Talk:Hundred Days/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think that the section Hundred Days#Deployments is becoming too large for this article. I propose the we move the information about those armies not directly engaged in the major campaign into the minor campaign article.

For example the article Minor campaigns of 1815 which already includes a section on Russian Army and the German Corps which would seem to me a better place to put in the details about the Russian Armies and NORTH GERMAN FEDERAL ARMY. There are also other sections in that article where quite a lot of the other information could go and if needs be we could create a new section for details about Spain and Portugal etc.

The details of the French army below corps level, I think should also be moved into the Minor campaigns of 1815 article.

I am currently working on a detailed Waterloo campaign article (largely copied from William Siborne's book -- as I did for the minor campaigns). I hope that editors interested in these campaigns will start to edit the minor campaigns article and add in details from others authors as they will in due course on the Waterloo campaign. some of the information I am proposing to move into the minor campaign article might in the long run be better off in the new Waterloo Campaign article, but we can decide that at a later date.--

I also agree that the deployments article is too large for the Hundred Days article. It just needs details of the French Army of the North, and those of Welligton and Blucher with their cantonments. Rather than the deletion of the surplus info, I second your decision to place it all in to the Minor Campaigns of 1815 article as the forces detailed participated in those other campigns.--Assisting Wiki (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I copied the information into the

talk

) 13:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I do have a nice source for the North German Federated Army and its campaign but its half a book long. I have very little on much else on the minor campaigns though. Tirronan (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is New South Wales depicted in a different shade of blue? -- Nbound (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The total allied man power may well have been 1 million. But a note should be made that the number of Allied troops participating in combat in the Low Countries would have included the 100,000 Anglo-Dutch & the Prussians own force.

At the moment, the impression is given that the Allies had 1 million troops to fight Napoleon, but he face less than that (before he was defeated). A note should be made stating how many deployed in action. Soldiers aren't much good if they don't fight! 98.176.11.141 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a difficult question to answer accurately because apart from the Waterloo campaign and the invasion of France by those armies (about 200,000), several other Collation armies converged on France and were involved in skirmishes. The two largest of those armies consisted of 250,000 (Army of the Upper Rhine (Austo-German Army)) and 200,000 (Russian) see

talk

) 05:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The North German Federal Army was involved in the fortress campaign that followed Waterloo. It was about 40,000 troops. In addition it was my understanding that Spain and Portugal were both mobilizing. Europe as a whole had more than enough of the French adventures and intended to put an end to it. I have little doubt that 1 million were at some point of organizing or marching towards the French borders.Tirronan (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

One must keep in mind something extremely important to this whole story that I'm not sure if the article covered fully. The planned staging deployments were one aspect but the actual mobilization of troops and their arrival into the main war theater was another regarding WHEN. The 1815 campaign was thus initially planned / expected to take place in mid-July. It was 'understood' that this was the earliest Napoleon could himself be menacing as a real military threat himself with a sufficient raised mass of troops to fight a defensive war in France against the allies - largely from massive conscription and use of young soldiers -yet again. In early June the Allies were content to observe France's borders rather than initiate a peremptory invasion into France - with only Wellington and Blucher being able to do so but without the rest of the Allies being anywhere close to support such a daring strike. Although allied intel and border reports knew French troops were assembling near the Belgian border towards mid-June, the Allies were surprised when Napoleon stormed across the Sambre River in a brilliant and audacious 'penetration' strategy at the link area of Charleroi between Wellington and Blucher on June 15, 1815. Napoleon used 'offense as the best form of defense' with a considerably small invasion force against the combined superior / scattered total of the Allies facing him in Belgium. Basically, the fight in mid-June involved a fraction of troops on all sides compared to the vast numbers that were expected to be ready to start fighting in mid-July 1815. Joey123xz (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days#Overview gives a breakdown by armies of the number of men available by the middle of June (742,000) -- this can be seen with the dates of the armies crossing the frontiers into France in Minor campaigns of 1815, the only significant exception was the Russian Army of 200,000 which only managed to get a couple of detached corps (attached to other armies) into action before the armistice on 20 July.

The section Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days#Mobilisations lists others that were mobilising if needed including another Russian reserve army of four corps, a Prussian army of three corps, and two Spanish armies (see here) of unknown size; plus some other waifs and strays from Denmark Portugal etc. So the range given 700,000–1,000,000 is supported by more than one sources with breakdowns available in the articles to show how the range is calculated and that it is not unreasonable. -- PBS (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

An interesting side-note story that could be added in that page you mentioned PBS would be the one about temporary Saxon Army revolt in April 1815.--Joey123xz (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

On Tuesday March 7th, 1815, Napoleon dared jittery soldiers of the 5th Regiment to fire at him. This monumental famous incident happened hours before the town of Grenoble was entered. However, the article states this scenario played out just before Lyons was entered. The equally dramatic Lyons-capture phase of the epic adventure happened on February, March 10, 1815. De La Bedoyere's 7th Regiment joined Napoleon a little time later in the same day the 5th Line joined Napoleon on March 7th. --Joey123xz (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be an oversight , in the Manoeuvre section by omitting perhaps one of the most crucial strategic command decisions given that eventually affected the course of events between June 15th to June 18th. That being the actions taken by staff of Perponcher's Division located in the Frasnes area -south of Quatre-Bras crossroads. Contrary to the article stating Wellington ordering the army to start moving to Quatre-Bras on the 15th June, the actual assembly orders for the Anglo-Allied army would have seen Perponcher's division move away from Quatre-Bras and leave that strategic road junction totally unguarded on the night of June 15th. Had a British division been at Quatre-Bras/ Frasnes instead, the commanders would not have dared question/ disobey Wellington's orders - it was well known such independent action against his strategic orders would not be tolerated. Perponcher's staff quickly assessed the situation correctly however. Being former experienced commanders on the continent, they had a very good idea of Napoleon's strategic intention to split the allies and beat them one at a time. If Quatre-Bras was not held, Blucher's Prussians would be the first to be overwhelmed in a major battle or at least driven away from Wellington - and Wellington would thereafter send his army back to embark from Belgian ports. On June 15th a squadron of Imperial Guard Lancers probed along the Namur road and were repulsed at Quatre-Bras by a detachment of Dutch-Belgians posted there. Farther south, the French advance guard units on the Brussels road met resistance at Frasnes and did not venture much further towards Quatre-Bras that night. Most modern books about the Hundred Days are emphatic about Perponcher/Rebecque's decisive independent action to hold Quatre-Bras against general manoeuvre orders given to them. It is also a long inaccurate belief that Wellington's troops were marching non-stop to Quatre-Bras since the night of June 15th. Picton's division was halted for some time on the morning of June 16th in between Brussels and Quatre-Bras. This in fact is where the famous 'Wellington's deceit' issue arises. When Wellington met Blucher just before the battle of Ligny started, he assured Blucher that all of his own army would be nearby/ at Quatre-Bras and would help Blucher IF he was not attacked there himself. The deception being only a part of Wellington's army had arrived at Quatre-Bras and the Duke knew that most of his army would not get to that battlefront in time to even help Blucher. Prior to Wellington returning from meeting Blucher to take over the Quatre-Bras battle that had already started, the Prince of Orange was busy hurrying Allied units up to the battle. He should get some fair mention too; while he blundered in tactical commands, he did have a decent respect for handling strategic situations.--Joey123xz (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have renamed these sections given reflist refers to references. Several sources are missing although referred to. Would be nice if someone added them without me having to go looking for them--

Whoever wrote the "Health" section is wholly wrong to suggest that Napoleon could not be in the saddle for long periods. I quote verbatim from Andrew Roberts "the Emperor spent several hours in the saddle on the 17th and 18th June...and was in the saddle to enthuse...his men" (Roberts, Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Gamble). This should be changed. Nod19912 (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Nod19912Nod19912 (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)4th May 2009

Why did he leave the battle of Waterloo in a coach when riding would have been a far quicker method of flight? --

talk

) 22:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nod regarding the 'saddle' idea having 'disastrous' consequences as if Napoleon did hide away for several hours during the battle as was implied in the movie Waterloo; Napoleon was up at dawn on the 18th on a brief surveillance of some of the battlefield and reviewed his troops on horseback in the morning. He surveyed the oncoming movement of Prussians at St.Lambert and oversaw the deployment of Lobau's corps before returning back to the center just as Uxbridge's counter-attack was underway and giving orders for a counter against that movement. He was then back managing his right flank during the Prussian deployment motions starting up. He returned to the center to add Kellermann's corps into the French cavalry charges in the evening. Then he was carefully managing the crumbling situation on the right flank once more before returning to the center to initiate the Imperial Guard's final attack. Napoleon moved around quite a bit and he saw as much as was possible to see from the heights around La Belle Alliance not withstanding terrain of woods and high slopes hiding his view. As for the coach/carriage escape; there were 2 French headquarters horse-drawn transports captured at and just off the battlefield. One was taken near Genappe after it had left Le Caillou just before 8 pm - and the other was taken near Quatre Bras- and this one to which the claimant of the 2 prizes -Major von Keller / 15th Silesian Infantry Regiment- attached a deceitful tale to his chiefs Gneisenau and Blucher about Napoleon having a narrow escape from him after fleeing the coach; Napoleon left the battlefield in the valiant 1st Grenadier square that retreated to le Caillou where Napoleon left from that point on horseback past Genappe towards Quatre Bras. The tall tale of that near-miss coach story became a legend through the official Prussian report that eagerly adopted it and Blucher's own unyielding belief that he was in no way duped; despite the fact that this coach (Quatre Bras one) was in Prussia's possession while the other from which was taken the much talked-about loot and diamonds (gift from Napoleon's sister Pauline when he left Elba), was being shown off in England.Joey123xz (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

See

20 March, Entry to Paris, to 8 July, Abdication

1 March, Landed in France at Golfe-Juan, to 18 June Battle of Waterloo

--

A search of Google books shows that "The Hundred Days, March 20 to June 29, 1815." is used in some sources (eg A history of France: from the earliest times to the establishment of the ..., by William Henley Jervis, p. 655 -- From Napoleon entering Paris to the the Prussians entering Paris

For the other two there are also examples with a Google book search, here are two with a "limited and full view" returned by the search:

• "The Hundred Days, March 20 to July 8, 1815": The Reader's Companion to Military History', by Robert Cowley, Geoffrey Parker p. 214 "denotes the length of time King Louis VIII was absent from Paris"
• "The Hundred Days, March 1 to June 18, 1815", The French Revolution By Linda Frey, p. xxii

--

Given these numbers and the sources presented here on the talk page I am removing the request for sources in the article, because the are in the lead and not in anyway controversial as they are well know. If anyone insists on wanting sources for those dates then they can take them from this talk page. --

The 'Hundred Days' comes in another variation too - from the time Napoleon consolidated his first effective strike force composed of his 'Elban Army' strike force with many times more French troops that defected to his side, and he then had the first real sense of being unstoppable after his 3 day rest at Lyons - until March 13th, before resuming the last leg of his advance on Paris. From there, it is 100 days up to around June 20th/ 21st when he really knew his situation as leader of an unfractured France was irretrievably over.Joey123xz (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

currently the article says:

Napoleon returned while the Congress of Vienna was sitting. On 13 March, seven days before Napoleon reached Paris, the powers at the Congress of Vienna declared him an outlaw; four days later the United Kingdom, Russia, Austria and Prussia, members of the Seventh Coalition, bound themselves to put 150,000 men each into the field to end his rule (Williams, David p. 59)

But the

The Congress of Vienna went on for sometime so the time-line for treaties coming from there were probably a bit more flexible than you might imagine. Tirronan (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I realised that the wording in the lead was ambiguous. It could either be taken as four days after the first step or four days after Bonaparte's arrival in Paris. I have changed it to be more explicit. I am not sure how the 4 days was worked out because any way I do the maths 20 to the 25 is five days. It is possible that the treaties were initialled on the 24th but I could not find a source that said it was. To date the only source that puts it before the 25th is:

• Brown, Goold; Cobb, Lyman; Williams, Edwin (1834). Williams, Edwin (ed.). The Treasury of Knowledge, and Library of Reference. Vol. 1 (3 ed.). Conner & Cooke. p. 128. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help):

That puts the date at the 23rd. --

talk

) 09:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Several 'escalating' agreements at Vienna in March were at play from March 13th to 25th concerning reaction to Napoleon's reappearance in France. The first on the 13th was a general declaration/agreement by a long line-up of 'the sovereigns of Europe' to assist the King of France against Napoleon. The next agreement came of March 18th a new treaty of alliance was pledged to fight Napoleon until his end; with more sign-ups of other states to the previous list of those in the prior declaration. The Escape from Elba page 256-7--Joey123xz (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did Michel Ney join Napoleon after Ney, wanting to show his devotion to King Loius XVIII? CHUCKNORRISKNOWSWHEREYOULIVE matt 03:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt5000matt (talk • contribs)

The snubbing of his wife in court, and a general feeling that he was being mearly tolerated by his betters may have gone a long way towards his actions with Napoleon. Chuck Norris lives about one hour and 15 minutes from my address so I am sure we could find each other, matter of fact I saw him at the Mesquite Rodeo last summer.Tirronan (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ney claimed several excuses for switching sides; he was waiting to confront Napoleon but some of his troops had defected and soon after he received entreaties/ direct messages/appeals to him to defect- this plus the troops with him alo seemed eager to defect and that was when he decided to flip-flop wholly to Napoleon's side. His decision making logic was very erratic. Basically, he and Murat were extremely susceptible to this word's purest of definition; TERGIVERSATION. It seems to have been a contagious virus amongst the French Marshals.Joey123xz (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The British 'guard ship', the Patridge, was more of an observation ship; technically, Napoleon was a sovereign King on Elba with the British Navy up to that point 'watching' for any dubious naval activity on Napoleon's part while on Elba. Napoleon was biding his time, acting as if intending to stay on Elba - the British were merely content with treating Napoleon under close scrutiny -which gave the dedicated British commissioner on Elba -Sir Neil Campbell- no end of worries under this lax policy he was meant to operate under. Also, there were no French 'guard ships' at all at Elba to slip away from - but in January and February 1815, the 2 newly assigned French Royalist patrol ships were spotted making cruises near the coast off Elba and Corsica. French Royalist 'flagged' warships patrolled up to the waters north of Corsica operating from the French port of Toulon. I say 'flagged' because apparently Napoleon was very aware that the 2 French ships patrolling the seaway in the path of his Elban flotilla making its way to France, were not going to stop him - although there is no direct evidence of the French 'Royalist' crews being direct participants in the escape plot, the flotilla had no hesitancy in going directly towards the French patrol ships oncoming paths. Not only did they not hinder the flotilla that they saw and headed towards from different directions, but one of the French commanders told the now-alerted Campbell who was in pursuit at a distance on the Patridge, that he never saw any ship activity to report. This sent the Patridge on a wild goose chase in another direction for some critical time after.Joey123xz (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2014 The introduction to the article says that Napoleon died "May 1891." Maybe not? 12.20.19.90 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there some reason the article "the" is not included with Hundred Days? It seems really odd that it isn't, or is this due to the British convention?209.179.36.25 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It is to do with how article titles and section headers are written, see

Article Title Format -- PBS (talk

) 13:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Should there be some mention of civilian casualties? I know the war was driven by large set piece battles and army manoeuvres but there must be some sources covering the impact on the local population.©Geni (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am extracting a detailed account of the advance/retreat from Waterloo to Paris from William Silburn's books. There were some civilian casualties, but no numbers are given and it seems to have been mainly rape and pillage rather than murder.

At the moment there is a brief mention

• Gifford, C. H. (1817), History of the Wars Occasioned by the French Revolution, from the Commencement of Hostilities in 1792, to the End of 1816: Embracing a Complete History of the Revolution, W. Lewis, p. 1494
• Siborne, William (1848), The Waterloo Campaign, 1815 (4th ed.), Westminster: A. Constable

However the

• Rapp, comte Jean (1823), Memoirs of General Count Rapp: First Aide-de-camp to Napoleon, H. Colburn and Company, pp. 359–

There were other similar instances elsewhere. Here is an extract from another contemporary account which details some attacks on civilians and justifies them using a common view of many supporters of the Coalition forces (after 25 years of near continuous war):

So yes there were civilian casualties but I do not know of any source that has tried to estimate how many. -- PBS (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Should these article really be the same? Uspzor (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

For those who do not realise: the

War of the Seventh Coalition that would not appear this article? -- PBS (talk

) 09:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

IMO the Hundred Days are about the government of Napoleon as a whole and the Seventh Coalition about the war itself. Uspzor (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Does any one else supports this? What do you think PBS? AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I have created a table of articles to show what exists and a possible way of view them:

I have not included in this list the articles to be found on Wikisource see:

• s:Final Act of the Congress of Vienna
• s:Portal:Hundred Days
• s:Portal:Waterloo Campaign

It seems to me that this map is wrong, at least about Louisiana. Can anybody sort that out? -- Falep (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: Also, during that time, the South American colonies were in the middle of the independence war against Spain. They did not contribute at all with the war. In fact, Napoleon's invasion of Spain was the trigger of the independence movements.

In English, "on the morning of..." is the idiomatic way to specify the morning of a given date, such that the morning hours are, in a sense, part of the date. "In the morning of" might make better sense to a non-idiomatic English speaker, because the usual way to specify the morning hours is "in the morning." The same idiomatic construction applies to the afternoon, evening and night. You will not find "your way" in literature, scholarly works, or journalism written by an idiomatic English writer or speaker, no matter how much better it sounds to your ear. Which of these phrases sounds more correct to you?:

"....are to be married on the afternoon of 20 June..."

"....are to be married in the afternoon of 20 June..."

(Leaving out the preposition would avoid the controversy entirely.)--Quisqualis (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@

BRD

means "Bold Revert, Discuss", not "Bold Revert, Make a statement, Revert".

I would agree with you if that was the phrase that was in use, but this includes a subdivision with "early": One would say "early in the afternoon of 15 July"; "early in the evening of 15 July", I hear no difference with "early in the morning of 15 July" and I do not see a grammatical difference. -- PBS (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: In diagramming the original sentence:

"[Unable to remain in France or escape from it,] Napoleon surrendered himself [to Captain Frederick Maitland of HMS Bellerophon] [early] on [the morning of] 15 July, [and was :::::::::transported to England.]"

the material in italics is the basic narrative of the sentence, "Napoleon surrendered himself on 15 July.". "Early" is not an essential part of the sentence, but "on" is important, in that designates the date. That is why "on" is called for here.

The temptation to employ the expression "early in the morning on" is understandable; while idiomatic, it is, however, less formal than the overall style of the article. I must assert, however, that "early in the morning of" is not idiomatic English. Since the original phrasing, as I found it, contained "of 15 July", my preference is to retain "of" and change "in," to maintain idiomatic, somewhat formal English.

It may be noted that I spent several hours reading, digesting and converting this French-tinged article to idiomatic, encyclopedic English in my various edits.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this must be a dialect problem, and I do not agree with removing "in", but have not opinion on the use of "on 15 July" or "of 15 July".

Not French tinged but Victorian tinged (as the Attribution in the References section indicates -- per

MOS:COMPASS

)?

-- PBS (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There are only two correct ways of spelling of "north east", namely northeast and north-east. The first is prevalent in US English and the second in British English. The use of north east as two separate words is non-standard Thomani9 (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Also see the section above this one (#Please explain why you think "on the morning" is better than "in the morning" on the talk page...)

Since my last edit there have been a number of edits some of them were reverts of my last revert edits, despite the fact that that there was not a consensus for them per

• The diff from which I am working. The removals are in red

1. removed "accompanied by the municipal body," — it is better as a clause because the sentence can be constructed without the clause "Count Chabrol addressed Louis XVIII in..."
2. Cosmetic changes such as removing a space in "British involvement" — I will not comment on any other such changes.
3. "with some 1,000 men, and landed at Golfe-Juan, between Cannes and Antibes, on 1 March 1815" — an Oxford comma is not needed before the and as there is no other "and" in the sentence there is no need to distinguish sub-clauses. The other commas are not needed, but in this case I will leave the in place as they do no harm, but in other places where I think they are unhelpfulbI will revert them without further comment. If another party disagrees with the revert then please discuss them further on this talk page before reverting reverts.
4. ''"If any of you will shoot his Emperor, here I am."'' The added double single quotes turns the quote in to italics. This is contrary to the MOSS see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics and quotations so I am removing all such changes.
5. "ought to be brought to Paris in an iron cage" the source does not have it as a quote and it may well be paraphrasing (particularly as the original was in French) — so I am removing the quotes and they should not be put back without a inline citation to back them up.
6. Lanjuinais —I have left the initial full name uncovered by an intermediate edit, but have made an alteration to the text (not a revert) to remove the second link to a mention of the man (per
   MOS:DUPLINK
   ).
7. south west —I have put back the hyphen (south-west) for all such compass points (see
   MOS:COMPASS
   ).
8. I have reverted the change "At the Congress of Vienna, the Great Powers of Europe" to "At the Congress of Vienna, the Great Powers of Europe (Austria, Great Britain, Prussia and Russia)" because the Concert of Europe is a post Napoleonic era term and linking to it is unhelpful: see Quadruple Alliance (1815) and the Holy Alliance, as well as the Concert of Europe to see why.
9. I have removed the addition of "
   95th Foot, in this case they would probably be closer to the Levée en masse of the early revolutionary wars. This is a highly controversial issue, because of the attitude of the Prussians towards guerilla warfare verged on fanatical hatred and it lasted in successor German armies up until the the destruction of the Wehrmacht at the end of Second World War (see Martens Clause
   ).
10. reverted "small-scale combat" to "in detail" — "in detail" is a term of art and is not the same as "small-scale combat" for example the Battle of Ligny was not "small-scale combat". I have linked it to the article Defeat in detail
11. reverted "drove for the Prussian outposts" to "drove in the Prussian outposts" it is a different meaning of drove this meanin is "smashed in" not the "driving" of animals attached to carts (or the driving of motorcars).
12. reverted "placing their forces at Mont-Saint-Jean," to "and secured Napoleon's favoured "central position". This shows a total misunderstanding of the campaign. Mont-Saint-Jean was not the central position it was close to the centre of Wellington's cantonments (his headquarters were in Brussels). Napoleon did not get there until the 18th of June he was driving the wedge as the paragraph starts by saying on the 15th of June.
13. revert "who had died shortly" to " to "where she had died shortly" the significance is to the place where she died.
14. revert "addressed the king" to "addressed the King" see
    MOS:JOBTITLES
    bullet point 2.
15. revert "which were known to harbour many royalists" to "which were known to contain many royalists" for the reasons given both in the previous section and in this tea house archive.
16. reverted "with sufficient numbers of experienced troops" to "with a leavening of experienced troops" the metaphor of "leavening" is cleared as it explains what was sufficient and why.
17. reverted "turning on 28 June to oppose the 40,000" to "turning on 28 June to check the 40,000". "check" explains the reason for turning it iwas what in military terminology is called a "holding action" see for example: "The Union Army of Virginia was saved from destruction by an effective rearguard action and hasty retreat across Bull Run Creek" (Murray, Professor of Archaeology Tim; Murray, Tim (December 2009), Memoirs of a Texan: War, FastPencil Inc, p. 103,
    action at Genappe
    (17 June 1815)