Talk:Battle of Puebla

---

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

---

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

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

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

The numbers of French troops is 6,000 with 2,000 Mexicans Supposedly number of Mexicans is 30,000 Bergmanucsd (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)BergmanUCSD

References

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. --Magi Media (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

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).

May 7th rewrite

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

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)

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)

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)

Since it's been like six months since I last checked this and there's been no change, I took it upon myself to edit the section. It will probably need more work, and definitely need sources (what I wrote was based upon the content of French intervention in Mexico), but I think it more accurately reflects the actual outcome of the battle. I also tweaked some wording- for example, there was a throwaway sentence that talked about how wonderful and brave the Mexicans were (they very well may have been, but it's a subjective statement); and it mentioned in like three different places that the battle is commemorated by Cinco de Mayo (once should be sufficient).--DarthBinky (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Cinco de Mayo as Holiday, Im afraid this information is incorrect, the Batalla de Puebla day is INDEED a holiday, and all schools and most workplaces close down.--189.182.23.248 (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Was the battle of Puebla decisive ?

The decisiveness of the battle has been first added by User:Matt Yeager with this comment "are you kidding? probably the biggest victory in Mexican history", lol [1]. This point of view was not sourced of course. I reverted this POV, as the Mexican victory at Puebla has led to nothing (the French invasion continued and Puebla captured). Hence this battle has not been factually decisive. Definition of the word decisive : "Settling an issue; producing a definite result". This was NOT the case at Puebla. Your own source (Washington Post [2]) confirms my point and contraries yours : "It wasn't a Major Strategic Victory in the Struggle Against the French". My source [3] says EXACTLY the same thing : "The Battle of Puebla was not very important to Mexico from a military standpoint." / "Although the Battle of Puebla amounted to little from a military sense – it merely postponed the inevitable victory of the French army,". It hardly can be described as decisive, it merely was a boost up for the republican morale. UltimaRatio (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing significance with result, and --maybe unknowingly-- engaging in Original Research. And, BTW, rather than reverting someone's edits, as you did with Matt Yeager's as you stated above, try asking for a citation first, and if not provided within a reasonable time then revert: it's just common sense and common courtesy.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

You are the only one here confusing result and significance. As stated above, the battle of Puebla had no decisive result as the invasion continued and Puebla was captured later. My point of view is sourced : "It wasn't a Major Strategic Victory in the Struggle Against the French"[4], "The Battle of Puebla was not very important to Mexico from a military standpoint."[5], or "Although the Battle of Puebla amounted to little from a military sense – it merely postponed the inevitable victory of the French army,"[6]. Yours is not. You're confusing with the significance of the battle : sure, it became a symbolic Mexican victory (David against Goliath like) and it became a national myth in Mexico, but that's not the point. The point is that the result of the battle was very limited. UltimaRatio (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The battle was decisive: If you are going to use the argument (which, to start with, is your argument and thus OR) that the battle was not a decisive Mexico victory based on the fact that Mexico was captured later (by the French within the context of the French intervention in Mexico) then you would have to accomodate the fact the battle was decisive based on the fact that Mexico was "re-captured" back from the French later yet by the Mexicans still within the scope of the French intervention in Mexico. Please do not remove the "decisive" and related comments from the article unless you can come up with sources that state your point. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

My point of view is not "OR", it is sourced by four different quotes. While you have no supporting evidence. Have you even read the link you gave ??? It states that this battle was not decisive : "It wasn't a Major Strategic Victory in the Struggle Against the French"[7]. Unless you come with some more consistent arguments, I'll have to restore the previous version of the article. UltimaRatio (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC). See also : "Puebla was not a brilliant tactical triumph" [8].UltimaRatio (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Size of armies" edits by Wikigi

Wikigi, please stop changing the figures on the sizes of the armies, making it look like the Mexican army was twice as large as the French army (12,000 Mexican to 6,500 French), instead of the other way around. You and I discussed this at great lengths in October 2012, HERE. Your French source just isn't what every other source states. Every reference to troop numbers states the Mexicans were significantly outnumbered. As such your edit is incorrect.

Your edit also introduced a contradiction in that the lead states "but the Mexican victory at Puebla against a much better equipped and larger French army..." but, with your edit, the infobox now states "Mexican forces: Between 4,500[3] and 12,000 soldiers VS. French forces: 6,500 soldiers". 12,000 Mexican to 6,500 French is not a smaller Mexican army against a larger French army.

If you want to dispute this, you can follow the steps in WP:DISPUTE. Mercy11 (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the OTHER sources your are referring to are all Mexican. You cannot turn a blind eye to French sources just because they don't suit your personal views on History, whatever your expertise on the matter is (you must have led some extensive research on this particular event..). At least, Your Honour is "allowing" the information to remain one way or another in the article, unlike what you did a couple years ago when all was deleted and I thank you for that.. On our side of the pond, these published documents are as good as the ones published in Mexico and that's how it should be. - Wikigi | talk to me | 07:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid because Mexican or not, no authority - from the mainstream press and historians to the US Congress - state that the Mexican army was smaller than the French army. No offense, but you really need to get that thru your head. The mainstream of the world is stating that there were far fewer Mexican troops than French troops, and the article needs to state that and not some different statement lacking weight. From there, the article needs to be consistent and not contradict itself. Please give that some thought.

For clarification, the problem with your sources is not that they are French. The problem is not one of the nationality of the sources. All sources are welcome despite their nationality so long as they are secondary and reliable. The problem is that your sources are WP:PRIMARY, and thus invalid. Still, since you appear hung up of the nationality issue, if you want a listing of non-Mexican sources that state the Mexicans were far few than the French, just say the word.

You made a footnote comment in the article stating that there are sources that state there were 12,000 Mexican troops. This being an encyclopedia, I believe that such footnote reference is as far as the article needs to take the difference in troop numbers issue because anything beyond that would most likely run into conflict with WP:OR because those footnote sources are Primary. That said, changing the troop number in the infobox is not negotiable because, per WP:IBX, the infobox exists "to summarize key facts that appear in the article" - and, per WP:RS, facts must be sourced by reliable secondary sources when there is a challenge.

Pond or not, I have no agenda here. I am neither Mexican nor French (nor American). I am looking at the secondary sources and they all state there were fewer Mexican that French troops. They also state the French was the most powerful army in the world and that the defeat (short-lived as it was) stunned politicians and world leaders of the time. Sort of what would happen today if the Americans invaded Cuba, Vietnam, or North Korea,,, and the Cubans, Vietnamese or Koreans defeat the Americans... Mercy11 (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I specifically provided a primary source (General Gustave Léon Niox book) AND a secondary source (Peter Hicks, Fondation Napoléon) for this very reason. So if "that" is the basis for your argument you just proved yourself wrong. Footnote is fine anyway, it just needed to be mentioned. Now since you are bringing up Vietnam, the Vietnamese won a war already.. just saying.. and guess what? the numbers of casualties, or armed forces on each side, vary wildly from one source to the other, pretty much like numbers for the more recents US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.. - Wikigi | talk to me | 11:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course the Vietnamese won a war already (and the Cubans foiled American attempts at an invasion, and the Koreans left a sour taste on American military officers given the armistice that the American - the most powerful army in the world nowadays - had to settle for). You and I are both affirming the same thing as to that. I don't see disagreement among us two in those comparable (to a point at least) military conflicts. In any event, as to the primary source you point out, again, we can't use them in Wikipedia. I appreciate your understanding. As to Peter Hicks' article published by Fondation Napoléon, I too agree with you that it would rank as a secondary, and thus, an admissible, reliable source. The only problem that would I point out is that it is the only dissenting voice out there in terms of the numbers on the Mexican size. Hopefully we can both agree that a footnote indicating that Hicks has different numbers for the Mexican side is sufficient under the circumtances. Mercy11 (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Puebla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090426114625/http://www.alpineavalanche.com:80/articles/2008/05/01/news/news03.txt to http://www.alpineavalanche.com/articles/2008/05/01/news/news03.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Puebla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324134837/http://www.colegiorex.mx/eventos/dia-de-la-batalla-de-puebla to http://www.colegiorex.mx/eventos/dia-de-la-batalla-de-puebla
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512133833/http://www.sanmiguelguide.com/batalla-de-puebla.htm to http://www.sanmiguelguide.com/batalla-de-puebla.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HIST273

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Triston McGowan (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jdhamptontlu.

— Assignment last updated by Jdhamptontlu (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)