Talk:Battle of Bang Bo (Zhennan Pass)

Confusion

Did the French have less than 1000 rifles, or the Chinese? It's unclear --AW 07:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The recently deleted portions, while relevant to an article about the Sino-French War, are *not* relevant to an article about this pattile in particular.

Gambetta?

Uh how could the Tonkin Affair improve Gambetta's position, if he died 3 years before?--Menah the Great 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Participation of Black Flag Army?

In March 1885 Liu Yongfu's Black Flag Army was part of the Yunnan Army facing the French on the Red and Clear Rivers around Hung Hoa and Tuyen Quang. There were no Black Flag units with the Kwangsi Army at Bang Bo.

Djwilms (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

Sir,

The description of the Battle of Bang Bo (Zhennan Pass) does not fit with the one given in the article on Feng Zicai - note that the latter article does not include any reference, but may have been influenced by the prolific and highly unreliable Mitch Williamson 1884-1885 Franco-Chinese War.

The numbers given in the paragraph “casualties” in Battle of Bang Bo (Zhennan Pass) (146 killed in the five units mentioned) do not tally with the number of casualties on the French side at the top (74 killed, less than the 79 killed in Verdier’s brigade - see Harmant 1892 p.235). Moreover, on 21 August 2009, anonymous "66.108.141.251" has still reduced without any explanation the number to 63 (and other figures as well). I did not revert it because the original figure seems wrong.

More generally, are you sure the numbers of casualties you provide for "the French" include those of Vietnamese units under French command?

--André de StCoeur (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andre,

French casualties were 74 killed and 213 wounded. The lower figure of 63 dead in the infobox is wrong, and I have amended it accordingly. I'm not sure where it comes from. I thought at first it might be just the French casualties on 24 March instead of on both days, but there were 70 French dead on 24 March, not 63.

The casualty figures include those for the Tonkinese Rifles, who were scarcely engaged. The French used them to bring in the wounded rather than in the front line. Here's a convenient summary of the Bang Bo casualties from my book:

The 2nd Brigade's casualties on 24 March were 70 killed and 188 wounded, bringing its total losses during the two-day battle to 74 killed and 213 wounded. Seven officers were either killed or mortally wounded during the heavy fighting on 24 March, and six more were seriously wounded. The butcher's bill was not quite as bad as at Hoa Moc, but it was worse than in any of the battles of the Lang Son campaign, even Bac Vie. Unsurprisingly, the unfortunate 111th Line Battalion suffered the heaviest losses (31 dead and 58 wounded), but Diguet's Legion battalion (12 dead and 68 wounded) ran it a close second. The 143rd Battalion also suffered appreciable casualties (17 dead and 48 wounded), as did Schoeffer's Legion battalion (12 dead and 34 wounded). There were only a handful of casualties among the Tonkinese riflemen and the two French artillery batteries, but they included chef de bataillon Tonnot of the Tonkinese Rifles, who was wounded.

I don't have Harmant immediately to hand (you mention his figure of 79 dead, I'll need to look at that again), but I have based my casualty figures on a careful comparison of several French primary sources for the battle of Bang Bo, including Harmant: Armengaud, Lang-Son, 40–58; Harmant, La vérité sur la retraite de Lang-Son, 211–35; Lecomte, Lang-Son, 428–53 and 455; Maury, Mes campagnes au Tong-King, 185–203; and Notes sur la campagne du 3e bataillon de la légion étrangère au Tonkin, 32–40. I have also taken into account discussion in secondary sources, including Bonifacy, À propos d’une collection des peintures chinoises, 23–6 and Thomazi's two accounts (Histoire militaire de l’Indochine française, 111–12 and La conquête de l’Indochine, 254–7).

I have seen the grotesque description of Bang Bo in the article Feng Zicai, and I will replace it with an accurate account when I have time.

Thanks for pointing this out. Constant vigilance against the forces of chaos seems to be necessary on Wikipedia.

Djwilms (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

One quick question - there is no citation supporting the contention that the Chinese account of casualties was in fact erroneous. It is certainly not uncommon for Chinese commanders to inflate casualty numbers but to assume that the French did exactly the contrary would be groundless. I suggest that we include both the Chinese and the French accounts and will do so absent reasonable objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.80.100 (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The inflated French casualty figures come from the Chinese Wikipedia article on the battle of Bang Bo. The Chinese demonstrably multiplied French casualties at the Battle of Tamsui several fold, and a moment's reflection will persuade any unprejudiced reader that a force of slightly under 1,500 troops is hardly likely to have lost two-thirds of its strength in a single action. French casualties can be calculated precisely from a range of different French sources, and these sources cohere impressively. Their congruence contrasts strikingly with the Chinese figures, which were simply pulled out of the air. I have therefore reinstated the sentences you removed (with a link to my article Battle of Tamsui), because I think it is important that the version in Chinese Wikipedia is eventually corrected. I can't stop Chinese contributors from spouting propaganda if they want to, but I can at least point out that their figures are absurd.

If you wish, I could transfer them to the section 'Casualties' (which anyway needs a paragraph on Chinese casualties), in the context of a discussion of the differing French and Chinese estimates of French casualties. I could state specifically that the French estimates all concur, and that little credence should be placed in the Chinese estimate (a) because it is fundamentally improbable, and (b) because they lied at Tamsui. I could give a citation for the Chinese claim of 300 French dead at Tamsui (as opposed to the true figure of 17 dead and 49 wounded), thereby backing up my contention. That might be the way to resolve the issue.

Djwilms (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't get my point. Here's a quote of what you said, "I can't stop Chinese contributors from spouting propaganda." Is that right? All the Chinese sources were propaganda and were inferior to French sources from the same period? How did you know that the French sources did not understate French casualties? You mentioned that the French sources were unanimous in their estimates. So were the Chinese sources. You said little credence should be placed in the Chinese estimate "because it is fundamentally improbable." Can you explain that statement? That Chinese sources habitually exaggerate and French don't? Can you enlighten me as to why that unfounded statement is *not* racist or sinophobic?

Okay, here's the way I propose we resolve this. You go ahead and remove all Chinese sources that you do not believe is properly supported by citation and then remove your opinion that Chinese sources overstate French casualties since that is, well, your opinion and wikipedia is not a place for you to state your opinion. I am going to let you remove those sections of your opinion out of courtesy and you have one day to do that. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.104.245 (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And I don't like you basing everything on your "moment of reflection." Can you provide a citation for that? If not, delete all your reflection from wikipedia. No one care for your reflection on anything. We want facts. The fact is, French and Chinese sources differ. Period. Say that and nothig else. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.104.245 (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You yourself said 'it is certainly not uncommon for Chinese commanders to inflate casualty numbers', so I'm not sure why you are getting so upset at my saying so, especially when I can cite evidence for a specific occasion (Tamsui) when they did just that. The occasion was notorious because the Chinese figures were published as 'official' figures in the Peking Gazette, while everybody in Tamsui knew the true figure, because the French dead (17 men) were buried there. The European residents of Tamsui excused it, because they knew that no Chinese general ever got anywhere by being modest.

I have studied around fifty different French books on the Sino-French War, and while the French often exaggerated the extent of their victories and claimed defeats as draws, they did not, as far as I can see, revise casualty figures downwards. Unlike China, France was a democracy in 1885, and it is highly improbable that thousands of French officers and soldiers conspired in a concerted attempt to downplay French casualties. A conspiracy on such a scale could hardly have been kept secret. As I wrote above, the many different French sources cohere impressively on the subject of French casualties. This argument from coherence is a very strong one.

During the Sino-French War China was an autocracy, whose leaders could say (within limits) what they liked (look at the absurd claims they made about the Battle of Zhenhai). France was a democracy, whose leaders were far more constrained. I do not see that race has anything to do with it.

Djwilms (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Being a democracy has nothing to do with the accuracy of the records kept by the historians from a certain country. For example, the American South (and to a lesser extent the Apartheid South Africa) had a liberal democratic form of government, yet that certainly did not prevent Southern historians from being biased.

Bottom line - the wikipedia does not allow for the citing of opinions as facts. Please cite your opinion as opinion. If you want you can cite your own published work on this. I understand that you will be publishing a book on the Sino French War very soon. If your book covers the matter you are certainly welcome to cite to your manuscripts. The MLA manual provides for the proper citation format for unpublished works.

You yourself admitted that your assessment of the veracity of French and Chinese sourcs was based on what you referred to as "as far as I see," viz, your *opinion.* That's not scholarship. It is your opinion. While you are entitled to having your own opinion, you must cite it as such.

Basically your whole argument boiled down to: (1) Chinese was an "autocracy" (whatever that means); (2) French was a democracy; and therefore (3) French sources were more trustworthy than Chinese sources. Can you please explain to me how that is a legitimate syllogism?

Since you have violated wikipedia policy of no publication of personal opinion I am going to delete your opinion. I am going to leave the French numbers since they are properly cited but I will not allow you to vandalize wikipedia by publishing your personal opinion as fact.

If you don't like this outcome or want to avoid an editorial war, please ask for mediation or arbitration from the wikipedia. Thanks.

P.S. You said that the Peking Gazette's number was false while "everyone in Tamsui knew the true figure." Again without a cite. By everyone I take as every Frenchman. But what about every Chinese man?? Are you going to provide cite as to every Chinese frontline commentator's observation too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.104.245 (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got time to deal with this today, but I'll get back to it shortly. In the meantime, since you believe that statements of fact should be backed up by a citation, perhaps you would like to amend the Chinese Wikipedia article's infobox which claims, without a citation, that French casualties at Bang Bo were 'nearly 1,600'. I'm not confident enough in my Chinese to do it myself. You can use the citation I have given in this article for the French casualties.

Djwilms (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's easy enough. I am tied up too but the 1,600 figure came from Professor Fan Wenlan's History of Modern China and likely corroborated by histories covering the same period by Profs. Hu Sheng and Jian Bozan. (Personally, I don't see any problem with that figure since armies got routed all the time. I think the movies Waterloo (Bondarchuk) and Barry Lyndon (Kubrick) depicted that brutal fact pretty effectively. Also, most Chinese textbooks tend to UP-play Chinese casualties and downplay foreign casualties in wars that broke out between 1839 and 1949 since the Qings are accepted as the bad guys among contemporary Chinese historians. As the whipping boy Qing corruption is often cited as the first and foremost reason for the decline of traditional China post-industrial revolution. Examples including descriptions of the Sino-British Opium War, where Fan Wenlan gleefully wrote about how the British entered Guangzhou after firing only a single volley, etc.)

I'm fine with the French documentation of French casualties as long as they are cited as such (viz, French sources). I think you did that already by using footnotes.

I think our difference (or prior difference) is our respective emphasis on form and substance. Since you may be the one more knowledgeable in the history of the war, you pass substantive judgment pretty freely and that was reflected in the casual way you dropped off-the-cuff remarks on the substance of the war. Being your reader I focus more on your form of argument. For me, as it is for wikipedia, all "content must be verifiable." "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

There are 2 policies behind this requirement. The first is to safeguard factual accuracy and to distinguish facts from opinions. Opinions are inherently subjective since judgment (no matter how well balanced) has to be applied to raw facts. The difficulty in assessing facticity has been elaborated by many modern philosophers from the Positivists and Wittgenstein to the Critical Theorists. Thus, when an author wishes to express an opinion on wikipedia, he is required to present it as opinion and as evidence to show that that opinion in fact did exist among certain commentators, and not as evidence to prove the fact alleged in that opinion. That would be hearsay. I'm sure you've followed courtroom melodrama at some point in your life. Counsel raising their hands saying "objection, my Lord, hearsay!" refers exactly to that.

Second, wikipedia prohibited the publication of original research. So, if your conclusion is based on your original research you are not permitted to say it here on wikipedia because then you will be gaming the system, using the wikipedia as a free vehicle for you to express your thoughts. That does not belong to an encyclopedia, it belogs to a journal in your field, a newspaper article or your own weblog. 38.97.80.100 (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your general approach. Despite the first impression you may have formed of me, I am in fact a very careful historian, and I share your concern that statements on Wikipedia should be backed up by citations. Unfortunately, and thanks for giving me the source for the figure 'nearly 1,600', not all historians are infallible. It is impossible for the French to have lost 'nearly 1,600' men at Bang Bo, because the French 2nd Brigade entered China with only 1,500 infantry and 12 cannon. Here, for example, is Thomazi's statement:

Instead of waiting for further, more dangerous, attacks, General de Négrier judged that the best way of forestalling them was to take the offensive. He therefore decided to advance on Bang Bo, ten kilometres beyond the Gate of China, where the Kwangsi Army had its headquarters. It was a hazardous operation, given the disproportion in strength between the French and the Chinese, and would have had more chance of succeeding if de Négrier had waited for reinforcements of around 1,500 men who were marching up to join the 2nd Brigade. But he hoped that an immediate counterattack would take the Chinese generals by surprise. As he was obliged to leave around 1,000 men to guard Lang Son and Dong Dang, he set off on the morning of 23 March with only 1,500 troops: two line infantry battalions, two Legion battalions, two companies of Tonkinese riflemen, one and a half batteries of artillery, and the platoon of chasseurs d’Afrique at the head of the advance guard.

The 2nd Brigade was far weaker at Bang Bo than during the Lang Son campaign, when its numbers usually fluctuated between 2,000 and 2,500 men. I can give you exact figures for each battalion's strength on 23 March 1885 from about six separate sources I have ready to hand in the office, and about ten more at home. Four days later the 2nd Brigade defeated the Kwangsi Army at Ky Lua. Hardly likely if it had been lost 'nearly 1,600 men' at Bang Bo!

Very few European or Chinese historians have studied the Sino-French War, and fewer still have looked at both the French and the Chinese sources. I very much doubt whether Prof. Fan got his figures for the Bang Bo casualties from a study of the French sources. I suspect that they derive from exaggerated claims made by the Chinese generals at the time. However, as you say, that is merely my opinion.

Since you have a citation for the figure of 'nearly 1,600 men', I would be happy to include a sentence to that effect in the article, under 'Casualties'. I will leave it to the reader to judge between the French estimates and Prof. Fan's.

Could you also let me have a citation for the estimate of Chinese casualties in the Chinese Wikipedia article, please. Ironically, it seems to be higher than French estimates of Chinese casualties! I'll need to check, but to my recollection the French put Chinese casualties at between 1,000 and 2,000. I need to do a balancing paragraph on Chinese losses under 'Casualties'.

While I'm at it, my statement that Chinese remember the battle of Zhennanguan with pride is merely my personal opinion too. The citation I give for that statement is merely a citation for Feng Zicai's words, not for what modern Chinese think about the battle. I should probably delete that sentence, as Lung Chang does not say in so many words that the battle is remembered with pride. Judging from the reaction of most of my Hong Kong and mainland Chinese colleagues at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, where I work, most Chinese have never heard of the battle ...

Djwilms (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I will try to come up with the page number from Fan and other's work.

I am not sure if there was an accurate estimation of Chinese casualties in the same book. My (not very educated) guess is that the Chinese troops during that period probably kept better tally of the severed heads of their opponents than their own casualties due to their lack of logistical support and record keeping. Here's an observation that is not entirely on point but may shed light on the battle - Feng Zicai's troops did not belong to the "modernized" portion of Qing troops known as the "Huai" Army (which eventually morphed into the (in)famous Beiyang Army). According to the Chinese sources I have access to Feng's troops was a pre-modern/pre-'Self Strengthening Movement' unit and had to rely primarily on bayonet charges and lancers during the battle. It was reported, for example, that Feng himself led one of the lancer charges. It thus did not surprise me that the Chinese suffered heavily during the battle. At the end of the day I view these colonialist/anti-colonialist conflicts more as political struggles than traditional warfares - to quote one scholar (Thomas Schelling) here victory is determined not by how many enemies one is able to cut down but how much pain one can absorb. Since the French were less capable of absorbing pain than, say, the Algerians in 1962, the French lost the Algerian War. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict presents the other extreme. Here, both the Israelis and the Arabs were highly capable of enduring the excruciating pains of unending suicidal bombing and massive retaliatory strikes. A similar argument could be made about the Sino-French (or even the Opium) War. Had the Chinese held out and resort to scorched earth tactics (cf. the Russians in 1812) the Europeans would likely have to move on.

38.97.80.100 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of Bang Bo (Zhennan Pass)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Can this article be regraded, please? I've spent hours working on it, and I don't think it should class as a stub any longer. Djwilms (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)