Talk:Battle of Somosierra

Old talk

Note that there were two Polish charges at Somosierra

First one took all the batteries, but because the last one was reached by only few uhlans, Spanish were able to regain it. That's why second charge was needed, which recaptured last artillery position.

Also, Polish squadron was nto destroyed. It's losses were comparable in scale to the losses suffered by other units during Napoleonic wars. I will provide more info at Monday. Szopen 09:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

More data

Ok, more data, at Monday I will moved it into the article:

The most controversial part of the battle is Polish charge of chaveau-legers. The controversies around it can be divided into issuea dealing with the numbers of cannons and their placement, Napoleon's orders, question of who commanded the charge, number of soldiers charging, Polish losses and most important, the effect of the charge.

The placement of the Spanish cannons

Don Benito San Juan had 16 cannons in his disposition. In some western accounts, based mostly on relations of French officers, it is assumed that all this cannons were placed in the very top of the Somosierra way. However, it was not the case. All the cannons placed on the top would not cover whole the terrain, only some 600-700metres, and would allow French to march undisturbed through 3/4 of the way.

However, relations do report that Napoleon, when looking on the battlefield, was under artillery fire. Also reports of cheaveau-legers mention not one, but FOUR batteries. The first one was defending the entrance to the Somosierra way, then two others placed on the way and fourth, the last, placed on the top. It was usually assumed that all batteries had four cannons, but author of the monography (Bielecki) after making local vision on the battlefield and analysing other reports concluded it was impossible. French artillery, when ordered to fire, could not use more than two cannons on the time. Also Kozietulski and Chlopicki, two cheavau-legers participating in the charge, clearly stated that in the first battery they took TWO cannons. So, the first three batteries were two cannons each, for more there was simply no place. The fourth was the largest and had ten cannons. French officers, who after the charge saw it, clearly memorised only those last, the largest battery, maybe they even not see or not noticed the others.

Napoleon orders

There are no writtern orders of Napoleon. Kozietulski, who was commanding the 3rd squadron at the day, mentioned he only received order "letka jazda klusem" (spelling as in original, in English: "light cavalry ride") and only passing by emperor position they've heard "Polonais, prenez moi ces canons" - "Poles, take THOSE cannons".

It seems that Napoleon ordered taking only FIRST battery, to open way for his infantry. Also Kozietulski seemed to understand this order that way, because when he lost his horse after taking first battery he reported to the emperor that he fulfilled his orders (acc. to his relation written directly few days after the battle, that this, the relation which is most reliable since not affected by later controversies). Taking first battery was difficult, but within cavalry capabilities. However, after taking first battery cheavau-legers found themselves under fire from other battery, so they had two choices: to withdraw, or to attack further. Dziewanowski, who took the command after Kozietulski lost his horse, decided to press the attack. After taking second and third battery situation was repeated and finally squadron took all batteries. However, only few chevau-legers reached the last battery and Spanish were able to recapture it. It was then when Napoleon saw the chance and immedietely used it, sending another squadrons. Those squadrons had it much easier task, since first three batteries were already taken, but still they had to capture the last one.

Who commanded the charge

13th bulletin mentioned that cheavau-legers were commanded by Montbrun. It's not true; both Polish charge participants and Datancourt in his relation stressed that this was not the case. Datancourt mentioned in his relation that Montbrun in conversations with him himself was laughing from that idea. Yet French historian Thiers gave him the honours of leading the charge, which caused the protest by Polish living participants of the charge.

Also de Segur in his memories wrote that he was commanding the charge, but his relations were often described as unreliable and again both Datancourt and Poles denied his role.

First charge was led by Kozietulski, but he lost his horse after taking first battery. Only then squadron was joined by Niegolewski, who with his soldiers was on reconeissance. Then charge was commanded by Dziewanowski, and when he fell from the horse, Krasinski. The charge to last battery was led by Niegolewski, who then survived almost by miracle when Spanish attacked the cannons and recaptured then (he received nine wounds from bayonnettes and wound on the head; he himself stated he was shot at in the head (!), but in documents it is mentioned it is wound from a sabre).

The second charge was led by Lubienski, who then tried to give himself the whole glory, trying to minimise the role of the third squadron (while Niegolewski tried to show that he took the canons and Lubienski had it so easy so Spanish were shooting at him with candies).

Charge effects

French officers tried to minimise effect of the Polish charge, saying that all the success should be given to French infantry of Ruffin. Yet still 13th bulletin of Great army mentioned lead role of Polish cheavau-legers. It must be also stressed, that even first charge was able to took all four batteries, even if the success was temporary and the last was quickly recaptured, which allowed French infantry to press their attack, and that the second charge took the last battery again which caused en-masse retreat of Spanish Andalusian irregular militia and in the effect retreat of the whole army. It must be noted that Spanish artillery men were unusually brave and that they preferred to die than abandon their position - but no Polish relation mentioned any fight with Spanish militia. Militiman just left their position seeing how seemingly easily Poles took the artillery positions. In the fog they couldn't see how few Poles were on the top.

To summarise, the Somosierra charge was spectacular success achieved with minimal cost from the viewpoint of the Napoleon - even though Polish losses were relative high (see below).

Number of soldiers charging

Usually it is said that the number of Poles taking part in the charge was 125, or 140; However, the registers of the unit clearly show that the state of the squadron was about 216. To that number must be added members of other squadrons, in total about 450.

Polish losses

The unit registers show the deaths (not counting the officers) 12 Poles from 3rd squadron (plus 2 others who died from wounds), and 2 from 1st squadron and 4 from 2nd squadron (plus one who died later from wounds). With officers, total losses were 18 dead and 11 wounded, from which 5 later died from wounds. Those were large losses, but all Polish squadrons were operational within few days after the battle. Datancourt mentioned in his relation 57 dead and wounded. The Poles were probably much helped by the fog, which made it harder for Spanish to target them. While large losses, it was still relatively low cost for such spectacular victory.

Yet there are still some pseudo-history books which contain the phrases like "Polish squadron was destroyed".

based on: Robert Bielecki "Somosierra 1808", Wyd. MON W-wa 1989 Szopen 06:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: It must be stressed that only first battery with two cannons was shooting before the charge; only after taking first battery Polish cavalryman were in the range of the latter battery.

Though Napoleon decision wa sprobably also influenced by so called human factor. Earlier this day Poles were sent to capture prisoner, but they were repelled by Spanish and instead LOST one of theirs; though they finally captured one prisoner, it was then taken by French who taken also all the honour for it, so Napoleon was clearly enraged by Polish failure (since captured Pole could provide a lot of information for Spanish, while not much good be taken from Spanish prisoner).

A lot of misinformations

I am sorry, but you are wrong in many points of your relation:

1. Col. Wincenty Krasinski the c/o of the regiment, was not with the regiment at the time of the battle, still having good time in Paris. In such circumstances he could not participate in the charge. The false information is taken after January Suchodolski second paint copy, to this day presented at the Krasinski's museum in Opinogora, Poland. On this copy of his original paint Suchodolski placed Krasinski in the center of the work, and created the legens, which is completelu untrue.
2. There was only one charge on the Somosierra Pass! The misunderstanding is going from two very important (and as I see not known to the author) factors - first/ every day during the campaign one of the Imperial Guard horse companies (or half-squadrons) served as emperor's escort. This particular day the half-squadron of the 3rd squadron of Polish chevaulegers with 125 horsemen was in service. The c/o of half-squadron - Niegolewski - was sent for close recconaissance, and was substituted with Kozietulski. That is why Niegolewski was leading the charge on 3rd and 4th battery (he recognized - returning from his reconnaisance mission - that the charge is in progress, and run forward). Second/ the Somossierra Pass is a wide opening between mountains, and in the time used mostly as a grazzing fields by locals; to the pass the only road (8 yds wide [enough for 4 light cannons, and I read everything Kozietulski wrote about it not seeing any word about 2 cannons - it is simply untruth], fenced with 3 ft high stony walls and lined by poplar trees) was going up in a mode of zigzag line. The Spanish batteries were placed on angles of mentioned zigzag to cover the distance to the next battery.

Chevaulegers (not uhlans!!! for God sake) had no choice but to continue the charge without any stopping to aviod to be masacred by the next battery. The unspoken suggestion, that after taking the first battery horsmen stopped, is false. Horses were moving forward with the highest speed, and riders had not such possibility like stop them and return back. You have to understand the nature of the cavalry charge, where horses and horsmen are working like one body, one organism dedicated only to succede or to die. And at last: there was only one charge, simply because only one half-squadron was on duty that day. The true is that only a few chevaulegers reached the top, but they were saved not by another Polish squadrons (which were not present at the battlefield), but by French forces stepping just after them. Napoleon was not stupid. He knew that 125 horsmen may succede charging, but not keeping the pass. That is why he sent another units just after Poles. Sincerely belissarius 03:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This webpage http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/virtual/c_somosierra.html offers a slightly different version, in wich the carge by the 3rd was actually stopped due to too high losses and retreated until the arrival of further cavalry reinforcements, and reformed into a second charge by the time the French infantry was already engaging the fight. I'm no expert whatsoever in this or any battle, but seems to me a more plausible scenario, and is based on a Polish account, so what do you people think about it?

Also, I would say that in order to take the batteries they had to stop to fight for each one of them, so it was not a single non-stop charge in any case, and I have to disagree with you Besissarius and say that retreating to reform and attack again was indeed very common in cavalry warfare —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.116.162.170 (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Czy walczyły wojska księstwa ?

Pułk polskich szwoleżerów był częścią gwardii napoleońskiej. Nie należał więc chyba do wojsk Księstwa Warszawskiego ? Czy w bitwie wzięły udział jednostki z armii księstwa ? Jeśli nie, to chyba należy usunąć z pola "Combatants" wpis "Duchy of Warsaw" ?

PS. Brak za to inf. o udziale wojsk Księstwa np. w art. dot. oblężenia Saragossy, czy bitwy pod Talavera de la Reyna, gdzie takowe walczyły. Dobrze piszę ?

Fanzolisz. Zle szkryflosz. Hopie, tukej sie godo English.

Padej nom sam gibko: skondes sie Kowalski urwol, from which tannenbaum ?

References needed

I don't know anything about this topic, but it's obvious that this article needs more references and citations. Not only is there simply a lack of sources, but some of the information seems to contradict other information, and some of the wording just doesn't make any sense. Citations would, at least, help make sure the facts are straight. I've added a tag to the top of the article. 134.121.241.139 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed para.

Have removed the following until someone can a) reference it, and b) de-hype it:

Many western authors have assumed that Napoleon had gone out of his mind in ordering the Poles to charge batteries of 16 cannon over several kilometers of extremely difficult terrain. Others, however, think Napoleon ordered only the closest battery to be taken, in order to open the way for his infantry, and that Kozietulski had misunderstood the order. No matter, o

--Technopat (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

B-class review: failed

For WP:POLAND. Agree with previous milhist review, the citations are insufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

relations?

What is this word "relations" used in the article. Could it be a poor translation from Polish? Should it be "account"?

IceDragon64 (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Could it refer to their relatives? "Account" is already in that sentence, so probably not.--Technopat (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, it's a poor translation from Polish. Relacja has the -cja suffix, most often found in all the -tion words in English. So it has the same meaning as the Latin relatio (narration, account), except the English version of that word means something else.//Halibutt 21:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

B2 = No due to omissions

It's hard to reconcile this article with the account in Charles Oman's Volume 1 of A History of the Peninsular War. It sounds like the battle was a Polish cavalry charge witnessed by a few spectators from Ruffin's division. Certainly the cavalry charge was the exciting part and the Poles suffered the most casualties, but there were three regiments of French infantry closing with the Spanish defenses. I'm setting B2 = no (omissions) because it (a) omits any background or explanation why the battle was fought (b) omits mention of the forces involved, except for the Polish regiment, (c) and hardly mentions the contribution of Ruffin's French infantry. This article needs more work and more citations. Djmaschek (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Strike (a). Some background was given, so I was wrong. There is another issue with the article. It sounds like a thesis paper suggesting that Western accounts (i.e Oman, Chandler) are wrong. This is fine as long as the material is cited, but citations are incomplete. Djmaschek (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency in numbers/description

The opening paragraph says “a heavily outnumbered Spanish detachment of regulars, volunteers and artillery under Benito de San Juan”, but then the Strength field says French/Spanish/Warsaw strength was 8,000, while Spanish was 12,000. 98.57.28.177 (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)