Talk:Battlefield

Merger of Draft:Battlefield into Battle or Battlespace

Draft:Battlefield → Battle (Discuss) — user:Auntieruth55 19:32, 15 July 2015‎ (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose merging to Battle

@Auntieruth55: The reason this needs to be a separate article is that not all battles occur on a battlefield (battles at sea, for example, or hypothetical battles in space), and that a location may continue to be considered a "battlefield" for historic purposes long after any battle is done. bd2412 T 19:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. A battle is not the same thing as a battlefield. Battlefields remain long after battles have concluded, and have their own concerns separate from battles, such as artefacts, UXDs, battlefield plundering, battlefield reclamation, etc. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support If you read the article Battle, you'll see a large section deals with the concept of field of battle as a space of battle, and necessarily limited to a land-based battle-field. As it stands, this article adds nothing to the concept of "battlefield" and the related problems of reclamation etc. I suggest you expand the article Battle, or the article Battlespace The material can always be broken out later but right now having this stub only confuses the issue. auntieruth (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The core problem is that Battlefield is currently a disambiguation page filled with topics of much less importance than the actual concept of a "battlefield". The entire purpose for having a draft is to build an article that eventually will displace that disambiguation page. bd2412 T 19:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Battlespace is entirely devoted to fields of battle (of any kind of battle). I think that is the proper merge for this stub. auntieruth (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Battlespace seems to be an entirely new and distinct concept all its own. If these were to be merged, then battlespace should be moved to battlefield and laid out as a subtopic of it, but there is no concept of "historic battlespace" or "battlespace preservation" to discuss, nor is there a rich history of "battlespaces". bd2412 T 16:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: Battlespace is a military concept not just a word. It requires it's own full article. IQ125 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Battle is a quite separate concept, & battlespace is a modern conception of battlefield, with extensions based on contemporary technology not in place for the vast bulk of historical encounters. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I think that it is quite a different "concept" from battle and also has a particular domain - land. There is then the historical context of the battlefield and preservation of battlefields. Although the modern domain is less distinct with respect to land, air or sea, a modern battle may still be primarily in the air, on the land or at sea and the battlefield is predominantly a land battle. It could be tucked into Battle but I think it is sufficiently conceptually different that it warrants its own space. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I understand what you're saying. Although I'm not changing my mind, let's see where this goes. auntieruth (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

phases of war

I am thinking that it might be appropriate to mention the four phases of [conventional] war (advance, attack, defence and withdrawal) and how these relate to the site of a battle (ie the battlefield) and who chooses the site of the battle. Unfortunately, I don't have a ref to the four phases or how it affects the choice of site, though I could probably write something. In some ways, this would fit into the quote from Rogiat and provide an alternative perspective. Will give it some more thought if there is some concurrence and perhaps some support with basic refs. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Problem with chariots

The text currently includes this sentence :

Contrary to common belief, in the Ancient Greek era, fighting was not done from chariots: they acted only as transports, with troops fighting dismounted.

The first sentence is problematical. "Contrary to popular belief" isn't particularly encyclopedic (though I'd accept it in a footnote). The Ancient Greek era is vague and even if we take it as the post Bronze Age period, chariots were fought from and fighting chariots continued to exist in the time period elsewhere in the Ancient Mediterranean - the Carthaginians were using them in numbers in the 340s BCE and scythed chariots were used up to 60s BCE. Spread out to India and the Far East and the things are around later still.

I've therefore removed it.

On the subject of chariots, at Gaugamela Darius III is recorded as having bushes and obstacles removed from the battlefield to make a better surface for his scythed chariots, a fact which could fit here or in a section on field engineering to modify battlefields.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:User:Monstrelet|User:Monstrelet]] ([[User talk:User:Monstrelet#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/User:Monstrelet|contribs]])

I would concur (at face value), in that the article does not need controversial statements and that there are, probably much less controversial examples available. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't give you a firm source for it (tho it's probably in one of the Sparta-era books); my concern was for the belief chariots were always fought from. (That distinction may belong more on the chariot page than here anyhow.) The added mobility of chariots is the bigger issue for the change in battlefield selection, & if that stays in (with a passing mention of the changing uses), I won't argue. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think is an awkward one because to explain what you're trying to get across might need more space in this article than is proportionate. A couple of line footnote wouldn't be inappropriate, if you can tighten geography and timeframe. Monstrelet (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I could live with that. What I'm thinking is, this is in connection with the "contest of champions" angle: chariots weren't weapons, at first, they just allowed the selected combatants to meet on the field. Then the tech or tactics changed, & the battlefield changed. It's the change that's important, rather than the usage, & that's what I want to preserve. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Historic battlefields expansion?

Looking at the coverage, I think it might be possible to add a short section on battlefield archaeology - doesn't need to be long because it has its own page which could be linked, but useful perhaps for guiding the reader. Also, we have battlefield preservation but how about commemoration, which has a long history. For example, the Greeks would sometimes raise memorials on battlefields. See e.g. https://digitalt.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956.2/2968/Greek%20trophy%20monuments_Stroszeck.pdf?sequence=1 .In more recent times it has become common. Numerous commons images are available that could illustrate this e.g. Lion's mound at Waterloo Monstrelet (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If citing Stroszek, a fuller citation is here : Jutta Stroszeck, “Greek Trophy Monuments,” in Myth and Symbol II: Symbolic Phenomena in Ancient Greek Culture, ed. Synnøve des Bouvrie (Norway: The Norwegian Institute at Athens, 2004).

Ok, I've started a section. Please put examples of more modern memorials. Monstrelet (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Technology & the battlefield

While I'm appreciative of the thank, I do feel that section was getting a bit far afield from "battlefield". I'm not sure how to deal with the influence of technological changes. Nor am I sure how to deal with the issues of logistics, which also play a big role: the German WW1 invasion of France failed as a result, & the location of the battlefield is a product of that failure as much as it is of French action. So, too, ancient battles happened because of supplies; the Mongols fought where they did partly because they didn't transport fodder, they lived off the land. Some battles in the U.S. civil war were fought over supply wagons. The German failure in the Battle of the Ardennes in 1944 was partly because of lack of fuel & inability to capture more. The issues are getting into "battlefield management" or something, rather than "battlefield" as such. I'm not sure how to separate the tech, the logistics, & the place, or even if it's possible. If anybody has thoughts on the scope of the page, & if this kind of thing should be in or out, I'd like to hear it. I'm really not sure if I should add more in this vein. It may be there's room for a branch-out or sub-page, in time. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the thing to do here is to focus on the important questions - what is a battlefield, what factors lead to a particular plot of land becoming a battlefield, and what is their significance to society - and build out from the idea of answering those questions. bd2412 T 18:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that. It's just that the number of factors leading to why a battlefield happens is legion, & mentioning all of them can be insanely difficult. For instance, why (again) was there a battle at Arnhem? On its face, because the Germans held the bridge. Take out the existence of airborne, you don't get a battle (or, more accurately, you don't get the one most people think of). Yet why there's a battle at Arnhem is about the airborne, & about planning (somebody wanted a battle there), & about intelligence (disbelieving reports from the Dutch underground), & about geography (there's a river that needs crossing...). Or Antwerp in 1944: there's a port, & a need to bring in supplies, & a front line close by, & long supply lines from Normandy... Or Gettysburg (again), the quintessential encounter battle: there's nothing there but shoes (which the CSA needs), yet there's Fed cav, & CSA cav isn't around (because Jeb Stuart's ego's been bruised by losing at Brandy Station & Lee hasn't reined him in), so Lee doesn't know how strong the Federals are, & he doesn't give decisive orders to take Culp's Hill on the first day...& if any of those things changes, there's maybe a minor exchange of fire between cav units & the big fight happens down the road somewhere at a town that we've never heard of... Okay, so, you want to define "battlefield". Which of these numerous factors isn't important? My point is, they all are; take out any of them, a particular battlefield ceases to happen. And all of them share characteristics. Now, maybe what's needed is a shift in focus (certainly in mine), to where the issue is factors in common for battlefields: planning, strategy, logistics, leadership, technology. Then, under those headings, tell off examples in various eras, & show the evolution of the battlefield under that rubric: technology, frex, enabling it to go from a field a few acres square to a city 100mi fro any friendly force in the midst of an enemy (in greater numbers) at a bridge, or to a jungle even further from friendly forces, surrounded by an enemy that outnumbers you; at the bridge, the technology is such you lose, but in the jungle, you win. The trouble is, does that illustrate "battlefield", or "battle", & is it too specific to the battle in question? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

One other factor crosses my mind, tho I'm not sure it can accurately be said to decide where a battle is fought: weather. The Germans only invaded Russia after the wet season (rasputitsa) ended, & Mongols routinely waited until fodder was available in fields; Ancient Greeks tried to get wars in before harvest (since most soliders were farmers). The "campaigning season" undoubtedly affected where battles took place. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ready for mainspace?

I think this is good enough to move to mainspace and continue work there. Thoughts? bd2412 T 18:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd have a check over illustrations first - are they positioned correctly with the text they complement? Also, they are all right ranged at the moment. Also, might be worth incorporating the conversation on the MILHIST page into this talk page to maintain a development record. Monstrelet (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Can I suggest you take a look at my hidden comments on potential sources, & try & track some of them down, first? As it is, they're just places to look, not actually cite-worthy...& TBH, I've got enough to do without taking the time to find that info, too... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the article is done, merely that it is in good enough shape to move from draft space to mainspace, and displace the existing disambiguation page. bd2412 T 01:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not strongly opposed, just thinking it's a bit premature yet. If I'm the lone voice on that, go ahead anyhow. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It may be that I'm the lone voice who thinks the article is in good enough shape to move to mainspace. I tend to think that it will draw more constructive attention there, however. bd2412 T 02:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

not opposed Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking, solve the significant issues with sourcing before putting it out. That said, I've seen other pages with bad sourcing, so... The argument for attracting more attention has merit. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

How about this is a middle position - we set a date to file the move request, say, a week from tomorrow, and shape it up as much as we can in that time. bd2412 T 03:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

If you were to post a notice saying something like, "We're nearly ready to move but for sourcing issues, & can you help fix them?", in hope of attracting some people with access, & time to do the searches, & if that doesn't see everything cleaned up in (say) a week, go ahead, I'd be more than satisfied, I think. (And it is too late in the day; there is no way I should allow myself to post such a run-on sentence...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: A move request has now been filed at Talk:Battlefield#Requested move 18 July 2017, requesting that the disambiguation page be moved to make way for this draft to be moved to mainspace. The move request discussion will run for seven days. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well, it was supposed to run for seven days, but appears to have been snow-closed early. Therefore, this article is now live, and should be worked like a live article. bd2412 T 03:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Photobombing?

As requested, I've shuffled the pictures a bit. Bit worried about Kitchener at Gallipoli. What is this picture illustrating within the topic? I'm not sure it fits where it is but don't know where to shift it to. Monstrelet (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Kitchener at Gallipoli illustrates the principle of the commander of forces being situated on high ground overlooking the battlefield. Perhaps we should have a gallery at the bottom. There are literally hundreds of notable battlefields to choose from. bd2412 T 13:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Can I suggest avoiding 20th Century pix as much as possible? Given most battles were before that... Unless the point can't be made any other way. And with that in mind, I'm also not seeing the value of the Kitchener & Birdwood shot, since it shows them, but not their perspective of the battlefield, which is why they chose that spot. I'd suggest either a POV shot, or a reverse angle to show the enemy's view of that site. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Just wondering whether we can use this instead of crashed helicopter? Gives more of the sense of the role of the helicopter and how it changed the battlefield.

UH-1D helicopters airlift members of the 2nd Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment from the Filhol Rubber Plantation area... - NARA - 530610

Monstrelet (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Monstrelet: Absolutely - I am open to anything that makes the article more informative.

Trekphiler: Battlefield photography is itself a recent phenomenon. If we are looking at pre-20th Century battles, they will likely either be paintings/drawings, reenactments, or photographs of former battlefields that are now dormant. I would be pleased to see a better image introduced to illustrate command occupation of the high ground. bd2412 T 15:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"Battlefield photography is itself a recent phenomenon." I do know that. I'm using "pictures" broadly: paintings, maps, whatever. Pics of what a battlefield looks like now might be useful, in connection with description or explanation of an issue at play, like why a river crossing was hard or why a position was considered safe (such as Masada). At the same time, a POV shot from (frex) Cemetery Ridge would still show why Pickett was screwed, because AFAIK, the battlefield has been untouched since; that's not true for most other places. On the helo issue, I prefer something with more than one in the shot, either en route or unloading, to give a better sense of their use. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

MILHIST assessment

I've reassessed the article down to "C". Whole sections do not have citations and there are numerous "citation needed" tags, which are incompatible with the guidance for B1 Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class FAQ.Monstrelet (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hidden text moved to talk

I have removed the following text, which had previously been hidden under the "Geography and the choice of battlefield" header, with the note, "This may be a bit OT". There is no point in keeping hidden text in the article indefinitely without discussing whether it should be there. BD2412 T 03:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

See also: Bar-Kochva, Bezalel. The Seleucid Army. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976; Cartledge, Paul A. Sparta and Lakonia. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979; Chambers, James. The Devil's Horsemen. New York: Atheneum, 1985; Garlan, Yvon, translated by Janet Lloyd. War in the Ancient World. London: Chatto & Windus, 1975; Marshall, Robert. Storm from the East. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993; Pritchett, W. K. The Greek State at War, Part 1. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1971; Seward, Desmond. The Hundred Years War: The English in France 1337-1453. New York: Atheneum, 1978. (Rogiat did not suggest switching from column to open order to compensate, and it would be almost a century before a technological solution was conceived.

References