Talk:Maurice Suckling

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Maurice Suckling

• ... that when Captain Arthur Forrest suggested that the squadron of French ships were looking for a battle, Maurice Suckling replied "I think it would be a pity to disappoint them"? Source: Syrett, David (February 2002). "Nelson's Uncle: Captain Maurice Suckling". The Mariner's Mirror. 88 (1). Page 36 , Mackay, Ruddock (2008). "Suckling, Maurice". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press , Allen, Joseph (1852). Battles of the British Navy. Vol. 1. London: Henry G. Bohn. OCLC 557527139. Page 178
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Josef Somr

Improved to Good Article status by Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 20:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Verified quote against ODNB entry. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Only the Rich Could Join British Army?

According to this article, only men of wealth could join the British army. Yes, that would likely be true for British officers, certainly in the 18th century, but it doesn't seem very likely for service at the bottom of the totem pole, as a grunt soldier. The British were famous for sacrificing their lower ranked soldiers in battle, while shielding their upper echelon officers, certainly in the 19th and 20th centuries. Was this actually different during the 18th century and earlier? Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I have reworded this for clarity. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Given your comments, you're probably not best placed to decide what's dubious. --Ykraps (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Re the later comments in the aforementioned query, work has been done on British Army casualties in the period that doesn't agree with that:

About 10% of the officers and 16.5% of the enlisted soldiers became casualties...During the Napoleonic Wars, it was natural that general officers would lead from the front. This placed them in jeopardy and a number of British general officers were killed in action or died of their wounds. Additionally, despite having better living conditions than the men, these generals also died from illness or from the effects of campaigning. The Peninsular War was particularly deadly. Of 135 general officers who served there, 21 (15%) were either killed, died of wounds, sickness or accident. A general officer had a 60% greater chance of dying in the Peninsula than a junior officer.

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. And in addition to being at the fore front of the fighting, like Major Pitcairn who was killed leading his men up Bunker Hill, most officers took care of their men. The Duke of Wellington for example, had his men lie down behind a ridge while he remained steadfast on his horse in full view. And while there was a lot of standing in tightly-packed formation and advancing slowly on the enemy, this was the prevailing tactic at the time (for very good reasons that I won't go into here) and in no way 'famously British'. --Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

References