Talk:Battle of La Suffel

More sources

I've check sources and there have been various fortress in this area under seige by the Prussian II Corps and the North German Corps. All of these I have access to but nowhere is there mention of Gen. Rap or a major loss to the Germans here. I confess confusion. Tirronan 01:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This source -- which is not a reliable one -- says:

Another impressive French victory was won by General Jean Rapp who led the 20,000 "Army of the Rhine", a delaying force, against the larger III Corps of Wurtemmberg (Austro-Hungarian) and defeated it at La Suffel (near Strasbourg) ten days after Waterloo.

I did not know that the Austrians were in France in force by that date, but if true then perhapse there is something on the Austrian III Corps? --PBS 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I spent about 4 hours with Peter's book where he goes through every action in that area. Prussian II Corps was about 17,000 men and the North German Corp under Kleist was about 15,000 men. They beseiged 3 fortresses around Strasbrog as they were astride the most direct communications path to the forces around Paris from Prussia. That would put Rapp sitting idle shut up in Strasborg not intervening in large seige operations that went on for 2.5 months. There is not a word about Austrian troops operating in the area and given Peter's interest in all things German I couldn't imagine him missing that.

A French Corp defeating what amounts to a fair sized army in those days should have gotten more press than what we are seeing. If this took place I am certain that Prussia wasn't involved in it. The Austrian forces moved like a glacier but as they proved at Leipzig, they were by no means that incompentent. They had 2 armies one under Swarzenberg and one under Arch Duke Charles, both more than compentent and at least one of the armies was much larger than 80,000. Charles lost Wargram but even in victory the French were not bragging about it and various officers were wondering if the Grand Army could sustain another such victory.

Also the numbers are not adding up, Rapp probably did have 20k with him but where does 80k on the opposing side come from? Blucher had around 55k with him, Wellington somewhere in the lower 50's and did almost no fighting after Waterloo (the French King was considered a friend of the British Crown and Wellington didn't want to poison the waters). The 2 Corps near Strasbrog didn't have 40k combinded.

There are a lot of myths and outright lies around this campaign and I hesitate to say this but I am smelling a rat where the truth of this battle is concerned. There are plenty of battles that have very little documentation and some have been outright lies to bolster French public opinion at the time. Be really careful about French sources around the period, Chesney goes as close to ballastic as an English Gentleman of that period could in calling Napoleon a lier to save his reputation in his treatment of Ney and Groucy and having read the orders and times given I have come to realise he was right. Another example, if you have ever heard of how the French Currassers defeated the Austrian Currasiers because they didn't have back plates for their armor? It turns out the Austrians were making a desparte last stand outnumbered 3 to 1. It was not the glorious victory of superior cavalry but a display of Austrian heavy cavalry gallentry in the face of impossible odds. I can't rule this battle out but its looking like another fairy tale unless we can come up with further evidence. Tirronan 16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have Chandler David's . Waterloo : The Hundred Days (Battles and Histories) but I a preview of some books[1] gives:

"... Suffel on the 28th. Thereafter, Rapp shut himself up in Strasbourg with a second detachment in ... to Nancy despite a degree of popular resistance to the invaders. The battle of La Suffel, 28 June r815, was General Rapp's considerable ... "

Doing the public search on La Suffel returns:

"... The battle of La Suffel, 28 June r815, was General Rapp's considerable success over the Austrians in the vicinity of Strasbourg. All too often the ...""

So it was the Austrians. I have left Amazon "loading page 180" but it does not seem to be returning. If it does I'll post more. --PBS 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The page has not returned but doing further text searches returns:

Page 180

The much-wounded General Rapp, whose small Armée du Rhin contained a fair proportion of experienced troops, had advanced boldly on Germersheim in early June to challenge Schwarzenberg's expected advance.

It is true that the Austrians were slow in closing up to the Rhine,

of Waterloo caused Rapp to pull back behind the River Lauter and thence to Strasbourg, but when General Württenberg's III Corps at last ....

... crossed the Rhine between 23 and 26 June, it sustained a sharp rebuff at La Suffel on the 28th. Thereafter, Rapp shut himself up in Strasbourg with a second detachment in Colma,

and pressed ahead from Saarbrücken to Nancy despite a degree of popular resistance to the invaders. The battle of La Suffel, 28 June 1815, was General Rapp's considerable success over the Austrians in the vicinity of Strasbourg. All too often the history of events on the minor fronts is entirely overlooked.

Looks like there was a battle between the French and the Austrian III Corps. Searching Chandler's Waterloo : The Hundred Days (Battles and Histories) also returns a number of other interesting tipbits on the next page about other engagements involving the Austrians and other coalition forces against the French on other fronts. --PBS 17:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Page 181

Meanwhile, based upon Lyons, the experienced Marshal Suchet and his rag-bag Armée des Alpes (now barely 17,000 strong owing to detachments made in favour of Lecourbe) was proving more than a match for General Frimont's 40,000 Austrians. On 14 June Suchet had boldly taken the initiative and invaded Savoy, to the dismay of the Austrians. ..."

Further south, the small Armée du jura-mainly made up of National Guardsmen and other second-line troops-fought as staunchly under General Lecourbe. Four delaying actions were undertaken against General Colleredo's I Corps at Foussemague, Bourogne, ...

Above are some examples of text from the next page (shows that there was a lot going on apart from the main battles. Having found "Armée du Rhin" I did a Google search on [Rapp "Armée du Rhin" 1815]

One of the pages returned in French was a games page, but it seems to have a some details on the battle. All we need is a reliable source :-( (La Bataille de La SOUFFEL 28 juin 1815 translation) --PBS 22:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The battle is also know as "battle/combat of le/la Souffel" French victory French defeat! But here is a detailed PDF article on the battle called "SCENARIO 150628: "La Souffel" – 28th June 1815" which also gives the sources used.

I first found mention of Rapp’s corps and the action of La Souffel in David Hamiliton-Williams ‘Fall of Napoleon’. Beyond a brief mention there was not further detail, and most of the standard references on the 1815 campaign did not mention it at all. I recently found an article in a friend’s Miniature Wargames magazine the provided a background to the action, and had a scenario for another games system. (Issue 72, May 1989. M. Rayner 'The Battle of La Souffel'). His main source was Rapp's memoirs. The magazine article provided the French order of battle and a couple of maps of the action, but only had a conjectural allied o-o-b. I have been unable to find any further information upon Eugene’s forces (I highlighted the text on the primary source)--PBS 22:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is sure intriguing! None of my sources go into this at all. I just wish we could get a good source, hell I'll order the book if we can be assured it goes into this at any length. It sure fasinates me for sure! Tirronan 00:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I missed out the URL to the PDF when I added the edit at 22:52 on July 12 (now fixed. That has an even more detailed description of the battle. It was a classic case of a river the Souffel creating complications for the attacking force (the Coalition forces) and as at the Battle of Hastings when the Coalition forces advancing to followed up what they thought was an infantry army in full retreat being hit in the flanks by cavalry, once the Coalition forces were disorganised the French were able to drive them from the field. --PBS 11:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You know I remember that the Austrians also had a confederated army of the southern german priciaplities perhaps this was it? Nothing in my sources refers to Austrian involvement, that doesn't mean it didn't happen just that I don't have a source. I'll repeat if you can find a good book on the subject I'll order it and use it. Needless to say I would really like to expand my knowledge on this subject. Tirronan 16:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Coalition commander

The commander is given as Eugene, Prince of Wurtemberg in the "SCENARIO 150628: "La Souffel" – 28th June 1815" source.

On Wikipedia "Wurtemberg" (the same spelling of which I have seen in other documents so not a typo) is spelt Württemberg. The history of Württemberg contains this

In return for these favours Frederick joined Napoleon Bonaparte in his campaigns against Prussia, Austria and Russia, and of 16,000 of his subjects who marched to Moscow only a few hundred returned. Then, after the Battle of Leipzig (October 1813), King Frederick deserted the waning fortunes of the French emperor, and by a treaty made with Metternich at Fulda in November 1813 he secured the confirmation of his royal title and of his recent acquisitions of territory, while his troops marched with those of the allies into France. In 1815 the king joined the German Confederation, but the Congress of Vienna made no change in the extent of his lands. (This is a cut and past paragraph from Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition)

A Prince/Duke Eugene von/of Württemberg fought for the Russians at the Battle of Borodino,[2] Battle of Vyazma and the Battle of Leipzig[3] -- even thought Württemberg at this time was on the side of the French. The trouble is that he is not mentioned the family tree in articles like Frederick I of Württemberg and Eugene seems to be a traditional first or second name in that family (Sigh!). There is a further complication the Wikipedia article on the Battle of Leipzig says "Russian General Eugene Duke of Württemberg was notable in his extreme bravery directing his troops under fire." (According to this Wikipedia article "Rulers of Württemberg" - "In 1803, the Duke of Württemberg was raised to the rank of Elector of the Holy Roman Empire." So perhapse the title of Duke was handed to a relative, or he was a prince and not a duke)

So was the man commanding the Württemberg troops in 1815 the same man as fought for the Russians, or is it a different or is it Eugene of Württemberg? I don't know yet. However the multiple sources do indicate that the Württemberg forces were fighting for the Coalition in 1815 and that a chap called Eugene was an experienced commander. --PBS 11:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One possibility is "Eugen Friedrich Heinrich" (1758 – 20 June 1822) the third child of Friedrich II Eugen, Duke of Württemberg his brother Alexander of Wurttemberg (eleventh child) was also a Russian general. But he seems rather old. Another is Duke Eugen Herzog von Württemberg (1788-1857)[4] a Russian general of the infantry and a better profile. But as can be seen there were a number of Eugen Württembergs and Eugen/Eugene was a popular family name so it is not possible to tell which one it was without a source. --PBS 12:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoenheim

There is an article called "Hoenheim#History" which states on its talk page that it is a translation:

Following the defeat of Waterloo, the General Jean Rapp, having had wind of intentions to annex Alsace, lined up under the orders of Louis XVIII and continued to fight on the Souffel, just before Hoenheim. On June the 28 and 29, 1815, proceeded the battle of Souffelweyersheim-Hoenheim seeing the victory of the troops of the coalisation, Strasbourg was taken on July 9.

The French version of the same article ( fr:Hoenheim#Histoire) that states:

• En 1813, la campagne de Russie de Napoléon Ier se termine en catastrophe, il parvient difficilement à rejoindre la France, mais les troupes de la coalition le suivent. En janvier 1814, les troupes françaises se replient à Strasbourg devant les attaques des cosaques qui s'installent à Hoenheim, Bischheim et Schiltigheim. Puis, Napoléon Ier, battu, fut banni à l'île d'Elbe.
  

Cependant son évasion entraîna le retour des troupes coalisées qui venaient juste de se retirer. Suite à la défaite de Waterloo, le Général Jean Rapp, ayant eu vent d'intentions d'annexion de l'Alsace, se rangea sous les ordres de Louis XVIII et continua à se battre sur la Souffel, aux portes de Hoenheim.
Le 28 juin 1815 a eu lieu la bataille de Souffelweyersheim-Hoenheim, opposant le général Rapp et le Kronprinz de Wurtemberg . Les 16.000 hommes du général Rapp ne purent battre les 42.000 hommes des troupes de la coalisation.
Le 29 juin 1815, lendemain de la bataille de la Souffel, le Kronprinz de Wurtemberg fit incendier le village de Souffelweyersheim.

The German version also calls it "Schlacht von Souffelweyersheim-Hœnheim" -- PBS 23:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On a different but related subject

Given that we all seem interested in this subject would there also be interest in the fortress campaign and getting articles out on them? I have a great source in that area with Peter Hofschroder's book. Tirronan 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

move to La Souffel

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page from Battle of La Suffel to Battle of La Souffel at this time, due to the inconclusive nature of the discussion here. If further sources are uncovered that refer to the battle by one name or the other, this issue may be revisited at that time. Dekimasuよ! 10:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Before the move is made I think we should discuss it. I am not set against the move. But the sources used both call the battle La Suffel. So what is the justification for moving it other than OR? --PBS 10:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me ? http://www.bigbutton.com.au/~stoli/Scenarios/150628_LaSouffel.pdf. La Souffel with an o, no doubt. RCS 10:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

http://grognards-alsace.ouvaton.org/ordres_de_bataille_et_compte_rendus/souffel/souffel_1815.htm La Souffel again with an o, no doubt. You had it right under your eyes, on this very page. Now i'll move it back again. RCS 10:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources used in the page do not spell it that way slow down. Discuss it first and build a consensus. --PBS 10:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I took these sources from this very page, a few paragraphs above. How on earth can you lecture people from Alsace about how their rivers are called ? --RCS 10:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You also keep on spelling Strasbourg "Strasburg". Germans either wrote Strassburg or Straßburg, but never "Strasburg" with a single s. --RCS 10:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not lecturing anyone on how the river is spelt (I created the page Souffel). But the two reliable sources used in the article both spell it the "Battle of La Suffel". It is not unusual for battle to have names that use historic spellings. What must guide us is English common usage in reliable sources. As I said I am not against the move. But it must be within the naming convention guideline and there must be a Wikipedia:consensus for the move. Strasbourg was a spelling mistake, which when reverting the other spellings I fixed -- Just done the other reference to the Strasbourg which we both missed. --PBS 10:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason why the sources you refer to above are not used in the article -- although using them would allow me to expand the article (which so far has been written by me) and put in more detail is because in my opinion they are not reliable sources. Do you have any reliable English sources that spell the battle Souffel? --PBS 10:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously i have no such sources since i don't live in an english-speaking country and don't have bookshelves filled with multilingual or monolingual litterature about Napoleonic and/or other wars. In a word, i am not interested in the battle, but in the name of the place. And the place is called Souffel, not Suffel. Even if the Germans spelled it Suffel (and they had good reasons to, because it used to be a German river and was to become one again in 1871, 1914 and 1940) it was a french battle on french soil, then. As far as i know, the English didn't even participate (i havent' read the article - you see where i come from!). It is not like Battle of the Bulge being known as Bataille des Ardennes or vice-versa. RCS 11:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I sympathise with your position, and usually in issues like this the English sources lean to the French spellings as French was the lingua franca for so long and was the usual second language for any English speaking scholars. But the rules in Wikipedia for naming an article are simple: common usage among reliable sources. --PBS 12:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Does "reliable" source mean "not French" (surrender monkeys, petainism, one shower a month, whiff of garlic etc.) ? RCS 13:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you care what le rosbif think ;-) No, it is to do with Wikipedia guidelines see WP:NC "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." As most English speaking people do not read French (The British tend not to listen to their French teachers, and in the US Spanish is more useful. I don't believe that the Ausis, and Kiwis are much better than the Brits, and I don't know how good at reading French most English speaking Canadians are...), if they are familiar with this battle at all, it will probably be through English language sources. However the article is sadly lacking in information, and a translation of a good quality French source to flesh out the details of the battle would be greatly appreciated. --PBS 18:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

source

I've found one source on this The Waterloo Campaign: June, 1815 By Albert A. Nolfi, I'll see if I can find another. Tirronan 16:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Another source: Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine , January–June 1826, William Blackwood, Edinburgh & T. Cadwell, London. p. 529 This one like William Siborne, claims it was a Austrian victory.
• German:Markgrafen Wilhelm von Baden et al. Denkwürdigkeiten des Generals der Infanterie Markgrafen Wilhelm von Baden aus den Feldzügen von 1809 bis 1815: Nach dessen hinterlassenen eigenhändigen Aufzeichnungen, A. Bielefeld, 1864. p. 175 (Austrian victory)
• French: Jean Thomas Rocquancourt Cours complet d'art et d'histoire militaires, cuvrage dogmatique, littéraire et philosophique à l'usage des élèves de l'Ecole royale spéciale militaire Anselin, 1837 pp. 694-696 (neutral on who won)
• French: Jean-Frédéric Aufschlager L'Alsace, p. 396 Seems to be the source for the history in the Souffelweyersheim article. (French victory)
• French: Xavier Mossmann. Alsace, Furne et cie., 1853. p. 52 (French victory)
• French: Charles Theodore Beauvais de Preau, Jacques Philippe Voïart (editors) Victoires, conquêtes, désastres, revers et guerres civiles des Français: de 1792 à 1815, C.L.F. Panckoucke, 1821 pp.323-328 This more detailed French account also claims it as a French victory.

What seems to be the criteria for victory differs from the two sides. The Germans claim that the French tried to check the Austrian III Corps advance and failed so it was an Austrian victory. The French claim that they checked the Austrian III Corps taking only 300 casualties to their 2000, and having given the Austrians a bloody nose chose to carry on their own retreat back towards Strasbourg. --PBS (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit 14 January 2008

From the talk pages of User talk:Albrecht and User talk:PBS

With regards to your edit to the Battle of La Suffel, please can you discuss the sources you used for the edit on the talk page. I am particularly interested in where the names of the Coalition commanders come from. --PBS (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I may innocently have stepped onto some pretty convoluted terrain. A French wiki page—of course, now I'm blanking—gave the commander as the Kronprinz of Württemberg, from which I made an obvious deduction. Schwarzenberg, of course, was in overall command on the Rhine. That's all I can say. Albrecht (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the change until confirming sources can be found :-( --PBS (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As can be seen by the footnotes I did indeed find a reference: William Siborne. The Waterloo Campaign, 1815, pp 771-772 --PBS (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

The claim that 20 000 French defeated 80 000 opponents at this battle seems very specious to me. I checked the online source and it says nothing of the sort, noting that there were 60 000 in the region, but makes no mention of numbers at the battle. -Oreo Priest 17:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is by chance that I have edited this article today, I have been writing additional sections to the Hundred Days article when I saw the numbers online in William Siborne. The Waterloo Campaign, 1815, pp 771-772. I had not seen you comment before I made the changes. --PBS (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fancy that. Good job! I love Wikipedia. -Oreo Priest 07:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)