny of any sort worth mentioning. Instead of breath taking relentless pursuit of Jena there was a 24 hour pause. A bloodied but by no means defeated Prussian army moved with speed and deliberation to reorganize and with its less reliable elements running away it was a hard core of an army that would henceforth battle in its best traditions.
*Again the British army was allowed to move off without the slightest bother from the French. The Duke of Wellington made excellent use of the time.
*The Duke's use of reverse slopes and most of all the intelligent use of La Haye Saint and Houghmont diverted large formations from important tasks without bothering much of the allied army.
*It was apparent that neither Marshall Grouchy nor Napoleon had any idea where the mass of the Prussian army was. Marshall Grouchy didn't have the forces available to achieve the outcome Napoleon desired and detaching him only served to keep 33,000 desperately needed men from Napoleon's main effort
*It was at the end of the Battle of Waterloo watching 3 main points of the French army positions being overrun that Napoleon understood that his days of Empire were forever over.

==Sources==
*Chesny, Charles A: Waterloo Lectures:A Study Of The Campaign Of 1815 ISBN 1428649883
*Hofschröer, Peter: ''1815, The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory'';Greenhill Books (London); ISBN 1-85367-368-4
===Footnotes===
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Waterloo, Battle of}}
[[Category:Battles]]
[[Category:Napoleonic Wars]]

Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?

2007-07-05T19:26:51Z

Tirronan: /* Telling God what tools he has to use? */

{{debate}}

==Theory 1==

Well, I would venture to say that we have not seen the far off ones yet. We can only see the light that has reached the Earth so far. This means that the currently-visible stars are "only" several thousand lightyears away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Empircally false. Basic parallax data gets us that there are stars at least 7000 years away and more sophisticated techniques force other stars to be even farther away. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: What's more of that were true then why have ancient civilisations recorded lots of the stars that were now see? shouldn't there be masses of new ones that the light of which has reached us in the proceeding years? [[User:Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:23 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

:The speed of light, Einstein called it "c" is a universal constant. In order for us to see something, light must travel from that object to our eyes. This is how our eyes work. But, the Universe is far older than earth. For all we know, the earth could be infinitely old. Light which left stars that were 7000-8000 light years away is reaching our eyes now, even if the stars are no longer there. Further more, the creation and destruction of stars in a universe as vast as ours can sometimes go un-noticed if not specifically documented. Today, we find new stars occasionally because we have extensive equipment with which to survey the skies. Ancient civiliations didn't. ~Patriot101.

: The stars that are 7000-8000 light years away, speaking relatively, are our close neighbors in the Milky Way galaxy. Our galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter and contains about 100,000,000 stars. There are hundreds of BILLIONS of galaxies (100,000,000,000+). The most distant light our telescopes have detected comes from recently discovered stars 13-14 billion light years away. That means that light has been traveling at 185,000 MILES PER SECOND for 14,000,000,000 years to reach us from those stars. --[[User:CastleVania|CastleVania]] 22:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps, the Universe really is billions of years old. Perhaps the Genisis account is merely refering to the creation etc. from the perspective of the Earth. Perhaps God is, say, eternal. Couldn't matter and the elements be eternal too? {{Unsigned|Brigham's Homeboy}}

:That's very close to the white-hole cosmology of Russell Humphreys (see below). According to it, the ''fringes'' of the universe are billions of years old, but the ''near-center'' of the universe--where we are--is much younger. In short, time did not flow uniformly throughout the universe--and until relatively recently, in our region, time did not flow at all.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory 2==
When God created the universe, he also created a complete ray of light extending between the star and the Earth. The light that we see ''now'' was created only a few thousand years ago. It looks as if it came from the star, but it really didn't; it was created in mid-air, or mid-space as it were, a few thousand light-years away. The light that started travelling from the star itself at its instant of creation will not reach us for millions of years (or perhaps never if the Earth does not last that long).

<
* = star
- = ray of light
O = Earth
> = where the light we see today was when the Universe was created

BEFORE CREATION:
[Void]
AFTER CREATION of star, Earth, ''and'' complete ray of light all at the same instant
*------------------------------------------------->----O

A few thousand years after Creation (today)
*----------------------------------------------------->O

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

Millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------- O

Millions and millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------------------------------- O

Millions and millions and millions of years later (finally can see star)
*------------------------------------------------------O

The language of the Bible, "Let there be light," even can be read as supporting this.

This theory is absolutely ridiculous. The stars we see in the sky are millions of light years away, and we can see them because the earth has existed for far longer than a few thousand years. Astronomers can tell roughly how old a star is, and they know that the ones you see at night are older than a few thousand years.

No, I do not believe this. (But I can't prove it's not true.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:27, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith: This is the essence of why this is religion not science, it can't be proven/disproven... [[User:Jesput|Jespur]]

: Jesput, the same is true for science. Science cannot prove anything at all. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: This is a variant of omphalism and essentially asserts that God has deliberately deceived humans. I don't think most people would want to believe in a deceptive deity and in any event, it would contradict the verse in Isaiah that says that God is truth. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Couldn't God have added the verse in Isaiah to make us believe that He is saying the truth? [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 04:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

If God is trying to fake us out, He certainly did His best to make it a CONVINCING fake. Just check out those scientists who've been fooled into thinking an entire galaxy was ripped in two several billion years ago. <ref> [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070302_galaxy_rip.html Galaxy Ripped to Shreds]</ref>{{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

: I'm sorry, this is a nice theory, but JoshuaZ is right, it's a type of omphalism, and assumes that God deliberately tricked us. At some point, [[Occam's Razor]] has to kick in here. But wow, this light argument sure does rip YEC to shreds.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::The theory does not insinuate that God is deceptive. In Genesis, he talks to Abraham about his descendants and how they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky. What if God made the stars like that, not to deceive humans in any way, but to use them for His own purpose, such as using them as a metaphor? (By the way, how is making rays of light any form of deception? How are we being "tricked" by this creation?) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Rays of light carry information; they're records of past events. If light was really created in transit, then we've witnessed the death of stars which never actually existed in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Descartes approached a similar problem in his meditations. The way out of it was to say that since God is good, God would not do something to intentionally deceive our senses and thus we can trust them. I believe that it is valid to continue that to say that it is reasonable to trust our extended senses that this planet is a several billion years old. Otherwise (as Descartes would say), God is a deceiver and then would not be the most perfect being that can be imagined. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Fraid that's the logical conclusion. Then again, [[theory of evolution|a lot of things on this site]] are quite disconnected from logic.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I respect everyone's beliefs here, but I find that the most beautiful resolution for myself is to see God as operating above our level of existence. Why would He speak of a day as the same mundane day you and I experience? The saying that 1,000 years to us is but a blink of an eye to Him comes to mind. I believe that the days in Genesis simply weren't literally days in terms of the Earth spinning around once, but they were days as God experiences them in his higher existence. I find it unfathomable that God would deceive us with empirical evidence like red-shifted light from stars and dinosaur fossils and so on. God is not that petty.. God is love, and God is honest, as he asks us to be. --[[User:CastleVania|CastleVania]] 22:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 3 ==

C is not actually constant. All measurements on Earth indicate that it is, but beyond our Solar System it could easily be faster, slower, moving through wormholes to appear faster, etc. Hubble's Law says that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves away due to universal expansion, so why couldn't light be similarly expanded with distance? So many of our assumptions about the universe rely on our belief that things happen the same way everywhere - a huge leap of faith for a scientist. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 13:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know whether you knew, but the official definition of the [[meter]] now assumes that C is constant. The meter is defined in terms of C! Someone needs to set up some periodic re-measurements of the orange-red line from the spectrum of [[krypton]]-86 that provided the most recent definition of the meter: 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of this radiation. If that number starts to rise, then we know that C is slowing, as [[Barry Setterfield]] has stated.

:I have another variation on this theory, however: what if C were originally much faster, is now the speed at which we now find it, and is not going to change anymore? Except that I have an [[Occam's razor]] problem with that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't dispute at all that the meter is based upon C, but it hardly matters whether it is or not. Either C is constant or it isn't, no matter what units you use. Rather than C slowing since time began, I was thinking more the velocity of C being a function of its distance away from us. Also, your theory satisfies Occam's razor equally well or better than the Big Bang does, so I see no problem with it logically. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Einsteins Theory of Relativity explained how light appears to move at different speeds when the distance is great and the relative speeds are great as it often is in planetary physics. However, this in no way means that c is not a universal constant. Nothing exsists in nature with a real velocity that is relative to the distance it is being viewed.

This hypothosis sounds awkwardly non-falsifyable. It is proposed that light used to travel faster than it does today, but conveniently stoped slowing down before measurement became possible. How can it be determined either way? Also, this would not be a slight slowdown... its going to require light travel a lot faster. The most distant objects known are ten billion light-years away<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1432321.stm</ref>. So, even assuming light slowed from its super-speed to todays speed in a single instant as soon as civilisation emerged, thats going to require it used to travel about 1.67 million times as fast as today to achieve the 6000-year target figure. Im not a physicist, but I dont think thats even remotely possible. A little variation, perhaps, but a factor that huge... it would require adjusting too many other figures to keep the formulae valid. Permiativity of free space, planks constant, a lot of very fundamental things. -- Suricou

::Actually, the [[Hubble Ultra Deep Field]] picture includes galaxies from around 13 billion years ago. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:The basic problem with any variable-c model is that the entire observational record is exactly consistent with constant c. So we're left with two types of model; the one Terry mentions, where c changed in an unobservable way in the distant past, and the one Daniel mentions, where c is different in other parts of the Universe, but these differences manage to leave every observation we make exactly as we would expect if no such change had happened. That essentially leaves us with two different ways of saying "sure, the Universe ''looks'' old, but because of an unobservable, untestable effect, it really isn't." Which may be ''true'', but it'll never be good science. May as well propose that we all live in the Matrix and be done with it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, theory is out - of course, should have realised earlier. If C is altered, the knock-on effect ould include a shift in emmission spectrum. That would be very easily observed in distant stars. As it isn't observed, that means C must be constantish. Perhaps just a little variation, but not a 1.67-million-times factor. I think that just about kills the 'C is faster elsewhere' idea. - Suricou

=== Signs of C changing ===
If the speed of light had changed in the past, would we not see some evidence of it today? I'm no physicist, but I do know one thing about light: when light particles collide with matter they impart energy to that matter, making it warmer. Now, from what I do know of physics it seems to me that the warming effect of light on matter should have something to do with the speed at which said light is travelling. My point is this: if light once travelled much faster than it does today, would that light not also have had a much greater warming effect on matter that it collided with? Would you not, then, expect that modern science would have at least some ability to observe the evidence of light's changing speed. I could only imagine that examples of such evidence might include planets that are completely scorched, or have been scorched in the past, without any current explanation as to why such scorching could have occurred. If light was travelling at faster speeds while there was life present on earth, I can only imagine that some of those creatures would've been getting one heck of a sunburn! [[User:Simple|Simple]] (14:31 GMT-5) 2 July 2007

:Good shot at it--but the energy of light does not depend on its speed. Light imparts its energy to any object it strikes, in discrete packets tentatively called [[photon]]s, the energy of which depends solely on the [[frequency]] of the light. The function is a linear one and depends on [[Planck's constant]].
:Indeed, part of the problem with light is that its speed ''does not even relate to any frame of reference''. The speed of light in any medium depends solely on the [[electrical permittivity]] and [[magnetic permeability]] of that medium. (In fact, the speed of light is the [[reciprocal]] of the [[geometric mean]] of these two quantities.)
:Thus for c to change, the permittivity and permeability of vacuum must also have changed. And the only way to determine that is to examine previous records--and even ''that'' will fail if those records are not sufficiently precise.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== White-hole Cosmology ==
The universe began as a white hole. Initially, as matter expanded into it, time did not flow--because the very space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time. Eventually, time began to flow at the outer fringes of the expanding ball of matter, and this region of timeliness worked its way back to the center. So the earth really is six thousand or so years old--by clocks on the earth, which are the only clocks that need to matter to us. By any clock on the outer fringes, the cosmos might well be twenty billion years old. The light impinges on us now because it was always impinging on the border of the region of timelessness until that region shrank away to nothing.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology White hole cosmology] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Not bad, what about the four-day simultaneous harmonic Time Cube?<ref>[http://timecube.com/ Time Cube] by Doctor Gene Ray</ref> {{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

:Cute. Very cute. And incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:36, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:Falsified by the distinct absence of massive blueshifting of distant light sources. I highly doubt anybody's even attempted to formalize this as a solution to Einstein's field equations, either, which would be a prerequisite for it to be considered a coherent proposition at all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I dug out a few of Humphrey's papers defending this model and reached two basic conclusions. One, as I suspected, there ''is'' no model, merely handwaving. Two, he doesn't actually understand GR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's obvious, given the idiocy of the theory. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For those who are interested, I get into some of the problems with Humphreys' model(s) [[User_talk:Tsumetai/TJ|here]]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness ==
Physics has had for many years more-than-adequate explanations. All of these verbal acrobatics into non-falsifiable theories to try to get around physical fact are humorus. Wouldn't it be easier for those who deny physics to just say "I accept physics, and God is mysterious and powerful enough to make it happen."?
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Proverbs 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 22:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wise words [[User:Cracker|Cracker]], wise words indeed. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 19:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== This About Kills YEC ==
The Starlight Problem is scientifically unsolvable assuming a young universe. You either have to make up pseudoscience, or concede that YEC is based on faith alone, but science disproves it. Agreed?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that you are basically correct. I cannot think of any kind of reasonable way out of this. Why has no-one thought of this argument earlier? I knew, for example that relativity and creation were in direct conflict; basically if you create something out of nothing, then this creates huge issues with gravitational fields etc., but this question is so simple, especially the fact that stars were supposedly created, but you have to either accept that they are al lot nearer (say a couple of light-days), or that Adam and Eve would not be able to see starlight for years. This effectively kills off Young Earth Creation. Wonderful. That';s that obne sorted, now to set about Intelligent Design.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:21, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 4? ==
While it is perhaps not a direct answer to the question, a very plausible explanation is that the universe is ''not'' young, and that light from distant stars has therefore had ample time to reach Earth.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 22:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why 6000 years? ==

Why 6000 years? I mean the Bible doesn't mention when the universe was created anywhere, the date of 4000 BC was actually thought up by scholars in the 17th century [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date1.htm], so I don't really see why people try to defend that date as if it were God's word.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Because when you start at 562 BC (the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]], and then subtract lengths of reign of the last eight kings of the [[Southern Kingdom]] of ancient [[Israel]], and then go back through the synchronized starts-of-reign of the kings of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and Southern, and then take the time between the Exodus and the groundbreaking of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]], add a time for the Sojourn in Egypt, and then backtrack the birthdates of the patriarchs and go clear back to Adam, you arrive at 4004 BC if you assume a "late-in-life siring" of [[Abraham]] by his father, and a "short sojourn" in Egypt. What we defend is the proposition that the earth is no older than are these generations of the patriarchs, the length of the sojourn in Egypt, and so forth up to the present day. The Bible does not allow for an unnamed and large number of years between the birth of the [[earth]] and the creation of [[Adam]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what about that flood and the civilization of Atlantis, did that civilization just sprung up out of no where? And if Noah really did repopulate the Earth (I'm thinking there would be some serious inbreed issues there) wouldn't that have taken a while as well?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I can't comment on Atlantis, because I have seen no documentation that I would consider reliable. If you can document that a city named Atlantis actually existed, then by all means put a message on my Talk page or send me an e-mail. Or better yet, write an article of your own titled "Atlantis" and fill it in with everything you know.

:Concerning Noah, of course that took awhile. But the generations from Noah to Abraham were about ten, give or take. Why not go to {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=10-26|version=KJV}} and count them? Notice also that the lifespans of the generations from Shem to Abraham dropped about ninety percent, and in a hurry.

:Concerning inbreeding: The tremendous lifespans of pre-Flood man suggest strongly that the damaging ionizing radiation that creates so much genetic damage today, simply wasn't an issue. Again, the lifespan of man dropped, and dropped hard, after the Flood. Thus, inbreeding wasn't such a hazard then as it is today.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Atlantis is just what I call the civilization Noah was born in, but 10 generations, that would give, starting with 4 breeding couples and assuming every couple of every generation has 6 healthy children: 8*(3^10) = 470.000 people by 2000 BC, while archealogists assume a world population of 30 million around that time, of course archaelogists also found a lot of things older than 6000 years, including human settlements.

As for the inbreeding, don't make up pseudoscience as you go along, degeneration is caused by the way genetics works, radiation would only make it worse, but is not the main factor.

And no, humans cannot live for 900 years, not without very advanced technology anyway.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==Um, No==

The problem discussed here is irrelevant if you think that, just maybe, the universe might be ''really'' old. As many sages far more sagacious than I have said, why would "God lie to us"? He apparently made a ''very'' old universe, from our perspective. Why are we to argue with the evidence? He ''expects'' us to figure this stuff out, and dwells in His joy when we do. With every advance, we get closer to knowing the Mind of God - the true goal of philosophy. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:24, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's also irrelevant if you believe that God either created the Universe as an operating mechanism - it hit the ground running, if you like - rather than kicking off the Big Bang, or that the creation referred to in the Bible refers only to the Earth (or the Solar System).

The former would also include the creation of fossils and so forth, and would mean that the Universe was created by God to ''appear'' (to us) to be so many billion years old, but its true age is unknown and unknowable. The Starlight Problem, Carbon-14 levels, etc., are all part of the bluebrint.

The latter idea, that the Universe existed previously and Genesis refers to the the creation of the Earth, is easier (in some ways), and nothing in the scripture goes against it. In fact, references to "the void" could refer to this region of space in its unpopulated state. Further down, "Let there be light" could be the creation of Sol, and night and day the fixing of the Earth's rotational speed.
[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 05:55, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

===Telling God what tools he has to use?===
Young Earth just doesn't work for me on several levels:
*We live on a planet composed of heavy elements that can only be created inside of star's and heavy stars at that.
*You have to rewrite physics change the nature of C and make light of a fossil record that just won't be explained away

However at the heart of it, we as men try to interpert an omnipotent God and tell him what tools the creator must use to conform to our limited understanding of an infinate being. I just don't get it and I have to assume that I never will. Who are we to tell God how he was to create the Universe? We assume we understand his (not sure that we do) and we assume we can understand that he wanted us to read Genesis as defo literal and I am not sure that was intended either. An astromoner friend of mine was in a bit of a funk and in frustration told me "We really understand NOTHING! Dark matter probably exists and there is proof but we have not a clue, not one stinking clue what it is! We know that the universe is expanding not only expanding but accellerating and we don't know why! We call it dark energy and we might as well call it black magic. Everything we thought we knew is being turned upside down."

I'll give you this, I can't buy young earth, and I think God is something we may not ever get our puny minds around. God will not be defined by man, not his tools nor his methods. The creator defines us and all the voices demanding he be to their way of thinking are but shouts to the wind. [[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] 15:26, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?

2007-07-05T19:25:55Z

Tirronan: /* Um, No */

{{debate}}

==Theory 1==

Well, I would venture to say that we have not seen the far off ones yet. We can only see the light that has reached the Earth so far. This means that the currently-visible stars are "only" several thousand lightyears away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Empircally false. Basic parallax data gets us that there are stars at least 7000 years away and more sophisticated techniques force other stars to be even farther away. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: What's more of that were true then why have ancient civilisations recorded lots of the stars that were now see? shouldn't there be masses of new ones that the light of which has reached us in the proceeding years? [[User:Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:23 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

:The speed of light, Einstein called it "c" is a universal constant. In order for us to see something, light must travel from that object to our eyes. This is how our eyes work. But, the Universe is far older than earth. For all we know, the earth could be infinitely old. Light which left stars that were 7000-8000 light years away is reaching our eyes now, even if the stars are no longer there. Further more, the creation and destruction of stars in a universe as vast as ours can sometimes go un-noticed if not specifically documented. Today, we find new stars occasionally because we have extensive equipment with which to survey the skies. Ancient civiliations didn't. ~Patriot101.

: The stars that are 7000-8000 light years away, speaking relatively, are our close neighbors in the Milky Way galaxy. Our galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter and contains about 100,000,000 stars. There are hundreds of BILLIONS of galaxies (100,000,000,000+). The most distant light our telescopes have detected comes from recently discovered stars 13-14 billion light years away. That means that light has been traveling at 185,000 MILES PER SECOND for 14,000,000,000 years to reach us from those stars. --[[User:CastleVania|CastleVania]] 22:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps, the Universe really is billions of years old. Perhaps the Genisis account is merely refering to the creation etc. from the perspective of the Earth. Perhaps God is, say, eternal. Couldn't matter and the elements be eternal too? {{Unsigned|Brigham's Homeboy}}

:That's very close to the white-hole cosmology of Russell Humphreys (see below). According to it, the ''fringes'' of the universe are billions of years old, but the ''near-center'' of the universe--where we are--is much younger. In short, time did not flow uniformly throughout the universe--and until relatively recently, in our region, time did not flow at all.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory 2==
When God created the universe, he also created a complete ray of light extending between the star and the Earth. The light that we see ''now'' was created only a few thousand years ago. It looks as if it came from the star, but it really didn't; it was created in mid-air, or mid-space as it were, a few thousand light-years away. The light that started travelling from the star itself at its instant of creation will not reach us for millions of years (or perhaps never if the Earth does not last that long).

<
* = star
- = ray of light
O = Earth
> = where the light we see today was when the Universe was created

BEFORE CREATION:
[Void]
AFTER CREATION of star, Earth, ''and'' complete ray of light all at the same instant
*------------------------------------------------->----O

A few thousand years after Creation (today)
*----------------------------------------------------->O

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

Millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------- O

Millions and millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------------------------------- O

Millions and millions and millions of years later (finally can see star)
*------------------------------------------------------O

The language of the Bible, "Let there be light," even can be read as supporting this.

This theory is absolutely ridiculous. The stars we see in the sky are millions of light years away, and we can see them because the earth has existed for far longer than a few thousand years. Astronomers can tell roughly how old a star is, and they know that the ones you see at night are older than a few thousand years.

No, I do not believe this. (But I can't prove it's not true.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:27, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith: This is the essence of why this is religion not science, it can't be proven/disproven... [[User:Jesput|Jespur]]

: Jesput, the same is true for science. Science cannot prove anything at all. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: This is a variant of omphalism and essentially asserts that God has deliberately deceived humans. I don't think most people would want to believe in a deceptive deity and in any event, it would contradict the verse in Isaiah that says that God is truth. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Couldn't God have added the verse in Isaiah to make us believe that He is saying the truth? [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 04:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

If God is trying to fake us out, He certainly did His best to make it a CONVINCING fake. Just check out those scientists who've been fooled into thinking an entire galaxy was ripped in two several billion years ago. <ref> [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070302_galaxy_rip.html Galaxy Ripped to Shreds]</ref>{{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

: I'm sorry, this is a nice theory, but JoshuaZ is right, it's a type of omphalism, and assumes that God deliberately tricked us. At some point, [[Occam's Razor]] has to kick in here. But wow, this light argument sure does rip YEC to shreds.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::The theory does not insinuate that God is deceptive. In Genesis, he talks to Abraham about his descendants and how they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky. What if God made the stars like that, not to deceive humans in any way, but to use them for His own purpose, such as using them as a metaphor? (By the way, how is making rays of light any form of deception? How are we being "tricked" by this creation?) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Rays of light carry information; they're records of past events. If light was really created in transit, then we've witnessed the death of stars which never actually existed in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Descartes approached a similar problem in his meditations. The way out of it was to say that since God is good, God would not do something to intentionally deceive our senses and thus we can trust them. I believe that it is valid to continue that to say that it is reasonable to trust our extended senses that this planet is a several billion years old. Otherwise (as Descartes would say), God is a deceiver and then would not be the most perfect being that can be imagined. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Fraid that's the logical conclusion. Then again, [[theory of evolution|a lot of things on this site]] are quite disconnected from logic.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I respect everyone's beliefs here, but I find that the most beautiful resolution for myself is to see God as operating above our level of existence. Why would He speak of a day as the same mundane day you and I experience? The saying that 1,000 years to us is but a blink of an eye to Him comes to mind. I believe that the days in Genesis simply weren't literally days in terms of the Earth spinning around once, but they were days as God experiences them in his higher existence. I find it unfathomable that God would deceive us with empirical evidence like red-shifted light from stars and dinosaur fossils and so on. God is not that petty.. God is love, and God is honest, as he asks us to be. --[[User:CastleVania|CastleVania]] 22:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 3 ==

C is not actually constant. All measurements on Earth indicate that it is, but beyond our Solar System it could easily be faster, slower, moving through wormholes to appear faster, etc. Hubble's Law says that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves away due to universal expansion, so why couldn't light be similarly expanded with distance? So many of our assumptions about the universe rely on our belief that things happen the same way everywhere - a huge leap of faith for a scientist. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 13:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know whether you knew, but the official definition of the [[meter]] now assumes that C is constant. The meter is defined in terms of C! Someone needs to set up some periodic re-measurements of the orange-red line from the spectrum of [[krypton]]-86 that provided the most recent definition of the meter: 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of this radiation. If that number starts to rise, then we know that C is slowing, as [[Barry Setterfield]] has stated.

:I have another variation on this theory, however: what if C were originally much faster, is now the speed at which we now find it, and is not going to change anymore? Except that I have an [[Occam's razor]] problem with that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't dispute at all that the meter is based upon C, but it hardly matters whether it is or not. Either C is constant or it isn't, no matter what units you use. Rather than C slowing since time began, I was thinking more the velocity of C being a function of its distance away from us. Also, your theory satisfies Occam's razor equally well or better than the Big Bang does, so I see no problem with it logically. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Einsteins Theory of Relativity explained how light appears to move at different speeds when the distance is great and the relative speeds are great as it often is in planetary physics. However, this in no way means that c is not a universal constant. Nothing exsists in nature with a real velocity that is relative to the distance it is being viewed.

This hypothosis sounds awkwardly non-falsifyable. It is proposed that light used to travel faster than it does today, but conveniently stoped slowing down before measurement became possible. How can it be determined either way? Also, this would not be a slight slowdown... its going to require light travel a lot faster. The most distant objects known are ten billion light-years away<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1432321.stm</ref>. So, even assuming light slowed from its super-speed to todays speed in a single instant as soon as civilisation emerged, thats going to require it used to travel about 1.67 million times as fast as today to achieve the 6000-year target figure. Im not a physicist, but I dont think thats even remotely possible. A little variation, perhaps, but a factor that huge... it would require adjusting too many other figures to keep the formulae valid. Permiativity of free space, planks constant, a lot of very fundamental things. -- Suricou

::Actually, the [[Hubble Ultra Deep Field]] picture includes galaxies from around 13 billion years ago. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:The basic problem with any variable-c model is that the entire observational record is exactly consistent with constant c. So we're left with two types of model; the one Terry mentions, where c changed in an unobservable way in the distant past, and the one Daniel mentions, where c is different in other parts of the Universe, but these differences manage to leave every observation we make exactly as we would expect if no such change had happened. That essentially leaves us with two different ways of saying "sure, the Universe ''looks'' old, but because of an unobservable, untestable effect, it really isn't." Which may be ''true'', but it'll never be good science. May as well propose that we all live in the Matrix and be done with it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, theory is out - of course, should have realised earlier. If C is altered, the knock-on effect ould include a shift in emmission spectrum. That would be very easily observed in distant stars. As it isn't observed, that means C must be constantish. Perhaps just a little variation, but not a 1.67-million-times factor. I think that just about kills the 'C is faster elsewhere' idea. - Suricou

=== Signs of C changing ===
If the speed of light had changed in the past, would we not see some evidence of it today? I'm no physicist, but I do know one thing about light: when light particles collide with matter they impart energy to that matter, making it warmer. Now, from what I do know of physics it seems to me that the warming effect of light on matter should have something to do with the speed at which said light is travelling. My point is this: if light once travelled much faster than it does today, would that light not also have had a much greater warming effect on matter that it collided with? Would you not, then, expect that modern science would have at least some ability to observe the evidence of light's changing speed. I could only imagine that examples of such evidence might include planets that are completely scorched, or have been scorched in the past, without any current explanation as to why such scorching could have occurred. If light was travelling at faster speeds while there was life present on earth, I can only imagine that some of those creatures would've been getting one heck of a sunburn! [[User:Simple|Simple]] (14:31 GMT-5) 2 July 2007

:Good shot at it--but the energy of light does not depend on its speed. Light imparts its energy to any object it strikes, in discrete packets tentatively called [[photon]]s, the energy of which depends solely on the [[frequency]] of the light. The function is a linear one and depends on [[Planck's constant]].
:Indeed, part of the problem with light is that its speed ''does not even relate to any frame of reference''. The speed of light in any medium depends solely on the [[electrical permittivity]] and [[magnetic permeability]] of that medium. (In fact, the speed of light is the [[reciprocal]] of the [[geometric mean]] of these two quantities.)
:Thus for c to change, the permittivity and permeability of vacuum must also have changed. And the only way to determine that is to examine previous records--and even ''that'' will fail if those records are not sufficiently precise.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== White-hole Cosmology ==
The universe began as a white hole. Initially, as matter expanded into it, time did not flow--because the very space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time. Eventually, time began to flow at the outer fringes of the expanding ball of matter, and this region of timeliness worked its way back to the center. So the earth really is six thousand or so years old--by clocks on the earth, which are the only clocks that need to matter to us. By any clock on the outer fringes, the cosmos might well be twenty billion years old. The light impinges on us now because it was always impinging on the border of the region of timelessness until that region shrank away to nothing.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology White hole cosmology] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Not bad, what about the four-day simultaneous harmonic Time Cube?<ref>[http://timecube.com/ Time Cube] by Doctor Gene Ray</ref> {{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

:Cute. Very cute. And incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:36, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:Falsified by the distinct absence of massive blueshifting of distant light sources. I highly doubt anybody's even attempted to formalize this as a solution to Einstein's field equations, either, which would be a prerequisite for it to be considered a coherent proposition at all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I dug out a few of Humphrey's papers defending this model and reached two basic conclusions. One, as I suspected, there ''is'' no model, merely handwaving. Two, he doesn't actually understand GR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's obvious, given the idiocy of the theory. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For those who are interested, I get into some of the problems with Humphreys' model(s) [[User_talk:Tsumetai/TJ|here]]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness ==
Physics has had for many years more-than-adequate explanations. All of these verbal acrobatics into non-falsifiable theories to try to get around physical fact are humorus. Wouldn't it be easier for those who deny physics to just say "I accept physics, and God is mysterious and powerful enough to make it happen."?
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Proverbs 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 22:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wise words [[User:Cracker|Cracker]], wise words indeed. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 19:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== This About Kills YEC ==
The Starlight Problem is scientifically unsolvable assuming a young universe. You either have to make up pseudoscience, or concede that YEC is based on faith alone, but science disproves it. Agreed?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that you are basically correct. I cannot think of any kind of reasonable way out of this. Why has no-one thought of this argument earlier? I knew, for example that relativity and creation were in direct conflict; basically if you create something out of nothing, then this creates huge issues with gravitational fields etc., but this question is so simple, especially the fact that stars were supposedly created, but you have to either accept that they are al lot nearer (say a couple of light-days), or that Adam and Eve would not be able to see starlight for years. This effectively kills off Young Earth Creation. Wonderful. That';s that obne sorted, now to set about Intelligent Design.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:21, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 4? ==
While it is perhaps not a direct answer to the question, a very plausible explanation is that the universe is ''not'' young, and that light from distant stars has therefore had ample time to reach Earth.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 22:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why 6000 years? ==

Why 6000 years? I mean the Bible doesn't mention when the universe was created anywhere, the date of 4000 BC was actually thought up by scholars in the 17th century [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date1.htm], so I don't really see why people try to defend that date as if it were God's word.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Because when you start at 562 BC (the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]], and then subtract lengths of reign of the last eight kings of the [[Southern Kingdom]] of ancient [[Israel]], and then go back through the synchronized starts-of-reign of the kings of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and Southern, and then take the time between the Exodus and the groundbreaking of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]], add a time for the Sojourn in Egypt, and then backtrack the birthdates of the patriarchs and go clear back to Adam, you arrive at 4004 BC if you assume a "late-in-life siring" of [[Abraham]] by his father, and a "short sojourn" in Egypt. What we defend is the proposition that the earth is no older than are these generations of the patriarchs, the length of the sojourn in Egypt, and so forth up to the present day. The Bible does not allow for an unnamed and large number of years between the birth of the [[earth]] and the creation of [[Adam]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what about that flood and the civilization of Atlantis, did that civilization just sprung up out of no where? And if Noah really did repopulate the Earth (I'm thinking there would be some serious inbreed issues there) wouldn't that have taken a while as well?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I can't comment on Atlantis, because I have seen no documentation that I would consider reliable. If you can document that a city named Atlantis actually existed, then by all means put a message on my Talk page or send me an e-mail. Or better yet, write an article of your own titled "Atlantis" and fill it in with everything you know.

:Concerning Noah, of course that took awhile. But the generations from Noah to Abraham were about ten, give or take. Why not go to {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=10-26|version=KJV}} and count them? Notice also that the lifespans of the generations from Shem to Abraham dropped about ninety percent, and in a hurry.

:Concerning inbreeding: The tremendous lifespans of pre-Flood man suggest strongly that the damaging ionizing radiation that creates so much genetic damage today, simply wasn't an issue. Again, the lifespan of man dropped, and dropped hard, after the Flood. Thus, inbreeding wasn't such a hazard then as it is today.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Atlantis is just what I call the civilization Noah was born in, but 10 generations, that would give, starting with 4 breeding couples and assuming every couple of every generation has 6 healthy children: 8*(3^10) = 470.000 people by 2000 BC, while archealogists assume a world population of 30 million around that time, of course archaelogists also found a lot of things older than 6000 years, including human settlements.

As for the inbreeding, don't make up pseudoscience as you go along, degeneration is caused by the way genetics works, radiation would only make it worse, but is not the main factor.

And no, humans cannot live for 900 years, not without very advanced technology anyway.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==Um, No==

The problem discussed here is irrelevant if you think that, just maybe, the universe might be ''really'' old. As many sages far more sagacious than I have said, why would "God lie to us"? He apparently made a ''very'' old universe, from our perspective. Why are we to argue with the evidence? He ''expects'' us to figure this stuff out, and dwells in His joy when we do. With every advance, we get closer to knowing the Mind of God - the true goal of philosophy. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:24, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's also irrelevant if you believe that God either created the Universe as an operating mechanism - it hit the ground running, if you like - rather than kicking off the Big Bang, or that the creation referred to in the Bible refers only to the Earth (or the Solar System).

The former would also include the creation of fossils and so forth, and would mean that the Universe was created by God to ''appear'' (to us) to be so many billion years old, but its true age is unknown and unknowable. The Starlight Problem, Carbon-14 levels, etc., are all part of the bluebrint.

The latter idea, that the Universe existed previously and Genesis refers to the the creation of the Earth, is easier (in some ways), and nothing in the scripture goes against it. In fact, references to "the void" could refer to this region of space in its unpopulated state. Further down, "Let there be light" could be the creation of Sol, and night and day the fixing of the Earth's rotational speed.
[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 05:55, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

===Telling God what tools he has to use?===
Young Earth just doesn't work for me on several levels:
*We live on a planet composed of heavy elements that can only be created inside of star's and heavy stars at that.
*You have to rewrite physics change the nature of C and make light of a fossil record that just won't be explained away

However at the heart of it, we as men try to interpert an omnipotent God and tell him what tools the creator must use to conform to our limited understanding of an infinate being. I just don't get it and I have to assume that I never will. Who are we do tell God how he was to create the Universe? We assume we understand his (not sure that we do) and we assume we can understand that he wanted us to read Genesis as defo literal and I am not sure that was intended either. An astromoner friend of mine was in a bit of a funk and in frustration told me "We really understand NOTHING! Dark matter probably exists and there is proof but we have not a clue, not one stinking clue what it is! We know that the universe is expanding not only expanding but accellerating and we don't know why! We call it dark energy and we might as well call it black magic. Everything we thought we knew is being turned upside down."

I'll give you this, I can't buy young earth, and I think God is something we may not ever get our puny minds around. God will not be defined by man, not his tools nor his methods. The creator defines us and all the voices demanding he be to their way of thinking are but shouts to the wind.

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-07-05T18:23:05Z

Tirronan: /* OTHER */

{{debate-science}}

== Contrary evidence ==
You all might want to take a look at [http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804 this article], which offers some highly embarrassing details on [[Albert Gore, Jr.]]'s public-policy pronouncements, his refusal to do that which he asks others to do, and other, even grosser [[Sin#Environmentalism|sin]]s against the environment.

# A number of eminent scientists are now claiming--and for publication in ''The New York Times'', no less--that Gore's reports of the planet's imminent demise from heatstroke are greatly exaggerated.
# The article reiterates the accusation of [[special pleading]] against Gore--that while his Academy Award winning film asks, "Are you prepared to change your lifestyle?", Gore has not shown himself willing to change his own. Futhermore, it gives this detail on those "carbon offsets":<blockquote>The offset purchases are actually made for him by Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm that Mr. Gore co-founded, and which provides carbon offsets as a fringe benefit to all 23 of its employees, ensuring that they require no real sacrifice on the part of Mr. Gore or his family. Indeed, their impact is also highly limited. The Carbon Neutral Co.--one of the two vendors that sell offsets to Mr. Gore's company, says that offset purchases "will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . . . in the short term."</blockquote>
# And now ''The Tennesseean'' (Nashville) reports that Gore has a zinc mine that has a history of polluting a local river.

Point number one above is the most important point, though points two and three show that former Senator Gore is not the most qualified authority on the subject.

I have said before that this debate is an adversarial proceeding, with Gore advocating that everyone else fundamentally change the way they (or I should say, we) live because the planet is somehow in peril and that peril is somehow our fault. But any lawyer (and he is one) knows that when a witness tells a lie on a material point, everything else he says is automatically suspect without independent corroboration. Well, special pleading might not be lying, but that zinc-mine affair shows him guilty of monumental dissemblance, which is close. So my advice to the global-warming alarmists is to find another chief advocate, and try to content with Point One.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

''The above points about Al Gore have nothing to do with global warming, and perhaps should be moved to some anti-Al Gore page.''[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:23, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== No ==
What information do we have that we can prove? We have statistics that can’t be denied, but when the statistics were presented, were they manipulated to serve the speaker’s cause. Could they be interpreted in different ways? As Evan Esar said, “Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions,” and as Mark Twain said, “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.” Also, there has not been a control experiment (not possible with today’s technology) done to see whether any assumptions that have been made are true or even possible. So how can anyone (especially Al Gore) say so confidently that humans have caused any change in the climate when there are many other possibilities? He or she cannot. Besides, this would not be the first time a politician (like Al Gore) has been terribly confused or lying through their teeth to increase the disapproval rate of a political enemy (or any other way this debate may be helping Gore).

Al Gore is giving the worse case scenario on many of the catastrophes (Al Gore mistook the oceans rising 20 feet for 23 inches, United Nations estimates for the result of the melting of the polar ice caps, or was that just more propaganda), that of course, “will happen” if the world population does not act. Of course his threatening words come from scientists who “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence.” (Al Gore) So in other words scientists “don’t know… They just don’t know.” (Al Gore) No one can base the truth or much of an opinion on “They just don’t know.”

Mr. Gore’s website for his movie ''An Inconvenient Truth'' presents very little scientifically proven fact. In fact, under the link "The Science," [(http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/)] Al Gore only says that carbon dioxide naturally keeps our planet warm and he tries to convince his readers that his assumptions that the greenhouse gases are actually affecting the climate in a negative way by saying, “The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence,” Have you ever heard of bribing, blackmailing, or scaring scientists by making them think they will lose their grant money if they disagree with Gore (I am not saying Gore is bribing or blackmailing, anonymous people could be). Instilling fear worked in Hitler’s regime (I am not making a comparison just an observation). Then he continues on and on about what he thinks will happen if global warming is not stopped (considering the innumerable mistakes he has already made in this argument there is not much science in that). What he does not say is that scientists know (they do not know) that global warming “is the result of our activities,” (Al Gore's website for his movie) or even exists. He fails to address other possibilities for the causes of catastrophes that he “believes” will occur, is occuring, or has occured as a result of global warming (droughts, hurricanes, etcetera). Like why is global warming the culprit for some natural disaster instead of… For example, the Dust Bowl in the U.S. was caused by poor farming practices, which made the soil too loose, and drought set in. It was not global warming, or anything else.

Then there is the other side of the argument. They completely deny that it is getting warmer; yet, they agree that the average temperature has gone up one degree. It could be a natural occurrence. There is not any evidence that means we should forget about this possibility.

So what side do I support? Each side has its faults (I have found more faults on the global warming is real side), but I cannot support the side that says global warming has been started by human practices. I do not support global warming mainly because there is not enough evidence; just one group’s assumptions. So I want more evidence (not statistics) in order for me to be concerned about and support the fight against global warming.--[[User:Shna|Shna]] 19:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[Nationao Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association|NOAA]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm]. However, I don't dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, after the last several winters have been cold, harsh, snowy, occasioned great expense for snow clearance and equally great property damage from traffic accidents, froze people to death and caused other people to die in two-ton metal coffins. When you're comparing it to the Blizzard of 1996, or the Eighteen Storms of Jersey in the 1993-4 winter--well, frankly we could use another 1.3 degrees of warmth.
::Tell you what, neighbor: let's trade homes. You come here to New Jersey and put yourself in the deep freeze, and I'll move out to wherever you are and thaw out.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm from Minnesota. I doubt I'd mind. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 09:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Then what in the name of Jack Frost are you complaining about?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Complaining? You were complaining about how hard your winter is, and issued the challenge that I would not hold the opinion I do if I lived somewhere cold. I answered that I have, in fact, lived somewhere cold and I still think global warming is a huge problem. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Then your position is a total [[non sequitur]]. How can you say the globe is warming when your own thermometer tells you that it's still cold? How can you say that the globe is warming when ''three conferences'' called by global-warming alarmists had to be canceled because of snow and ice? How can you say that the globe is warming, when a North Pole expedition, looking for "evidence," had to turn back because one of the expeditionaries came down with frostbite? This whole debate gets more ridiculous with every passing week.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: You assert that you know something about logic, so I think that you are aware that this whole argument is based on the logical fallacies of [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] and [[misleading vividness]]. Climate change does not mean that people are going to immediately stop getting frostbite when they make expeditions to the North Pole.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::By that same token, then, no one has shown that tomorrow the forests of Southern [[California]] are going to go up in smoke, or that [[San Francisco]] is going to slip into the sea, or that [[Key West]] is going to wash away. And before you say that "nobody ever said that," I say that they have. One point three degrees. ''So what???'' Again, it's still not as warm as some other winters we used to have in [[New Jersey]]. We got unprecedented snow in 1993-4, and before then, we hardly ever had three feet of snow to fall in one day. Global warming? Hah! Global ''cooling'' was more like it.
:::::::::And another thing: we haven't discussed a little item such as the finding of polar ice melts on [[Mars]]. Now are you going to claim that we are somehow fouling up the climate on Mars, too?
:::::::::All that's happening is that the sunspots are a little more active. This, too, shall pass. And when it does, you can ice yourself down again, just as you were used to doing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::: We're almost off the page at this point, so this'll be my last response, and you can have the final word.
::::::::::1.3 degrees (by the way, are you refering to how much it has changed so far, or projected change?) may not sound like much, but it does have a big effect. Example: during the last major ice age, when glaciers covered as far south as Ohio, the temperature was only 9 degrees different than it is now. You can cite cases of people getting frostbite at the North Pole and all sorts of other [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] logical fallacies, but you still haven't attempted to come up with a coherent argument disputing the basic premises of the case for climate change: 1. Burning fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide. 2. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 16:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Unfortunately, we are at the sunspot minimum of the cycle rather than the maximum. [http://www.dxlc.com/solar/solcycle.html] and [http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast14oct99_1.htm] for more on the sunspot count. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}
"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore's side of the story is missing here: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "clean energy". So, for every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ). Essentially, he offsets his energy consumption by making sure that an equal ammount spent elsewhere is renewable, and doesn't produce carbon dioxide.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I've heard that excuse many times before. Gore buys "clean energy offsets" from a company he owns, and one that, furthermore, won't sell to anyoone else. So if you think I'm attacking him, of course I am--for hypocrisy and mendacity. About the only good that might come out of this is the development of certain techniques that might--I say again, might--prove valuable for reasons ''other than'' this false climate alarm.

:::But if Gore were at all serious, then he would turn his home into a showcase home for conversation, as [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] did.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: You're saying that Al Gore owns the Nashville Electrical service, where he gets his electricity [http://www.nespower.com/green_power_switch.aspx]? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::He owns this Global Initiatives outfit where he buys his "carbon offsets," like planting trees. That's what I mean by buying carbon offsets from himself.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: So, he pays his energy bill to a company that he doesn't own, then spends additional money to offset his carbon output by creating wind and solar power and planting trees. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Why don't you accept any obligation to disprove global warming? A theory has been put forward and the only way to defeat a theory is to show, logically, where it is in error. Your statement that global warming is not a fact is just that, a statement. If you cannot offer a viable reason for your statement, why should I or anyone else accept your assertion? Certainly not because of your conspiracy paranoia. [[jwcddd]]

:For one simple reason: the [[global warming]] debate is at heart an adversarial proceeding. It might as well be titled ''People of the Temple of Gaia versus All Those Who Consume More than the Allowed Amount of Energy Per Person Per Day.'' [[Albert Gore, Jr]], of course, appears as the lead counsel for the plaintiff--and a most unworthy counsel he is, because he consumes twenty times as much energy as any of the rest of us.

:In any event, Gore and his co-counsels, including people like you, are trying to argue that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:''If that be shown'', then and only then does the burden-of-proof shift to the defendant--and here on Conservapedia, I seem to be the chief advocate for the defense in this particular forum.

:Now as any lawyer knows, in order to win a judgment based on ''res ipsa loquitur'', the plaintiff must establish that the thing causing the alleged damage ''lies under the exclusive control of the defendant''.

:So all I really have to show is that mankind ''does not'' have exclusive control. But more than that, the ''plaintiff'' must show that mankind ''does'' have that exclusive control.

:You can't show that. You can't even show significant damage--but even if you could, ''you cannot establish an exclusivity of control'' by man. Not when the planet [[Mars]] is warming up in just as great a proportion as, if not a greater proportion than, is the earth.

:I have heard of a lot of "climatological models." I have not heard of one yet that has been shown to be accurate.

:Consider what a judgment for the plaintiff means. It means that the government ought to forbid people to drive an automobile without first getting the equivalent of a Certificate of Need for building a hospital. It means that the government ought to forbid people to live in single-family residences without a similar CON, and require everyone to live in dormitory-style "apartments." It means that all transportation will be public transportation--except for Al Gore's limousine. It means that everyone's electricity budget gets cut back ninety percent. It means no more individual computers, TV sets, or any other kind of "gadget."

:I can see it now: Al Gore living large in the master's house and riding around in his limousine, and [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] as the dedicated forman, living as simply as everyone else, enforcing the Gore rules as ruthlessly as is required, and never questioning their necessity, or the logical holes in them.

:Given such stakes as that, the defense has the right to insist on a very high burden of proof. Indeed the defense "moves" that the burden be set to the highest of standards: ''beyond a reasonable doubt.''

:Of course, I maintain that the plaintiff cannot even satisfy a burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. It certainly cannot satisfy the exclusive-control test required for a ''res ipsa loquitur'' verdict.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's quite an answer. But of course you have once again avoided the issue. Global warming is not a court case. It is a scientific proposition which can only be found wanting through a scientific process. Your hang-ups with Gore and Mars, have no bearing on the debate, and one would assume that your reason for not addressing the issue directly reflects your inability to do so.

Models are presented to demonstrate possibilities, as proof-of-concept representations. No model has ever been 100% correct because there are no crystal balls in real life. However, models are based on fundamental research; not mysticism or magic. These same research fundamentals gave society the Germ Theory of Medicine, home computers, and DVD's. Models are why drug companies do trials before their products go to market; and models are used to make buildings safer, and airplanes able to meet performance criteria. So unless you can dismiss out of hand, the methodology that affords progress for the health and welfare of humanity, not to mention the conveniences of civilization, you still have not given anyone reading this page a reason to doubt that global warming is a fact. [[jwcddd]]

:And you show, as is usual for liberals, that you are unable to put yourself in another person's place. I have raised another issue that you consistently ignore: that you have not yet proved that mankind is ''exclusively at fault'' in your so-called process.

:Your argument assumes that [[global warming]] is established with the same rigor and dispassionate observation with which [[Antoine Lavoisier]] disproved the phlogiston theory of combustion, or [[Benjamin Franklin]] determined that lightning was a physical phenomenon and not exclusively a mystical one. Your argument further conflates invention with the prescription of public policy.

:I say again: ''your theory requires a public policy tantamount to punishment of those who live larger than yourself or higher than some threhold that you and your co-ideologues define.'' And because of that, it is for ''you'' to show that global warming ''is'' a fact, and that mankind is ''at tortious fault'' for same.

:You are alleging the tort of negligence. Four things are required to establish negligence:

:# Duty of care.
:# Dereliction of duty.
:# Injury.
:# Damage.

:Thus far, you have not shown dereliction of duty. You have not even shown injury, much less damage--but you have definitely not shown dereliction of duty.

:I could simply observe that your arrogance, in thinking that you are my judge, amazes me, and let it go at that. But I further observe that neither you nor anyone on your side has begun to think the matter through.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Terry for your four points above
::#The duty of care is ours by default, human race. We are the only ones advance enough to cause change on a global scale.
::#Our dereliction of duty is evident in that we avoid taking responsibility for our duty, keep polluting even though we know it is bad by claiming that there are other factors as well that add to the pollution.
::#Displacement of species of animals, by changing the climate many animal species are moving to newer areas. This is causing an increase in invasive species and choking out native species.
::#The destruction of ice shelves, increased destruction of forests and the accelerated extinction of species. Seems to be quiet a bit of damage.

What I can not understand is why so many people are so resistant to policies and guidelines that promote a healthy environment? Are we that greedy that we are willing to continue to pollute and cause destruction of nature?

I saw Jerry Falwell on TV last night reporting against global warming. How can any minister encourage the continuation of wasteful actions in regards to environmental resources? I would think that anyone who is a man of god would cherish the creation of god and not work to destroy it. Perhaps we should take some lessons from the Amish.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Well Terry, I think you and yours are the ones who have not thought things through. Your arguments are based on the assumed full culpability of man for global warming. No one has made such an assertion. What has been stated in virtually every study on the evolution of the warming phenomenon is that carbon loading of the atmosphere, which has accelerated since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, tends to exacerbate and subsequently, accelerate the warming trend.
Now you as a human may not wish to accept responsibility, and that’s fine; but you as an intellectual should appreciate the logic in making attempts at minimizing the over-all affects of climate change. You worry about how your life would be disrupted if the economic base of the world had to adjust to offset warming when, in fact, the logical apprehension should be caused by the possibility that the warming is a fact and that, if nothing is done, a major portion of the global economy might collapse. Now that’s not an idle joke. Consider that nearly one third of the human race lives within a meter or two of sea level; that most third world agricultural areas are adjacent to or within close proximity to rivers and streams. How much disruption to the human endeavor would result from a sea level rise of just half a meter?

You like to call the supporters of the warming theory alarmists. Well maybe they are; but you could just as easily be called someone who wants to bury his head in the sand. You posit that warming theory is wrong for the very reasons you should be embracing attempts to prove it and to address its issues; the affect it will have on your life, your society, and your well being. Of course, I mean that rhetorically because the worse will not happen in our, or at least in my, lifetime; but I would suspect that you are not so selfish as to wish to jeopardize the health and well being of your progeny.
Consider the effect the displacement of a billion people might have on the world economy. The wars that will be fought for shrinking resources such as water and food.

Now I don’t have to prove that to you or anyone else, the simple possibility that it may occur should be motivation enough to ask “what can be done to prevent it from happening?”

You can engage in all the smoke screening you like. If you seriously think that global warming will go away, or not occur because you don’t like Gore; or because you think that scientists are just advancing the theory to enjoy financial gain; or because it may in part, be caused by increased solar activity, then you are not as intelligent as you would have people believe. You say the proponents try to assert that res ipsa loguitur –the thing speaks for itself. In fact, that is your argument, just coming from the opposite direction.

There you have it, Terry. You can answer if you want, you can continue to cower behind your Latin clichés, and you can continue to convince yourself that you have nothing to fear. You can have the last word, TerryH. You are no longer worth my time here. You accuse me of not having thought things through; I would assert that you have thought of nothing but denial. I have no respect for people who are incapable of logical thought; who engage not in unbiased science, but rather unscientific bias. [[jwcddd]] 21:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:What you stand on is not science at all, but grant-moneyed political pabulum and [[propaganda]]. ''I'' have no respect for them who accuse me falsely--not merely of "denial," as you put it, but of an intentional tort against the environment. For that is the accusation you continue to make.
:As for granting me the last word--is that a promise?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally am very skeptical of the current "global warming" frenzy. It just doesn't appear to have much solidity to it, and even if the earth is warming, the environment is highly self-regulatory. Warmer temperatures mean increased evaporation. Now it is true that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but as it condense in the atmosphere, it forms clouds, which block the suns rays, dim the surface, and effectively lower temperatures. I personally believe that the earth might warm, but only to a certain point, at which natural systems would work to cool it again. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:I would certainly agree with the above. Add to it that if carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, then vegetation will take it up--along with the increased rains.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I guess Terry and Aardvark that you both do not understand chemistry and radiation. Yes more water vapor means more clouds, however clouds do not block the right wavelength of light. You can receive sunburn on a cloudy day, UV penetrates many cloud masses and reaches the earth. When the light is reflected back to space however its energy is reduced and is stopped from escaping the atmosphere by the clouds thus causing convection in the atmosphere. If you do not believe what I just stated then think about Venus, the atmosphere is cloud covered all of the time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::On to water vapor. Water vapor has high heat absorption and is very effective at retaining heat. So the more water vapor there is in the atmosphere the higher the temp. Since the higher the temp the atmosphere has a greater ability to gain more water vapor. This cycle continues till equilibrium is established however by our adding of other green house gasses this equilibrium is continually offset.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aardvark, lets put this in perspective about the natural systems cooling the earth again. Paper trash breaks down over time in dirt and weather. But the more paper trash we add to the system the longer it takes to break down. If we continue to add over what the system can break down normally we end up with a build up. Same thing with the Green house gasses. The Atmosphere can breakdown certain gasses however with the continual addition of gasses we end up overwhelming the reactions that break the gasses up. If you exceed the limits of the natural system it will not work.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::TerryH, additional CO2 and deforestation renders your statement moot. We have been exceeding what vegetation can keep up with for years, if not then the hole in the Ozone would have closed or remained unchanged. We are not seeding new rainforests at the rate we are cutting them down, nor are we replacing the vegetation that we remove when expanding our living areas. Come now think about what you just said.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I am a scientist who has done a study which shows that mankind is incapable of determining whether there will be global warming. My findings, the summary of which follows, knocks the foundation out from under those who predict warming.

Essentially, it shows that the warming "experts" are unable to accurately predict tomorrow's temperature. I compared predictions of the National Weather Service to actual outcomes for next-day temps, and found that the "experts" were right only 11% of the time. I also found that if, instead of using their education, experience, software, supercomputers, and satellites, they had merely said tomorrow's temp will be the same as today's, they would have been right 16% of the time-- a considerable improvement.

The conclusion of my study is that, since the "experts" can only predict tomorrow's temp with 11% accuracy, they can't predict the temp 36,000 times farther out into the future.

My study isn't published yet, so sorry, I can't provide a reference. Earl100.

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe you have a skewed understanding of how science works. What you have proposed with the scientist fudging their data would be one of the largest conspiracies in our time. A scientist's livelihood is 100% based on their ability to accurately report and research. If one is found fudging they would lose everything, the science world is very unforgiving and hard to compete within. Grant money is not just given out, a scientist's credentials and background research are judged for awarding of grants.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::While the image may be from Wikipedia, it is simply a graph of data from various weather sources and compiled into one chart. The numbers themselves are from a 10 peer reviewed papers and not something that is part of Wikipedia. You could go look up those papers and chart it yourself and come up with the exact same graph. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:52, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

:[[Global warming]] is evident, but it's neither man's fault nor any cause for alarm. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. And [[solar variation]] drives temperature. A couple of degrees of additional warmth will be good for crops and will reduce [[extreme weather]] events like [[hurricane]]s. So there's no need to stop anything. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Oh... Better crops? Thats nice for you US citicens, but how about in countryes near equator? How about desertification and melting polar ice? And it will reduce hurricanes? Global warming has been alleged to do just the opposite, to create more extreme weather phenomens, like hurricanes. [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181]. (And damn those math questions every time i post, need to click several times to get an easy one ;) ) [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Have you considered the implications for the US economy as the bread basket moves north to Canada? Or the Pentagon's report on [http://www.gbn.com/GBNDocumentDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231&url=%2FUploadDocumentDisplayServlet.srv%3Fid%3D28566 Abrupt Climate Change] and national security? One of the biggest dangers of a warming climate (natural or not) is that the top of the ocean becomes less salty (from melting ice sheets) and some of the ocean currents stop. This in turn makes for more extreme weather - droughts (the pentagon report goes into questions of water disputes between the US and Canada and the US and Mexico, though these would probably be minor compared to those going on in Asia - which would get worse). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

At the risk of upsetting the young earth crowd, we have the Great Permian Extintion Event, as this is 251 million years ago there were no humans on the planet to contribute a thing to gobal warming. This was a rise of about 20 degrees and wiped out most 95% of life on earth at that time. We have had large numbers of ice ages as well most without human intervention and there is very limited proof that at one stage we might have had an ice ball earth. What I am getting to here is that rising vulcanism can in of itself raise gobal tempertures and other factors as well. This is what I am certain of, we are in a warming phase, and I am also certain that we are probably adding somewhat to that problem. Finding more effiecent ways of using our resources is a smart thing for many reasons and this would seem to be another. Finding better ways to reduce carbon dioxide output and sequistering co2 would not seem to be out of the question. The fact that we can use such gases to revitalise our US oil fields seems to be a good use of waste gases that we don't want to emit. Rising sea levels and stonger hurricanes along with crop disruptions are not in our best interests. Remember we are not talking about the end of life but no dominate species has ever survived an extintion event and I for one don't care to bet the future of the human race on us being the 1st. [[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] 14:17, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

== OTHER ==

While there may indeed be global warming there is no clear culprit. Even the scientist's
argue over who/what did it...

you know most of the "educated" people of the old times said the earth was flat...but it wasnt.

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:42, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Actually there wasn't and isn't a sailor then or now that would have told you that the earth was flat. Every time you see a ship rising above or sinking below the horizon it gets confirmed. There was that belief but it wasn't nearly as wide spread as we now believe. It was an ancient greek that had the 1st accurate measurement of the globe and that was common knowledge for most mariners, navigators, and mapmakers. Mr. Columbus and Spain's royal court excepted of course. [[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] 14:22, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-07-05T18:22:24Z

Tirronan: /* OTHER */

{{debate-science}}

== Contrary evidence ==
You all might want to take a look at [http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804 this article], which offers some highly embarrassing details on [[Albert Gore, Jr.]]'s public-policy pronouncements, his refusal to do that which he asks others to do, and other, even grosser [[Sin#Environmentalism|sin]]s against the environment.

# A number of eminent scientists are now claiming--and for publication in ''The New York Times'', no less--that Gore's reports of the planet's imminent demise from heatstroke are greatly exaggerated.
# The article reiterates the accusation of [[special pleading]] against Gore--that while his Academy Award winning film asks, "Are you prepared to change your lifestyle?", Gore has not shown himself willing to change his own. Futhermore, it gives this detail on those "carbon offsets":<blockquote>The offset purchases are actually made for him by Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm that Mr. Gore co-founded, and which provides carbon offsets as a fringe benefit to all 23 of its employees, ensuring that they require no real sacrifice on the part of Mr. Gore or his family. Indeed, their impact is also highly limited. The Carbon Neutral Co.--one of the two vendors that sell offsets to Mr. Gore's company, says that offset purchases "will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . . . in the short term."</blockquote>
# And now ''The Tennesseean'' (Nashville) reports that Gore has a zinc mine that has a history of polluting a local river.

Point number one above is the most important point, though points two and three show that former Senator Gore is not the most qualified authority on the subject.

I have said before that this debate is an adversarial proceeding, with Gore advocating that everyone else fundamentally change the way they (or I should say, we) live because the planet is somehow in peril and that peril is somehow our fault. But any lawyer (and he is one) knows that when a witness tells a lie on a material point, everything else he says is automatically suspect without independent corroboration. Well, special pleading might not be lying, but that zinc-mine affair shows him guilty of monumental dissemblance, which is close. So my advice to the global-warming alarmists is to find another chief advocate, and try to content with Point One.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

''The above points about Al Gore have nothing to do with global warming, and perhaps should be moved to some anti-Al Gore page.''[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:23, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== No ==
What information do we have that we can prove? We have statistics that can’t be denied, but when the statistics were presented, were they manipulated to serve the speaker’s cause. Could they be interpreted in different ways? As Evan Esar said, “Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions,” and as Mark Twain said, “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.” Also, there has not been a control experiment (not possible with today’s technology) done to see whether any assumptions that have been made are true or even possible. So how can anyone (especially Al Gore) say so confidently that humans have caused any change in the climate when there are many other possibilities? He or she cannot. Besides, this would not be the first time a politician (like Al Gore) has been terribly confused or lying through their teeth to increase the disapproval rate of a political enemy (or any other way this debate may be helping Gore).

Al Gore is giving the worse case scenario on many of the catastrophes (Al Gore mistook the oceans rising 20 feet for 23 inches, United Nations estimates for the result of the melting of the polar ice caps, or was that just more propaganda), that of course, “will happen” if the world population does not act. Of course his threatening words come from scientists who “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence.” (Al Gore) So in other words scientists “don’t know… They just don’t know.” (Al Gore) No one can base the truth or much of an opinion on “They just don’t know.”

Mr. Gore’s website for his movie ''An Inconvenient Truth'' presents very little scientifically proven fact. In fact, under the link "The Science," [(http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/)] Al Gore only says that carbon dioxide naturally keeps our planet warm and he tries to convince his readers that his assumptions that the greenhouse gases are actually affecting the climate in a negative way by saying, “The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence,” Have you ever heard of bribing, blackmailing, or scaring scientists by making them think they will lose their grant money if they disagree with Gore (I am not saying Gore is bribing or blackmailing, anonymous people could be). Instilling fear worked in Hitler’s regime (I am not making a comparison just an observation). Then he continues on and on about what he thinks will happen if global warming is not stopped (considering the innumerable mistakes he has already made in this argument there is not much science in that). What he does not say is that scientists know (they do not know) that global warming “is the result of our activities,” (Al Gore's website for his movie) or even exists. He fails to address other possibilities for the causes of catastrophes that he “believes” will occur, is occuring, or has occured as a result of global warming (droughts, hurricanes, etcetera). Like why is global warming the culprit for some natural disaster instead of… For example, the Dust Bowl in the U.S. was caused by poor farming practices, which made the soil too loose, and drought set in. It was not global warming, or anything else.

Then there is the other side of the argument. They completely deny that it is getting warmer; yet, they agree that the average temperature has gone up one degree. It could be a natural occurrence. There is not any evidence that means we should forget about this possibility.

So what side do I support? Each side has its faults (I have found more faults on the global warming is real side), but I cannot support the side that says global warming has been started by human practices. I do not support global warming mainly because there is not enough evidence; just one group’s assumptions. So I want more evidence (not statistics) in order for me to be concerned about and support the fight against global warming.--[[User:Shna|Shna]] 19:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[Nationao Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association|NOAA]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm]. However, I don't dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, after the last several winters have been cold, harsh, snowy, occasioned great expense for snow clearance and equally great property damage from traffic accidents, froze people to death and caused other people to die in two-ton metal coffins. When you're comparing it to the Blizzard of 1996, or the Eighteen Storms of Jersey in the 1993-4 winter--well, frankly we could use another 1.3 degrees of warmth.
::Tell you what, neighbor: let's trade homes. You come here to New Jersey and put yourself in the deep freeze, and I'll move out to wherever you are and thaw out.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm from Minnesota. I doubt I'd mind. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 09:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Then what in the name of Jack Frost are you complaining about?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Complaining? You were complaining about how hard your winter is, and issued the challenge that I would not hold the opinion I do if I lived somewhere cold. I answered that I have, in fact, lived somewhere cold and I still think global warming is a huge problem. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Then your position is a total [[non sequitur]]. How can you say the globe is warming when your own thermometer tells you that it's still cold? How can you say that the globe is warming when ''three conferences'' called by global-warming alarmists had to be canceled because of snow and ice? How can you say that the globe is warming, when a North Pole expedition, looking for "evidence," had to turn back because one of the expeditionaries came down with frostbite? This whole debate gets more ridiculous with every passing week.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: You assert that you know something about logic, so I think that you are aware that this whole argument is based on the logical fallacies of [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] and [[misleading vividness]]. Climate change does not mean that people are going to immediately stop getting frostbite when they make expeditions to the North Pole.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::By that same token, then, no one has shown that tomorrow the forests of Southern [[California]] are going to go up in smoke, or that [[San Francisco]] is going to slip into the sea, or that [[Key West]] is going to wash away. And before you say that "nobody ever said that," I say that they have. One point three degrees. ''So what???'' Again, it's still not as warm as some other winters we used to have in [[New Jersey]]. We got unprecedented snow in 1993-4, and before then, we hardly ever had three feet of snow to fall in one day. Global warming? Hah! Global ''cooling'' was more like it.
:::::::::And another thing: we haven't discussed a little item such as the finding of polar ice melts on [[Mars]]. Now are you going to claim that we are somehow fouling up the climate on Mars, too?
:::::::::All that's happening is that the sunspots are a little more active. This, too, shall pass. And when it does, you can ice yourself down again, just as you were used to doing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::: We're almost off the page at this point, so this'll be my last response, and you can have the final word.
::::::::::1.3 degrees (by the way, are you refering to how much it has changed so far, or projected change?) may not sound like much, but it does have a big effect. Example: during the last major ice age, when glaciers covered as far south as Ohio, the temperature was only 9 degrees different than it is now. You can cite cases of people getting frostbite at the North Pole and all sorts of other [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] logical fallacies, but you still haven't attempted to come up with a coherent argument disputing the basic premises of the case for climate change: 1. Burning fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide. 2. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 16:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Unfortunately, we are at the sunspot minimum of the cycle rather than the maximum. [http://www.dxlc.com/solar/solcycle.html] and [http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast14oct99_1.htm] for more on the sunspot count. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}
"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore's side of the story is missing here: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "clean energy". So, for every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ). Essentially, he offsets his energy consumption by making sure that an equal ammount spent elsewhere is renewable, and doesn't produce carbon dioxide.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I've heard that excuse many times before. Gore buys "clean energy offsets" from a company he owns, and one that, furthermore, won't sell to anyoone else. So if you think I'm attacking him, of course I am--for hypocrisy and mendacity. About the only good that might come out of this is the development of certain techniques that might--I say again, might--prove valuable for reasons ''other than'' this false climate alarm.

:::But if Gore were at all serious, then he would turn his home into a showcase home for conversation, as [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] did.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: You're saying that Al Gore owns the Nashville Electrical service, where he gets his electricity [http://www.nespower.com/green_power_switch.aspx]? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::He owns this Global Initiatives outfit where he buys his "carbon offsets," like planting trees. That's what I mean by buying carbon offsets from himself.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: So, he pays his energy bill to a company that he doesn't own, then spends additional money to offset his carbon output by creating wind and solar power and planting trees. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Why don't you accept any obligation to disprove global warming? A theory has been put forward and the only way to defeat a theory is to show, logically, where it is in error. Your statement that global warming is not a fact is just that, a statement. If you cannot offer a viable reason for your statement, why should I or anyone else accept your assertion? Certainly not because of your conspiracy paranoia. [[jwcddd]]

:For one simple reason: the [[global warming]] debate is at heart an adversarial proceeding. It might as well be titled ''People of the Temple of Gaia versus All Those Who Consume More than the Allowed Amount of Energy Per Person Per Day.'' [[Albert Gore, Jr]], of course, appears as the lead counsel for the plaintiff--and a most unworthy counsel he is, because he consumes twenty times as much energy as any of the rest of us.

:In any event, Gore and his co-counsels, including people like you, are trying to argue that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:''If that be shown'', then and only then does the burden-of-proof shift to the defendant--and here on Conservapedia, I seem to be the chief advocate for the defense in this particular forum.

:Now as any lawyer knows, in order to win a judgment based on ''res ipsa loquitur'', the plaintiff must establish that the thing causing the alleged damage ''lies under the exclusive control of the defendant''.

:So all I really have to show is that mankind ''does not'' have exclusive control. But more than that, the ''plaintiff'' must show that mankind ''does'' have that exclusive control.

:You can't show that. You can't even show significant damage--but even if you could, ''you cannot establish an exclusivity of control'' by man. Not when the planet [[Mars]] is warming up in just as great a proportion as, if not a greater proportion than, is the earth.

:I have heard of a lot of "climatological models." I have not heard of one yet that has been shown to be accurate.

:Consider what a judgment for the plaintiff means. It means that the government ought to forbid people to drive an automobile without first getting the equivalent of a Certificate of Need for building a hospital. It means that the government ought to forbid people to live in single-family residences without a similar CON, and require everyone to live in dormitory-style "apartments." It means that all transportation will be public transportation--except for Al Gore's limousine. It means that everyone's electricity budget gets cut back ninety percent. It means no more individual computers, TV sets, or any other kind of "gadget."

:I can see it now: Al Gore living large in the master's house and riding around in his limousine, and [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] as the dedicated forman, living as simply as everyone else, enforcing the Gore rules as ruthlessly as is required, and never questioning their necessity, or the logical holes in them.

:Given such stakes as that, the defense has the right to insist on a very high burden of proof. Indeed the defense "moves" that the burden be set to the highest of standards: ''beyond a reasonable doubt.''

:Of course, I maintain that the plaintiff cannot even satisfy a burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. It certainly cannot satisfy the exclusive-control test required for a ''res ipsa loquitur'' verdict.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's quite an answer. But of course you have once again avoided the issue. Global warming is not a court case. It is a scientific proposition which can only be found wanting through a scientific process. Your hang-ups with Gore and Mars, have no bearing on the debate, and one would assume that your reason for not addressing the issue directly reflects your inability to do so.

Models are presented to demonstrate possibilities, as proof-of-concept representations. No model has ever been 100% correct because there are no crystal balls in real life. However, models are based on fundamental research; not mysticism or magic. These same research fundamentals gave society the Germ Theory of Medicine, home computers, and DVD's. Models are why drug companies do trials before their products go to market; and models are used to make buildings safer, and airplanes able to meet performance criteria. So unless you can dismiss out of hand, the methodology that affords progress for the health and welfare of humanity, not to mention the conveniences of civilization, you still have not given anyone reading this page a reason to doubt that global warming is a fact. [[jwcddd]]

:And you show, as is usual for liberals, that you are unable to put yourself in another person's place. I have raised another issue that you consistently ignore: that you have not yet proved that mankind is ''exclusively at fault'' in your so-called process.

:Your argument assumes that [[global warming]] is established with the same rigor and dispassionate observation with which [[Antoine Lavoisier]] disproved the phlogiston theory of combustion, or [[Benjamin Franklin]] determined that lightning was a physical phenomenon and not exclusively a mystical one. Your argument further conflates invention with the prescription of public policy.

:I say again: ''your theory requires a public policy tantamount to punishment of those who live larger than yourself or higher than some threhold that you and your co-ideologues define.'' And because of that, it is for ''you'' to show that global warming ''is'' a fact, and that mankind is ''at tortious fault'' for same.

:You are alleging the tort of negligence. Four things are required to establish negligence:

:# Duty of care.
:# Dereliction of duty.
:# Injury.
:# Damage.

:Thus far, you have not shown dereliction of duty. You have not even shown injury, much less damage--but you have definitely not shown dereliction of duty.

:I could simply observe that your arrogance, in thinking that you are my judge, amazes me, and let it go at that. But I further observe that neither you nor anyone on your side has begun to think the matter through.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Terry for your four points above
::#The duty of care is ours by default, human race. We are the only ones advance enough to cause change on a global scale.
::#Our dereliction of duty is evident in that we avoid taking responsibility for our duty, keep polluting even though we know it is bad by claiming that there are other factors as well that add to the pollution.
::#Displacement of species of animals, by changing the climate many animal species are moving to newer areas. This is causing an increase in invasive species and choking out native species.
::#The destruction of ice shelves, increased destruction of forests and the accelerated extinction of species. Seems to be quiet a bit of damage.

What I can not understand is why so many people are so resistant to policies and guidelines that promote a healthy environment? Are we that greedy that we are willing to continue to pollute and cause destruction of nature?

I saw Jerry Falwell on TV last night reporting against global warming. How can any minister encourage the continuation of wasteful actions in regards to environmental resources? I would think that anyone who is a man of god would cherish the creation of god and not work to destroy it. Perhaps we should take some lessons from the Amish.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Well Terry, I think you and yours are the ones who have not thought things through. Your arguments are based on the assumed full culpability of man for global warming. No one has made such an assertion. What has been stated in virtually every study on the evolution of the warming phenomenon is that carbon loading of the atmosphere, which has accelerated since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, tends to exacerbate and subsequently, accelerate the warming trend.
Now you as a human may not wish to accept responsibility, and that’s fine; but you as an intellectual should appreciate the logic in making attempts at minimizing the over-all affects of climate change. You worry about how your life would be disrupted if the economic base of the world had to adjust to offset warming when, in fact, the logical apprehension should be caused by the possibility that the warming is a fact and that, if nothing is done, a major portion of the global economy might collapse. Now that’s not an idle joke. Consider that nearly one third of the human race lives within a meter or two of sea level; that most third world agricultural areas are adjacent to or within close proximity to rivers and streams. How much disruption to the human endeavor would result from a sea level rise of just half a meter?

You like to call the supporters of the warming theory alarmists. Well maybe they are; but you could just as easily be called someone who wants to bury his head in the sand. You posit that warming theory is wrong for the very reasons you should be embracing attempts to prove it and to address its issues; the affect it will have on your life, your society, and your well being. Of course, I mean that rhetorically because the worse will not happen in our, or at least in my, lifetime; but I would suspect that you are not so selfish as to wish to jeopardize the health and well being of your progeny.
Consider the effect the displacement of a billion people might have on the world economy. The wars that will be fought for shrinking resources such as water and food.

Now I don’t have to prove that to you or anyone else, the simple possibility that it may occur should be motivation enough to ask “what can be done to prevent it from happening?”

You can engage in all the smoke screening you like. If you seriously think that global warming will go away, or not occur because you don’t like Gore; or because you think that scientists are just advancing the theory to enjoy financial gain; or because it may in part, be caused by increased solar activity, then you are not as intelligent as you would have people believe. You say the proponents try to assert that res ipsa loguitur –the thing speaks for itself. In fact, that is your argument, just coming from the opposite direction.

There you have it, Terry. You can answer if you want, you can continue to cower behind your Latin clichés, and you can continue to convince yourself that you have nothing to fear. You can have the last word, TerryH. You are no longer worth my time here. You accuse me of not having thought things through; I would assert that you have thought of nothing but denial. I have no respect for people who are incapable of logical thought; who engage not in unbiased science, but rather unscientific bias. [[jwcddd]] 21:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:What you stand on is not science at all, but grant-moneyed political pabulum and [[propaganda]]. ''I'' have no respect for them who accuse me falsely--not merely of "denial," as you put it, but of an intentional tort against the environment. For that is the accusation you continue to make.
:As for granting me the last word--is that a promise?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally am very skeptical of the current "global warming" frenzy. It just doesn't appear to have much solidity to it, and even if the earth is warming, the environment is highly self-regulatory. Warmer temperatures mean increased evaporation. Now it is true that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but as it condense in the atmosphere, it forms clouds, which block the suns rays, dim the surface, and effectively lower temperatures. I personally believe that the earth might warm, but only to a certain point, at which natural systems would work to cool it again. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:I would certainly agree with the above. Add to it that if carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, then vegetation will take it up--along with the increased rains.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I guess Terry and Aardvark that you both do not understand chemistry and radiation. Yes more water vapor means more clouds, however clouds do not block the right wavelength of light. You can receive sunburn on a cloudy day, UV penetrates many cloud masses and reaches the earth. When the light is reflected back to space however its energy is reduced and is stopped from escaping the atmosphere by the clouds thus causing convection in the atmosphere. If you do not believe what I just stated then think about Venus, the atmosphere is cloud covered all of the time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::On to water vapor. Water vapor has high heat absorption and is very effective at retaining heat. So the more water vapor there is in the atmosphere the higher the temp. Since the higher the temp the atmosphere has a greater ability to gain more water vapor. This cycle continues till equilibrium is established however by our adding of other green house gasses this equilibrium is continually offset.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aardvark, lets put this in perspective about the natural systems cooling the earth again. Paper trash breaks down over time in dirt and weather. But the more paper trash we add to the system the longer it takes to break down. If we continue to add over what the system can break down normally we end up with a build up. Same thing with the Green house gasses. The Atmosphere can breakdown certain gasses however with the continual addition of gasses we end up overwhelming the reactions that break the gasses up. If you exceed the limits of the natural system it will not work.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::TerryH, additional CO2 and deforestation renders your statement moot. We have been exceeding what vegetation can keep up with for years, if not then the hole in the Ozone would have closed or remained unchanged. We are not seeding new rainforests at the rate we are cutting them down, nor are we replacing the vegetation that we remove when expanding our living areas. Come now think about what you just said.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I am a scientist who has done a study which shows that mankind is incapable of determining whether there will be global warming. My findings, the summary of which follows, knocks the foundation out from under those who predict warming.

Essentially, it shows that the warming "experts" are unable to accurately predict tomorrow's temperature. I compared predictions of the National Weather Service to actual outcomes for next-day temps, and found that the "experts" were right only 11% of the time. I also found that if, instead of using their education, experience, software, supercomputers, and satellites, they had merely said tomorrow's temp will be the same as today's, they would have been right 16% of the time-- a considerable improvement.

The conclusion of my study is that, since the "experts" can only predict tomorrow's temp with 11% accuracy, they can't predict the temp 36,000 times farther out into the future.

My study isn't published yet, so sorry, I can't provide a reference. Earl100.

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe you have a skewed understanding of how science works. What you have proposed with the scientist fudging their data would be one of the largest conspiracies in our time. A scientist's livelihood is 100% based on their ability to accurately report and research. If one is found fudging they would lose everything, the science world is very unforgiving and hard to compete within. Grant money is not just given out, a scientist's credentials and background research are judged for awarding of grants.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::While the image may be from Wikipedia, it is simply a graph of data from various weather sources and compiled into one chart. The numbers themselves are from a 10 peer reviewed papers and not something that is part of Wikipedia. You could go look up those papers and chart it yourself and come up with the exact same graph. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:52, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

:[[Global warming]] is evident, but it's neither man's fault nor any cause for alarm. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. And [[solar variation]] drives temperature. A couple of degrees of additional warmth will be good for crops and will reduce [[extreme weather]] events like [[hurricane]]s. So there's no need to stop anything. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Oh... Better crops? Thats nice for you US citicens, but how about in countryes near equator? How about desertification and melting polar ice? And it will reduce hurricanes? Global warming has been alleged to do just the opposite, to create more extreme weather phenomens, like hurricanes. [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181]. (And damn those math questions every time i post, need to click several times to get an easy one ;) ) [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Have you considered the implications for the US economy as the bread basket moves north to Canada? Or the Pentagon's report on [http://www.gbn.com/GBNDocumentDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231&url=%2FUploadDocumentDisplayServlet.srv%3Fid%3D28566 Abrupt Climate Change] and national security? One of the biggest dangers of a warming climate (natural or not) is that the top of the ocean becomes less salty (from melting ice sheets) and some of the ocean currents stop. This in turn makes for more extreme weather - droughts (the pentagon report goes into questions of water disputes between the US and Canada and the US and Mexico, though these would probably be minor compared to those going on in Asia - which would get worse). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

At the risk of upsetting the young earth crowd, we have the Great Permian Extintion Event, as this is 251 million years ago there were no humans on the planet to contribute a thing to gobal warming. This was a rise of about 20 degrees and wiped out most 95% of life on earth at that time. We have had large numbers of ice ages as well most without human intervention and there is very limited proof that at one stage we might have had an ice ball earth. What I am getting to here is that rising vulcanism can in of itself raise gobal tempertures and other factors as well. This is what I am certain of, we are in a warming phase, and I am also certain that we are probably adding somewhat to that problem. Finding more effiecent ways of using our resources is a smart thing for many reasons and this would seem to be another. Finding better ways to reduce carbon dioxide output and sequistering co2 would not seem to be out of the question. The fact that we can use such gases to revitalise our US oil fields seems to be a good use of waste gases that we don't want to emit. Rising sea levels and stonger hurricanes along with crop disruptions are not in our best interests. Remember we are not talking about the end of life but no dominate species has ever survived an extintion event and I for one don't care to bet the future of the human race on us being the 1st. [[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] 14:17, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

== OTHER ==

While there may indeed be global warming there is no clear culprit. Even the scientist's
argue over who/what did it...

you know most of the "educated" people of the old times said the earth was flat...but it wasnt.

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:42, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Actually there wasn't and isn't a sailor then or now that would have told you that the earth was round. Every time you see a ship rising above or sinking below the horizon it gets confirmed. There was that belief but it wasn't nearly as wide spread as we now believe. It was an ancient greek that had the 1st accurate measurement of the globe and that was common knowledge for most mariners, navigators, and mapmakers. Mr. Columbus and Spain's royal court excepted of course. [[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] 14:22, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-07-05T18:17:04Z

Tirronan: /* Yes */

Battle of Waterloo

2007-07-03T18:52:05Z

Tirronan: /* Notes and conclusions */

[[Image:waterloo.jpg|350px|thumb|The Battle of Waterloo]]
The '''Battle of Waterloo''' took place on June 18, 1815 in Belgium. It marked the beginning of the end of [[The Hundred Days]], [[Napoleon]]'s attempt at regaining power after his initial defeat and exile the previous year.

Once the [[United Kingdom]]'s 67,000-strong army, under the Duke of Wellington, had forced a precarious stalemate against Napoleon's 73,000, [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher]]'s Prussian forces arrived and were able to achieve decisive numerical superiority, forcing Napoleon out.

The battle marked the end of [[Napoleon]]'s reign and his exile to the island of [[Saint Helena]] in the South Atlantic.

==Preliminary==
Napoleon's return from [[Elba]] marked the beginning of The Hundred Days and on March 18, 1815 he was declared an outlaw by the [[Congress of Vienna]]. This marked the mobilization of the Seventh Coalition armies. The British formed an army consisting of British, Nassau and Dutch troops. The Prussians created two armies, one under Prince Blucher and another under General Kliest with Prussian, and North German allied states. Russia assembled an army of 250,000 men under Prince Barcley de Tolly and the Austrians provided two additional armies under General Schwarzenburg and Archduke Charles. The King of Spain assembled an army placing it under English officers and began moving to the frontier.
==The Waterloo Campaign==
Napoleon began a massive call up and soon had Le Armie Du Nord (Army of the North) prepared. The Army of the North was about 117,000 strong. This was moved with great stealth to the northern border of Belgium. In this area the British had assembled an army of some 97,000 and the Prussians another army of 105,000. Both allied armies had been spread out in an effort to be easier on the population they depended on for assistance.
===Wellington's Army===
Wellington led an multinational army that he would describe as "an infamous army, very weak and ill equipped, and a very inexperienced Staff".<ref>Longford, p.485</ref> It was in no case more than 30% British, the rest coming from the Neatherlands, Hanover, Nassau, and Brunswick. The Duke of Wellington would express reservations about the loyality of some of his troops, but in point of fact all of his troops would give outstanding performances in battle.
===The Prussian Army===
The Prussian army was in the throes of reorganization as its reserve regiments became line regiments along with many of the previous 1814 Landwehr regiments and its artillery was also reorganizing and would not perform at peak level, though its militia, the ''Landwehr'', was significantly better than other militias.<ref>Barbero, p.39</ref> It was under the command of Blücher, though in fact much of its operation was directed by his chief-of-staff, [[August von Gneisenau|Gneisenau]], who greatly distrusted Wellington.<ref>Barbero, p.21</ref> Two and a half Prussian army corps or 48,000 men, were engaged in the battle by about 18:00. (Two brigades under [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Friedrich von Bülow]], commander of the IV Corps, attacked Lobau at 16:30, [[Georg Dubislav Ludwig von Pirch|Georg von Pirch's]] II Corps and parts of [[Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Ziethen|Graf von Ziethen's]] I Corps engaged at about 18:00.)
===June 16th===
Despite the efforts at deception by the French to hide their whereabouts, the Prussians quickly understood where the French army was and proceeded to interfere with it. The Prussian 1st Corp began an all day delaying effort while the Prussian army assembled. The British army was somewhat slower to react as Wellington's spy network was either interfered with or was actively giving him disinformation. Lord Wellington did not begin assembly of his army until the evening.
====Battle of Quatra Bra====
Marshall Ney in command of the French Army's left wing marched to Quatra Bra and found it defended by Dutch units who were determined to hold their ground. The Prince of Orange arrived and disregarded orders to retreat, choosing to reinforce the position. Marshall Ney believing that he was facing far more troops than was the case was tentative in his attacks at first. Lord Wellington was rushing formations to assist with all speed. As evening fell the British forces outnumbered the French and the position was held.
====Battle of Ligny====
Napoleon had wished to attack the British first, but this was impossible as the Prussians were by now already assembled with 3/4 of their forces in and around the village of Ligny. In a four hour battle Napoleon would earn his last victory. The Prussian position was a strong one, but the execution of the dispositions was poor. The Prussian left was strongly held by the III Corps, but was never in danger given the marshy ground in front of it. The Prussian center and right contained the intermingled I and II Corps with the right strung out waiting for Wellington's army that would never show up. After several repulses, Napoleon launched the combinded Guard at the Prussian center. Despite several counter attacks, the center fell and the battle was won by the French. The carnage was great with 11,000 French and 22,000 Prussians lost on the field. A great deal of the Prussian losses were deserters from formations recruited from newly aqquired lands by the Kingdom of Prussia. The retreat of the Prussians was never interrupted, and was seemingly unnoticed by the French.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> By nightfall, at about 2100, almost all of the Prussian formations had left the field. On the Prussian right, Lieutenant-General [[Hans Ernest Ziethen|Ziethen's]] I Corps retreated slowly with most of its artillery, leaving a rearguard close to [[Brye]] to slow the French pursuit. On the left, Lieutenant-General [[Johann von Thielmann|Thielemann's]] III Corps retreated unharmed, leaving a strong rearguard at [[Sombreffe]]. The bulk of the rearguard held their positions until about midnight, before following the rest of the retreating army. In fact, Zieten's 1st Corps rearguard units only left the battlefield in the early morning of 17 June, as the exhausted French failed to press on.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> Napoleon, thinking Ney had already seized Quatre-Bras, ordered Ney to strike Blucher's right flank and complete the victory. But Ney's procrastination at Quatre-Bras had ruined the opportunity.<ref>Dupuy & Dupuy, The Encyclopedia of Military History, 1977, Pg. 767</ref> Pirchs II Corps followed the 1st Corp off the battlefield and Thielemans III Corps moved last with the armies various parks in tow. It should be noted that the last of III Corps was moved in the morning completely ignored. <ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Von Bülow's]] IV Corps moved south of Wavre and setup strong rear guard positions for the army to quickly reasemble.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> General Blücher was already in communications with General Wellington. Great though the victory was (as the Prussians had more men on the field than the French) it contained all the seeds for the eventual defeat at Waterloo. While the Prussians were defeated they were not routed and proceeded to calmly march off the battlefield with some units not leaving until the next morning. This left a organized and determined army ready to act against the French army.

===June 17th===
This day saw the British forces move to the Mont Saint Jean (Waterloo) position and prepare to receive the French attack. The Prussian Army moved to the Village of Wavre with all 4 corps now assembled.

===June 18th===

[[Image:map-6.jpg]]

===Wellington's deployment===
Wellington worked his normal deployment using reverse slopes to hide the majority of his units behind the crest of the ridge that defined the British position. In addition he fortified the farm house complexe of Le Haye Saint in front of his position to the right of his line. The left of the line was held by the fortified positions of Hougoumont and Papelotte. This secured the road by which Wellington expected the Prussian to arrive.<ref>Barbero, p.141, p.235</ref>

===The battle begins===
Wellington's dispatches give the start of the battle at 10am other sources would have it at 1130am. (This will be a recurring issue throughout the battle with the actual time of events being disputed by the participents as well as by later historians.)<ref>[[Arthur Wellesley|Wellesley, Arthur]] [http://www.wtj.com/archives/wellington/1815_06f.htm Wellington's Dispatches] [[19 June]] [[1815]] </ref>

===The arrival of the Prussians IV Corps: Plancenoit===
The first Prussian corp to arrive was the IV Corps and its objective was Plancenoit as a launch point into the rear of the French positions. It was Blücher's intention to secure his left upon Frichermont using the Bois de Paris road. <ref name=Hofschroer-116>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 116</ref> Blücher and Wellington had been exchanging communications since 10:00 and had agreed to this advance on Frichermont if Wellington's centre was under attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-95>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 95</ref><ref>Chasney, Waterloo Lectures p-165</ref> General Bülow noted that Plancenoit lay open and that the time was 16:30.<ref name=Hofschroer-116/> At about this time the 15th Brigade IV Corps linked up with the Nassauers of Wellington's left flank with the brigade artillery, horse artillery deployed to the left in support.<ref name=Hofschroer-117>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 117</ref> Napoleon sent Lobau's Division to intercept Bülow's IV Corps. Therefore Napoleon sent his 10-battalion-strong Young Guard to beat the Prussians back. The 15th Brigade threw Lobau's troops out of Frichermont with a determined bayonet charge. The 15th proceeded up the Frichermont heights battering French Chasseurs with 12 pounder artillery fire and pushed on to Plancenoit. Napoleon had dispatched the entire 8 battalions of Young Guard and 2 battalions of the Old Guard to reinforce Lobau's Division. Hiller's 16th Brigade had 6 battalions available and pushed forward to attempt to take Plancenoit. The Young Guard counter-attacked and after very hard fighting, the Young Guard recaptured Plancenoit but were themselves counter-attacked and driven out.<ref name=Hofschroer-122>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 122</ref> Napoleon sent two battalions of the Old Guard and after ferocious bayonet fighting - they did not deign to fire their muskets - they recaptured the village.<ref name=Hofschroer-122/> The dogged Prussians were still not beaten, and approximately 30,000 troops under Bülow and Pirch attacked Plancenoit again. It was defended by 20,000 Frenchmen in and around the village.
===Prussian advance===
Throughout the late afternoon, Zieten's I Corps had been arriving in greater strength in the area just north of Le Haye. This allowed Wellington to reinforce his centre in time to repulse Napoleon's attack. At the time the French Guard was being repulsed from the British centre, the Prussian I Corps was breaking through the French centre. <ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> By 19:30, the French position was bent into a rough horseshoe shape. The ends of the U were now based on Hougomont on the French left, Plancenoit on the French right, and the centre on La Haye.<ref name=Hofschroer-139>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 139</ref> The French had retaken the positions of La Haye and Papelotte in a series of attacks by General Durette's Division.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> Oberst von Hofmann's 24th regiment led an advance towards Le Haye and Papelotte; the French forces retreated behind Smohain without contesting the advance.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> The 24th Regiment advanced against the new French position but was seen off after some early success. The Silesian Schützen and the F/1st Landwehr moved up in support as the 24th regiment returned to the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-140>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 140</ref> The French fell back before the renewed assault without much of an attempt at defense. At this point, the French began to seriously contest ground, attempting to regain Smohain and hold on to the ridgeline along Papelotte and the last few houses of Papelotte.<ref name=Hofschroer-140/> The 24th Regiment linked up with a Highlander battalion on its far right. Determined attacks by the 24th Regiment and the 13th Landwehr regiment with cavalry support threw the French out of these positions and further attacks by the 13th Landwehr and the 15th brigade expelled them from Fichermont.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> Durutte’s division was beginning to unravel under the assaults when General Zieten’s I Corps cavalry poured through the gap.<ref name=Hofschroer-144>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 144 </ref> Durutte's division, finding itself about to be charged by massed cavalry of Ziethen's I Corps cavalry reserve, retreated quickly from the battlefield. I Corps then attained the Brussels road and the only line of retreat available to the French.
===The Capture of Plancenoit===
At about the same time, the Prussians were pushing through Plancenoit, in the third assault of the day upon the town.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussian 5th, 14th, and 16th brigades, were involved in the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> Each Prussian brigade would be about 9 battalions strong, roughly the size of a French division. The church was fully involved in a fire, with house to house fighting leaving bodies from both sides lying about.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The French Guard battalions, a Guard Chasseur and 1/2e Grenadiers were identified as holding the position. Virtually all of the Young Guard was now involved in the defence, along with remnants of Lobau's Division.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The key to the position proved to be the woods to the south of Plancenoit. The 25th regiment's musketeer battalions threw the 1/2e Grenadiers (Old Guard) out of the Chantelet woods, flanking Plancenoit and forcing a retreat.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussians IV Corps advanced beyond Plancenoit to find masses of French retreating in a jumbled mass from pursuing British units.<ref name=Hofschroer-145> [[#References|References]] p. 145</ref> The Prussians were unable to fire for fear of hitting allied units. It was now seen that the French right, left, and centre, were failing.<ref name=Hofschroer-145/>
===Disintegration===
The whole of the French front started to disintegrate under the general advance of Wellington's army and the Prussians following the capture of Plancenoit.<ref name=Hofschroer-146>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 146</ref> The last coherent French force consisted of two battalions of the Old Guard stationed around the inn called ''La Belle Alliance''. This was a final reserve and a personal bodyguard for Napoleon. For a time, Napoleon hoped that if they held firm, the French army could rally behind them.<ref>http://home.iprimus.com.au/cpcook/letters/pages/waterfini.htm</ref> But as the retreat turned into a rout, they were forced to withdraw and form squares as protection against the leading elements of allied cavalry. They formed two squares, one on either side of ''La Belle Alliance''. Until he was persuaded that the battle was lost and he should leave, Napoleon commanded the square which was formed on rising ground to the (French) left of the inn.<ref>http://www.napoleonbonaparte.nl/newspaper/dedham/drouet.html</ref><ref>http://www.standin.se/fifteen15a.htm</ref> The Prussians engaged the square to the (French) right, and General Adam's Brigade charged the square on the right, forcing it to withdraw.<ref name=Hofschroer-149>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 149</ref> As dusk fell, both squares retreated away from the battlefield towards France in relatively good order, but the French artillery and everything else fell into the hands of the Allies and Prussians. The retreating Guards were surrounded by thousands of fleeing Frenchmen who were no longer part of any coherent unit. Allied cavalry harried the fleeing French until about 23:00. The Prussians, led by [[August von Gneisenau|General von Gneisenau]], pursued them as far as Genappe before ordering a halt. By that point, some 78 guns had been captured along with about 2,000 prisoners, including more Generals.<ref name=Hofschroer-150>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 150</ref> At Genappe, Napoleon's carriage was found abandoned still containing diamonds left in the rush. These became part of King Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia's crown jewels, one Major Keller of the F/15th receiving the [[Pour le Mérite]] with oak leaves for the feat.<ref name=Hofschroer-151>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 151</ref>

===Notes and conclusions===
By November 20th, 1815 the Treaty of Paris was signed bringing an end to the Hundred Days. Of the leading Generals only the Duke of Wellington would survive more than a dozen years. Blucher would pass away within 2 years; Bulow von Deniwitz would beat him to the grave. Napoleon would spend his final years writing from St. Helens railing against the failure of others that had led him to such a fate. What happened?
*Napoleon showed his old flash of brilliance assembling a large army and launching it to attack the Prussian army at Ligny. This was the French army of old, artillery moved with speed and daring to support the infantry and the Guard used in mass to seal a victory.
*What happened after defies explanation; there was not a pursuit after either Qutra Bra or Ligny of any sort worth mentioning. Instead of breath taking relentless pursuit of Jena there was a 24 hour pause. A bloodied but by no means defeated Prussian army moved with speed and deliberation to reorganize and with its less reliable elements running away it was a hard core of an army that would henceforth battle in its best traditions.
*Again the British army was allowed to move off without the slightest bother from the French. The Duke of Wellington made excellent use of the time.
*The Duke's use of reverse slopes and most of all the intelligent use of La Haye Saint and Houghmont diverted large formations from important tasks without bothering much of the allied army.
*It was apparent that neither Marshall Grouchy nor Napoleon had any idea where the mass of the Prussian army was. Marshall Grouchy didn't have the forces available to achieve the outcome Napoleon desired and detaching him only served to keep 33,000 desperately needed men from Napoleon's main effort
*It was at the end of the Battle of Waterloo watching 3 main points of the French army positions being overrun that Napoleon understood that his days of Empire were forever over.

==Sources==
*Chesny, Charles A: Waterloo Lectures:A Study Of The Campaign Of 1815 ISBN 1428649883
*Hofschröer, Peter: ''1815, The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory'';Greenhill Books (London); ISBN 1-85367-368-4
===Footnotes===
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Waterloo, Battle of}}
[[Category:Battles]]
[[Category:Napoleonic Wars]]

Battle of Waterloo

2007-06-26T15:56:04Z

Tirronan: /* Disintegration */

[[Image:waterloo.jpg|350px|thumb|The Battle of Waterloo]]
The '''Battle of Waterloo''' took place on June 18, 1815 in Belgium. It marked the beginning of the end of [[The Hundred Days]], [[Napoleon]]'s attempt at regaining power after his initial defeat the previous year.

Once the [[United Kingdom]]'s 67,000-strong army, under the Duke of Wellington, had forced a precarious stalemate against Napoleon's 73,000, [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher]]'s Prussian forces arrived and were able to achieve decisive numerical superiority, forcing Napoleon out.

The battle marked the end of [[Napoleon]]'s reign and his exile to the island of [[Saint Helena]] in the South Atlantic.

==Preliminary==
Napoleon's return from [[Elba]] marked the beginning of The Hundred Days and on March 18, 1815 he was declared an outlaw by the [[Congress of Vienna]]. This marked the mobilization of the Seventh Coalition armies. The British formed an army consisting of British, Nassau and Dutch troops to form an army. The Prussians created two armies, one under Prince Blucher and another under General Kliest with Prussian, and North German allied states. Russia assembled an army of 250,000 men under Prince Barcley de Tolly and the Austrians provided two additional armies under General Schwarzenburg and Archduke Charles. The King of Spain assembled an army placing it under English officers and began moving to the frontier.
==The Waterloo Campaign==
Napoleon began a massive call up and soon had Le Armie Du Nord (Army of the North) prepared. The Army of the North was about 117,000 strong. This was moved with great stealth to the northern border of Belgium. In this area the British had assembled an army of some 97,000 and the Prussians another army of 105,000. Both allied armies had been spread out in an effort to be easier on the population they depended on for assistance.
===Wellington's Army===
Wellington led an multinational army that he would describe as "an infamous army, very weak and ill equipped, and a very inexperienced Staff".<ref>Longford, p.485</ref> It was in no case more than 30% British, the rest coming from the Neatherlands, Hanover, Nassau, and Brunswick. The Duke of Wellington would express reservations about the loyality of some of his troops but in point of fact all of his troops would give outstanding performances in battle.
===The Prussian Army===
The Prussian army was in the throes of reorganization as its reserve regiments became line regiments along with many of the previous 1814 Landwehr regiments and its artillery was also reorganizing and would not give its best performance, though its militia, the ''Landwehr'', was significantly better than other militias.<ref>Barbero, p.39</ref> It was under the command of Blücher, though in fact much of its operation was directed by his chief-of-staff, [[August von Gneisenau|Gneisenau]], who greatly distrusted Wellington.<ref>Barbero, p.21</ref> Two and a half Prussian army corps or 48,000 men, were engaged in the battle by about 18:00. (Two brigades under [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Friedrich von Bülow]], commander of the IV Corps, attacked Lobau at 16:30, [[Georg Dubislav Ludwig von Pirch|Georg von Pirch's]] II Corps and parts of [[Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Ziethen|Graf von Ziethen's]] I Corps engaged at about 18:00.)
===June 16th===
Despite the efforts at deception the Prussians quickly understood where the French army was and proceeded to interfere with it. The Prussian 1st Corp began an all day delaying effort while the Prussian army assembled. The British army was somewhat slower to react as Wellington's spy network was either interfered with or was actively giving him disinformation. Lord Wellington did not begin assembly of his army until the evening.
====Battle of Quatra Bra====
Marshall Ney in command of the French Army's left wing marched to Quatra Bra and found it defended by Dutch units who were determined to hold their ground. The Prince of Orange arrived and disregarded orders to retreat, choosing to reinforce the position. Marshall Ney believing that he was facing far more troops than was the case was tentative in his attacks at first. Lord Wellington was rushing formations to assist with all speed. As evening fell the British forces outnumbered the French and the position was held.
====Battle of Ligny====
Napoleon had wished to attack the British first but this was impossible as the Prussians were by now already assembled with 3/4 of their forces in and around the village of Ligny. In a four hour battle Napoleon would earn his last victory. The Prussian position was a strong one but the exicution of the dispositions left something to be desired. The Prussian left was strongly held by the III Corps but was never in danger given the marshy ground in front of it. The Prussian center and right contained the intermingled I and II Corps with the right strung out waiting for Wellington's army that would never show up. After several repulses, Napoleon launched the combinded Guard at the Prussian center. Despite several counter attacks the center fell and the battle was won by the French. The carnage was great with 11,000 French and 22,000 Prussians lost on the field. A great deal of the Prussian losses were deserters from formations recruited from newly aqquired lands by the Kingdom of Prussia. The retreat of the Prussians was never interrupted, and was seemingly unnoticed by the French.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> By nightfall, at about 2100, almost all of the Prussian formations had left the field. On the Prussian right, Lieutenant-General [[Hans Ernest Ziethen|Ziethen's]] I Corps retreated slowly with most of its artillery, leaving a rearguard close to [[Brye]] to slow the French pursuit. On the left, Lieutenant-General [[Johann von Thielmann|Thielemann's]] III Corps retreated unharmed, leaving a strong rearguard at [[Sombreffe]]. The bulk of the rearguard held their positions until about midnight, before following the rest of the retreating army. In fact, Zieten's 1st Corps rearguard units only left the battlefield in the early morning of 17 June, as the exhausted French failed to press on.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> Pirchs II Corps followed the 1st Corp off the battlefield and Thielemans III Corps moved last with the armies various parks in tow. It should be noted that the last of III Corps was moved in the morning completely ignored. <ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Von Bülow's]] IV Corps moved south of Wavre and setup strong rear guard positions for the army to quickly reasemble.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> General Blücher was already in communications with General Wellington. Great though the victory was (as the Prussians had more men on the field than the French) it contained all the seeds for the eventual defeat at Waterloo. While the Prussians were defeated they were not routed and proceeded to calmly march off the battlefield with some units not leaving until the next morning. This left a organized and determined army ready to act against the French army.

===June 17th===
This day saw the British forces move to the Mont Saint Jean (Waterloo) position and prepare to receive the French attack. The Prussian Army moved to the Village of Wavre with all 4 corps now assembled.

===June 18th===

[[Image:map-6.jpg]]

===Wellington's deployment===
Wellington worked his normal deployment using reverse slopes to hide the majority of his units behind the crest of the ridge that defined the British position. In addition he fortified the farm house complexe of Le Haye Saint in front of his position to the right of his line. The left of the line was held by the fortified positions of Hougoumont and Papelotte. This secured the road by which Wellington expected the Prussian to arrive.<ref>Barbero, p.141, p.235</ref>

===The battle begins===
Wellington's dispatches give the start of the battle at 10am other sources would have it at 1130am. (This will be a recurring issue throughout the battle with the actual time of events being disputed by the participents as well as by later historians.)<ref>[[Arthur Wellesley|Wellesley, Arthur]] [http://www.wtj.com/archives/wellington/1815_06f.htm Wellington's Dispatches] [[19 June]] [[1815]] </ref>

===The arrival of the Prussians IV Corps: Plancenoit===
The first Prussian corp to arrive was the IV Corps and its objective was Plancenoit as a launch point into the rear of the French positions. It was Blücher's intention to secure his left upon Frichermont using the Bois de Paris road. <ref name=Hofschroer-116>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 116</ref> Blücher and Wellington had been exchanging communications since 10:00 and had agreed to this advance on Frichermont if Wellington's centre was under attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-95>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 95</ref><ref>Chasney, Waterloo Lectures p-165</ref> General Bülow noted that Plancenoit lay open and that the time was 16:30.<ref name=Hofschroer-116/> At about this time the 15th Brigade IV Corps linked up with the Nassauers of Wellington's left flank with the brigade artillery, horse artillery deployed to the left in support.<ref name=Hofschroer-117>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 117</ref> Napoleon sent Lobau's Division to intercept Bülow's IV Corps. Therefore Napoleon sent his 10-battalion-strong Young Guard to beat the Prussians back. The 15th Brigade threw Lobau's troops out of Frichermont with a determined bayonet charge. The 15th proceeded up the Frichermont heights battering French Chasseurs with 12 pounder artillery fire and pushed on to Plancenoit. Napoleon had dispatched the entire 8 battalions of Young Guard and 2 battalions of the Old Guard to reinforce Lobau's Division. Hiller's 16th Brigade had 6 battalions available and pushed forward to attempt to take Plancenoit. The Young Guard counter-attacked and after very hard fighting, the Young Guard recaptured Plancenoit but were themselves counter-attacked and driven out.<ref name=Hofschroer-122>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 122</ref> Napoleon sent two battalions of the Old Guard and after ferocious bayonet fighting - they did not deign to fire their muskets - they recaptured the village.<ref name=Hofschroer-122/> The dogged Prussians were still not beaten, and approximately 30,000 troops under Bülow and Pirch attacked Plancenoit again. It was defended by 20,000 Frenchmen in and around the village.
===Prussian advance===
Throughout the late afternoon, Zieten's I Corps had been arriving in greater strength in the area just north of Le Haye. This allowed Wellington to reinforce his centre in time to repulse Napoleon's attack. At the time the French Guard was being repulsed from the British centre, the Prussian I Corps was breaking through the French centre. <ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> By 19:30, the French position was bent into a rough horseshoe shape. The ends of the U were now based on Hougomont on the French left, Plancenoit on the French right, and the centre on La Haye.<ref name=Hofschroer-139>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 139</ref> The French had retaken the positions of La Haye and Papelotte in a series of attacks by General Durette's Division.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> Oberst von Hofmann's 24th regiment led an advance towards Le Haye and Papelotte; the French forces retreated behind Smohain without contesting the advance.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> The 24th Regiment advanced against the new French position but was seen off after some early success. The Silesian Schützen and the F/1st Landwehr moved up in support as the 24th regiment returned to the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-140>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 140</ref> The French fell back before the renewed assault without much of an attempt at defense. At this point, the French began to seriously contest ground, attempting to regain Smohain and hold on to the ridgeline along Papelotte and the last few houses of Papelotte.<ref name=Hofschroer-140/> The 24th Regiment linked up with a Highlander battalion on its far right. Determined attacks by the 24th Regiment and the 13th Landwehr regiment with cavalry support threw the French out of these positions and further attacks by the 13th Landwehr and the 15th brigade expelled them from Fichermont.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> Durutte’s division was beginning to unravel under the assaults when General Zieten’s I Corps cavalry poured through the gap.<ref name=Hofschroer-144>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 144 </ref> Durutte's division, finding itself about to be charged by massed cavalry of Ziethen's I Corps cavalry reserve, retreated quickly from the battlefield. I Corps then attained the Brussels road and the only line of retreat available to the French.
===The Capture of Plancenoit===
At about the same time, the Prussians were pushing through Plancenoit, in the third assault of the day upon the town.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussian 5th, 14th, and 16th brigades, were involved in the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> Each Prussian brigade would be about 9 battalions strong, roughly the size of a French division. The church was fully involved in a fire, with house to house fighting leaving bodies from both sides lying about.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The French Guard battalions, a Guard Chasseur and 1/2e Grenadiers were identified as holding the position. Virtually all of the Young Guard was now involved in the defence, along with remnants of Lobau's Division.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The key to the position proved to be the woods to the south of Plancenoit. The 25th regiment's musketeer battalions threw the 1/2e Grenadiers (Old Guard) out of the Chantelet woods, flanking Plancenoit and forcing a retreat.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussians IV Corps advanced beyond Plancenoit to find masses of French retreating in a jumbled mass from pursuing British units.<ref name=Hofschroer-145> [[#References|References]] p. 145</ref> The Prussians were unable to fire for fear of hitting allied units. It was now seen that the French right, left, and centre, were failing.<ref name=Hofschroer-145/>
===Disintegration===
The whole of the French front started to disintegrate under the general advance of Wellington's army and the Prussians following the capture of Plancenoit.<ref name=Hofschroer-146>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 146</ref> The last coherent French force consisted of two battalions of the Old Guard stationed around the inn called ''La Belle Alliance''. This was a final reserve and a personal bodyguard for Napoleon. For a time, Napoleon hoped that if they held firm, the French army could rally behind them.<ref>http://home.iprimus.com.au/cpcook/letters/pages/waterfini.htm</ref> But as the retreat turned into a rout, they were forced to withdraw and form squares as protection against the leading elements of allied cavalry. They formed two squares, one on either side of ''La Belle Alliance''. Until he was persuaded that the battle was lost and he should leave, Napoleon commanded the square which was formed on rising ground to the (French) left of the inn.<ref>http://www.napoleonbonaparte.nl/newspaper/dedham/drouet.html</ref><ref>http://www.standin.se/fifteen15a.htm</ref> The Prussians engaged the square to the (French) right, and General Adam's Brigade charged the square on the right, forcing it to withdraw.<ref name=Hofschroer-149>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 149</ref> As dusk fell, both squares retreated away from the battlefield towards France in relatively good order, but the French artillery and everything else fell into the hands of the Allies and Prussians. The retreating Guards were surrounded by thousands of fleeing Frenchmen who were no longer part of any coherent unit. Allied cavalry harried the fleeing French until about 23:00. The Prussians, led by [[August von Gneisenau|General von Gneisenau]], pursued them as far as Genappe before ordering a halt. By that point, some 78 guns had been captured along with about 2,000 prisoners, including more Generals.<ref name=Hofschroer-150>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 150</ref> At Genappe, Napoleon's carriage was found abandoned still containing diamonds left in the rush. These became part of King Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia's crown jewels, one Major Keller of the F/15th receiving the [[Pour le Mérite]] with oak leaves for the feat.<ref name=Hofschroer-151>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 151</ref>

===Notes and conclusions===
By November 20th, 1815 the Treaty of Paris was signed bringing an end to the Hundred Days. Of the leading Generals only the Duke of Wellington would survive more than a dozen years. Blucher would pass away within 2 years; Bulow von Deniwitz would beat him to the grave. Napoleon would spend his final years writing from St. Helens railing against the failure of others that had led him to such a fate. What happened?
*Napoleon showed his old flash of brilliance assembling a large army and launching it to attack the Prussian army at Ligny. This was the French army of old, artillery moved with speed and daring to support the infantry and the Guard used in mass to seal a victory.
*What happened after defies explanation; there was not a pursuit after either Qutra Bra or Ligny of any sort worth mentioning. Instead of breath taking relentless pursuit of Jena there was a 24 hour pause. A bloodied but by no means defeated Prussian army moved with speed and deliberation to reorganize and with its less reliable elements running away it was a hard core of an army that would henceforth battle in its best traditions.
*Again the British army was allowed to move off without the slightest bother from the French. The Duke of Wellington made excellent use of the time.
*The Duke's use of reverse slopes and most of all the intelligent use of La Haye Saint and Houghmont diverted large formations from important tasks without bothering much of the allied army.
*It was apparent that neither Marshall Grouchy nor Napoleon had any idea where the mass of the Prussian army was. Marshall Grouchy didn't have the forces available to achieve the outcome Napoleon desired and detaching him only served to keep 33,000 desperately needed men from Napoleon's main effort
*It was at the end of the Battle of Waterloo watching 3 main points of the French army

==Sources==
*Chesny, Charles A: Waterloo Lectures:A Study Of The Campaign Of 1815 ISBN 1428649883
*Hofschröer, Peter: ''1815, The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory'';Greenhill Books (London); ISBN 1-85367-368-4
===Footnotes===
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Waterloo, Battle of}}
[[Category:Battles]]
[[Category:Napoleonic Wars]]

HMS Guerriere

2007-06-23T15:26:37Z

Tirronan: Another of my works from Wikipedia

'''HMS ''Guerriere''''' was a [[United Kingdom|British]] 3-masted sail [[frigate]] of 38 guns captured from the French, and commanded by Captain [[James R. Dacres]] when she met the ''[[USS Constitution]]'' in her last battle. During the afternoon of 19 August 1812, Latitude 40.20 N and Longitude 55.00 West about 400 miles S.E. of Halifax, a sail was sighted on the weather beam bearing down on them. She was soon made out to be a man of war and ''Guerriere'' prepared for action mustering 244 men and 19 boys at quarters. When the enemy hoisted American colours, Captain [[James Richard Dacres]] permitted the Americans in his crew to quit their guns.

The two ships exchanged broadsides for half an hour before the enemy closed her starboard beam and sent ''HMS Guerriere's'' mizzen mast overboard. Switching to the other bow, the enemy raked ''HMS Guerriere'' and swept her decks with grape and musket fire, and then attempted to board. Mr Samuel Grant, master's mate commanding the forecastle, was badly wounded and about the same time Mr Rober Scott, the master, was shot through the knee and the Captain severely wounded. Capt. Dacres ordered Lieut. Bartholomew Kent to lead the marines and boarders from the main deck towards the forecastle but the two ships parting at that moment meant that they were able to bring some of the bow guns to bear on the enemy.
Mr William J. Snow, master's mate, commanded the fore-most main deck guns and Mr John Garby, acting purser, the after quarter deck guns.

The two ships were clear of each other when ''Guerriere's'' fore and main-masts went over the side leaving her an unmanageable wreck. They managed to clear the wreckage but while they were rolling with the main deck guns under water, the enemy wore round within pistol-shot to rake them. At this point Capt. Dacres called his remaining officers together and they agreed to strike the colours to avoid further loss of life. 15 were killed, including the second lieutenant, Mr Henry Ready; six mortally wounded, 39 severely and eighteen slightly wounded. Lieut. Kent was wounded by a splinter early on.

They found that the enemy was the ''[[USS Constitution]]'', Capt. Isaac Hull, of thirty 24-pounders on the main deck, twenty-four 32-pounders and two bored out 18-pounders on the upper deck. Out of 476 men 9 were killed and 13 wounded. Capt. Dacres was surprised and shocked to find a large proportion of British seamen amongst her crew, a number of whom had joined in the boarding party.

The ''Guerriere'' was too badly damaged to take in so, as soon as the wounded had been taken out, she was set on fire by her captors, and the ''Constitution'' returned to Boston.

==Captain James R. Dacres, Royal Navy, to Vice Admiral Herbert Sawyer, Royal Navy==

Boston 7th September 1812

Sir, I am sorry to inform you of the Capture of His Majesty's late Ship Guerriere by the American Frigate Constitution after a severe action on the 19th of August in Latitude 40.20 N and Longitude 55.00 West At 2 PM being by the Wind on the starboard Tack, we saw a Sail on our Weather Beam, bearing down on us. At 3 made her out to be a Man of War, beat to Quarters and prepar'd for Action. At 4, She closing fast wore to prevent her raking us. At 4.10 hoisted our Colours and fir'd several shot at her. At 4.20 She hoisted her Colours and return'd our fire. Wore several times, to avoid being raked, Exchanging broadsides. At 5 She clos'd on our Starboard Beam, both keeping up a heavy fire and steering free, his intention being evidently to cross our bow. At 5.20, our Mizen Mast went over the starboard quarter and brought the Ship up in the Wind. The Enemy then plac'd himself on our larboard Bow, raking us, a few only of our bow Guns bearing and his Grape and Riflemen sweeping our Deck. At 5.40 the Ship not answering her helm, he attempted to lay up on board at this time. Mr [Samuel] Grant who commanded the Forecastle was carried below badly wounded. I immediately order'd the Marines and Boarders from the Main Deck; the Master was at this time shot thro the knee, and I receiv'd a severe wound in the back. Lieutenant [Bartholomew] Kent was leading on the Boarders, when the Ship coming too, we brought some of our bow guns to bear on her and had got clear of our opponent when at 6.20 our Fore and Main Masts went over the side, leaving the Ship a perfect unmanageable Wreck. The Enemy shooting ahead, I was in hopes to clear the Wreck and get the Ship under Command to renew the Action but just as we had clear'd the Wreck our Spritsail yard went and the Enemy having rove new Braces &c, wore round within Pistol Shot to rake us, The Ship laying in the trough of the Sea and rolling her Main Deck Guns under Water and all attempts to get her before the Wind being fruitless, when calling my few remaining officers together, they were all of opinion that any further resistance would be a needless waste of lives, I order'd, though reluctantly, the Colours to be struck. The loss of the Ship is to be ascribed to the early fall of the Mizen Mast which enabled our opponent to choose his position. I am sorry to say we suffered severely in killed and wounded and mostly whilst she lay on our Bow from her Grape and Musketry, in all 15 kill'd and 63 wounded, many of them severely; none of the wounded Officers quitted the Deck till the firing ceas'd. The Frigate prov'd to be the United States Ship Constitution, of thirty 24 Pounders on her Main Deck and twenty four 32 Pounders and two 18 Pounders on her Upper Deck and 476 Men-her loss in comparison with ours was triffling, about twenty, the first Lieutenant of Marines and eight killed and first Lieutenant and Master of the Ship and eleven Men wounded, her lower Masts badly wounded; and stern much shattered and very much cut up about the Rigging. The Guerriere was so cut up, that all attempts to get her in would have been useless. As soon as the wounded were got out of her, they set her on fire, and I feel it my duty to state that the conduct of Captain Hull and his Officers to our Men has been that of a brave Enemy, the greatest care being taken to prevent our Men losing the smallest trifle, and the greatest attention being paid to the wounded who through the attention and skill of Mr [John] Irvine, Surgeon, I hope will do well. I hope though success has not crown'd our efforts, you will not think it presumptuous in me to say the greatest Credit is due to the Officers and Ship's Company for their exertions, particularly when exposed to the heavy raking fire of the Enemy. I feel particularly obliged for the exertions of Lieutenant Kent who though wounded early by a Splinter continued to assist me; in the second Lieutenant the Service has suffered a severe loss; Mr [Robert] Scott, the Master, though wounded was particularly attentive and used every exertion in clearing the Wreck as did the Warrant Officers. Lieutenant [William] Nicoll of the Royal Marines and his party supported the honorable Character of their Corps, and they suffer'd severely. I must particularly recommend Mr [William] Snow, Masters Mate, who commanded the foremost Main Deck guns in the absence of Lieutenant [John] Pullman and the whole after the fall of Lieutenant [Henry] Ready, to your protection, he having serv'd his time and received a severe contusion from a Splinter. I must point out Mr [John] Garby, Acting Purser, to your notice, who volunteer'd his Services on Deck, and commanded the after quarter Deck Guns and was particularly active as well as Mr [John W.] Bannister, Midshipman who has passed. I hope, in considering the circumstances, you will think the Ship entrusted to my charge was properly defended; the unfortunate loss of our Masts, the absence of the third lieutenant, second Lieutenant of Marines, three Midshipmen, and twenty four Men considerably weakened our Crew, and we only muster'd at Quarters 244 Men and 19 Boys, on coming into action; the Enemy had such an advantage from his Marines and Riflemen, when close and his superior sailing enabled him to choose his distance. I enclose herewith a List of killed and wounded on board the Guerriere and have the Honor to be Sir, Your most obedient &c.

:Sign'd J R Dacres
:Vice Admiral Sawyer
:Commander in Chief
:&c &c &c Halifax

==References==
* British Public Record Office, Admiralty 1/502, Part 4, 541-45.
* http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/war1812/const5.htm

[[Category:Royal Navy frigates|Guerriere]]
[[Category:War of 1812 ships of the United Kingdom|Guerriere]]

HMS Java

2007-06-23T15:24:02Z

Tirronan: /* The Action */

The [[France|French]]-built [[frigate]] ''Renommée'' was taken by the [[UK|British]] near [[Madagascar]] and renamed '''''HMS Java'''''. She carried 38 guns and was under the command of Captain [[Harry Lambert]] during the [[War of 1812]], when she met the American frigate [[USS Constitution|USS Constitution]] of 44 guns off the coast of [[Brazil]], in what would be her last battle, which lasted for three hours on [[December 29]], [[1812]]. HMS Java was a new frigate, well supplied and manned, and proved to be well handled and well fought. She was carrying additional personnel for other ships at the time and included another ship's commanding Captain in transit. In any case she proved to be a tougher opponent than [[HMS Guerriere]] did for the USS Constitution. After the surrender she was deemed unfit for repair and subsequently burned.<ref name="USnavy">http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/war1812/const6.htm</ref>

==The Action==
USS Constitution sighted 2 sails in the [[Atlantic Ocean]] off the coast of [[Brazil]] and wore about to intercept. Both HMS Java and USS Constitution made private signals to identify the other. Failing that both ships raised Jacks and raised sails to intercept one another. HMS Java had the weather gauge and used it to attempt to rake USS Constitution. The opening phase of the action comprised both ships attempting to rake the other with little success. Captain Bainbridge wore USS Constitution to a matching course and opened fire with a broadside at 1/2 mile. This broadside accomplished nothing and forced Captain Bainbridge to risk raking to close HMS Java. Both ships began firing broadsides but HMS Java had a mast falling over her starboard side that prevented most of her guns from firing. USS Constitution's accuracy of fire and greater weight and number of her broadside put the smaller HMS Java at a large disadvantage. Within 1 hour and 55 minutes of the 1st exchange of broadsides HMS Java was a floating wreck and burned since she could not be salvaged.<ref name="USnavy">http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/war1812/const6.htm</ref>

==Journal of Commodore William Bainbridge==

*Note that this is a transcription from the Captain of the USS Consititution and does contain both spelling errors and spelling conventions that are correct for 1812 and incorrect now... Please do not spell correct.

''Extract from Commodore Bainbridge's Journal Kept on board the U. S. Frigate Constitution Tuesday 29th December 1812'': At 9 AM, discovered two Strange Sails on the weather bow, at 10. AM. discovered the strange sails to be Ships, one of them stood in for the land, and the other steered off shore in a direction towards us. At 10.45. We tacked ship to the Nd & Wd and stood for the sail standing towards us,-At 11 tacked to the Sd & Ed hauld up the mainsail and took in the Royals. At 11.30 AM made the private signal for the day, which was not answered, & then set the mainsail and royals to draw the strange sail off from the neutral Coast. Wednesday 30th December 1812, (Nautical Time) Commences with Clear weather and moderate breezes from E.N.E. Hoisted our Ensign and Pendant. At 15 minutes past meridian, The ship hoisted her colours, an English Ensign, --having a signal flying at her Main Red Yellow-Red At 1.26 being sufficiently from the land, and finding the ship to be an English Frigate, took in the Main Sail and Royals, tacked Ship and stood for the enemy At 1 .50. P.M, The Enemy bore down with an intention of rakeing us, which we avoided by wearing. At 2, P.M, the enemy being within half a mile, of us, and to wind ward, & having hawled down his colours to dip his Gafft, and not hoisting them again except an Union Jack at the Mizen Mast head, (we having hoisted on board the Constitution an American Jack forward Broad Pendant at Main, American Ensign at Mizen Top Gallant Mast head and at the end of The Gafft) induced me to give orders to the officer of the 3rd Division to fire one Gun ahead of the enemy to make him show his Colours, which being done brought on afire from us of the whole broadside, on which he hoisted an English Ensign at the Peak, and another in his weather Main Rigging, besides his Pendant and then immediately returned our fire, which brought on a general action with round and grape. The enemy Kept at a much greater distance than I wished, but Could not bring him to closer action without exposing ourselves to several rakes.-Considerable Manoeuvers were made by both Vessels to rake and avoid being raked. The following Minutes Were Taken during the Action At 2.10. P.M, Commenced The Action within good grape and Canister distance. The enemy to windward (but much farther than I wished).
*At 2,30. P.M, our wheel was shot entirely away
*At 2.40. determined to close with the Enemy, notwithstanding her rakeing, set the Fore sail & Luff'd up close to him.
*At 2,50, The Enemies Jib boom got foul of our Mizen Rigging
*At 3 The Head of the enemies Bowsprit & Jib boom shot away by us
*At 3.5 Shot away the enemies foremast by the board
*At 3.15 Shot away The enemies Main Top mast just above the Cap
*At 3.40 Shot away Gafft and Spunker boom
*At 3.55 Shot his mizen mast nearly by the board
*At 4.5 Having silenced the fire of the enemy completely and his colours in main Rigging being [down] Supposed he had Struck, Then hawl'd about the Courses to shoot ahead to repair our rigging, which was extremely cut, leaving the enemy a complete wreck, soon after discovered that The enemies flag was still flying hove too to repair Some of our damages.
*At 4.20. The Enemies Main Mast went by the board.
*At 4.50 [Wore] ship and stood for the Enemy
*At 5.25 Got very close to the enemy in a very [effective] rakeing position, athwart his bows & was at the very instance of rakeing him, when he most prudently Struck his Flag.
Had The Enemy Suffered the broadside to have raked him previously to strikeing, his additional loss must have been extremely great laying like a log upon the water, perfectly unmanageable, I could have continued rakeing him without being exposed to more than two of his Guns, (if even Them) After The Enemy had struck, wore Ship and reefed the Top Sails, hoisted out one of the only two remaining boats we had left out of 8 & sent Lieut [George] Parker 1st of the Constitution on board to take possession of her, which was done about 6. P.M, The Action continued from the commencement to the end of the Fire, 1 H 55 m our sails and Rigging were shot very much, and some of our spars injured-had 9 men Killed and 26 wounded. At 7 PM. The boat returned from the Prize with Lieut. [Henry D.] Chads the 1st of the enemies Frigate (which I then learnt was the Java rated 38 - had 49 Guns mounted--)-and Lieut Genl [Thomas] Hislop-appointed to Command in the East Indies,-Major Walker and Capt Wood, belonging to his Staff. -Capt [Henry] Lambert of the Java was too dangerously wounded to be removed immediately. The Cutter returned on board the Prize for Prisoners, and brought Capt [John] Marshall, Master & Commander of The British Navy, who was passenger on board, as also Several other Naval officers destined for ships in the East Indies. The Java had her whole number complete and nearly an hundred supernumeraries. The number she had on board at the commencement of the Action, The officers have not candour to say; from the different papers we collected, such as a muster book, Watch List and quarter Bills, she must have had upwards of 400 souls, she had one more man stationed at each of her Guns on both Decks than what we had The Enemy had 83 wounded & 57 Kill'd. The Java was an important ship fitted out in the compleatest manner to [carry out] the Lieut. Genl & dispatches. She had Copper &c. on board for a 74 building at Bombay, and, I suspect a great many other valuables, but every thing was blown up, except the officers baggage when we set her on fire on the 1st of January 1813 at 3 P.M. Nautical Time.<ref>National Archives, Record Group 45, Captain's Letters, 1813, Vol.1, No.8 1/2.</ref>

==Lieutenant Henry D. Chads, Royal Navy, to Secretary of the Admiralty John W. Croker==

*Lieutenant Chads was the senior surviving officer of HMS Java, her Captain's wound being mortal.

Triplicate

United States Frigate Constitution
off St Salvador Decr 31st 1812

Sir, It is with deep regret that I write you for the information of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty that His Majesty's Ship Java is no more, after sustaining an action on the 29th Inst for several hours with the American Frigate Constitution which resulted in the Capture and ultimate destruction of His Majestys Ship. Captain Lambert being dangerously wounded in the height of the Action, the melancholy task of writing the detail devolves on me. On the morning of the 29th inst at 8 AM off St Salvador (Coast of Brazil) the wind at NE. we perceived a strange sail, made all sail in chace and soon made her out to be a large Frigate; at noon prepared for action the chace not answering our private Signals and backing towards us under easy sail; when about four miles distant she made a signal and immediately tacked and made all sail away upon the wind, we soon found we had the advantage of her in sailing and came up with her fast when she hoisted American Colours. she then bore about three Points on our lee bow at 1:50 PM the Enemy shortened Sail upon which we bore down upon her, at 2:10 when about half a mile distant she opened her fire giving us her larboard broad-side which was not returned till we we were close on her weather bow; both Ships now manoeuvered to obtain advantageous positions; our opponent evidently avoiding close action and firing high to disable our masts in which he succeeded too well having shot away the head of our bowsprit with the Jib boom and our running rigging so much cut as to prevent our preserving the weather gage At 3:5 finding the Enemys raking fire extreemly heavy Captain Lambert ordered the Ship to be laid on board, in which we should have succeeded had not our foremast been shot away at this moment, the remains of our bowsprit passing over his taffrail, shortly after this the main topmast went leaving the Ship totally unmanageable with most of our Starboard Guns rendered useless from the wreck laying over them At 3:30 our Gallant Captain received a dangerous wound in the breast and was carried below, from this time we could not fire more than two or three guns until 4:15 when our Mizen mast was shot away the Ship then fell off a little and brought many of our Starboard Guns to bear, the Enemy's rigging was so much cut that he could not now avoid shooting ahead which brought us fairly Broadside and Broadside. Our Main yard now went in the slings both ships continued engaged in this manner till 4:35 we frequently on fire in consequence of the wreck laying on the side engaged. Our opponent now made sail ahead out of Gun shot where he remained an hour repairing his damages leaving us an unmanageable wreck with only the mainmast left, and that toterring; Every exertion was made by us during his interval to place this Ship in a state to renew the action. We succeeded in clearing the wreck of our Masts from our Guns. a Sail was set on the stumps of the Foremast & Bowsprit the weather half of the Main Yard remaining aloft, the main tack was got forward in the hope of getting the Ship before the Wind, our helm being still perfect. the effort unfortunately proved ineffectual from the Main mast falling over the side from the heavy rolling of the Ship, which nearly covered the whole of our Starboard Guns. We still waited the attack of the Enemy, he now standing toward us for that purpose. on his coming nearly within hail of us & from his manouvre perceiving he intended a position a head where he could rake us without a possibility of our returning a shot. I then consulted the Officers who agreed with myself that on having a great part of our Crew killed & wounded our Bowsprit and three masts gone, several guns useless, we should not be justified in waisting the lives of more of those remaining whom I hope their Lordships & Country will think have bravely defended His Majestys Ship. Under these circumstances, however reluctantly at 5:50 our Colours were lowered from the Stump of the Mizen Mast and we were taken possession a little after 6. by the American Frigate Constitution commanded by Commodore Bainbridge who immediately after ascertaining the state of the Ship resolved on burning her which we had the satisfaction of seeing done as soon as the Wounded were removed. Annexed I send you a return of a killed and wounded and it is with pain I perceive it so numerous also a statement of the comparative force of the two Ships when I hope their Lordships will not think the British Flag tarnished although success has not attended us. It would be presumptive in me to speak of Captain Lamberts merit, who, though still in danger from his wound we still entertain the greatest hopes of his being restored to the service & his Country. It is most gratifying to my feelings to notice the general gallantry of every Officer, Seaman & Marine on board. in justice to the Officers I beg leave to mention them individually. I can never speak too highly of the able exertions of Lieuts. [William A.] Herringham & Buchanan and also Mr. [Batty] Robinson Master who was severely wounded and Lieuts Mercer and Davis [David Davies] of the Royal Marines the latter of whom was also severely wounded. To Capt Jno Marshall RN who was a passenger I am particular]y obliged to for his exertions and advice throughout the action. To Lieutt Aplin who was on the Main Deck and Lieutt Sanders who commanded on the Forecastle, I also return my thanks. I cannot but notice the good conduct of the Mates, & Midshipmen. many of whom are killed & the greater part wounded. To Mr T. C. [Thomas Cooke] Jones Surgeon and his Assistants every praise is due for their unwearied assiduity in the care of the wounded. Lieutt General [Thomas] Hislop, Major Walker and Captain [J. T.] Wood of his Staff the latter of whom was severely wounded were solicitous to assist & remain on the quarter Deck I cannot conclude this letter without expressing my grateful acknowledgement thus publicly for the generous treatment Captain Lambert and his Officers have experienced from our Gallant Enemy Commodore Bainbridge and his Officers. I have the honor to be [&c.]

W [H] D Chads, 1st Lieut
of His Majestys late Ship Java

To John Wilson Croker Esquire
Secretary
Admiralty.

PS. The Constitution has also suffered severely, both in her rigging and men having her Fore and Mizen masts, main topmast, both main topsailyards, Spanker boom, Gaff & trysail mast badly shot, and the greatest part of the standing rigging very much damaged with ten men killed. The Commodore, 5 Lieuts and 46 men wounded four of whom are since dead.<ref>British Public Record Office, Admiralty 1/5435.</ref>

==In popular fiction==

There is a fictional, but well-researched and historically accurate, account of this incident in [[Patrick O'Brian]]'s novel ''[[The Fortune of War]]'' (1979).<ref name="USnavy">http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/war1812/const6.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

HMS Java

2007-06-23T15:23:32Z

Tirronan: Work I did for Wikipedia and the sources are wonderful

The [[France|French]]-built [[frigate]] ''Renommée'' was taken by the [[UK|British]] near [[Madagascar]] and renamed '''''HMS Java'''''. She carried 38 guns and was under the command of Captain [[Harry Lambert]] during the [[War of 1812]], when she met the American frigate [[USS Constitution|USS Constitution]] of 44 guns off the coast of [[Brazil]], in what would be her last battle, which lasted for three hours on [[December 29]], [[1812]]. HMS Java was a new frigate, well supplied and manned, and proved to be well handled and well fought. She was carrying additional personnel for other ships at the time and included another ship's commanding Captain in transit. In any case she proved to be a tougher opponent than [[HMS Guerriere]] did for the USS Constitution. After the surrender she was deemed unfit for repair and subsequently burned.<ref name="USnavy">http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/war1812/const6.htm</ref>

==The Action==
[[Image:VonStetina-USSConstitution&HMSJava.jpg|thumb|400px|right|"Another Victory for Old Ironsides" by [http://www.vonstetinaartworks.com/id1.html Bruce Von Stetina]]]
USS Constitution sighted 2 sails in the [[Atlantic Ocean]] off the coast of [[Brazil]] and wore about to intercept. Both HMS Java and USS Constitution made private signals to identify the other. Failing that both ships raised Jacks and raised sails to intercept one another. HMS Java had the weather gauge and used it to attempt to rake USS Constitution. The opening phase of the action comprised both ships attempting to rake the other with little success. Captain Bainbridge wore USS Constitution to a matching course and opened fire with a broadside at 1/2 mile. This broadside accomplished nothing and forced Captain Bainbridge to risk raking to close HMS Java. Both ships began firing broadsides but HMS Java had a mast falling over her starboard side that prevented most of her guns from firing. USS Constitution's accuracy of fire and greater weight and number of her broadside put the smaller HMS Java at a large disadvantage. Within 1 hour and 55 minutes of the 1st exchange of broadsides HMS Java was a floating wreck and burned since she could not be salvaged.<ref name="USnavy">http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/war1812/const6.htm</ref>

==Journal of Commodore William Bainbridge==

*Note that this is a transcription from the Captain of the USS Consititution and does contain both spelling errors and spelling conventions that are correct for 1812 and incorrect now... Please do not spell correct.

''Extract from Commodore Bainbridge's Journal Kept on board the U. S. Frigate Constitution Tuesday 29th December 1812'': At 9 AM, discovered two Strange Sails on the weather bow, at 10. AM. discovered the strange sails to be Ships, one of them stood in for the land, and the other steered off shore in a direction towards us. At 10.45. We tacked ship to the Nd & Wd and stood for the sail standing towards us,-At 11 tacked to the Sd & Ed hauld up the mainsail and took in the Royals. At 11.30 AM made the private signal for the day, which was not answered, & then set the mainsail and royals to draw the strange sail off from the neutral Coast. Wednesday 30th December 1812, (Nautical Time) Commences with Clear weather and moderate breezes from E.N.E. Hoisted our Ensign and Pendant. At 15 minutes past meridian, The ship hoisted her colours, an English Ensign, --having a signal flying at her Main Red Yellow-Red At 1.26 being sufficiently from the land, and finding the ship to be an English Frigate, took in the Main Sail and Royals, tacked Ship and stood for the enemy At 1 .50. P.M, The Enemy bore down with an intention of rakeing us, which we avoided by wearing. At 2, P.M, the enemy being within half a mile, of us, and to wind ward, & having hawled down his colours to dip his Gafft, and not hoisting them again except an Union Jack at the Mizen Mast head, (we having hoisted on board the Constitution an American Jack forward Broad Pendant at Main, American Ensign at Mizen Top Gallant Mast head and at the end of The Gafft) induced me to give orders to the officer of the 3rd Division to fire one Gun ahead of the enemy to make him show his Colours, which being done brought on afire from us of the whole broadside, on which he hoisted an English Ensign at the Peak, and another in his weather Main Rigging, besides his Pendant and then immediately returned our fire, which brought on a general action with round and grape. The enemy Kept at a much greater distance than I wished, but Could not bring him to closer action without exposing ourselves to several rakes.-Considerable Manoeuvers were made by both Vessels to rake and avoid being raked. The following Minutes Were Taken during the Action At 2.10. P.M, Commenced The Action within good grape and Canister distance. The enemy to windward (but much farther than I wished).
*At 2,30. P.M, our wheel was shot entirely away
*At 2.40. determined to close with the Enemy, notwithstanding her rakeing, set the Fore sail & Luff'd up close to him.
*At 2,50, The Enemies Jib boom got foul of our Mizen Rigging
*At 3 The Head of the enemies Bowsprit & Jib boom shot away by us
*At 3.5 Shot away the enemies foremast by the board
*At 3.15 Shot away The enemies Main Top mast just above the Cap
*At 3.40 Shot away Gafft and Spunker boom
*At 3.55 Shot his mizen mast nearly by the board
*At 4.5 Having silenced the fire of the enemy completely and his colours in main Rigging being [down] Supposed he had Struck, Then hawl'd about the Courses to shoot ahead to repair our rigging, which was extremely cut, leaving the enemy a complete wreck, soon after discovered that The enemies flag was still flying hove too to repair Some of our damages.
*At 4.20. The Enemies Main Mast went by the board.
*At 4.50 [Wore] ship and stood for the Enemy
*At 5.25 Got very close to the enemy in a very [effective] rakeing position, athwart his bows & was at the very instance of rakeing him, when he most prudently Struck his Flag.
Had The Enemy Suffered the broadside to have raked him previously to strikeing, his additional loss must have been extremely great laying like a log upon the water, perfectly unmanageable, I could have continued rakeing him without being exposed to more than two of his Guns, (if even Them) After The Enemy had struck, wore Ship and reefed the Top Sails, hoisted out one of the only two remaining boats we had left out of 8 & sent Lieut [George] Parker 1st of the Constitution on board to take possession of her, which was done about 6. P.M, The Action continued from the commencement to the end of the Fire, 1 H 55 m our sails and Rigging were shot very much, and some of our spars injured-had 9 men Killed and 26 wounded. At 7 PM. The boat returned from the Prize with Lieut. [Henry D.] Chads the 1st of the enemies Frigate (which I then learnt was the Java rated 38 - had 49 Guns mounted--)-and Lieut Genl [Thomas] Hislop-appointed to Command in the East Indies,-Major Walker and Capt Wood, belonging to his Staff. -Capt [Henry] Lambert of the Java was too dangerously wounded to be removed immediately. The Cutter returned on board the Prize for Prisoners, and brought Capt [John] Marshall, Master & Commander of The British Navy, who was passenger on board, as also Several other Naval officers destined for ships in the East Indies. The Java had her whole number complete and nearly an hundred supernumeraries. The number she had on board at the commencement of the Action, The officers have not candour to say; from the different papers we collected, such as a muster book, Watch List and quarter Bills, she must have had upwards of 400 souls, she had one more man stationed at each of her Guns on both Decks than what we had The Enemy had 83 wounded & 57 Kill'd. The Java was an important ship fitted out in the compleatest manner to [carry out] the Lieut. Genl & dispatches. She had Copper &c. on board for a 74 building at Bombay, and, I suspect a great many other valuables, but every thing was blown up, except the officers baggage when we set her on fire on the 1st of January 1813 at 3 P.M. Nautical Time.<ref>National Archives, Record Group 45, Captain's Letters, 1813, Vol.1, No.8 1/2.</ref>

==Lieutenant Henry D. Chads, Royal Navy, to Secretary of the Admiralty John W. Croker==

*Lieutenant Chads was the senior surviving officer of HMS Java, her Captain's wound being mortal.

Triplicate

United States Frigate Constitution
off St Salvador Decr 31st 1812

Sir, It is with deep regret that I write you for the information of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty that His Majesty's Ship Java is no more, after sustaining an action on the 29th Inst for several hours with the American Frigate Constitution which resulted in the Capture and ultimate destruction of His Majestys Ship. Captain Lambert being dangerously wounded in the height of the Action, the melancholy task of writing the detail devolves on me. On the morning of the 29th inst at 8 AM off St Salvador (Coast of Brazil) the wind at NE. we perceived a strange sail, made all sail in chace and soon made her out to be a large Frigate; at noon prepared for action the chace not answering our private Signals and backing towards us under easy sail; when about four miles distant she made a signal and immediately tacked and made all sail away upon the wind, we soon found we had the advantage of her in sailing and came up with her fast when she hoisted American Colours. she then bore about three Points on our lee bow at 1:50 PM the Enemy shortened Sail upon which we bore down upon her, at 2:10 when about half a mile distant she opened her fire giving us her larboard broad-side which was not returned till we we were close on her weather bow; both Ships now manoeuvered to obtain advantageous positions; our opponent evidently avoiding close action and firing high to disable our masts in which he succeeded too well having shot away the head of our bowsprit with the Jib boom and our running rigging so much cut as to prevent our preserving the weather gage At 3:5 finding the Enemys raking fire extreemly heavy Captain Lambert ordered the Ship to be laid on board, in which we should have succeeded had not our foremast been shot away at this moment, the remains of our bowsprit passing over his taffrail, shortly after this the main topmast went leaving the Ship totally unmanageable with most of our Starboard Guns rendered useless from the wreck laying over them At 3:30 our Gallant Captain received a dangerous wound in the breast and was carried below, from this time we could not fire more than two or three guns until 4:15 when our Mizen mast was shot away the Ship then fell off a little and brought many of our Starboard Guns to bear, the Enemy's rigging was so much cut that he could not now avoid shooting ahead which brought us fairly Broadside and Broadside. Our Main yard now went in the slings both ships continued engaged in this manner till 4:35 we frequently on fire in consequence of the wreck laying on the side engaged. Our opponent now made sail ahead out of Gun shot where he remained an hour repairing his damages leaving us an unmanageable wreck with only the mainmast left, and that toterring; Every exertion was made by us during his interval to place this Ship in a state to renew the action. We succeeded in clearing the wreck of our Masts from our Guns. a Sail was set on the stumps of the Foremast & Bowsprit the weather half of the Main Yard remaining aloft, the main tack was got forward in the hope of getting the Ship before the Wind, our helm being still perfect. the effort unfortunately proved ineffectual from the Main mast falling over the side from the heavy rolling of the Ship, which nearly covered the whole of our Starboard Guns. We still waited the attack of the Enemy, he now standing toward us for that purpose. on his coming nearly within hail of us & from his manouvre perceiving he intended a position a head where he could rake us without a possibility of our returning a shot. I then consulted the Officers who agreed with myself that on having a great part of our Crew killed & wounded our Bowsprit and three masts gone, several guns useless, we should not be justified in waisting the lives of more of those remaining whom I hope their Lordships & Country will think have bravely defended His Majestys Ship. Under these circumstances, however reluctantly at 5:50 our Colours were lowered from the Stump of the Mizen Mast and we were taken possession a little after 6. by the American Frigate Constitution commanded by Commodore Bainbridge who immediately after ascertaining the state of the Ship resolved on burning her which we had the satisfaction of seeing done as soon as the Wounded were removed. Annexed I send you a return of a killed and wounded and it is with pain I perceive it so numerous also a statement of the comparative force of the two Ships when I hope their Lordships will not think the British Flag tarnished although success has not attended us. It would be presumptive in me to speak of Captain Lamberts merit, who, though still in danger from his wound we still entertain the greatest hopes of his being restored to the service & his Country. It is most gratifying to my feelings to notice the general gallantry of every Officer, Seaman & Marine on board. in justice to the Officers I beg leave to mention them individually. I can never speak too highly of the able exertions of Lieuts. [William A.] Herringham & Buchanan and also Mr. [Batty] Robinson Master who was severely wounded and Lieuts Mercer and Davis [David Davies] of the Royal Marines the latter of whom was also severely wounded. To Capt Jno Marshall RN who was a passenger I am particular]y obliged to for his exertions and advice throughout the action. To Lieutt Aplin who was on the Main Deck and Lieutt Sanders who commanded on the Forecastle, I also return my thanks. I cannot but notice the good conduct of the Mates, & Midshipmen. many of whom are killed & the greater part wounded. To Mr T. C. [Thomas Cooke] Jones Surgeon and his Assistants every praise is due for their unwearied assiduity in the care of the wounded. Lieutt General [Thomas] Hislop, Major Walker and Captain [J. T.] Wood of his Staff the latter of whom was severely wounded were solicitous to assist & remain on the quarter Deck I cannot conclude this letter without expressing my grateful acknowledgement thus publicly for the generous treatment Captain Lambert and his Officers have experienced from our Gallant Enemy Commodore Bainbridge and his Officers. I have the honor to be [&c.]

W [H] D Chads, 1st Lieut
of His Majestys late Ship Java

To John Wilson Croker Esquire
Secretary
Admiralty.

PS. The Constitution has also suffered severely, both in her rigging and men having her Fore and Mizen masts, main topmast, both main topsailyards, Spanker boom, Gaff & trysail mast badly shot, and the greatest part of the standing rigging very much damaged with ten men killed. The Commodore, 5 Lieuts and 46 men wounded four of whom are since dead.<ref>British Public Record Office, Admiralty 1/5435.</ref>

==In popular fiction==

There is a fictional, but well-researched and historically accurate, account of this incident in [[Patrick O'Brian]]'s novel ''[[The Fortune of War]]'' (1979).<ref name="USnavy">http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/war1812/const6.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Battle of Leipzig

2007-06-22T17:55:37Z

Tirronan:

The '''Battle of the Nations''' on [[16 October|16]]–[[19 October]], [[1813]] was one of the most decisive defeats suffered by [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] in the [[Napoleonic Wars]]. The '''Völkerschlacht''' was fought on German soil and involved German troops on both sides, as a large proportion of Napoleon's troops actually came from the German [[Confederation of the Rhine]]. It is considered the largest battle in Europe before [[World War I]], with over 500,000 troops involved.

==Prelude==
Following Napoleon's disastrous [[Napoleon's invasion of Russia|campaign in Russia]] and his defeats in the [[Peninsular War]], the anti-French forces had cautiously regrouped as the [[Sixth Coalition]], comprising [[United Kingdom|Britain]], [[Russia]], [[Spain]], [[Portugal]], [[Prussia]], [[Austria]], [[Sweden]] and certain smaller [[Germany|German]] states. In total, the Coalition could put into the field well over a million troops — indeed by the time of [[Leipzig]], total Allied armies east of the Rhine probably exceeded a million. By contrast Napoleon's forces had dwindled to just a few hundred thousand.

Napoleon sought to re-establish his hold in Germany, winning two hard-fought victories, at [[Battle of Lützen (1813)|Lützen]] on [[2 May]] and [[Battle of Bautzen|Bautzen]] on [[20 May|20]]–[[21 May]], over Russo-Prussian forces. The victories led to a brief armistice. The Coalition forces, under the command of [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher|Gebhard von Blücher]], [[Charles XIV of Sweden|Crown Prince Charles of Sweden]] and [[Karl Philipp, prince zu Schwarzenberg|Karl von Schwarzenberg]], [[Count Benningsen]], and [[Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly|Barclay De Tolly]] followed the strategy outlined in the [[Trachenburg Plan]] to avoid clashes with Napoleon but to seek confrontations with his marshals, which led to victories at [[Battle of Großbeeren|Großbeeren]], [[Battle of Kulm|Kulm]], [[Battle of Katzbach|Katzbach]] and at [[Battle of Dennewitz|Dennewitz]].

Marshal [[Nicolas Oudinot]] failed to capture [[Berlin]] with his army of 120,000 and Napoleon was forced to withdraw westwards due to the threat to the north, crossing the [[Elbe]] in late September and organizing his forces around [[Leipzig]] to protect his supply lines and meet the Allies. Napoleon arranged his army around Leipzig, but concentrated his force from Taucha through Stötteritz (where Napoleon placed his command). The Prussians advanced from Wartenburg, the Austrians and Russians from [[Dresden]] and the Swedish force from the north.

==16th October ==
In total, the French had around 190,000 soldiers and the Allies almost 330,000 with both sides having significant artillery — in total there were over two and a half thousand pieces of ordnance on the field.
The battle began on [[16 October]] with an attack by 78,000 Allied troops from the south and 54,000 from the north, with Napoleon using the bulk of his army in the south. The allied offensives achieved little and were soon forced back, but Napoleon's outnumbered forces were unable to break the allied lines, resulting in a hard fought stalemate.

===Austrian II Corps Dölitz===
The Austrian II Corps (Gen. von Merveldt) advanced towards Connewitz via Gautzsch and attempted to attack the position to find that the avenue of advance was well covered and didn't allow the Austrians to place their own artillery to support the attack. Repulsed, the Austrians then moved to attack nearby Dölitz crossed by two bridges and leading to a Manor house and a Mill. Two companies of the 24th regiment threw out the small Polish garrison and took the position. A prompt counter attack ejected the Austrians and the battle seesawed until the Austrians brought up a strong artillery battery and blew the Poles out of the position. The Poles left bodies everywhere in their furious defense and set fire to both the Manor and the Mill on the way out.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm#leipzigbattle11</ref>

===Battle of Markkleeberg===
The village of [[Markkleeberg]] was defended by Marshalls [[Józef Antoni Poniatowski|Poniatowski]] and [[Pierre Augereau|Augereau]], the attacker was General [[Friedrich Graf Kleist von Nollendorf|Kleist]] moving along the Pleisse River. The Austrians repaired a bridge and took a school building and manor. The French counter attacked throwing the Austrians out of the school and back over the river. French attacks on the manor only resulted in repulse and mounting casualties for the French and Poles. The Russian 14th Division began a series of flanking attacks that forced the Poles out of Markkleeberg. Marshal Poniatowski stopped the retreat and stopped the advancing Russians. Catching four battalions of the Prussian 12th Brigade in the open Poniatowski directed attacks by artillery and cavalry until they were relieved by Russian Hussars. Marshal Poniatowski retook Markkleeberg but was thrown out by two Prussian battalions. Austrian Grenadiers then formed in front of Markkleeberg and by flank attack drove the Poles and French out of the area.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm#leipzigbattle11</ref>

===Attack on Wachau===
The Russian II Infantry Corps attacked Wachau with support from the Prussian 9th Brigade. The Russians advanced unaware that French forces were in wait and took them by surprise in the flank mauling them. The Prussian engaged and entered Wachau engaging in street to street fighting. French artillery blasted the Prussians out of Wachau and the French recovered the village.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm</ref>

===Battle of Liebertwolkwitz===
Liebertwolkwitz was a big village in a commanding position defended by Marshals [[MacDonald]] and [[Lauriston]] with about 18,000 men. The Austrian IV Corps attacked with 24,500 backed up with Pirth's 10th Brigade (4,550) and Ziethen's 11th Brigade (5,365). The Austrians attacked 1st driving the French out of Liebertwolkwitz after hard fighting only to be driven out in turn by a French counter-attack. At this point [[Napoleon]] directed General [[Antoine Drouot|Drouot]] to form a grand battery on Gallows hill. This was done with 100 Guns that proceeded to blast the Russian II corps and forcing the Prussian battalions supporting it to take cover. Russian General Eugene Duke of Württemberg was notable in his extreme bravery directing his troops under fire. The hole had been opened as Napoleon wished and at this point Marshal [[Joachim Murat|Murat]] was unleashed with 10,000 French, Italian, and Saxon, Cavalry. Murat's choice in formations was unfortunate showing massive columns with no reserve. Smaller formations of Russian, Prussian, and Austrian, Cavalry were after hard fighting able to chase Murat's Division back to its own artillery and was saved only by the French Guard Dragoons. The Young Guard Division was sent in to advance and drive the allies out and give Napoleon his break through. They captured both Liebertwolkwitz and Wachau again but the Allies countered with Russian Guard and Austrian Grenadiers backed up by Russian Cuirassars. They proceeded to show what elite troops are all about forming squares blasting French Cavalry off its horses and over running artillery batteries. In the southern front although Napoleon gained ground he could not break the Allies lines.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm#leipzigbattle11</ref>

===Northern Attack===
The northern front opened with the attack by General [[Louis Alexandre Andrault Langeron|Langeron's]] Russian Corps on the villages of Groß-Wiederitzsch and Klein-Wiederitzsch in the center of the French northern lines. This position was defended by General [[Jan Henryk Dabrowski|Dabrowski's]] Polish division of four infantry battalions and two Cavalry battalions. At first sign of the attack the Polish division boiled out to attack. The battled wavered back and forth with attack and counter-attack. General Langeron rallied his forces and finally took both villages with heavy casualties.

===Battle of Möckern===
The Northern front was dominated by the battle of Möckern. This was a 4 phase battle and saw some hard fighting this day. A Manor, Palace, walled gardens, and low walls, dominated the village. Each position was turned into a fortress with the walls being loopholed for covered fire by the French. The ground to the west of the position was too wooded and swampy for emplacement of artillery. A dike ran east along the river [[Weiße Elster|Elster]] being 4 meters high. Marshal [[Marmont]] brought up infantry columns behind the positions in reserve and for quick counter-attack against any fallen position. [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher|Blücher]] commanded Langeron's (Russian) and [[Hans David Ludwig Yorck von Wartenburg|Yorck's]] (Prussian) corps against Marshal [[Michel Ney|Ney]] and Marshal Marmont. The battle into attacks lasting well into the night. Artillery caused the majority of the 9,000 Allies and 7,000 French casualties, and the French lost another 2,000 prisoners.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm#leipzigbattle12</ref>

==17th October==
There were only two actions on the 17th: the attack by the Russian General [[Fabian Wilhelm von Osten-Sacken|Sacken]] on General Dabrowski's Polish Division at the village of Gohlis. The Polish Division continued to put up heroic resistance and was openly admired by General Sacken. In the end the numbers and determination of the Russians prevailed and the Poles retired to Pfaffendorf. Blücher, who was made a [[field marshal]] the day before, ordered General Lanskoi's 2nd Hussar Division (Russian) to attack General Arrighi's III Cavalry corps. As they had the day before the [[Sixth Coalition]]'s Cavalry again proved to be superior driving the French away with great loss.

===Reinforcements===
The French however received only 14,000 additional troops. Russian General [[Levin August, Count von Bennigsen|von Bennigsen]] and [[Charles XIV John of Sweden|Prince Charles John of Sweden]] had arrived with other troops also arriving for a total of 145,000 for the Allies, greatly increasing their strength.

==18th October==
The Sixth Coalition was arranged as with Field Marshal Blücher (Prussian) and Crown Prince Charles John of Sweden to the north, the Generals [[Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly|Barclay De Tolly]], Bennigsen (both Russian) and Prince von Hessen-Homburg (Austrian) to the south, and General Gyulay (Austrian) to the west.

===Wachau, Lößnig, and Dölitz, Southern Front===
The Prussian 9th brigade occupied the abandon village of Wachau while the Austrians with General Bianchi's Hungarians threw the French out of Lößnig. The Austrians proceeded to give a demonstration of combined arms cooperation as Austrian Cavalry attacked French infantry to give Austrian infantry time to arrive and deploy in the attack on Dölitz. The Young Guard Division arrived and threw them out. At this point three Austrian Grenadier battalions arrived and began to contest for the village with artillery support.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm#leipzigbattle3</ref>
On the 18th the Allies launched a huge assault from all sides. In over nine hours of fighting, in which both sides suffered heavy casualties, the French troops prevented a breakthrough but were slowly forced back towards Leipzig. Napoleon saw that the battle was a lost cause and on the night of the 18th–19th he began to withdraw the majority of his army across the river Elster. The retreat went well until early afternoon when the single bridge was mistakenly destroyed, leaving the French rear-guard to fight to the last man, be caught by the Allies, or drown while trying to swim the river.

==Results==

Total casualties are uncertain; estimates range from 80,000 to 110,000 killed or wounded from both sides.
Taking an estimate of 95,000 total, the Coalition lost 55,000. Napoleon's side lost 40,000, with around 30,000 taken as prisoners or left behind in hospitals. Amongst the casualties was the French marshal [[Józef Antoni Poniatowski]] (a nephew to the last king of [[Poland]], [[Stanislaw August Poniatowski]]), who had only received his marshal's baton the previous day.

The battle ended the [[First French Empire]]'s presence east of the [[Rhine]] and brought the liberated German states over to the Coalition.

In addition to the 91 m high [[Völkerschlachtdenkmal]], the course of the battle in the city of Leipzig is marked by numerous monuments and the 45 [[Apel-stones]] that mark important lines of the French and allied troops.

== Notes ==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_leipzig.html “Easily ranking as one of the largest battles in History”]
* [http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm Leipzig 1813 – "The Battle of the Nations" was the biggest battle of Napoleonic Wars]
* [http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/French_Order_of_Battle_LEIPZIG_1.htm French order of battle: II–XI Army Corps]
* [http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/French_Order_of_Battle_LEIPZIG_1.htm French order of battle: Cavalry Reserve and the Imperial Guard]

Battle of Leipzig

2007-06-22T17:54:55Z

Tirronan: /* Results */

The '''Battle of the Nations''' (or '''Battle of Leipzig''' or '''{{lang-de|Völkerschlacht bei Leipzig}}''') on [[16 October|16]]–[[19 October]], [[1813]] was one of the most decisive defeats suffered by [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] in the [[Napoleonic Wars]]. The '''Völkerschlacht''' was fought on German soil and involved German troops on both sides, as a large proportion of Napoleon's troops actually came from the German [[Confederation of the Rhine]]. It is considered the largest battle in Europe before [[World War I]], with over 500,000 troops involved.

==Prelude==
Following Napoleon's disastrous [[Napoleon's invasion of Russia|campaign in Russia]] and his defeats in the [[Peninsular War]], the anti-French forces had cautiously regrouped as the [[Sixth Coalition]], comprising [[United Kingdom|Britain]], [[Russia]], [[Spain]], [[Portugal]], [[Prussia]], [[Austria]], [[Sweden]] and certain smaller [[Germany|German]] states. In total, the Coalition could put into the field well over a million troops — indeed by the time of [[Leipzig]], total Allied armies east of the Rhine probably exceeded a million. By contrast Napoleon's forces had dwindled to just a few hundred thousand.

Napoleon sought to re-establish his hold in Germany, winning two hard-fought victories, at [[Battle of Lützen (1813)|Lützen]] on [[2 May]] and [[Battle of Bautzen|Bautzen]] on [[20 May|20]]–[[21 May]], over Russo-Prussian forces. The victories led to a brief armistice. The Coalition forces, under the command of [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher|Gebhard von Blücher]], [[Charles XIV of Sweden|Crown Prince Charles of Sweden]] and [[Karl Philipp, prince zu Schwarzenberg|Karl von Schwarzenberg]], [[Count Benningsen]], and [[Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly|Barclay De Tolly]] followed the strategy outlined in the [[Trachenburg Plan]] to avoid clashes with Napoleon but to seek confrontations with his marshals, which led to victories at [[Battle of Großbeeren|Großbeeren]], [[Battle of Kulm|Kulm]], [[Battle of Katzbach|Katzbach]] and at [[Battle of Dennewitz|Dennewitz]].

Marshal [[Nicolas Oudinot]] failed to capture [[Berlin]] with his army of 120,000 and Napoleon was forced to withdraw westwards due to the threat to the north, crossing the [[Elbe]] in late September and organizing his forces around [[Leipzig]] to protect his supply lines and meet the Allies. Napoleon arranged his army around Leipzig, but concentrated his force from Taucha through Stötteritz (where Napoleon placed his command). The Prussians advanced from Wartenburg, the Austrians and Russians from [[Dresden]] and the Swedish force from the north.

==16th October ==
In total, the French had around 190,000 soldiers and the Allies almost 330,000 with both sides having significant artillery — in total there were over two and a half thousand pieces of ordnance on the field.
The battle began on [[16 October]] with an attack by 78,000 Allied troops from the south and 54,000 from the north, with Napoleon using the bulk of his army in the south. The allied offensives achieved little and were soon forced back, but Napoleon's outnumbered forces were unable to break the allied lines, resulting in a hard fought stalemate.

===Austrian II Corps Dölitz===
The Austrian II Corps (Gen. von Merveldt) advanced towards Connewitz via Gautzsch and attempted to attack the position to find that the avenue of advance was well covered and didn't allow the Austrians to place their own artillery to support the attack. Repulsed, the Austrians then moved to attack nearby Dölitz crossed by two bridges and leading to a Manor house and a Mill. Two companies of the 24th regiment threw out the small Polish garrison and took the position. A prompt counter attack ejected the Austrians and the battle seesawed until the Austrians brought up a strong artillery battery and blew the Poles out of the position. The Poles left bodies everywhere in their furious defense and set fire to both the Manor and the Mill on the way out.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm#leipzigbattle11</ref>

===Battle of Markkleeberg===
The village of [[Markkleeberg]] was defended by Marshalls [[Józef Antoni Poniatowski|Poniatowski]] and [[Pierre Augereau|Augereau]], the attacker was General [[Friedrich Graf Kleist von Nollendorf|Kleist]] moving along the Pleisse River. The Austrians repaired a bridge and took a school building and manor. The French counter attacked throwing the Austrians out of the school and back over the river. French attacks on the manor only resulted in repulse and mounting casualties for the French and Poles. The Russian 14th Division began a series of flanking attacks that forced the Poles out of Markkleeberg. Marshal Poniatowski stopped the retreat and stopped the advancing Russians. Catching four battalions of the Prussian 12th Brigade in the open Poniatowski directed attacks by artillery and cavalry until they were relieved by Russian Hussars. Marshal Poniatowski retook Markkleeberg but was thrown out by two Prussian battalions. Austrian Grenadiers then formed in front of Markkleeberg and by flank attack drove the Poles and French out of the area.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm#leipzigbattle11</ref>

===Attack on Wachau===
The Russian II Infantry Corps attacked Wachau with support from the Prussian 9th Brigade. The Russians advanced unaware that French forces were in wait and took them by surprise in the flank mauling them. The Prussian engaged and entered Wachau engaging in street to street fighting. French artillery blasted the Prussians out of Wachau and the French recovered the village.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm</ref>

===Battle of Liebertwolkwitz===
Liebertwolkwitz was a big village in a commanding position defended by Marshals [[MacDonald]] and [[Lauriston]] with about 18,000 men. The Austrian IV Corps attacked with 24,500 backed up with Pirth's 10th Brigade (4,550) and Ziethen's 11th Brigade (5,365). The Austrians attacked 1st driving the French out of Liebertwolkwitz after hard fighting only to be driven out in turn by a French counter-attack. At this point [[Napoleon]] directed General [[Antoine Drouot|Drouot]] to form a grand battery on Gallows hill. This was done with 100 Guns that proceeded to blast the Russian II corps and forcing the Prussian battalions supporting it to take cover. Russian General Eugene Duke of Württemberg was notable in his extreme bravery directing his troops under fire. The hole had been opened as Napoleon wished and at this point Marshal [[Joachim Murat|Murat]] was unleashed with 10,000 French, Italian, and Saxon, Cavalry. Murat's choice in formations was unfortunate showing massive columns with no reserve. Smaller formations of Russian, Prussian, and Austrian, Cavalry were after hard fighting able to chase Murat's Division back to its own artillery and was saved only by the French Guard Dragoons. The Young Guard Division was sent in to advance and drive the allies out and give Napoleon his break through. They captured both Liebertwolkwitz and Wachau again but the Allies countered with Russian Guard and Austrian Grenadiers backed up by Russian Cuirassars. They proceeded to show what elite troops are all about forming squares blasting French Cavalry off its horses and over running artillery batteries. In the southern front although Napoleon gained ground he could not break the Allies lines.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm#leipzigbattle11</ref>

===Northern Attack===
The northern front opened with the attack by General [[Louis Alexandre Andrault Langeron|Langeron's]] Russian Corps on the villages of Groß-Wiederitzsch and Klein-Wiederitzsch in the center of the French northern lines. This position was defended by General [[Jan Henryk Dabrowski|Dabrowski's]] Polish division of four infantry battalions and two Cavalry battalions. At first sign of the attack the Polish division boiled out to attack. The battled wavered back and forth with attack and counter-attack. General Langeron rallied his forces and finally took both villages with heavy casualties.

===Battle of Möckern===
The Northern front was dominated by the battle of Möckern. This was a 4 phase battle and saw some hard fighting this day. A Manor, Palace, walled gardens, and low walls, dominated the village. Each position was turned into a fortress with the walls being loopholed for covered fire by the French. The ground to the west of the position was too wooded and swampy for emplacement of artillery. A dike ran east along the river [[Weiße Elster|Elster]] being 4 meters high. Marshal [[Marmont]] brought up infantry columns behind the positions in reserve and for quick counter-attack against any fallen position. [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher|Blücher]] commanded Langeron's (Russian) and [[Hans David Ludwig Yorck von Wartenburg|Yorck's]] (Prussian) corps against Marshal [[Michel Ney|Ney]] and Marshal Marmont. The battle into attacks lasting well into the night. Artillery caused the majority of the 9,000 Allies and 7,000 French casualties, and the French lost another 2,000 prisoners.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm#leipzigbattle12</ref>

==17th October==
There were only two actions on the 17th: the attack by the Russian General [[Fabian Wilhelm von Osten-Sacken|Sacken]] on General Dabrowski's Polish Division at the village of Gohlis. The Polish Division continued to put up heroic resistance and was openly admired by General Sacken. In the end the numbers and determination of the Russians prevailed and the Poles retired to Pfaffendorf. Blücher, who was made a [[field marshal]] the day before, ordered General Lanskoi's 2nd Hussar Division (Russian) to attack General Arrighi's III Cavalry corps. As they had the day before the [[Sixth Coalition]]'s Cavalry again proved to be superior driving the French away with great loss.

===Reinforcements===
The French however received only 14,000 additional troops. Russian General [[Levin August, Count von Bennigsen|von Bennigsen]] and [[Charles XIV John of Sweden|Prince Charles John of Sweden]] had arrived with other troops also arriving for a total of 145,000 for the Allies, greatly increasing their strength.

==18th October==
The Sixth Coalition was arranged as with Field Marshal Blücher (Prussian) and Crown Prince Charles John of Sweden to the north, the Generals [[Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly|Barclay De Tolly]], Bennigsen (both Russian) and Prince von Hessen-Homburg (Austrian) to the south, and General Gyulay (Austrian) to the west.

===Wachau, Lößnig, and Dölitz, Southern Front===
The Prussian 9th brigade occupied the abandon village of Wachau while the Austrians with General Bianchi's Hungarians threw the French out of Lößnig. The Austrians proceeded to give a demonstration of combined arms cooperation as Austrian Cavalry attacked French infantry to give Austrian infantry time to arrive and deploy in the attack on Dölitz. The Young Guard Division arrived and threw them out. At this point three Austrian Grenadier battalions arrived and began to contest for the village with artillery support.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm#leipzigbattle3</ref>
On the 18th the Allies launched a huge assault from all sides. In over nine hours of fighting, in which both sides suffered heavy casualties, the French troops prevented a breakthrough but were slowly forced back towards Leipzig. Napoleon saw that the battle was a lost cause and on the night of the 18th–19th he began to withdraw the majority of his army across the river Elster. The retreat went well until early afternoon when the single bridge was mistakenly destroyed, leaving the French rear-guard to fight to the last man, be caught by the Allies, or drown while trying to swim the river.

==Results==

Total casualties are uncertain; estimates range from 80,000 to 110,000 killed or wounded from both sides.
Taking an estimate of 95,000 total, the Coalition lost 55,000. Napoleon's side lost 40,000, with around 30,000 taken as prisoners or left behind in hospitals. Amongst the casualties was the French marshal [[Józef Antoni Poniatowski]] (a nephew to the last king of [[Poland]], [[Stanislaw August Poniatowski]]), who had only received his marshal's baton the previous day.

The battle ended the [[First French Empire]]'s presence east of the [[Rhine]] and brought the liberated German states over to the Coalition.

In addition to the 91 m high [[Völkerschlachtdenkmal]], the course of the battle in the city of Leipzig is marked by numerous monuments and the 45 [[Apel-stones]] that mark important lines of the French and allied troops.

== Notes ==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_leipzig.html “Easily ranking as one of the largest battles in History”]
* [http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm Leipzig 1813 – "The Battle of the Nations" was the biggest battle of Napoleonic Wars]
* [http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/French_Order_of_Battle_LEIPZIG_1.htm French order of battle: II–XI Army Corps]
* [http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/French_Order_of_Battle_LEIPZIG_1.htm French order of battle: Cavalry Reserve and the Imperial Guard]

Battle of Leipzig

2007-06-22T17:54:22Z

Tirronan:

The '''Battle of the Nations''' (or '''Battle of Leipzig''' or '''{{lang-de|Völkerschlacht bei Leipzig}}''') on [[16 October|16]]–[[19 October]], [[1813]] was one of the most decisive defeats suffered by [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] in the [[Napoleonic Wars]]. The '''Völkerschlacht''' was fought on German soil and involved German troops on both sides, as a large proportion of Napoleon's troops actually came from the German [[Confederation of the Rhine]]. It is considered the largest battle in Europe before [[World War I]], with over 500,000 troops involved.

==Prelude==
Following Napoleon's disastrous [[Napoleon's invasion of Russia|campaign in Russia]] and his defeats in the [[Peninsular War]], the anti-French forces had cautiously regrouped as the [[Sixth Coalition]], comprising [[United Kingdom|Britain]], [[Russia]], [[Spain]], [[Portugal]], [[Prussia]], [[Austria]], [[Sweden]] and certain smaller [[Germany|German]] states. In total, the Coalition could put into the field well over a million troops — indeed by the time of [[Leipzig]], total Allied armies east of the Rhine probably exceeded a million. By contrast Napoleon's forces had dwindled to just a few hundred thousand.

Napoleon sought to re-establish his hold in Germany, winning two hard-fought victories, at [[Battle of Lützen (1813)|Lützen]] on [[2 May]] and [[Battle of Bautzen|Bautzen]] on [[20 May|20]]–[[21 May]], over Russo-Prussian forces. The victories led to a brief armistice. The Coalition forces, under the command of [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher|Gebhard von Blücher]], [[Charles XIV of Sweden|Crown Prince Charles of Sweden]] and [[Karl Philipp, prince zu Schwarzenberg|Karl von Schwarzenberg]], [[Count Benningsen]], and [[Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly|Barclay De Tolly]] followed the strategy outlined in the [[Trachenburg Plan]] to avoid clashes with Napoleon but to seek confrontations with his marshals, which led to victories at [[Battle of Großbeeren|Großbeeren]], [[Battle of Kulm|Kulm]], [[Battle of Katzbach|Katzbach]] and at [[Battle of Dennewitz|Dennewitz]].

Marshal [[Nicolas Oudinot]] failed to capture [[Berlin]] with his army of 120,000 and Napoleon was forced to withdraw westwards due to the threat to the north, crossing the [[Elbe]] in late September and organizing his forces around [[Leipzig]] to protect his supply lines and meet the Allies. Napoleon arranged his army around Leipzig, but concentrated his force from Taucha through Stötteritz (where Napoleon placed his command). The Prussians advanced from Wartenburg, the Austrians and Russians from [[Dresden]] and the Swedish force from the north.

==16th October ==
In total, the French had around 190,000 soldiers and the Allies almost 330,000 with both sides having significant artillery — in total there were over two and a half thousand pieces of ordnance on the field.
The battle began on [[16 October]] with an attack by 78,000 Allied troops from the south and 54,000 from the north, with Napoleon using the bulk of his army in the south. The allied offensives achieved little and were soon forced back, but Napoleon's outnumbered forces were unable to break the allied lines, resulting in a hard fought stalemate.

===Austrian II Corps Dölitz===
The Austrian II Corps (Gen. von Merveldt) advanced towards Connewitz via Gautzsch and attempted to attack the position to find that the avenue of advance was well covered and didn't allow the Austrians to place their own artillery to support the attack. Repulsed, the Austrians then moved to attack nearby Dölitz crossed by two bridges and leading to a Manor house and a Mill. Two companies of the 24th regiment threw out the small Polish garrison and took the position. A prompt counter attack ejected the Austrians and the battle seesawed until the Austrians brought up a strong artillery battery and blew the Poles out of the position. The Poles left bodies everywhere in their furious defense and set fire to both the Manor and the Mill on the way out.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm#leipzigbattle11</ref>

===Battle of Markkleeberg===
The village of [[Markkleeberg]] was defended by Marshalls [[Józef Antoni Poniatowski|Poniatowski]] and [[Pierre Augereau|Augereau]], the attacker was General [[Friedrich Graf Kleist von Nollendorf|Kleist]] moving along the Pleisse River. The Austrians repaired a bridge and took a school building and manor. The French counter attacked throwing the Austrians out of the school and back over the river. French attacks on the manor only resulted in repulse and mounting casualties for the French and Poles. The Russian 14th Division began a series of flanking attacks that forced the Poles out of Markkleeberg. Marshal Poniatowski stopped the retreat and stopped the advancing Russians. Catching four battalions of the Prussian 12th Brigade in the open Poniatowski directed attacks by artillery and cavalry until they were relieved by Russian Hussars. Marshal Poniatowski retook Markkleeberg but was thrown out by two Prussian battalions. Austrian Grenadiers then formed in front of Markkleeberg and by flank attack drove the Poles and French out of the area.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm#leipzigbattle11</ref>

===Attack on Wachau===
The Russian II Infantry Corps attacked Wachau with support from the Prussian 9th Brigade. The Russians advanced unaware that French forces were in wait and took them by surprise in the flank mauling them. The Prussian engaged and entered Wachau engaging in street to street fighting. French artillery blasted the Prussians out of Wachau and the French recovered the village.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm</ref>

===Battle of Liebertwolkwitz===
Liebertwolkwitz was a big village in a commanding position defended by Marshals [[MacDonald]] and [[Lauriston]] with about 18,000 men. The Austrian IV Corps attacked with 24,500 backed up with Pirth's 10th Brigade (4,550) and Ziethen's 11th Brigade (5,365). The Austrians attacked 1st driving the French out of Liebertwolkwitz after hard fighting only to be driven out in turn by a French counter-attack. At this point [[Napoleon]] directed General [[Antoine Drouot|Drouot]] to form a grand battery on Gallows hill. This was done with 100 Guns that proceeded to blast the Russian II corps and forcing the Prussian battalions supporting it to take cover. Russian General Eugene Duke of Württemberg was notable in his extreme bravery directing his troops under fire. The hole had been opened as Napoleon wished and at this point Marshal [[Joachim Murat|Murat]] was unleashed with 10,000 French, Italian, and Saxon, Cavalry. Murat's choice in formations was unfortunate showing massive columns with no reserve. Smaller formations of Russian, Prussian, and Austrian, Cavalry were after hard fighting able to chase Murat's Division back to its own artillery and was saved only by the French Guard Dragoons. The Young Guard Division was sent in to advance and drive the allies out and give Napoleon his break through. They captured both Liebertwolkwitz and Wachau again but the Allies countered with Russian Guard and Austrian Grenadiers backed up by Russian Cuirassars. They proceeded to show what elite troops are all about forming squares blasting French Cavalry off its horses and over running artillery batteries. In the southern front although Napoleon gained ground he could not break the Allies lines.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm#leipzigbattle11</ref>

===Northern Attack===
The northern front opened with the attack by General [[Louis Alexandre Andrault Langeron|Langeron's]] Russian Corps on the villages of Groß-Wiederitzsch and Klein-Wiederitzsch in the center of the French northern lines. This position was defended by General [[Jan Henryk Dabrowski|Dabrowski's]] Polish division of four infantry battalions and two Cavalry battalions. At first sign of the attack the Polish division boiled out to attack. The battled wavered back and forth with attack and counter-attack. General Langeron rallied his forces and finally took both villages with heavy casualties.

===Battle of Möckern===
The Northern front was dominated by the battle of Möckern. This was a 4 phase battle and saw some hard fighting this day. A Manor, Palace, walled gardens, and low walls, dominated the village. Each position was turned into a fortress with the walls being loopholed for covered fire by the French. The ground to the west of the position was too wooded and swampy for emplacement of artillery. A dike ran east along the river [[Weiße Elster|Elster]] being 4 meters high. Marshal [[Marmont]] brought up infantry columns behind the positions in reserve and for quick counter-attack against any fallen position. [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher|Blücher]] commanded Langeron's (Russian) and [[Hans David Ludwig Yorck von Wartenburg|Yorck's]] (Prussian) corps against Marshal [[Michel Ney|Ney]] and Marshal Marmont. The battle into attacks lasting well into the night. Artillery caused the majority of the 9,000 Allies and 7,000 French casualties, and the French lost another 2,000 prisoners.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm#leipzigbattle12</ref>

==17th October==
There were only two actions on the 17th: the attack by the Russian General [[Fabian Wilhelm von Osten-Sacken|Sacken]] on General Dabrowski's Polish Division at the village of Gohlis. The Polish Division continued to put up heroic resistance and was openly admired by General Sacken. In the end the numbers and determination of the Russians prevailed and the Poles retired to Pfaffendorf. Blücher, who was made a [[field marshal]] the day before, ordered General Lanskoi's 2nd Hussar Division (Russian) to attack General Arrighi's III Cavalry corps. As they had the day before the [[Sixth Coalition]]'s Cavalry again proved to be superior driving the French away with great loss.

===Reinforcements===
The French however received only 14,000 additional troops. Russian General [[Levin August, Count von Bennigsen|von Bennigsen]] and [[Charles XIV John of Sweden|Prince Charles John of Sweden]] had arrived with other troops also arriving for a total of 145,000 for the Allies, greatly increasing their strength.

==18th October==
The Sixth Coalition was arranged as with Field Marshal Blücher (Prussian) and Crown Prince Charles John of Sweden to the north, the Generals [[Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly|Barclay De Tolly]], Bennigsen (both Russian) and Prince von Hessen-Homburg (Austrian) to the south, and General Gyulay (Austrian) to the west.

===Wachau, Lößnig, and Dölitz, Southern Front===
The Prussian 9th brigade occupied the abandon village of Wachau while the Austrians with General Bianchi's Hungarians threw the French out of Lößnig. The Austrians proceeded to give a demonstration of combined arms cooperation as Austrian Cavalry attacked French infantry to give Austrian infantry time to arrive and deploy in the attack on Dölitz. The Young Guard Division arrived and threw them out. At this point three Austrian Grenadier battalions arrived and began to contest for the village with artillery support.<ref>http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm#leipzigbattle3</ref>
On the 18th the Allies launched a huge assault from all sides. In over nine hours of fighting, in which both sides suffered heavy casualties, the French troops prevented a breakthrough but were slowly forced back towards Leipzig. Napoleon saw that the battle was a lost cause and on the night of the 18th–19th he began to withdraw the majority of his army across the river Elster. The retreat went well until early afternoon when the single bridge was mistakenly destroyed, leaving the French rear-guard to fight to the last man, be caught by the Allies, or drown while trying to swim the river.

==Results==
[[Image:Battle Of The Nations-Monument.jpg|thumb|right|250px|[[Völkerschlachtdenkmal]]: Memorial to the Battle of the Nations, Leipzig]]

Total casualties are uncertain; estimates range from 80,000 to 110,000 killed or wounded from both sides.
Taking an estimate of 95,000 total, the Coalition lost 55,000. Napoleon's side lost 40,000, with around 30,000 taken as prisoners or left behind in hospitals. Amongst the casualties was the French marshal [[Józef Antoni Poniatowski]] (a nephew to the last king of [[Poland]], [[Stanislaw August Poniatowski]]), who had only received his marshal's baton the previous day.

The battle ended the [[First French Empire]]'s presence east of the [[Rhine]] and brought the liberated German states over to the Coalition.

In addition to the 91 m high [[Völkerschlachtdenkmal]], the course of the battle in the city of Leipzig is marked by numerous monuments and the 45 [[Apel-stones]] that mark important lines of the French and allied troops.

== Notes ==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_leipzig.html “Easily ranking as one of the largest battles in History”]
* [http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Leipzig_battle.htm Leipzig 1813 – "The Battle of the Nations" was the biggest battle of Napoleonic Wars]
* [http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/French_Order_of_Battle_LEIPZIG_1.htm French order of battle: II–XI Army Corps]
* [http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/French_Order_of_Battle_LEIPZIG_1.htm French order of battle: Cavalry Reserve and the Imperial Guard]

Talk:Battle of Leipzig

2007-06-22T17:52:04Z

Tirronan: New page: I wrote this article at Wikipedia and except for spelling corrections I claim it as my work to transfer over here. ~~~~

I wrote this article at Wikipedia and except for spelling corrections I claim it as my work to transfer over here. [[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Battle of Waterloo

2007-06-22T17:50:12Z

Tirronan: /* The Waterloo Campaign */

[[Image:waterloo.jpg|350px|thumb|The Battle of Waterloo]]
The '''Battle of Waterloo''' took place on June 18, 1815 in Belgium. It marked the beginning of the end of [[The Hundred Days]], [[Napoleon]]'s attempt at regaining power after his initial defeat the previous year.

Once the [[United Kingdom]]'s 67,000-strong army, under the Duke of Wellington, had forced a precarious stalemate against Napoleon's 73,000, [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher]]'s Prussian forces arrived and were able to achieve decisive numerical superiority, forcing Napoleon out.

The battle marked the end of [[Napoleon]]'s reign and his exile to the island of [[Saint Helena]] in the South Atlantic.

==Preliminary==
Napoleon's return from [[Elba]] marked the beginning of The Hundred Days and on March 18, 1815 he was declared an outlaw by the [[Congress of Vienna]]. This marked the mobilization of the Seventh Coalition armies. The British formed an army consisting of British, Nassau and Dutch troops to form an army. The Prussians created two armies, one under Prince Blucher and another under General Kliest with Prussian, and North German allied states. Russia assembled an army of 250,000 men under Prince Barcley de Tolly and the Austrians provided two additional armies under General Schwarzenburg and Archduke Charles. The King of Spain assembled an army placing it under English officers and began moving to the frontier.
==The Waterloo Campaign==
Napoleon began a massive call up and soon had Le Armie Du Nord (Army of the North) prepared. The Army of the North was about 117,000 strong. This was moved with great stealth to the northern border of Belgium. In this area the British had assembled an army of some 97,000 and the Prussians another army of 105,000. Both allied armies had been spread out in an effort to be easier on the population they depended on for assistance.
===Wellington's Army===
Wellington led an multinational army that he would describe as "an infamous army, very weak and ill equipped, and a very inexperienced Staff".<ref>Longford, p.485</ref> It was in no case more than 30% British, the rest coming from the Neatherlands, Hanover, Nassau, and Brunswick. The Duke of Wellington would express reservations about the loyality of some of his troops but in point of fact all of his troops would give outstanding performances in battle.
===The Prussian Army===
The Prussian army was in the throes of reorganization as its reserve regiments became line regiments along with many of the previous 1814 Landwehr regiments and its artillery was also reorganizing and would not give its best performance, though its militia, the ''Landwehr'', was significantly better than other militias.<ref>Barbero, p.39</ref> It was under the command of Blücher, though in fact much of its operation was directed by his chief-of-staff, [[August von Gneisenau|Gneisenau]], who greatly distrusted Wellington.<ref>Barbero, p.21</ref> Two and a half Prussian army corps or 48,000 men, were engaged in the battle by about 18:00. (Two brigades under [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Friedrich von Bülow]], commander of the IV Corps, attacked Lobau at 16:30, [[Georg Dubislav Ludwig von Pirch|Georg von Pirch's]] II Corps and parts of [[Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Ziethen|Graf von Ziethen's]] I Corps engaged at about 18:00.)
===June 16th===
Despite the efforts at deception the Prussians quickly understood where the French army was and proceeded to interfere with it. The Prussian 1st Corp began an all day delaying effort while the Prussian army assembled. The British army was somewhat slower to react as Wellington's spy network was either interfered with or was actively giving him disinformation. Lord Wellington did not begin assembly of his army until the evening.
====Battle of Quatra Bra====
Marshall Ney in command of the French Army's left wing marched to Quatra Bra and found it defended by Dutch units who were determined to hold their ground. The Prince of Orange arrived and disregarded orders to retreat, choosing to reinforce the position. Marshall Ney believing that he was facing far more troops than was the case was tentative in his attacks at first. Lord Wellington was rushing formations to assist with all speed. As evening fell the British forces outnumbered the French and the position was held.
====Battle of Ligny====
Napoleon had wished to attack the British first but this was impossible as the Prussians were by now already assembled with 3/4 of their forces in and around the village of Ligny. In a four hour battle Napoleon would earn his last victory. The Prussian position was a strong one but the exicution of the dispositions left something to be desired. The Prussian left was strongly held by the III Corps but was never in danger given the marshy ground in front of it. The Prussian center and right contained the intermingled I and II Corps with the right strung out waiting for Wellington's army that would never show up. After several repulses, Napoleon launched the combinded Guard at the Prussian center. Despite several counter attacks the center fell and the battle was won by the French. The carnage was great with 11,000 French and 22,000 Prussians lost on the field. A great deal of the Prussian losses were deserters from formations recruited from newly aqquired lands by the Kingdom of Prussia. The retreat of the Prussians was never interrupted, and was seemingly unnoticed by the French.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> By nightfall, at about 2100, almost all of the Prussian formations had left the field. On the Prussian right, Lieutenant-General [[Hans Ernest Ziethen|Ziethen's]] I Corps retreated slowly with most of its artillery, leaving a rearguard close to [[Brye]] to slow the French pursuit. On the left, Lieutenant-General [[Johann von Thielmann|Thielemann's]] III Corps retreated unharmed, leaving a strong rearguard at [[Sombreffe]]. The bulk of the rearguard held their positions until about midnight, before following the rest of the retreating army. In fact, Zieten's 1st Corps rearguard units only left the battlefield in the early morning of 17 June, as the exhausted French failed to press on.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> Pirchs II Corps followed the 1st Corp off the battlefield and Thielemans III Corps moved last with the armies various parks in tow. It should be noted that the last of III Corps was moved in the morning completely ignored. <ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Von Bülow's]] IV Corps moved south of Wavre and setup strong rear guard positions for the army to quickly reasemble.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> General Blücher was already in communications with General Wellington. Great though the victory was (as the Prussians had more men on the field than the French) it contained all the seeds for the eventual defeat at Waterloo. While the Prussians were defeated they were not routed and proceeded to calmly march off the battlefield with some units not leaving until the next morning. This left a organized and determined army ready to act against the French army.

===June 17th===
This day saw the British forces move to the Mont Saint Jean (Waterloo) position and prepare to receive the French attack. The Prussian Army moved to the Village of Wavre with all 4 corps now assembled.

===June 18th===

[[Image:map-6.jpg]]

===Wellington's deployment===
Wellington worked his normal deployment using reverse slopes to hide the majority of his units behind the crest of the ridge that defined the British position. In addition he fortified the farm house complexe of Le Haye Saint in front of his position to the right of his line. The left of the line was held by the fortified positions of Hougoumont and Papelotte. This secured the road by which Wellington expected the Prussian to arrive.<ref>Barbero, p.141, p.235</ref>

===The battle begins===
Wellington's dispatches give the start of the battle at 10am other sources would have it at 1130am. (This will be a recurring issue throughout the battle with the actual time of events being disputed by the participents as well as by later historians.)<ref>[[Arthur Wellesley|Wellesley, Arthur]] [http://www.wtj.com/archives/wellington/1815_06f.htm Wellington's Dispatches] [[19 June]] [[1815]] </ref>

===The arrival of the Prussians IV Corps: Plancenoit===
The first Prussian corp to arrive was the IV Corps and its objective was Plancenoit as a launch point into the rear of the French positions. It was Blücher's intention to secure his left upon Frichermont using the Bois de Paris road. <ref name=Hofschroer-116>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 116</ref> Blücher and Wellington had been exchanging communications since 10:00 and had agreed to this advance on Frichermont if Wellington's centre was under attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-95>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 95</ref><ref>Chasney, Waterloo Lectures p-165</ref> General Bülow noted that Plancenoit lay open and that the time was 16:30.<ref name=Hofschroer-116/> At about this time the 15th Brigade IV Corps linked up with the Nassauers of Wellington's left flank with the brigade artillery, horse artillery deployed to the left in support.<ref name=Hofschroer-117>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 117</ref> Napoleon sent Lobau's Division to intercept Bülow's IV Corps. Therefore Napoleon sent his 10-battalion-strong Young Guard to beat the Prussians back. The 15th Brigade threw Lobau's troops out of Frichermont with a determined bayonet charge. The 15th proceeded up the Frichermont heights battering French Chasseurs with 12 pounder artillery fire and pushed on to Plancenoit. Napoleon had dispatched the entire 8 battalions of Young Guard and 2 battalions of the Old Guard to reinforce Lobau's Division. Hiller's 16th Brigade had 6 battalions available and pushed forward to attempt to take Plancenoit. The Young Guard counter-attacked and after very hard fighting, the Young Guard recaptured Plancenoit but were themselves counter-attacked and driven out.<ref name=Hofschroer-122>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 122</ref> Napoleon sent two battalions of the Old Guard and after ferocious bayonet fighting - they did not deign to fire their muskets - they recaptured the village.<ref name=Hofschroer-122/> The dogged Prussians were still not beaten, and approximately 30,000 troops under Bülow and Pirch attacked Plancenoit again. It was defended by 20,000 Frenchmen in and around the village.
===Prussian advance===
Throughout the late afternoon, Zieten's I Corps had been arriving in greater strength in the area just north of Le Haye. This allowed Wellington to reinforce his centre in time to repulse Napoleon's attack. At the time the French Guard was being repulsed from the British centre, the Prussian I Corps was breaking through the French centre. <ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> By 19:30, the French position was bent into a rough horseshoe shape. The ends of the U were now based on Hougomont on the French left, Plancenoit on the French right, and the centre on La Haye.<ref name=Hofschroer-139>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 139</ref> The French had retaken the positions of La Haye and Papelotte in a series of attacks by General Durette's Division.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> Oberst von Hofmann's 24th regiment led an advance towards Le Haye and Papelotte; the French forces retreated behind Smohain without contesting the advance.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> The 24th Regiment advanced against the new French position but was seen off after some early success. The Silesian Schützen and the F/1st Landwehr moved up in support as the 24th regiment returned to the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-140>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 140</ref> The French fell back before the renewed assault without much of an attempt at defense. At this point, the French began to seriously contest ground, attempting to regain Smohain and hold on to the ridgeline along Papelotte and the last few houses of Papelotte.<ref name=Hofschroer-140/> The 24th Regiment linked up with a Highlander battalion on its far right. Determined attacks by the 24th Regiment and the 13th Landwehr regiment with cavalry support threw the French out of these positions and further attacks by the 13th Landwehr and the 15th brigade expelled them from Fichermont.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> Durutte’s division was beginning to unravel under the assaults when General Zieten’s I Corps cavalry poured through the gap.<ref name=Hofschroer-144>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 144 </ref> Durutte's division, finding itself about to be charged by massed cavalry of Ziethen's I Corps cavalry reserve, retreated quickly from the battlefield. I Corps then attained the Brussels road and the only line of retreat available to the French.
===The Capture of Plancenoit===
At about the same time, the Prussians were pushing through Plancenoit, in the third assault of the day upon the town.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussian 5th, 14th, and 16th brigades, were involved in the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> Each Prussian brigade would be about 9 battalions strong, roughly the size of a French division. The church was fully involved in a fire, with house to house fighting leaving bodies from both sides lying about.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The French Guard battalions, a Guard Chasseur and 1/2e Grenadiers were identified as holding the position. Virtually all of the Young Guard was now involved in the defence, along with remnants of Lobau's Division.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The key to the position proved to be the woods to the south of Plancenoit. The 25th regiment's musketeer battalions threw the 1/2e Grenadiers (Old Guard) out of the Chantelet woods, flanking Plancenoit and forcing a retreat.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussians IV Corps advanced beyond Plancenoit to find masses of French retreating in a jumbled mass from pursuing British units.<ref name=Hofschroer-145> [[#References|References]] p. 145</ref> The Prussians were unable to fire for fear of hitting allied units. It was now seen that the French right, left, and centre, were failing.<ref name=Hofschroer-145/>
===Disintegration===
The whole of the French front started to disintegrate under the general advance of Wellington's army and the Prussians following the capture of Plancenoit.<ref name=Hofschroer-146>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 146</ref> The last coherent French force consisted of two battalions of the Old Guard stationed around the inn called ''La Belle Alliance''. This was a final reserve and a personal bodyguard for Napoleon. For a time, Napoleon hoped that if they held firm, the French army could rally behind them.<ref>http://home.iprimus.com.au/cpcook/letters/pages/waterfini.htm</ref> But as the retreat turned into a rout, they were forced to withdraw and form squares as protection against the leading elements of allied cavalry. They formed two squares, one on either side of ''La Belle Alliance''. Until he was persuaded that the battle was lost and he should leave, Napoleon commanded the square which was formed on rising ground to the (French) left of the inn.<ref>http://www.napoleonbonaparte.nl/newspaper/dedham/drouet.html</ref><ref>http://www.standin.se/fifteen15a.htm</ref> The Prussians engaged the square to the (French) right, and General Adam's Brigade charged the square on the right, forcing it to withdraw.<ref name=Hofschroer-149>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 149</ref> As dusk fell, both squares retreated away from the battlefield towards France in relatively good order, but the French artillery and everything else fell into the hands of the Allies and Prussians. The retreating Guards were surrounded by thousands of fleeing Frenchmen who were no longer part of any coherent unit. Allied cavalry harried the fleeing French until about 23:00. The Prussians, led by [[August von Gneisenau|General von Gneisenau]], pursued them as far as Genappe before ordering a halt. By that point, some 78 guns had been captured along with about 2,000 prisoners, including more Generals.<ref name=Hofschroer-150>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 150</ref> At Genappe, Napoleon's carriage was found abandoned still containing diamonds left in the rush. These became part of King Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia's crown jewels, one Major Keller of the F/15th receiving the [[Pour le Mérite]] with oak leaves for the feat.<ref name=Hofschroer-151>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 151</ref>

==Sources==
*Chesny, Charles A: Waterloo Lectures:A Study Of The Campaign Of 1815 ISBN 1428649883
*Hofschröer, Peter: ''1815, The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory'';Greenhill Books (London); ISBN 1-85367-368-4
===Footnotes===
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Waterloo, Battle of}}
[[Category:Battles]]
[[Category:Napoleonic Wars]]

Battle of Waterloo

2007-06-22T17:07:59Z

Tirronan: /* June 18th */

[[Image:waterloo.jpg|350px|thumb|The Battle of Waterloo]]
The '''Battle of Waterloo''' took place on June 18, 1815 in Belgium. It marked the beginning of the end of [[The Hundred Days]], [[Napoleon]]'s attempt at regaining power after his initial defeat the previous year.

Once the [[United Kingdom]]'s 67,000-strong army, under the Duke of Wellington, had forced a precarious stalemate against Napoleon's 73,000, [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher]]'s Prussian forces arrived and were able to achieve decisive numerical superiority, forcing Napoleon out.

The battle marked the end of [[Napoleon]]'s reign and his exile to the island of [[Saint Helena]] in the South Atlantic.

==Preliminary==
Napoleon's return from [[Elba]] marked the beginning of The Hundred Days and on March 18, 1815 he was declared an outlaw by the [[Congress of Vienna]]. This marked the mobilization of the Seventh Coalition armies. The British formed an army consisting of British, Nassau and Dutch troops to form an army. The Prussians created two armies, one under Prince Blucher and another under General Kliest with Prussian, and North German allied states. Russia assembled an army of 250,000 men under Prince Barcley de Tolly and the Austrians provided two additional armies under General Schwarzenburg and Archduke Charles. The King of Spain assembled an army placing it under English officers and began moving to the frontier.
==The Waterloo Campaign==
Napoleon began a massive call up and soon had Le Armie Du Nord (Army of the North) prepared. The Army of the North was about 117,000 strong. This was moved with great stealth to the northern border of Belgium. In this area the British had assembled an army of some 97,000 and the Prussians another army of 105,000. Both allied armies had been spread out in an effort to be easier on the population they depended on for assistance.
===The Prussian Army===
The Prussian army was in the throes of reorganization as its reserve regiments became line regiments along with many of the previous 1814 Landwehr regiments and its artillery was also reorganizing and would not give its best performance, though its militia, the ''Landwehr'', was significantly better than other militias.<ref>Barbero, p.39</ref> It was under the command of Blücher, though in fact much of its operation was directed by his chief-of-staff, [[August von Gneisenau|Gneisenau]], who greatly distrusted Wellington.<ref>Barbero, p.21</ref> Two and a half Prussian army corps or 48,000 men, were engaged in the battle by about 18:00. (Two brigades under [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Friedrich von Bülow]], commander of the IV Corps, attacked Lobau at 16:30, [[Georg Dubislav Ludwig von Pirch|Georg von Pirch's]] II Corps and parts of [[Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Ziethen|Graf von Ziethen's]] I Corps engaged at about 18:00.)
===June 16th===
Despite the efforts at deception the Prussians quickly understood where the French army was and proceeded to interfere with it. The Prussian 1st Corp began an all day delaying effort while the Prussian army assembled. The British army was somewhat slower to react as Wellington's spy network was either interfered with or was actively giving him disinformation. Lord Wellington did not begin assembly of his army until the evening.
====Battle of Quatra Bra====
Marshall Ney in command of the French Army's left wing marched to Quatra Bra and found it defended by Dutch units who were determined to hold their ground. The Prince of Orange arrived and disregarded orders to retreat, choosing to reinforce the position. Marshall Ney believing that he was facing far more troops than was the case was tentative in his attacks at first. Lord Wellington was rushing formations to assist with all speed. As evening fell the British forces outnumbered the French and the position was held.
====Battle of Ligny====
Napoleon had wished to attack the British first but this was impossible as the Prussians were by now already assembled with 3/4 of their forces in and around the village of Ligny. In a four hour battle Napoleon would earn his last victory. The Prussian position was a strong one but the exicution of the dispositions left something to be desired. The Prussian left was strongly held by the III Corps but was never in danger given the marshy ground in front of it. The Prussian center and right contained the intermingled I and II Corps with the right strung out waiting for Wellington's army that would never show up. After several repulses, Napoleon launched the combinded Guard at the Prussian center. Despite several counter attacks the center fell and the battle was won by the French. The carnage was great with 11,000 French and 22,000 Prussians lost on the field. A great deal of the Prussian losses were deserters from formations recruited from newly aqquired lands by the Kingdom of Prussia. The retreat of the Prussians was never interrupted, and was seemingly unnoticed by the French.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> By nightfall, at about 2100, almost all of the Prussian formations had left the field. On the Prussian right, Lieutenant-General [[Hans Ernest Ziethen|Ziethen's]] I Corps retreated slowly with most of its artillery, leaving a rearguard close to [[Brye]] to slow the French pursuit. On the left, Lieutenant-General [[Johann von Thielmann|Thielemann's]] III Corps retreated unharmed, leaving a strong rearguard at [[Sombreffe]]. The bulk of the rearguard held their positions until about midnight, before following the rest of the retreating army. In fact, Zieten's 1st Corps rearguard units only left the battlefield in the early morning of 17 June, as the exhausted French failed to press on.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> Pirchs II Corps followed the 1st Corp off the battlefield and Thielemans III Corps moved last with the armies various parks in tow. It should be noted that the last of III Corps was moved in the morning completely ignored. <ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Von Bülow's]] IV Corps moved south of Wavre and setup strong rear guard positions for the army to quickly reasemble.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> General Blücher was already in communications with General Wellington. Great though the victory was (as the Prussians had more men on the field than the French) it contained all the seeds for the eventual defeat at Waterloo. While the Prussians were defeated they were not routed and proceeded to calmly march off the battlefield with some units not leaving until the next morning. This left a organized and determined army ready to act against the French army.

===June 17th===
This day saw the British forces move to the Mont Saint Jean (Waterloo) position and prepare to receive the French attack. The Prussian Army moved to the Village of Wavre with all 4 corps now assembled.

===June 18th===

[[Image:map-6.jpg]]

===Wellington's deployment===
Wellington worked his normal deployment using reverse slopes to hide the majority of his units behind the crest of the ridge that defined the British position. In addition he fortified the farm house complexe of Le Haye Saint in front of his position to the right of his line. The left of the line was held by the fortified positions of Hougoumont and Papelotte. This secured the road by which Wellington expected the Prussian to arrive.<ref>Barbero, p.141, p.235</ref>

===The battle begins===
Wellington's dispatches give the start of the battle at 10am other sources would have it at 1130am. (This will be a recurring issue throughout the battle with the actual time of events being disputed by the participents as well as by later historians.)<ref>[[Arthur Wellesley|Wellesley, Arthur]] [http://www.wtj.com/archives/wellington/1815_06f.htm Wellington's Dispatches] [[19 June]] [[1815]] </ref>

===The arrival of the Prussians IV Corps: Plancenoit===
The first Prussian corp to arrive was the IV Corps and its objective was Plancenoit as a launch point into the rear of the French positions. It was Blücher's intention to secure his left upon Frichermont using the Bois de Paris road. <ref name=Hofschroer-116>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 116</ref> Blücher and Wellington had been exchanging communications since 10:00 and had agreed to this advance on Frichermont if Wellington's centre was under attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-95>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 95</ref><ref>Chasney, Waterloo Lectures p-165</ref> General Bülow noted that Plancenoit lay open and that the time was 16:30.<ref name=Hofschroer-116/> At about this time the 15th Brigade IV Corps linked up with the Nassauers of Wellington's left flank with the brigade artillery, horse artillery deployed to the left in support.<ref name=Hofschroer-117>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 117</ref> Napoleon sent Lobau's Division to intercept Bülow's IV Corps. Therefore Napoleon sent his 10-battalion-strong Young Guard to beat the Prussians back. The 15th Brigade threw Lobau's troops out of Frichermont with a determined bayonet charge. The 15th proceeded up the Frichermont heights battering French Chasseurs with 12 pounder artillery fire and pushed on to Plancenoit. Napoleon had dispatched the entire 8 battalions of Young Guard and 2 battalions of the Old Guard to reinforce Lobau's Division. Hiller's 16th Brigade had 6 battalions available and pushed forward to attempt to take Plancenoit. The Young Guard counter-attacked and after very hard fighting, the Young Guard recaptured Plancenoit but were themselves counter-attacked and driven out.<ref name=Hofschroer-122>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 122</ref> Napoleon sent two battalions of the Old Guard and after ferocious bayonet fighting - they did not deign to fire their muskets - they recaptured the village.<ref name=Hofschroer-122/> The dogged Prussians were still not beaten, and approximately 30,000 troops under Bülow and Pirch attacked Plancenoit again. It was defended by 20,000 Frenchmen in and around the village.
===Prussian advance===
Throughout the late afternoon, Zieten's I Corps had been arriving in greater strength in the area just north of Le Haye. This allowed Wellington to reinforce his centre in time to repulse Napoleon's attack. At the time the French Guard was being repulsed from the British centre, the Prussian I Corps was breaking through the French centre. <ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> By 19:30, the French position was bent into a rough horseshoe shape. The ends of the U were now based on Hougomont on the French left, Plancenoit on the French right, and the centre on La Haye.<ref name=Hofschroer-139>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 139</ref> The French had retaken the positions of La Haye and Papelotte in a series of attacks by General Durette's Division.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> Oberst von Hofmann's 24th regiment led an advance towards Le Haye and Papelotte; the French forces retreated behind Smohain without contesting the advance.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> The 24th Regiment advanced against the new French position but was seen off after some early success. The Silesian Schützen and the F/1st Landwehr moved up in support as the 24th regiment returned to the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-140>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 140</ref> The French fell back before the renewed assault without much of an attempt at defense. At this point, the French began to seriously contest ground, attempting to regain Smohain and hold on to the ridgeline along Papelotte and the last few houses of Papelotte.<ref name=Hofschroer-140/> The 24th Regiment linked up with a Highlander battalion on its far right. Determined attacks by the 24th Regiment and the 13th Landwehr regiment with cavalry support threw the French out of these positions and further attacks by the 13th Landwehr and the 15th brigade expelled them from Fichermont.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> Durutte’s division was beginning to unravel under the assaults when General Zieten’s I Corps cavalry poured through the gap.<ref name=Hofschroer-144>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 144 </ref> Durutte's division, finding itself about to be charged by massed cavalry of Ziethen's I Corps cavalry reserve, retreated quickly from the battlefield. I Corps then attained the Brussels road and the only line of retreat available to the French.
===The Capture of Plancenoit===
At about the same time, the Prussians were pushing through Plancenoit, in the third assault of the day upon the town.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussian 5th, 14th, and 16th brigades, were involved in the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> Each Prussian brigade would be about 9 battalions strong, roughly the size of a French division. The church was fully involved in a fire, with house to house fighting leaving bodies from both sides lying about.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The French Guard battalions, a Guard Chasseur and 1/2e Grenadiers were identified as holding the position. Virtually all of the Young Guard was now involved in the defence, along with remnants of Lobau's Division.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The key to the position proved to be the woods to the south of Plancenoit. The 25th regiment's musketeer battalions threw the 1/2e Grenadiers (Old Guard) out of the Chantelet woods, flanking Plancenoit and forcing a retreat.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussians IV Corps advanced beyond Plancenoit to find masses of French retreating in a jumbled mass from pursuing British units.<ref name=Hofschroer-145> [[#References|References]] p. 145</ref> The Prussians were unable to fire for fear of hitting allied units. It was now seen that the French right, left, and centre, were failing.<ref name=Hofschroer-145/>
===Disintegration===
The whole of the French front started to disintegrate under the general advance of Wellington's army and the Prussians following the capture of Plancenoit.<ref name=Hofschroer-146>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 146</ref> The last coherent French force consisted of two battalions of the Old Guard stationed around the inn called ''La Belle Alliance''. This was a final reserve and a personal bodyguard for Napoleon. For a time, Napoleon hoped that if they held firm, the French army could rally behind them.<ref>http://home.iprimus.com.au/cpcook/letters/pages/waterfini.htm</ref> But as the retreat turned into a rout, they were forced to withdraw and form squares as protection against the leading elements of allied cavalry. They formed two squares, one on either side of ''La Belle Alliance''. Until he was persuaded that the battle was lost and he should leave, Napoleon commanded the square which was formed on rising ground to the (French) left of the inn.<ref>http://www.napoleonbonaparte.nl/newspaper/dedham/drouet.html</ref><ref>http://www.standin.se/fifteen15a.htm</ref> The Prussians engaged the square to the (French) right, and General Adam's Brigade charged the square on the right, forcing it to withdraw.<ref name=Hofschroer-149>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 149</ref> As dusk fell, both squares retreated away from the battlefield towards France in relatively good order, but the French artillery and everything else fell into the hands of the Allies and Prussians. The retreating Guards were surrounded by thousands of fleeing Frenchmen who were no longer part of any coherent unit. Allied cavalry harried the fleeing French until about 23:00. The Prussians, led by [[August von Gneisenau|General von Gneisenau]], pursued them as far as Genappe before ordering a halt. By that point, some 78 guns had been captured along with about 2,000 prisoners, including more Generals.<ref name=Hofschroer-150>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 150</ref> At Genappe, Napoleon's carriage was found abandoned still containing diamonds left in the rush. These became part of King Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia's crown jewels, one Major Keller of the F/15th receiving the [[Pour le Mérite]] with oak leaves for the feat.<ref name=Hofschroer-151>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 151</ref>

==Sources==
*Chesny, Charles A: Waterloo Lectures:A Study Of The Campaign Of 1815 ISBN 1428649883
*Hofschröer, Peter: ''1815, The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory'';Greenhill Books (London); ISBN 1-85367-368-4
===Footnotes===
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Waterloo, Battle of}}
[[Category:Battles]]
[[Category:Napoleonic Wars]]

Battle of Waterloo

2007-06-21T15:31:26Z

Tirronan: /* Battle of Ligny */

[[Image:waterloo.jpg|350px|thumb|The Battle of Waterloo]]
The '''Battle of Waterloo''' took place on June 18, 1815 in Belgium. It marked the beginning of the end of [[The Hundred Days]], [[Napoleon]]'s attempt at regaining power after his initial defeat the previous year.

Once the [[United Kingdom]]'s 67,000-strong army, under the Duke of Wellington, had forced a precarious stalemate against Napoleon's 73,000, [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher]]'s Prussian forces arrived and were able to achieve decisive numerical superiority, forcing Napoleon out.

The battle marked the end of [[Napoleon]]'s reign and his exile to the island of [[Saint Helena]] in the South Atlantic.

==Preliminary==
Napoleon's return from [[Elba]] marked the beginning of The Hundred Days and on March 18, 1815 he was declared an outlaw by the [[Congress of Vienna]]. This marked the mobilization of the Seventh Coalition armies. The British formed an army consisting of British, Nassau and Dutch troops to form an army. The Prussians created two armies, one under Prince Blucher and another under General Kliest with Prussian, and North German allied states. Russia assembled an army of 250,000 men under Prince Barcley de Tolly and the Austrians provided two additional armies under General Schwarzenburg and Archduke Charles. The King of Spain assembled an army placing it under English officers and began moving to the frontier.
==The Waterloo Campaign==
Napoleon began a massive call up and soon had Le Armie Du Nord (Army of the North) prepared. The Army of the North was about 117,000 strong. This was moved with great stealth to the northern border of Belgium. In this area the British had assembled an army of some 97,000 and the Prussians another army of 105,000. Both allied armies had been spread out in an effort to be easier on the population they depended on for assistance.
===The Prussian Army===
The Prussian army was in the throes of reorganization as its reserve regiments became line regiments along with many of the previous 1814 Landwehr regiments and its artillery was also reorganizing and would not give its best performance, though its militia, the ''Landwehr'', was significantly better than other militias.<ref>Barbero, p.39</ref> It was under the command of Blücher, though in fact much of its operation was directed by his chief-of-staff, [[August von Gneisenau|Gneisenau]], who greatly distrusted Wellington.<ref>Barbero, p.21</ref> Two and a half Prussian army corps or 48,000 men, were engaged in the battle by about 18:00. (Two brigades under [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Friedrich von Bülow]], commander of the IV Corps, attacked Lobau at 16:30, [[Georg Dubislav Ludwig von Pirch|Georg von Pirch's]] II Corps and parts of [[Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Ziethen|Graf von Ziethen's]] I Corps engaged at about 18:00.)
===June 16th===
Despite the efforts at deception the Prussians quickly understood where the French army was and proceeded to interfere with it. The Prussian 1st Corp began an all day delaying effort while the Prussian army assembled. The British army was somewhat slower to react as Wellington's spy network was either interfered with or was actively giving him disinformation. Lord Wellington did not begin assembly of his army until the evening.
====Battle of Quatra Bra====
Marshall Ney in command of the French Army's left wing marched to Quatra Bra and found it defended by Dutch units who were determined to hold their ground. The Prince of Orange arrived and disregarded orders to retreat, choosing to reinforce the position. Marshall Ney believing that he was facing far more troops than was the case was tentative in his attacks at first. Lord Wellington was rushing formations to assist with all speed. As evening fell the British forces outnumbered the French and the position was held.
====Battle of Ligny====
Napoleon had wished to attack the British first but this was impossible as the Prussians were by now already assembled with 3/4 of their forces in and around the village of Ligny. In a four hour battle Napoleon would earn his last victory. The Prussian position was a strong one but the exicution of the dispositions left something to be desired. The Prussian left was strongly held by the III Corps but was never in danger given the marshy ground in front of it. The Prussian center and right contained the intermingled I and II Corps with the right strung out waiting for Wellington's army that would never show up. After several repulses, Napoleon launched the combinded Guard at the Prussian center. Despite several counter attacks the center fell and the battle was won by the French. The carnage was great with 11,000 French and 22,000 Prussians lost on the field. A great deal of the Prussian losses were deserters from formations recruited from newly aqquired lands by the Kingdom of Prussia. The retreat of the Prussians was never interrupted, and was seemingly unnoticed by the French.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> By nightfall, at about 2100, almost all of the Prussian formations had left the field. On the Prussian right, Lieutenant-General [[Hans Ernest Ziethen|Ziethen's]] I Corps retreated slowly with most of its artillery, leaving a rearguard close to [[Brye]] to slow the French pursuit. On the left, Lieutenant-General [[Johann von Thielmann|Thielemann's]] III Corps retreated unharmed, leaving a strong rearguard at [[Sombreffe]]. The bulk of the rearguard held their positions until about midnight, before following the rest of the retreating army. In fact, Zieten's 1st Corps rearguard units only left the battlefield in the early morning of 17 June, as the exhausted French failed to press on.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> Pirchs II Corps followed the 1st Corp off the battlefield and Thielemans III Corps moved last with the armies various parks in tow. It should be noted that the last of III Corps was moved in the morning completely ignored. <ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Von Bülow's]] IV Corps moved south of Wavre and setup strong rear guard positions for the army to quickly reasemble.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> General Blücher was already in communications with General Wellington. Great though the victory was (as the Prussians had more men on the field than the French) it contained all the seeds for the eventual defeat at Waterloo. While the Prussians were defeated they were not routed and proceeded to calmly march off the battlefield with some units not leaving until the next morning. This left a organized and determined army ready to act against the French army.

===June 17th===
This day saw the British forces move to the Mont Saint Jean (Waterloo) position and prepare to receive the French attack. The Prussian Army moved to the Village of Wavre with all 4 corps now assembled.

===June 18th===

[[Image:map-6.jpg]]
===The arrival of the Prussians IV Corps: Plancenoit===
The first Prussian corp to arrive was the IV Corps and its objective was Plancenoit as a launch point into the rear of the French positions. It was Blücher's intention to secure his left upon Frichermont using the Bois de Paris road. <ref name=Hofschroer-116>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 116</ref> Blücher and Wellington had been exchanging communications since 10:00 and had agreed to this advance on Frichermont if Wellington's centre was under attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-95>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 95</ref><ref>Chasney, Waterloo Lectures p-165</ref> General Bülow noted that Plancenoit lay open and that the time was 16:30.<ref name=Hofschroer-116/> At about this time the 15th Brigade IV Corps linked up with the Nassauers of Wellington's left flank with the brigade artillery, horse artillery deployed to the left in support.<ref name=Hofschroer-117>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 117</ref> Napoleon sent Lobau's Division to intercept Bülow's IV Corps. Therefore Napoleon sent his 10-battalion-strong Young Guard to beat the Prussians back. The 15th Brigade threw Lobau's troops out of Frichermont with a determined bayonet charge. The 15th proceeded up the Frichermont heights battering French Chasseurs with 12 pounder artillery fire and pushed on to Plancenoit. Napoleon had dispatched the entire 8 battalions of Young Guard and 2 battalions of the Old Guard to reinforce Lobau's Division. Hiller's 16th Brigade had 6 battalions available and pushed forward to attempt to take Plancenoit. The Young Guard counter-attacked and after very hard fighting, the Young Guard recaptured Plancenoit but were themselves counter-attacked and driven out.<ref name=Hofschroer-122>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 122</ref> Napoleon sent two battalions of the Old Guard and after ferocious bayonet fighting - they did not deign to fire their muskets - they recaptured the village.<ref name=Hofschroer-122/> The dogged Prussians were still not beaten, and approximately 30,000 troops under Bülow and Pirch attacked Plancenoit again. It was defended by 20,000 Frenchmen in and around the village.
===Prussian advance===
Throughout the late afternoon, Zieten's I Corps had been arriving in greater strength in the area just north of Le Haye. This allowed Wellington to reinforce his centre in time to repulse Napoleon's attack. At the time the French Guard was being repulsed from the British centre, the Prussian I Corps was breaking through the French centre. <ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> By 19:30, the French position was bent into a rough horseshoe shape. The ends of the U were now based on Hougomont on the French left, Plancenoit on the French right, and the centre on La Haye.<ref name=Hofschroer-139>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 139</ref> The French had retaken the positions of La Haye and Papelotte in a series of attacks by General Durette's Division.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> Oberst von Hofmann's 24th regiment led an advance towards Le Haye and Papelotte; the French forces retreated behind Smohain without contesting the advance.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> The 24th Regiment advanced against the new French position but was seen off after some early success. The Silesian Schützen and the F/1st Landwehr moved up in support as the 24th regiment returned to the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-140>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 140</ref> The French fell back before the renewed assault without much of an attempt at defense. At this point, the French began to seriously contest ground, attempting to regain Smohain and hold on to the ridgeline along Papelotte and the last few houses of Papelotte.<ref name=Hofschroer-140/> The 24th Regiment linked up with a Highlander battalion on its far right. Determined attacks by the 24th Regiment and the 13th Landwehr regiment with cavalry support threw the French out of these positions and further attacks by the 13th Landwehr and the 15th brigade expelled them from Fichermont.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> Durutte’s division was beginning to unravel under the assaults when General Zieten’s I Corps cavalry poured through the gap.<ref name=Hofschroer-144>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 144 </ref> Durutte's division, finding itself about to be charged by massed cavalry of Ziethen's I Corps cavalry reserve, retreated quickly from the battlefield. I Corps then attained the Brussels road and the only line of retreat available to the French.
===The Capture of Plancenoit===
At about the same time, the Prussians were pushing through Plancenoit, in the third assault of the day upon the town.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussian 5th, 14th, and 16th brigades, were involved in the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> Each Prussian brigade would be about 9 battalions strong, roughly the size of a French division. The church was fully involved in a fire, with house to house fighting leaving bodies from both sides lying about.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The French Guard battalions, a Guard Chasseur and 1/2e Grenadiers were identified as holding the position. Virtually all of the Young Guard was now involved in the defence, along with remnants of Lobau's Division.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The key to the position proved to be the woods to the south of Plancenoit. The 25th regiment's musketeer battalions threw the 1/2e Grenadiers (Old Guard) out of the Chantelet woods, flanking Plancenoit and forcing a retreat.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussians IV Corps advanced beyond Plancenoit to find masses of French retreating in a jumbled mass from pursuing British units.<ref name=Hofschroer-145> [[#References|References]] p. 145</ref> The Prussians were unable to fire for fear of hitting allied units. It was now seen that the French right, left, and centre, were failing.<ref name=Hofschroer-145/>
===Disintegration===
The whole of the French front started to disintegrate under the general advance of Wellington's army and the Prussians following the capture of Plancenoit.<ref name=Hofschroer-146>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 146</ref> The last coherent French force consisted of two battalions of the Old Guard stationed around the inn called ''La Belle Alliance''. This was a final reserve and a personal bodyguard for Napoleon. For a time, Napoleon hoped that if they held firm, the French army could rally behind them.<ref>http://home.iprimus.com.au/cpcook/letters/pages/waterfini.htm</ref> But as the retreat turned into a rout, they were forced to withdraw and form squares as protection against the leading elements of allied cavalry. They formed two squares, one on either side of ''La Belle Alliance''. Until he was persuaded that the battle was lost and he should leave, Napoleon commanded the square which was formed on rising ground to the (French) left of the inn.<ref>http://www.napoleonbonaparte.nl/newspaper/dedham/drouet.html</ref><ref>http://www.standin.se/fifteen15a.htm</ref> The Prussians engaged the square to the (French) right, and General Adam's Brigade charged the square on the right, forcing it to withdraw.<ref name=Hofschroer-149>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 149</ref> As dusk fell, both squares retreated away from the battlefield towards France in relatively good order, but the French artillery and everything else fell into the hands of the Allies and Prussians. The retreating Guards were surrounded by thousands of fleeing Frenchmen who were no longer part of any coherent unit. Allied cavalry harried the fleeing French until about 23:00. The Prussians, led by [[August von Gneisenau|General von Gneisenau]], pursued them as far as Genappe before ordering a halt. By that point, some 78 guns had been captured along with about 2,000 prisoners, including more Generals.<ref name=Hofschroer-150>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 150</ref> At Genappe, Napoleon's carriage was found abandoned still containing diamonds left in the rush. These became part of King Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia's crown jewels, one Major Keller of the F/15th receiving the [[Pour le Mérite]] with oak leaves for the feat.<ref name=Hofschroer-151>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 151</ref>

==Sources==
*Chesny, Charles A: Waterloo Lectures:A Study Of The Campaign Of 1815 ISBN 1428649883
*Hofschröer, Peter: ''1815, The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory'';Greenhill Books (London); ISBN 1-85367-368-4
===Footnotes===
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Waterloo, Battle of}}
[[Category:Battles]]
[[Category:Napoleonic Wars]]

Battle of Waterloo

2007-06-21T15:24:38Z

Tirronan: /* Battle of Ligny */ copy edit

[[Image:waterloo.jpg|350px|thumb|The Battle of Waterloo]]
The '''Battle of Waterloo''' took place on June 18, 1815 in Belgium. It marked the beginning of the end of [[The Hundred Days]], [[Napoleon]]'s attempt at regaining power after his initial defeat the previous year.

Once the [[United Kingdom]]'s 67,000-strong army, under the Duke of Wellington, had forced a precarious stalemate against Napoleon's 73,000, [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher]]'s Prussian forces arrived and were able to achieve decisive numerical superiority, forcing Napoleon out.

The battle marked the end of [[Napoleon]]'s reign and his exile to the island of [[Saint Helena]] in the South Atlantic.

==Preliminary==
Napoleon's return from [[Elba]] marked the beginning of The Hundred Days and on March 18, 1815 he was declared an outlaw by the [[Congress of Vienna]]. This marked the mobilization of the Seventh Coalition armies. The British formed an army consisting of British, Nassau and Dutch troops to form an army. The Prussians created two armies, one under Prince Blucher and another under General Kliest with Prussian, and North German allied states. Russia assembled an army of 250,000 men under Prince Barcley de Tolly and the Austrians provided two additional armies under General Schwarzenburg and Archduke Charles. The King of Spain assembled an army placing it under English officers and began moving to the frontier.
==The Waterloo Campaign==
Napoleon began a massive call up and soon had Le Armie Du Nord (Army of the North) prepared. The Army of the North was about 117,000 strong. This was moved with great stealth to the northern border of Belgium. In this area the British had assembled an army of some 97,000 and the Prussians another army of 105,000. Both allied armies had been spread out in an effort to be easier on the population they depended on for assistance.
===The Prussian Army===
The Prussian army was in the throes of reorganization as its reserve regiments became line regiments along with many of the previous 1814 Landwehr regiments and its artillery was also reorganizing and would not give its best performance, though its militia, the ''Landwehr'', was significantly better than other militias.<ref>Barbero, p.39</ref> It was under the command of Blücher, though in fact much of its operation was directed by his chief-of-staff, [[August von Gneisenau|Gneisenau]], who greatly distrusted Wellington.<ref>Barbero, p.21</ref> Two and a half Prussian army corps or 48,000 men, were engaged in the battle by about 18:00. (Two brigades under [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Friedrich von Bülow]], commander of the IV Corps, attacked Lobau at 16:30, [[Georg Dubislav Ludwig von Pirch|Georg von Pirch's]] II Corps and parts of [[Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Ziethen|Graf von Ziethen's]] I Corps engaged at about 18:00.)
===June 16th===
Despite the efforts at deception the Prussians quickly understood where the French army was and proceeded to interfere with it. The Prussian 1st Corp began an all day delaying effort while the Prussian army assembled. The British army was somewhat slower to react as Wellington's spy network was either interfered with or was actively giving him disinformation. Lord Wellington did not begin assembly of his army until the evening.
====Battle of Quatra Bra====
Marshall Ney in command of the French Army's left wing marched to Quatra Bra and found it defended by Dutch units who were determined to hold their ground. The Prince of Orange arrived and disregarded orders to retreat, choosing to reinforce the position. Marshall Ney believing that he was facing far more troops than was the case was tentative in his attacks at first. Lord Wellington was rushing formations to assist with all speed. As evening fell the British forces outnumbered the French and the position was held.
====Battle of Ligny====
Napoleon had wished to attack the British first but this was impossible as the Prussians were by now already assembled with 3/4 of their forces in and around the village of Ligny. In a four hour battle Napoleon would earn his last victory. The carnage was great with 11,000 French and 22,000 Prussians dead on the field. The retreat of the Prussians was never interrupted, and was seemingly unnoticed by the French.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> By nightfall, at about 2100, almost all of the Prussian formations had left the field. On the Prussian right, Lieutenant-General [[Hans Ernest Ziethen|Ziethen's]] I Corps retreated slowly with most of its artillery, leaving a rearguard close to [[Brye]] to slow the French pursuit. On the left, Lieutenant-General [[Johann von Thielmann|Thielemann's]] III Corps retreated unharmed, leaving a strong rearguard at [[Sombreffe]]. The bulk of the rearguard held their positions until about midnight, before following the rest of the retreating army. In fact, Zieten's 1st Corps rearguard units only left the battlefield in the early morning of 17 June, as the exhausted French failed to press on.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> Pirchs II Corps followed the 1st Corp off the battlefield and Thielemans III Corps moved last with the armies various parks in tow. It should be noted that the last of III Corps was moved in the morning completely ignored. <ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Von Bülow's]] IV Corps moved south of Wavre and setup strong rear guard positions for the army to quickly reasemble.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> General Blücher was already in communications with General Wellington. Great though the victory was (as the Prussians had more men on the field than the French) it contained all the seeds for the eventual defeat at Waterloo. While the Prussians were defeated they were not routed and proceeded to calmly march off the battlefield with some units not leaving until the next morning. This left a organized and determined army ready to act against the French army.

===June 17th===
This day saw the British forces move to the Mont Saint Jean (Waterloo) position and prepare to receive the French attack. The Prussian Army moved to the Village of Wavre with all 4 corps now assembled.

===June 18th===

[[Image:map-6.jpg]]
===The arrival of the Prussians IV Corps: Plancenoit===
The first Prussian corp to arrive was the IV Corps and its objective was Plancenoit as a launch point into the rear of the French positions. It was Blücher's intention to secure his left upon Frichermont using the Bois de Paris road. <ref name=Hofschroer-116>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 116</ref> Blücher and Wellington had been exchanging communications since 10:00 and had agreed to this advance on Frichermont if Wellington's centre was under attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-95>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 95</ref><ref>Chasney, Waterloo Lectures p-165</ref> General Bülow noted that Plancenoit lay open and that the time was 16:30.<ref name=Hofschroer-116/> At about this time the 15th Brigade IV Corps linked up with the Nassauers of Wellington's left flank with the brigade artillery, horse artillery deployed to the left in support.<ref name=Hofschroer-117>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 117</ref> Napoleon sent Lobau's Division to intercept Bülow's IV Corps. Therefore Napoleon sent his 10-battalion-strong Young Guard to beat the Prussians back. The 15th Brigade threw Lobau's troops out of Frichermont with a determined bayonet charge. The 15th proceeded up the Frichermont heights battering French Chasseurs with 12 pounder artillery fire and pushed on to Plancenoit. Napoleon had dispatched the entire 8 battalions of Young Guard and 2 battalions of the Old Guard to reinforce Lobau's Division. Hiller's 16th Brigade had 6 battalions available and pushed forward to attempt to take Plancenoit. The Young Guard counter-attacked and after very hard fighting, the Young Guard recaptured Plancenoit but were themselves counter-attacked and driven out.<ref name=Hofschroer-122>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 122</ref> Napoleon sent two battalions of the Old Guard and after ferocious bayonet fighting - they did not deign to fire their muskets - they recaptured the village.<ref name=Hofschroer-122/> The dogged Prussians were still not beaten, and approximately 30,000 troops under Bülow and Pirch attacked Plancenoit again. It was defended by 20,000 Frenchmen in and around the village.
===Prussian advance===
Throughout the late afternoon, Zieten's I Corps had been arriving in greater strength in the area just north of Le Haye. This allowed Wellington to reinforce his centre in time to repulse Napoleon's attack. At the time the French Guard was being repulsed from the British centre, the Prussian I Corps was breaking through the French centre. <ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> By 19:30, the French position was bent into a rough horseshoe shape. The ends of the U were now based on Hougomont on the French left, Plancenoit on the French right, and the centre on La Haye.<ref name=Hofschroer-139>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 139</ref> The French had retaken the positions of La Haye and Papelotte in a series of attacks by General Durette's Division.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> Oberst von Hofmann's 24th regiment led an advance towards Le Haye and Papelotte; the French forces retreated behind Smohain without contesting the advance.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> The 24th Regiment advanced against the new French position but was seen off after some early success. The Silesian Schützen and the F/1st Landwehr moved up in support as the 24th regiment returned to the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-140>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 140</ref> The French fell back before the renewed assault without much of an attempt at defense. At this point, the French began to seriously contest ground, attempting to regain Smohain and hold on to the ridgeline along Papelotte and the last few houses of Papelotte.<ref name=Hofschroer-140/> The 24th Regiment linked up with a Highlander battalion on its far right. Determined attacks by the 24th Regiment and the 13th Landwehr regiment with cavalry support threw the French out of these positions and further attacks by the 13th Landwehr and the 15th brigade expelled them from Fichermont.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> Durutte’s division was beginning to unravel under the assaults when General Zieten’s I Corps cavalry poured through the gap.<ref name=Hofschroer-144>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 144 </ref> Durutte's division, finding itself about to be charged by massed cavalry of Ziethen's I Corps cavalry reserve, retreated quickly from the battlefield. I Corps then attained the Brussels road and the only line of retreat available to the French.
===The Capture of Plancenoit===
At about the same time, the Prussians were pushing through Plancenoit, in the third assault of the day upon the town.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussian 5th, 14th, and 16th brigades, were involved in the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> Each Prussian brigade would be about 9 battalions strong, roughly the size of a French division. The church was fully involved in a fire, with house to house fighting leaving bodies from both sides lying about.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The French Guard battalions, a Guard Chasseur and 1/2e Grenadiers were identified as holding the position. Virtually all of the Young Guard was now involved in the defence, along with remnants of Lobau's Division.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The key to the position proved to be the woods to the south of Plancenoit. The 25th regiment's musketeer battalions threw the 1/2e Grenadiers (Old Guard) out of the Chantelet woods, flanking Plancenoit and forcing a retreat.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussians IV Corps advanced beyond Plancenoit to find masses of French retreating in a jumbled mass from pursuing British units.<ref name=Hofschroer-145> [[#References|References]] p. 145</ref> The Prussians were unable to fire for fear of hitting allied units. It was now seen that the French right, left, and centre, were failing.<ref name=Hofschroer-145/>
===Disintegration===
The whole of the French front started to disintegrate under the general advance of Wellington's army and the Prussians following the capture of Plancenoit.<ref name=Hofschroer-146>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 146</ref> The last coherent French force consisted of two battalions of the Old Guard stationed around the inn called ''La Belle Alliance''. This was a final reserve and a personal bodyguard for Napoleon. For a time, Napoleon hoped that if they held firm, the French army could rally behind them.<ref>http://home.iprimus.com.au/cpcook/letters/pages/waterfini.htm</ref> But as the retreat turned into a rout, they were forced to withdraw and form squares as protection against the leading elements of allied cavalry. They formed two squares, one on either side of ''La Belle Alliance''. Until he was persuaded that the battle was lost and he should leave, Napoleon commanded the square which was formed on rising ground to the (French) left of the inn.<ref>http://www.napoleonbonaparte.nl/newspaper/dedham/drouet.html</ref><ref>http://www.standin.se/fifteen15a.htm</ref> The Prussians engaged the square to the (French) right, and General Adam's Brigade charged the square on the right, forcing it to withdraw.<ref name=Hofschroer-149>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 149</ref> As dusk fell, both squares retreated away from the battlefield towards France in relatively good order, but the French artillery and everything else fell into the hands of the Allies and Prussians. The retreating Guards were surrounded by thousands of fleeing Frenchmen who were no longer part of any coherent unit. Allied cavalry harried the fleeing French until about 23:00. The Prussians, led by [[August von Gneisenau|General von Gneisenau]], pursued them as far as Genappe before ordering a halt. By that point, some 78 guns had been captured along with about 2,000 prisoners, including more Generals.<ref name=Hofschroer-150>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 150</ref> At Genappe, Napoleon's carriage was found abandoned still containing diamonds left in the rush. These became part of King Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia's crown jewels, one Major Keller of the F/15th receiving the [[Pour le Mérite]] with oak leaves for the feat.<ref name=Hofschroer-151>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 151</ref>

==Sources==
*Chesny, Charles A: Waterloo Lectures:A Study Of The Campaign Of 1815 ISBN 1428649883
*Hofschröer, Peter: ''1815, The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory'';Greenhill Books (London); ISBN 1-85367-368-4
===Footnotes===
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Waterloo, Battle of}}
[[Category:Battles]]
[[Category:Napoleonic Wars]]

Talk:Battle of Waterloo

2007-06-21T01:54:25Z

Tirronan:

I am going to start expanding this article to where it should be. [[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] 14:42, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I will be adding sections from Wikipedia that I have authored there and begin to expand the article from that point. I hope this will not be a problem as I have done the work to begin with. [[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] 21:35, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I'll be returning to work on the British sections of this article, I worked on the Prussian side of it in Wikipedia and this will have to be done from scratch here. [[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] 21:54, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Battle of Waterloo

2007-06-21T01:52:50Z

Tirronan: /* Sources */

[[Image:waterloo.jpg|350px|thumb|The Battle of Waterloo]]
The '''Battle of Waterloo''' took place on June 18, 1815 in Belgium. It marked the beginning of the end of [[The Hundred Days]], [[Napoleon]]'s attempt at regaining power after his initial defeat the previous year.

Once the [[United Kingdom]]'s 67,000-strong army, under the Duke of Wellington, had forced a precarious stalemate against Napoleon's 73,000, [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher]]'s Prussian forces arrived and were able to achieve decisive numerical superiority, forcing Napoleon out.

The battle marked the end of [[Napoleon]]'s reign and his exile to the island of [[Saint Helena]] in the South Atlantic.

==Preliminary==
Napoleon's return from [[Elba]] marked the beginning of The Hundred Days and on March 18, 1815 he was declared an outlaw by the [[Congress of Vienna]]. This marked the mobilization of the Seventh Coalition armies. The British formed an army consisting of British, Nassau and Dutch troops to form an army. The Prussians created two armies, one under Prince Blucher and another under General Kliest with Prussian, and North German allied states. Russia assembled an army of 250,000 men under Prince Barcley de Tolly and the Austrians provided two additional armies under General Schwarzenburg and Archduke Charles. The King of Spain assembled an army placing it under English officers and began moving to the frontier.
==The Waterloo Campaign==
Napoleon began a massive call up and soon had Le Armie Du Nord (Army of the North) prepared. The Army of the North was about 117,000 strong. This was moved with great stealth to the northern border of Belgium. In this area the British had assembled an army of some 97,000 and the Prussians another army of 105,000. Both allied armies had been spread out in an effort to be easier on the population they depended on for assistance.
===The Prussian Army===
The Prussian army was in the throes of reorganization as its reserve regiments became line regiments along with many of the previous 1814 Landwehr regiments and its artillery was also reorganizing and would not give its best performance, though its militia, the ''Landwehr'', was significantly better than other militias.<ref>Barbero, p.39</ref> It was under the command of Blücher, though in fact much of its operation was directed by his chief-of-staff, [[August von Gneisenau|Gneisenau]], who greatly distrusted Wellington.<ref>Barbero, p.21</ref> Two and a half Prussian army corps or 48,000 men, were engaged in the battle by about 18:00. (Two brigades under [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Friedrich von Bülow]], commander of the IV Corps, attacked Lobau at 16:30, [[Georg Dubislav Ludwig von Pirch|Georg von Pirch's]] II Corps and parts of [[Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Ziethen|Graf von Ziethen's]] I Corps engaged at about 18:00.)
===June 16th===
Despite the efforts at deception the Prussians quickly understood where the French army was and proceeded to interfere with it. The Prussian 1st Corp began an all day delaying effort while the Prussian army assembled. The British army was somewhat slower to react as Wellington's spy network was either interfered with or was actively giving him disinformation. Lord Wellington did not begin assembly of his army until the evening.
====Battle of Quatra Bra====
Marshall Ney in command of the French Army's left wing marched to Quatra Bra and found it defended by Dutch units who were determined to hold their ground. The Prince of Orange arrived and disregarded orders to retreat, choosing to reinforce the position. Marshall Ney believing that he was facing far more troops than was the case was tentative in his attacks at first. Lord Wellington was rushing formations to assist with all speed. As evening fell the British forces outnumbered the French and the position was held.
====Battle of Ligny====
Napoleon had wished to attack the British first but this was impossible as the Prussians were by now already assembled with 3/4 of their forces in and around the village of Ligny. In a four hour battle Napoleon would earn his last victory. The carnage was great with 11,000 French and 22,000 Prussians dead on the field. Great though the victory was (as the Prussians had more men on the field than the French) it contained all the seeds for the eventual defeat at Waterloo. While the Prussians were defeated they were not routed and proceeded to calmly march off the battlefield with some units not leaving until the next morning. This left a organized and determined army ready to act against the French army.

The retreat of the Prussians was never interrupted, and was seemingly unnoticed by the French.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> By nightfall, at about 2100, almost all of the Prussian formations had left the field. On the Prussian right, Lieutenant-General [[Hans Ernest Ziethen|Ziethen's]] I Corps retreated slowly with most of its artillery, leaving a rearguard close to [[Brye]] to slow the French pursuit. On the left, Lieutenant-General [[Johann von Thielmann|Thielemann's]] III Corps retreated unharmed, leaving a strong rearguard at [[Sombreffe]]. The bulk of the rearguard held their positions until about midnight, before following the rest of the retreating army. In fact, Zieten's 1st Corps rearguard units only left the battlefield in the early morning of 17 June, as the exhausted French failed to press on.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> Pirchs II Corps followed the 1st Corp off the battlefield and Thielemans III Corps moved last with the armies various parks in tow. It should be noted that the last of III Corps was moved in the morning completely ignored. <ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Von Bülow's]] IV Corps moved south of Wavre and setup strong rear guard positions for the army to quickly reasemble.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> General Blücher was already in communications with General Wellington

===June 17th===
This day saw the British forces move to the Mont Saint Jean (Waterloo) position and prepare to receive the French attack. The Prussian Army moved to the Village of Wavre with all 4 corps now assembled.

===June 18th===

[[Image:map-6.jpg]]
===The arrival of the Prussians IV Corps: Plancenoit===
The first Prussian corp to arrive was the IV Corps and its objective was Plancenoit as a launch point into the rear of the French positions. It was Blücher's intention to secure his left upon Frichermont using the Bois de Paris road. <ref name=Hofschroer-116>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 116</ref> Blücher and Wellington had been exchanging communications since 10:00 and had agreed to this advance on Frichermont if Wellington's centre was under attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-95>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 95</ref><ref>Chasney, Waterloo Lectures p-165</ref> General Bülow noted that Plancenoit lay open and that the time was 16:30.<ref name=Hofschroer-116/> At about this time the 15th Brigade IV Corps linked up with the Nassauers of Wellington's left flank with the brigade artillery, horse artillery deployed to the left in support.<ref name=Hofschroer-117>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 117</ref> Napoleon sent Lobau's Division to intercept Bülow's IV Corps. Therefore Napoleon sent his 10-battalion-strong Young Guard to beat the Prussians back. The 15th Brigade threw Lobau's troops out of Frichermont with a determined bayonet charge. The 15th proceeded up the Frichermont heights battering French Chasseurs with 12 pounder artillery fire and pushed on to Plancenoit. Napoleon had dispatched the entire 8 battalions of Young Guard and 2 battalions of the Old Guard to reinforce Lobau's Division. Hiller's 16th Brigade had 6 battalions available and pushed forward to attempt to take Plancenoit. The Young Guard counter-attacked and after very hard fighting, the Young Guard recaptured Plancenoit but were themselves counter-attacked and driven out.<ref name=Hofschroer-122>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 122</ref> Napoleon sent two battalions of the Old Guard and after ferocious bayonet fighting - they did not deign to fire their muskets - they recaptured the village.<ref name=Hofschroer-122/> The dogged Prussians were still not beaten, and approximately 30,000 troops under Bülow and Pirch attacked Plancenoit again. It was defended by 20,000 Frenchmen in and around the village.
===Prussian advance===
Throughout the late afternoon, Zieten's I Corps had been arriving in greater strength in the area just north of Le Haye. This allowed Wellington to reinforce his centre in time to repulse Napoleon's attack. At the time the French Guard was being repulsed from the British centre, the Prussian I Corps was breaking through the French centre. <ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> By 19:30, the French position was bent into a rough horseshoe shape. The ends of the U were now based on Hougomont on the French left, Plancenoit on the French right, and the centre on La Haye.<ref name=Hofschroer-139>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 139</ref> The French had retaken the positions of La Haye and Papelotte in a series of attacks by General Durette's Division.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> Oberst von Hofmann's 24th regiment led an advance towards Le Haye and Papelotte; the French forces retreated behind Smohain without contesting the advance.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> The 24th Regiment advanced against the new French position but was seen off after some early success. The Silesian Schützen and the F/1st Landwehr moved up in support as the 24th regiment returned to the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-140>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 140</ref> The French fell back before the renewed assault without much of an attempt at defense. At this point, the French began to seriously contest ground, attempting to regain Smohain and hold on to the ridgeline along Papelotte and the last few houses of Papelotte.<ref name=Hofschroer-140/> The 24th Regiment linked up with a Highlander battalion on its far right. Determined attacks by the 24th Regiment and the 13th Landwehr regiment with cavalry support threw the French out of these positions and further attacks by the 13th Landwehr and the 15th brigade expelled them from Fichermont.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> Durutte’s division was beginning to unravel under the assaults when General Zieten’s I Corps cavalry poured through the gap.<ref name=Hofschroer-144>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 144 </ref> Durutte's division, finding itself about to be charged by massed cavalry of Ziethen's I Corps cavalry reserve, retreated quickly from the battlefield. I Corps then attained the Brussels road and the only line of retreat available to the French.
===The Capture of Plancenoit===
At about the same time, the Prussians were pushing through Plancenoit, in the third assault of the day upon the town.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussian 5th, 14th, and 16th brigades, were involved in the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> Each Prussian brigade would be about 9 battalions strong, roughly the size of a French division. The church was fully involved in a fire, with house to house fighting leaving bodies from both sides lying about.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The French Guard battalions, a Guard Chasseur and 1/2e Grenadiers were identified as holding the position. Virtually all of the Young Guard was now involved in the defence, along with remnants of Lobau's Division.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The key to the position proved to be the woods to the south of Plancenoit. The 25th regiment's musketeer battalions threw the 1/2e Grenadiers (Old Guard) out of the Chantelet woods, flanking Plancenoit and forcing a retreat.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussians IV Corps advanced beyond Plancenoit to find masses of French retreating in a jumbled mass from pursuing British units.<ref name=Hofschroer-145> [[#References|References]] p. 145</ref> The Prussians were unable to fire for fear of hitting allied units. It was now seen that the French right, left, and centre, were failing.<ref name=Hofschroer-145/>
===Disintegration===
The whole of the French front started to disintegrate under the general advance of Wellington's army and the Prussians following the capture of Plancenoit.<ref name=Hofschroer-146>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 146</ref> The last coherent French force consisted of two battalions of the Old Guard stationed around the inn called ''La Belle Alliance''. This was a final reserve and a personal bodyguard for Napoleon. For a time, Napoleon hoped that if they held firm, the French army could rally behind them.<ref>http://home.iprimus.com.au/cpcook/letters/pages/waterfini.htm</ref> But as the retreat turned into a rout, they were forced to withdraw and form squares as protection against the leading elements of allied cavalry. They formed two squares, one on either side of ''La Belle Alliance''. Until he was persuaded that the battle was lost and he should leave, Napoleon commanded the square which was formed on rising ground to the (French) left of the inn.<ref>http://www.napoleonbonaparte.nl/newspaper/dedham/drouet.html</ref><ref>http://www.standin.se/fifteen15a.htm</ref> The Prussians engaged the square to the (French) right, and General Adam's Brigade charged the square on the right, forcing it to withdraw.<ref name=Hofschroer-149>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 149</ref> As dusk fell, both squares retreated away from the battlefield towards France in relatively good order, but the French artillery and everything else fell into the hands of the Allies and Prussians. The retreating Guards were surrounded by thousands of fleeing Frenchmen who were no longer part of any coherent unit. Allied cavalry harried the fleeing French until about 23:00. The Prussians, led by [[August von Gneisenau|General von Gneisenau]], pursued them as far as Genappe before ordering a halt. By that point, some 78 guns had been captured along with about 2,000 prisoners, including more Generals.<ref name=Hofschroer-150>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 150</ref> At Genappe, Napoleon's carriage was found abandoned still containing diamonds left in the rush. These became part of King Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia's crown jewels, one Major Keller of the F/15th receiving the [[Pour le Mérite]] with oak leaves for the feat.<ref name=Hofschroer-151>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 151</ref>

==Sources==
*Chesny, Charles A: Waterloo Lectures:A Study Of The Campaign Of 1815 ISBN 1428649883
*Hofschröer, Peter: ''1815, The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory'';Greenhill Books (London); ISBN 1-85367-368-4
===Footnotes===
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Waterloo, Battle of}}
[[Category:Battles]]
[[Category:Napoleonic Wars]]

Battle of Waterloo

2007-06-21T01:51:38Z

Tirronan: /* The arrival of the Prussians IV Corps: Plancenoit */

[[Image:waterloo.jpg|350px|thumb|The Battle of Waterloo]]
The '''Battle of Waterloo''' took place on June 18, 1815 in Belgium. It marked the beginning of the end of [[The Hundred Days]], [[Napoleon]]'s attempt at regaining power after his initial defeat the previous year.

Once the [[United Kingdom]]'s 67,000-strong army, under the Duke of Wellington, had forced a precarious stalemate against Napoleon's 73,000, [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher]]'s Prussian forces arrived and were able to achieve decisive numerical superiority, forcing Napoleon out.

The battle marked the end of [[Napoleon]]'s reign and his exile to the island of [[Saint Helena]] in the South Atlantic.

==Preliminary==
Napoleon's return from [[Elba]] marked the beginning of The Hundred Days and on March 18, 1815 he was declared an outlaw by the [[Congress of Vienna]]. This marked the mobilization of the Seventh Coalition armies. The British formed an army consisting of British, Nassau and Dutch troops to form an army. The Prussians created two armies, one under Prince Blucher and another under General Kliest with Prussian, and North German allied states. Russia assembled an army of 250,000 men under Prince Barcley de Tolly and the Austrians provided two additional armies under General Schwarzenburg and Archduke Charles. The King of Spain assembled an army placing it under English officers and began moving to the frontier.
==The Waterloo Campaign==
Napoleon began a massive call up and soon had Le Armie Du Nord (Army of the North) prepared. The Army of the North was about 117,000 strong. This was moved with great stealth to the northern border of Belgium. In this area the British had assembled an army of some 97,000 and the Prussians another army of 105,000. Both allied armies had been spread out in an effort to be easier on the population they depended on for assistance.
===The Prussian Army===
The Prussian army was in the throes of reorganization as its reserve regiments became line regiments along with many of the previous 1814 Landwehr regiments and its artillery was also reorganizing and would not give its best performance, though its militia, the ''Landwehr'', was significantly better than other militias.<ref>Barbero, p.39</ref> It was under the command of Blücher, though in fact much of its operation was directed by his chief-of-staff, [[August von Gneisenau|Gneisenau]], who greatly distrusted Wellington.<ref>Barbero, p.21</ref> Two and a half Prussian army corps or 48,000 men, were engaged in the battle by about 18:00. (Two brigades under [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Friedrich von Bülow]], commander of the IV Corps, attacked Lobau at 16:30, [[Georg Dubislav Ludwig von Pirch|Georg von Pirch's]] II Corps and parts of [[Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Ziethen|Graf von Ziethen's]] I Corps engaged at about 18:00.)
===June 16th===
Despite the efforts at deception the Prussians quickly understood where the French army was and proceeded to interfere with it. The Prussian 1st Corp began an all day delaying effort while the Prussian army assembled. The British army was somewhat slower to react as Wellington's spy network was either interfered with or was actively giving him disinformation. Lord Wellington did not begin assembly of his army until the evening.
====Battle of Quatra Bra====
Marshall Ney in command of the French Army's left wing marched to Quatra Bra and found it defended by Dutch units who were determined to hold their ground. The Prince of Orange arrived and disregarded orders to retreat, choosing to reinforce the position. Marshall Ney believing that he was facing far more troops than was the case was tentative in his attacks at first. Lord Wellington was rushing formations to assist with all speed. As evening fell the British forces outnumbered the French and the position was held.
====Battle of Ligny====
Napoleon had wished to attack the British first but this was impossible as the Prussians were by now already assembled with 3/4 of their forces in and around the village of Ligny. In a four hour battle Napoleon would earn his last victory. The carnage was great with 11,000 French and 22,000 Prussians dead on the field. Great though the victory was (as the Prussians had more men on the field than the French) it contained all the seeds for the eventual defeat at Waterloo. While the Prussians were defeated they were not routed and proceeded to calmly march off the battlefield with some units not leaving until the next morning. This left a organized and determined army ready to act against the French army.

The retreat of the Prussians was never interrupted, and was seemingly unnoticed by the French.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> By nightfall, at about 2100, almost all of the Prussian formations had left the field. On the Prussian right, Lieutenant-General [[Hans Ernest Ziethen|Ziethen's]] I Corps retreated slowly with most of its artillery, leaving a rearguard close to [[Brye]] to slow the French pursuit. On the left, Lieutenant-General [[Johann von Thielmann|Thielemann's]] III Corps retreated unharmed, leaving a strong rearguard at [[Sombreffe]]. The bulk of the rearguard held their positions until about midnight, before following the rest of the retreating army. In fact, Zieten's 1st Corps rearguard units only left the battlefield in the early morning of 17 June, as the exhausted French failed to press on.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> Pirchs II Corps followed the 1st Corp off the battlefield and Thielemans III Corps moved last with the armies various parks in tow. It should be noted that the last of III Corps was moved in the morning completely ignored. <ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Von Bülow's]] IV Corps moved south of Wavre and setup strong rear guard positions for the army to quickly reasemble.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> General Blücher was already in communications with General Wellington

===June 17th===
This day saw the British forces move to the Mont Saint Jean (Waterloo) position and prepare to receive the French attack. The Prussian Army moved to the Village of Wavre with all 4 corps now assembled.

===June 18th===

[[Image:map-6.jpg]]
===The arrival of the Prussians IV Corps: Plancenoit===
The first Prussian corp to arrive was the IV Corps and its objective was Plancenoit as a launch point into the rear of the French positions. It was Blücher's intention to secure his left upon Frichermont using the Bois de Paris road. <ref name=Hofschroer-116>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 116</ref> Blücher and Wellington had been exchanging communications since 10:00 and had agreed to this advance on Frichermont if Wellington's centre was under attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-95>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 95</ref><ref>Chasney, Waterloo Lectures p-165</ref> General Bülow noted that Plancenoit lay open and that the time was 16:30.<ref name=Hofschroer-116/> At about this time the 15th Brigade IV Corps linked up with the Nassauers of Wellington's left flank with the brigade artillery, horse artillery deployed to the left in support.<ref name=Hofschroer-117>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 117</ref> Napoleon sent Lobau's Division to intercept Bülow's IV Corps. Therefore Napoleon sent his 10-battalion-strong Young Guard to beat the Prussians back. The 15th Brigade threw Lobau's troops out of Frichermont with a determined bayonet charge. The 15th proceeded up the Frichermont heights battering French Chasseurs with 12 pounder artillery fire and pushed on to Plancenoit. Napoleon had dispatched the entire 8 battalions of Young Guard and 2 battalions of the Old Guard to reinforce Lobau's Division. Hiller's 16th Brigade had 6 battalions available and pushed forward to attempt to take Plancenoit. The Young Guard counter-attacked and after very hard fighting, the Young Guard recaptured Plancenoit but were themselves counter-attacked and driven out.<ref name=Hofschroer-122>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 122</ref> Napoleon sent two battalions of the Old Guard and after ferocious bayonet fighting - they did not deign to fire their muskets - they recaptured the village.<ref name=Hofschroer-122/> The dogged Prussians were still not beaten, and approximately 30,000 troops under Bülow and Pirch attacked Plancenoit again. It was defended by 20,000 Frenchmen in and around the village.
===Prussian advance===
Throughout the late afternoon, Zieten's I Corps had been arriving in greater strength in the area just north of Le Haye. This allowed Wellington to reinforce his centre in time to repulse Napoleon's attack. At the time the French Guard was being repulsed from the British centre, the Prussian I Corps was breaking through the French centre. <ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> By 19:30, the French position was bent into a rough horseshoe shape. The ends of the U were now based on Hougomont on the French left, Plancenoit on the French right, and the centre on La Haye.<ref name=Hofschroer-139>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 139</ref> The French had retaken the positions of La Haye and Papelotte in a series of attacks by General Durette's Division.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> Oberst von Hofmann's 24th regiment led an advance towards Le Haye and Papelotte; the French forces retreated behind Smohain without contesting the advance.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> The 24th Regiment advanced against the new French position but was seen off after some early success. The Silesian Schützen and the F/1st Landwehr moved up in support as the 24th regiment returned to the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-140>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 140</ref> The French fell back before the renewed assault without much of an attempt at defense. At this point, the French began to seriously contest ground, attempting to regain Smohain and hold on to the ridgeline along Papelotte and the last few houses of Papelotte.<ref name=Hofschroer-140/> The 24th Regiment linked up with a Highlander battalion on its far right. Determined attacks by the 24th Regiment and the 13th Landwehr regiment with cavalry support threw the French out of these positions and further attacks by the 13th Landwehr and the 15th brigade expelled them from Fichermont.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> Durutte’s division was beginning to unravel under the assaults when General Zieten’s I Corps cavalry poured through the gap.<ref name=Hofschroer-144>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 144 </ref> Durutte's division, finding itself about to be charged by massed cavalry of Ziethen's I Corps cavalry reserve, retreated quickly from the battlefield. I Corps then attained the Brussels road and the only line of retreat available to the French.
===The Capture of Plancenoit===
At about the same time, the Prussians were pushing through Plancenoit, in the third assault of the day upon the town.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussian 5th, 14th, and 16th brigades, were involved in the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> Each Prussian brigade would be about 9 battalions strong, roughly the size of a French division. The church was fully involved in a fire, with house to house fighting leaving bodies from both sides lying about.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The French Guard battalions, a Guard Chasseur and 1/2e Grenadiers were identified as holding the position. Virtually all of the Young Guard was now involved in the defence, along with remnants of Lobau's Division.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The key to the position proved to be the woods to the south of Plancenoit. The 25th regiment's musketeer battalions threw the 1/2e Grenadiers (Old Guard) out of the Chantelet woods, flanking Plancenoit and forcing a retreat.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussians IV Corps advanced beyond Plancenoit to find masses of French retreating in a jumbled mass from pursuing British units.<ref name=Hofschroer-145> [[#References|References]] p. 145</ref> The Prussians were unable to fire for fear of hitting allied units. It was now seen that the French right, left, and centre, were failing.<ref name=Hofschroer-145/>
===Disintegration===
The whole of the French front started to disintegrate under the general advance of Wellington's army and the Prussians following the capture of Plancenoit.<ref name=Hofschroer-146>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 146</ref> The last coherent French force consisted of two battalions of the Old Guard stationed around the inn called ''La Belle Alliance''. This was a final reserve and a personal bodyguard for Napoleon. For a time, Napoleon hoped that if they held firm, the French army could rally behind them.<ref>http://home.iprimus.com.au/cpcook/letters/pages/waterfini.htm</ref> But as the retreat turned into a rout, they were forced to withdraw and form squares as protection against the leading elements of allied cavalry. They formed two squares, one on either side of ''La Belle Alliance''. Until he was persuaded that the battle was lost and he should leave, Napoleon commanded the square which was formed on rising ground to the (French) left of the inn.<ref>http://www.napoleonbonaparte.nl/newspaper/dedham/drouet.html</ref><ref>http://www.standin.se/fifteen15a.htm</ref> The Prussians engaged the square to the (French) right, and General Adam's Brigade charged the square on the right, forcing it to withdraw.<ref name=Hofschroer-149>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 149</ref> As dusk fell, both squares retreated away from the battlefield towards France in relatively good order, but the French artillery and everything else fell into the hands of the Allies and Prussians. The retreating Guards were surrounded by thousands of fleeing Frenchmen who were no longer part of any coherent unit. Allied cavalry harried the fleeing French until about 23:00. The Prussians, led by [[August von Gneisenau|General von Gneisenau]], pursued them as far as Genappe before ordering a halt. By that point, some 78 guns had been captured along with about 2,000 prisoners, including more Generals.<ref name=Hofschroer-150>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 150</ref> At Genappe, Napoleon's carriage was found abandoned still containing diamonds left in the rush. These became part of King Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia's crown jewels, one Major Keller of the F/15th receiving the [[Pour le Mérite]] with oak leaves for the feat.<ref name=Hofschroer-151>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 151</ref>

==Sources==
Chesny, Charles A: Waterloo Lectures:A Study Of The Campaign Of 1815 ISBN 1428649883
Hofschröer, Peter: ''1815, The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory'';Greenhill Books (London); ISBN 1-85367-368-4
===Footnotes===
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Waterloo, Battle of}}
[[Category:Battles]]
[[Category:Napoleonic Wars]]

Battle of Waterloo

2007-06-21T01:50:03Z

Tirronan: /* June 18th */

Battle of Waterloo

2007-06-21T01:47:44Z

Tirronan: /* Sources */

Battle of Waterloo

2007-06-21T01:45:37Z

Tirronan:

Battle of Waterloo

2007-06-21T01:36:53Z

Tirronan: /* Battle of Ligny */

Talk:Battle of Waterloo

2007-06-21T01:35:26Z

Tirronan:

User:Tirronan

2007-04-25T16:44:26Z

Tirronan: New page: Hi and welcome ot my page. I have a deep and abiding love for military history. I hope to begin adding more articles to this project.

Hi and welcome ot my page. I have a deep and abiding love for military history. I hope to begin adding more articles to this project.

Battle of Waterloo

2007-04-23T14:48:28Z

Tirronan: /* Battle of Quatra Bra */ Expanding the article

The Battle of Waterloo took place on June 18th 1815 in Belgium. It marked the beginning of the end of [[The Hundred Days]], [[Napoleon]]'s attempt at regaining power after his initial defeat the previous year.

Once the United Kingdom's 67,000-strong army under the Duke of Wellington had forced a precarious stalemate against Napoleon's 73,000, von Blucher's Prussian forces arrived and were able to achieve decisive numerical superiority, forcing Napoleon out.

The battle marked the end of [[Napoleon]]'s reign and his exile to the island of Saint Helena in the South Atlantic.

==Preliminary==
Napoleon return from Elba marking the beginning of the 100 days (in fact the campaign was not concluded until the fall of the last fortress in September of 1815) and on March 18th 1815 was declared outlaw by the Congress of Vienna. This marked the mobilization of the Seventh Coalition armies. The British formed an army consisting of British, Nassau, Dutch, and Belgium, troops to form an army. The Prussians created two armies, one under Prince Blucher and another under General Kliest with Prussian, and North German allied states. Russia assembled an army of 250,000 men under Prince Barcley de Tolly and the Austrians provided two additional armies under General Schwarzenburg and Archduke Charles. The King of Spain assembled an army placing it under English officers and began moving to the frontier.
==The Waterloo Campaign==
Napoleon began a massive call up and soon had Le Armie Du Nord (Army of the North) prepared. The Army of the North was about 117,000 strong. This was moved with great stealth to the northern border of Belgium. In this area the British had assembled an army of some 97,000 and the Prussians another army of 105,000. Both allied armies had been spread out in an effort to be easier on the population they depended on for assistance.
===June 16th===
Despite the efforts at deception the Prussians quickly understood where the French army was and proceeded to interfer with it. The Prussian 1st Corp began an all day delaying effort while the Prussian army assembled. The British army was somewhat slower to react as Wellington's spy network was either interferred with or was actively giving him disinformation. Lord Wellington did not begin assembly of his army until the evening.
====Battle of Quatra Bra====
Marshall Ney in command of the French Army's left wing marched to Quatra Bra and found it defended by Dutch units who were determined to hold their ground. The Prince of Orange arrived and disregarded orders to retreat, choosing to reinforce the position. Marshall Ney believing that he was facing far more troops than was the case was tentative in his attacks at first. Lord Wellington was rushing formations to assist with all speed. As evening fell the British forces outnumbered the French and the position was held.
====Battle of Ligny====
Napoleon had wished to attack the British first but this was impossible as the Prussians were by now already assembled with 3/4 of their forces in and around the village of Ligny. In a four hour battle Napoleon would earn his last victory. The carnage was great with 11,000 French and 22,000 Prussians dead on the field. Great though the victory was (as the Prussians had more men on the field than the French) it contained all the seeds for the eventual defeat at Waterloo. While the Prussians were defeated they were not routed and proceeded to calmly march off the battlefield with some units not leaving until the next morning. This left a organised and determined army ready to act against the French army.
===June 17th===
This day saw the British forces move to the Mont Saint Jean (Waterloo) position and prepare to receive the French attack. The Prussian Army moved to the Village of Wavre with all 4 corps now assembled.

==sources==
Chesny, Charles A: Waterloo Lectures:A Study Of The Campaign Of 1815 ISBN 1428649883
Hofschröer, Peter: ''1815, The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory'';Greenhill Books (London); ISBN 1-85367-368-4

[[Image:waterloo.jpg|The Battle of Waterloo]]

[[Category:wars]]

Battle of Waterloo

2007-04-23T14:31:51Z

Tirronan: /* Preliminary */

Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?

2007-04-19T19:25:52Z

Tirronan: /* Good */

{{debate}}

Were the [[Crusades]] Good or Bad

==Necessary==
This is no question of 'Good' or 'Bad'. It's a question of necessity. And it might be at the time to prepare for the next and maybe final crusade. It's about time to stand up and fight for your values. Currently Muslims all around the world are pressing us to accept their ridiculous values. If you do not agree it means flag burning and terrorism. So, killing people (even at war) is a bad thing, but it might be necessary for our own survival.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:31, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wait… you're suggesting we kill people for burning a piece of cloth that we've attached value to? Really, why is flag burning by aggressive individuals who, might I add, are not American themselves, significant? I am also wary of advocating "fighting for ones values". Where can we reconcile violence with "love one another"? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 09:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Good==

Crusades are good only if they involve Indiana Jones.

The first crusade was fine. It was wrong of the [[Muslim]]s to be killing pilgrims who traveled to [[Jerusalem]]. It was okay to fight back.

Reply: Only Against the guilty, As a Jew and a person extremely concerned with human rights my opinion is that: no matter for what reason the massive murder of civilians without cause other than religios orientation is sin. The Mass killings of Jews and Muslims are underplayed in todays textbook. Holy wars are fundamentally contradictory, as most religios scholars declare that killing is Wrong. History has tought us that murder is followed only by murder.

Today, if a nation took over Jerusalem and started killing [[Christian]]s who wanted to visit it, we would definitely fight back. On the other hand, the second and fourth crusades were not right and have left an embarrassing scar on the Christian world to this day. I don't know whose idea it was to sack [[Constantinople]], but it shows the true state of these other crusades. The third crusade was a slight exception to this general state of the later crusades, but its motives are debatable. I suppose that this whole argument really boils down to weather war is "right" or not. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:00, 13 December 2006 (EST)

I don't think either Billy or Tim really understand certain aspects of the crusades. First of all, Billy said there was no such thing as a just war, but really there are just reasons to fight. Not all the crusades were just but to say that no war is just is false. Billy quoted "Love thy neighbor as thy self." That's right but sometimes you need to choose the lesser of sins. Which is worse, to let the defenseless be slaughtered or to defend the defenseless? Either way you're violating the commandment. Which is why there is reconciliation. ''Double Edge''

Comment: Of course it is sinful to fight a war for the wrong reasons, but I don't believe that every war is by definition sinful. As noted above, war is sometimes the lesser of two evils. But remember that it only takes one party to start a fight. When someone is determined to start a fight, we cannot avoid it- we can only decide, through our actions, whether it will be a war or a massacre. We know that evil will result whichever course we take, but it does not follow that both courses are sinful. The course which leads to the lesser evil- or the greater good- is the right course, and therefore is not sinful. I believe that we all sin, but I do not believe that God puts us in positions where it is impossible for us to choose a course that pleases him. (See I Corinthians 10:13)- Chris J

Well said Double Edge. War is never morally right, war is never good. God never intended for war, but sadly, man is in a fallen state and has turned away from this original intent. War has become a very real thing in the world, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:19, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I don't see anything wrong with having a Christian holy war. Making Jerusalaem safe for defenseless pilgrims was a worthy goal. The Crusades were good.

Mr. Schlafly

Tim said the pilgrimages were useless. But the crusaders weren't only defending pilgrims they were defending their fellow christians in Byzantium and many of the jews that lived in the Middle-East.

: This is simply false. Many Jews died due to the crusades and many Christians in Byzantium were killed by the crusaders. Constantinople itself was sacked by the crusaders in 1204. The Jews were so harmed by the crusades that the standard Askenazi liturgy changed to remember the events(to give you an idea of how rare that is, the standard Orthodox liturgy didn't change at all after the Holocaust). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I believe that the first two crusades were in defense and justified and the second two were wrong. If you believe that all wars are sinful. Then a country cannot have a defense system or military at all. If someone were to try to kill and steal from your own family you would stop them by force or would you watch them get killed. This is the same thing with a war on a national level. Ultimatlely if you do not believe in war we would not have a nation. The United States had to have its own war for independence the Revolutionary war in which, many men died. The Ten Comandments says "Thy Shalt Not Kill", but are you not killing when you refuse to defend the defenseless? For example in War World II, if it were not for the Alled forces and the United States the entire Jewish people could have been destroyed. I guess when Hitler was taking over Europe you would sat back and watched because you are a pacifist. Deborah G.

---
Tim said that the Chrsitians should have been smart enough not to go somewhere where they might get killed, and that a country has a right to control its borders. ---

However, I would like to remind everybody that things were different back in the Middle-Ages, and that the first victamized christian pilgrims had no way of knowing about their impending doom. They couldn't just check the internet for the latest Middle Eastern travel information. ---

As for the Europeon reaction to such terrorism, how is it wrong? So your statement is implying that if your friends & family got intentionally mutilated by someone, that the only 'just' action would be to find a new travel desination? ---

Also all wars cannot be bad, if they were (are) then why does God often take sides? (see different Biblical wars, specifically involving the Old Testament) --- Joe B

If the European Christians were not willing to fight the expansionist Mohammedans, then the Mohammedans would have invaded Europe. Thanks to the Crusades, Europe
was not destroyed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I guess I will weigh in here, Europe was not destroyed because of Charles Martel victory in southern France The Battle of Tours 732 AD (before the 1st crusade) and the defeat (almost destruction) of the Ottoman Empire's army at the gates of Vienna 1529 (300 years after the last Crusade) and the successful defense at Malta 1292 AD (the year after the last Crusade). None of these events were concerned with the Crusades. The sacking of Constanstiople advanced the movement of Islam by weakening a power bulwarking Europe. Europe did advance in technology by exposure to the middle east as it was the more advanced of the two areas in some ways. I am saying that this looks to be more of socio/ethic/religious broad movements to me rather than the Crusades per say.

Out of curiosity, why do you call Muslims "Mohammedans"? We don't call Americans "Washingtonans" or Jewish people "Abrahamans". I'm not saying the term "Mohammedan" is necessarily incorrect. It used to be the popular term for Muslims in the West. But why do you think it is appropriate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:38, 24 February 2007 (EST)

: Abraham did not create the Jewish religion, and Washington did not create American political philosophy. Lots of movements are named after their original founder and leader. I use the term "Mohammedan" because it is a neutral and well-understood term, and is the most accurate term for the way I was using it. Mohammad believed in using military force to expand his empire, and so did his followers. That makes it Mohammedan. Sometimes people use the term "moslem" or "muslim" to refer to narrower religious goals. Whether those narrower religious goals include territorial expansion would just be a distraction from the point I was making. The term Mohammedan is an ordinary dictionary word, and there is no reason not to use it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 24 February 2007 (EST)

::There is much revisionism on this subject; let's review some of the meta-historical aspects at work.

::Mohammadism arose in the vacuum of the collapse of the Roman Empire and was spread by force. However, pockets of non-Islamic and Christian communities remained throughout Asia Minor and the Middle East (as they do today). These non-Muslim's living in the midst of Islam were very oppressed, and thier lives were spared only by accepting [[dhimmi]] status. Trade relations between Europe and the East (India and China), which had been going down the [[silk route]] since ancient times was vital to all economies of ancient civilizations. The rise of Islam disrupted this.

::The first four Crusades were an attempt to "roll back" the encroachment of Islam on Western Civilization, end the oppression of Christian minorities in Muslim territiories, and restore the disruption of trade with the East which had an impact on prosperity and living standards worldwide. Western commercial trading interests, traveling the silk route in caravans were often taken hostage, forced to convert to Islam or suffer a hideous death such as beheading at the hands of persons and groups we today would probably describe as terrorists. By the end of the last Crusade it was apparant the approach of direct confrontation and rollback over two centuries had failed. Nevertheless, the economic impact of reduced trade on living standards had been felt.

::Christopher Columbus came up with an idea to restore trade with the East ''without'' direct military confrontation to gain access to the trade routes -- sail west to get east. Instead of confronting the problem head on, simply go around it. It was risky and had never been tried, but hopes of regaining the prosperity of old times fueled expectations. So Columbus was granted patronage by government in those desperate times to solve the threat of Islamic terrorists to Western commercial interests.

::History records what happened was bigger than anyones expections; rather than simply restore commercial contact between the Western Europe, India, and China, Western Europe embarked on an economic expansion throughout the [[Western hemisphere]] for the next 500 years. This was rewarding to the posterity of Europeans for several generations, however the original cause of the problem -- the threat of Islam to the economic interests and prosperity of the rest of the world -- had never been dealt with, and was forgotten.

::Today, a half millenium later, when the world is much smaller because of the ease of travel and communications, we've discovered the very problems that (1) caused the Crusades, and (2) led to the discovery of America, had never been dealt with, and now we are faced with the same problems decision makers and problem solvers of centuries ago were faced with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Please could you provide your sources for the "disruption of trade" leading to economic problems in Western Europe? My understanding of the First Crusade is that it was largely based no reports of abuse of pilgrims, though whether that abuse was remotely institutionalised or simply the activity of individuals and small groups acting on their own behalf (just as there were thieves and bandits in Western Europe) is certainly open to debate.

::::The First Crusade is also known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Crusade Pauper's Crusade]; IOW, because of the widespread economic disruption over several centuries which resulted with the rise of Islam, a vast army of unemployed with little hope under the status quo and nothing to lose answered the call for the Crusade. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bad==

Contrary to what some people believe I believe there is no such thing as a just war because war in and of itself is unjust, calling it a “Holy War” doesn’t change anything in fact it makes it worse because you are lying to yourself and your comrades ( no war is holy, just like no war is just.) The reason we know that no war is holy or just is that it is not just or holy to kill people for personal gain( if that is just then why are there laws and commandments to follow?). War goes against our teachings because we learn from the Bible and Jesus’ teachings to treasure human life and to be compassionate towards each other. You are neither treasuring human life nor being compassionate when you are killing your neighbor.
[[Billy M.=)]]

I Hate to say it but I Agree with Billy here, but not for the same reasons.
You can't justify a war just to protect pilgrims. It was not necessary for Christians to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Unlike Islam Christianity does NOT require pilgrimages. Jerusalem was nothing more than a tourist attraction. The Christian Pilgrims should have been smart enough to not go there because they could be killed. There is no justification for the crusades as a "Holy War." Christianity is not a violent religion. We do not start wars just because some Christians get murdered, if we did, we would be at war with China and many other countries that persecute Christians. A Country has a right to control who comes into that country. The Muslims had a right to control who came to Jerusalem. This does not mean that they were justified in killing the Christians, but the Christians should not have assumed the right to go wherever they wanted regardless of the wishes of the people who live there. If Muslims all of a sudden decided that they wanted to make pilgrimages to America for some reason, and did not think that the American government should have a say in the matter, we wouldn't let them would we? There may have been justification for a political war against the Muslims, if they were a threat to the the European countries. Even if there was reason for a political war, the crusades went way too far, and there was no justification for a holy war. The Pope was wrong to promise spiritual benefits to those who fought in the war. He tricked many people into joining the crusades because they thought that it would make them go to heaven if they died. Also most of the crusades were only fought for ambition and plunder.

Tim

Although I do not believe that the crusades were good, I Agree with double edge on one point: There ''IS'' such a thing as a just war! Billy's circular reasonings (see above) do not change that.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Baaad!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thoroughly bad, and completely undesirable. Killing people because of their beliefs is not justifiable. Admittedly, the Muslims were in the wrong to kill pilgrims to Jerusalem, but the wholesale massacre of the Muslims was not a viable response. Sorry to tell you, but cannibalism is not justifiable except under very extreme circumstances. (Like, say, the Donner Party, not just because you're hungry). [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:53, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:But the Crusades were not just motivated by peoples beliefs; Islam had disrupted East-West trade and thus people's living standards by not allowing passage of trading caravans down the silk route, taking hostage of traders and forcing conversions, or killing them outright. There were economic factors at work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Killing people because you want more money. Yep, that's ''quite'' morally sound. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::Has nothing to do with money; eating food is an "economic factor". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::It's completely possible to grow your own food, thus removing the necessity for trade routes to obtain it. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The thing that makes humans different from animals is trade. As Adam Smith said, no one ever saw two dogs trade one bone for the other. As Smith said, in that rude state of socierty before the division of labor is implemented, a man endevors to supply all his own needs, when he's hungray, he goes to the forest to hunt, when his roof needs patching, he goes to woods for material, etc. But once society reaches an advanced state of development (yes, even ancient Eygpt was an advanced state of development), a person cannot supply the everyday needs he has, and is far more dependant upon the produce of '''''other''''' peoples labor.

:::::Hence, trade was just as vital then for the economic needs of people and their survival as it is today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::That's it. I quit. I have more important things to do than try to bring people out of the middle ages. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'll put my retort to Rob's argument here when I have time, BTW, just so I'm not labeled as having run away because I have no defense. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Well, okay, I guess I don't quit. Here's my retort:

:::::::''Trade can take place within a single country.'' 'Nuff said. And don't get me started about the other claim… --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Comment==

Christian theologians, notably [[Thomas Aquinas]], developed a set of rules for deciding whether a war was a just war. Aquinas' formulation is part of the Catholic catechism.

Perhaps someone needs to write an article on [[Just War theory]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thou shalt not kill. It seems pretty straight forward to me. Christians shouldn't use reconciliation as some kind of cop-out. It's an abuse of your religion if you know you're going out to do something bad and then stop at the church on the way back to confess.

'thou shalt not murder', actually, but you're still right - pretty much everything Jesus said was against war. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

==BAAAAAD!==

I've never heard of a situation where a bunch of barbarians burning, pillaging and raping everything on their path was a good thing...

The way I see it, the only way you could distinguish between the crusaders and the Mongols was by the colour of their skin.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Ah yes. The widespread rape that occured. Good point. Tell me ''that'' was a good thing! --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 12:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes indeed; so can we call this the neo-confederate view [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=253] and fascist [http://www.sovlit.com/bios/ehrenburg.html] revisionism, condemning Sherman's march to sea and the Soviet atrocities during and after the Battle of Berlin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Battle of Waterloo

2007-04-19T18:42:50Z

Tirronan: New page: I am going to start expanding this article to where it should be. ~~~~

I am going to start expanding this article to where it should be. [[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] 14:42, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Battle of Waterloo

2007-04-19T18:27:11Z

Tirronan: Beginning to expand this work its going to take awhile to get all this in