Talk:Battle of Puebla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mexico Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

There are a lot of anonymous remarks being entered below. Please sign your comments! Magi Media 03:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Contents

[edit] Stamp out stampede

The article on Cinco de mayo mentions that the Battle of Puebla included a stampede of cattle by local peasants. Any truth to this claim? If so, why is it not mentioned here?

Because it is a false statement. I have access to the Mexican military historic archive and I'll do my best effort to bring founded info to this page as soon as I can.
This overstated stampede account was retained in the discussion section of the CdM article because it is a discussion. Details of the battle in the article were minimized to give more testimony to the day as a modern celebration. But there is no other historical account that talks of a stampede. The French were overrun by a cunning yet legitimate band of Mexican fighters (not peasants with machetes and pitchforks) who got lucky that day. The French also beat themselves at the hands of an overconfident, cocky General Lorencz. Napoleon III retaliated by sending in 29,000 new troops. I'm afraid that a little of the Hollywood romance tale has gotten into many of the accounts for this battle. Magi Media 03:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Magi Media
"...who got lucky that day.". Hmmm, there's no historical account of that either. "Hollywood romance tale"? Care to elaborate? Never heard of one about May 5th. Oleksandr 05:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You're being either naive or out-of-country. The Mexican army had no business overwhelming the French. They got lucky. And the idea that the French were beat off by a bunch of peasants with farm tools and a loosed herd of cattle is something that you see in a Zorro movie. --Magi Media 02:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Neither, but it doesn't matter. Wikipedia needs facts, not user's dogma. Naive is: editing without having read first Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, or worse, disregarding it. Oleksandr 07:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the bashings. Going back to the article, no it was not by luck nor by design that the Mexicans won the battle, the French attacked and as any city would, the Mexicans defended. The French General WAS overconfident and the Mexican army did use strategy to win the battle, of course Mexican courage played an enormous role in it. Meli Ruiz

[edit] Generally inaccurate

General Don Porfirio Diaz Mori did not lead a cavalry charge in the battle of Puebla. This article mentions that the General did so, but it does not specify as to what battle of Puebla was it. There was one in the 5th of May (famous 5 de Mayo) in which the General was in charge of a brigade that repelled the French forces that attacked the land between the two fortresses of Loreto and Guadalupe. The General's Brigade stopped the French, pulled them back and then chased them despite being ordered by General Zaragoza to hold their ground. General Diaz was praised for bravery for his contributions in the Battle of Puebla (5th of May). This can all be found in the Biography written by General Bernardo Reyes.

There was another Battle of Puebla which was the siege of Puebla later on after it had been taken by the French, in this Battle General Díaz DID lead a fierce cavalry charge against artillery IIRC.

Of the accounts I have read, I find that it was a General Felix Diaz who lead the May 5 cavalry attack. General Porfirio Diaz is listed as in charge of the San Luis Potosi Infantry Brigade Magi Media 04:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

[edit] Numbers

The numbers of combatants and casualties in the template were obvious nonsense. I have changed them to the numbers in the Spanish page, which are plausible, but I don't have particular knowledge of this battle so they may need checking. seglea 20:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Of the accounts I read I have found a list of the numbers now posted. The French troop count was specific to each unit. The Mexican count had no specific record. The body counts were near accurate. Magi Media 04:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

[edit] March of the Machetes

I would like once and for all to put a tactical bent on the idea that the Battle of Puebla was fought by peasants wielding machetes. The only place you see such a thing is in a Zorro movie. And the idea that 6,000 French troops were rebuffed by a bunch of croppers is ridiculous.

If you look at the portrayal of the battle as expressed in all the historical accounts, the French never got near the town. That's the only place where you might see street fighting with machetes. But there was a Mexican garrison there, with supposed French allegiance, would turned on the French as well. They may have gotten the locals excited, but there was no real reason for them to join 4,500 regular forces doing real military stuff.

Lorencz attacked from the north on the hillside fortifications. He was rebuffed two times by gunfire, not cutlery. In the third attack he was outmaneuvered by the Mexicans. I'm not going to doubt that any of the regular Mexican military, as well as the French, had some sort of knife. THEY'RE CALLED SABERS. But the Mexican forces were equipped with muskets.

When the French were caught in the pincer movement, a well-known tactic, they retreated (we laughingly call it "advance in retrograde" in the military) back north and were flanked again by Mexican soldiers on the road. This overpowering would not have been done with knives. THEY GOT THEIR ASSES SHOT. 460 dead French soldiers were not killed by machetes,,,they were seriously rained on.

I'll give you this: adding up all the tactical blunders that Lorencz made, he could have been overrun by a plattoon of weedwhackers.

[edit] General Problems

This article is rather poorly written. Sentence structure is sub-par, and even includes sentence fragments such as "Add to that the fact that negotiations for the withdrawal were breaking down," which appears at the end of the second paragraph under "The battle". I have no idea how this entry is able to rate a "B" on the quality scale, particularly considering the possible historical inaccuracies pointed out in previous discussion. In my opinion, the entire article needs to be significantly rewritten and expanded in greater detail, with a more neutral tone and full references. 208.69.225.39 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC) JMMP

Despite many good faith edits, in many ways seems to have gotten worse over the past year or so. It has a large portion of unreferenced text and some POV language. I'd suggest a major rewrite; some portions of historic versions might be of useful. -- Infrogmation 01:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Amen! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.69.190.75 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] May 7th rewrite

I presume it is work in progress. Keep it up. Oleksandr 07:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

User:Magi_Media, your time and effort put into this article is appreciated. However I lament you left it the way it is. When you go through the trouble of contributing verifiable facts to an article (and perhaps acquires utmost importance at a rewrite), please remember to always cite your sources. Leaving just one link at the foot will not do. Wikipedia:Citing sources emphasizes on the purpose of this, among others, discouraging original research. Even though it is a major change, according to Revert, assuming your good faith, a revert is not in order. Wikipedia:Citing sources has plenty of advice on how to cite, and many styles to do it, therefore by the way, if you do proceed to cite yours, I advise you focus on citing styles so you choose the most convenient for you and other editors over time. Oleksandr 07:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

Alas you could as well revise your choice of phrasing. Content like: <sic>The following account is a corroboration of several historical accounts that hold this account to be most factual:</sic> is redundant, yet of minor impact so it doesn't need a tag (Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Style_of_writing). Oleksandr 07:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right! It looked like Pres. Bush wrote that.--Magi Media 13:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Followup" section

The "Followup" section needs some work. I don't know the subject well enough to fix it myself.

It finishes talking about the battle, and then proceeds to talk about Maximilian being executed on May such and such, and that the Republic was restored. The problem is, Maximilian didn't even arrive in Mexico until a few years later, and was executed a year or so (I think) after that.

The way the "Followup" section currently reads, one would assume that the Battle of Puebla led directly to Maximilian's execution and the Mexican Republic being restored, all in the span of a few weeks, which isn't the case. --DarthBinky (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the dates have been fixed, but it still seems to imply that this battle led to the end of the French intervention and Maximilian's reign, when I'm pretty sure it did not. It describes the battle, but then goes on to talk about the end of Max's reign- it doesnt' actually mention what the battle accomplished (or didn't accomplish), it just goes on to talk about somethign that is fairly unrelated.
As far as I can remember, this battle just slowed down (but did not stop) the French invasion and gave the Mexicans a big morale boost; other than that, it really didn't accomplish much- the French eventually took Puebla, then occupied Mexico and installed Max. It should mention the actual results of the battle itself, and the stuff about the end of Max can probably be removed. Unless I'm way wrong, but I don't think I am. --DarthBinky (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)