During the early morning of 14 June 1807, General Levin von Bennigsen sent much of his Russian army across the Alle at Friedland to attack what he took to be Marshal Jean Lannes's isolated force, meaning to recross afterwards and continue toward Königsberg.
A Chandler-based order of battle gives Lannes and two cavalry divisions 21,900 men and 33 guns that morning, against about 46,000 Russians.
Lannes did not defeat that army. He held it in place long enough for Napoleon's dispersed corps to assemble.
Napoleon arrives around midday
Napoleon reached the field about midday, saw that the Russians were confined against the winding river and divided by the millstream, and ordered Ney to strike Bennigsen's left before the French centre and left went in. The Fondation Napoléon account has him pausing for lunch before dictating the orders.
Ney's attack, reinforced by General Sénarmont's aggressively advanced artillery and the rest of the army, drove the Russian left into Friedland and forced Bennigsen back across the Alle.
Roughly 75,000 to 80,000 French had accumulated around the field, though not all of them were engaged.
Eleven days to Tilsit
By evening the Russian army had been routed and had abandoned the field. Losses in the same Chandler-based estimate run to about 10,400 French and 18,000 Russians killed or wounded.
An unknown number of Russian soldiers drowned; the sources do not support a figure, and the retreat was not confined to a stampede over a few bridges — troops also used other crossings and fords.
Alexander I moved toward negotiations, an armistice was signed on 21 June, and Napoleon met him at Tilsit on 25 June; the battle produced the talks but did not itself sign the Treaties of Tilsit.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·5 sources·not yet audited
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
What the sources leave uncertain
Russian records used the Julian calendar, making the date 2 June Old Style; 14 June is the corresponding Gregorian date used in western accounts.
Strength and casualty estimates vary markedly. Some accounts give roughly 46,000 Russians and 18,000 killed or wounded; others give 50,000–60,000 present and more than 20,000 total casualties.
An unknown number of Russian soldiers drowned. Sources do not support a precise drowning total.
The ships anchored on 22 January; the governor had to go out to the flagship to receive the prince, and Salvador needed two more days before the royal party could stage a formal landing.
View full image ↗AI-generated illustration · Ideogram 4 (fp8) · 2026-08-29How was this image made?
The creative brief sent to the image model. These are instructions, not a record of what actually happened.
After an Atlantic voyage from Portugal, the part of the royal fleet carrying Prince Regent João and members of the Braganza family anchored at Salvador, in Bahia, on 22 January 1808. The D. Pedro IV museum project puts the crossing at 55 days.
The court had sailed from Lisbon on 29 November 1807 as French forces occupied the Portuguese capital.
The Biblioteca Nacional's detailed reconstruction records that at 4 p.m., once the ships were anchored, Bahia's governor the Count of Ponte went aboard the flagship Príncipe Real to receive the prince.
Arrival is not landing
22 January was the fleet's arrival, not the ceremonial disembarkation. The Biblioteca Nacional exhibit places the royal party's solemn landing at 5 p.m. on 24 January, about 48 hours later; the same library's shorter chronology gives 23 January.
João was governing for his mother, Queen Maria I, who travelled with the family but was incapacitated by mental illness.
Estimates of how many people left Portugal with the court vary; about 10,000 is the conventional approximation, and it does not mean all of them reached Salvador together.
The ports opened six days later
João did not open Brazil's ports on the day he arrived. The surviving charter is dated 28 January and admitted foreign goods while permitting most Brazilian exports to countries at peace with Portugal.
On 1 April he revoked the general prohibition on establishing manufactures in Brazil — a change in the law, whose economic effects are a separate question.
Salvador was not the destination that mattered most: the court reached Rio de Janeiro, which became its principal seat, only on 7 March.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·6 sources·not yet audited
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
What the sources leave uncertain
The arrival of the ships on January 22 is well supported. Sources differ on whether the royal family's disembarkation occurred January 23 or January 24: a Biblioteca Nacional chronology says January 23, while its more detailed exhibit specifies 5 p.m. on January 24.
Contemporary estimates of how many people left Portugal with the court vary substantially. About 10,000 is conventional, but it should remain an approximation and does not mean all 10,000 arrived at Salvador together.
Britain's celebrated abolition law still allowed grandfathered voyages to land captives in the West Indies as late as this date — and the entry attached to it tells the story of a naval squadron instead.
View full image ↗AI-generated illustration · Ideogram 4 (fp8) · 2026-08-29How was this image made?
The creative brief sent to the image model. These are instructions, not a record of what actually happened.
1 March 1808 was the final ordinary deadline written into section VI of the 1807 act: the last day on which enslaved Africans carried in British ships cleared before 1 May 1807 could be landed in the British West Indies under the statute's transitional exemption.
Parliament had deliberately included that wind-down so voyages already lawfully begun had time to cross the Atlantic and put captives ashore.
It was not the day the law began to operate, and it was not emancipation for anyone already enslaved in the colonies.
Three different dates, and the exceptions left open
Royal assent came on 25 March 1807. The general prohibition applied from 1 May 1807, barring British subjects and residents of British territories from the defined African trade, from fitting out ships for it and from knowingly transporting people for enslavement.
After 1 March the ordinary grandfathering protection expired, but the section kept narrow exceptions where timely landing had been prevented by capture, loss of the vessel, an enemy's appearance or another unavoidable necessity.
The statute initially reached British subjects, residents and ships; it did not by itself give Britain a right to search every foreign vessel.
The squadron the listing puts here instead
The Royal Navy's first anti-slave-trade patrol belongs to 1808, but no source consulted connects its establishment to 1 March specifically.
That first patrol was two identified ships, Solebay and Derwent. Specialist accounts distinguish them from the formal West Africa Station or independent command organised around 1818–19, which the phrase "West Africa Squadron" usually denotes.
The National Archives estimates that the later squadron seized more than 1,600 ships and liberated about 150,000 Africans, while roughly a million more people were transported during the nineteenth century.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·7 sources·not yet auditedDate disputed
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
Date disputed. Sources disagree about when this happened.
What the sources leave uncertain
The listed date is real, but its stated meaning is wrong: March 1 was a transitional landing deadline, not the date the act generally took effect.
Sources often say the West Africa Squadron was founded in 1808 because the first two-ship anti-slave-trade patrol began that year. Specialist accounts distinguish those early ships on particular service from the formal West Africa Station or independent command established around 1818–1819.
No evidence consulted identifies March 1 as the Squadron's founding day.
After learning that the Querétaro conspiracy had been discovered, the parish priest Miguel Hidalgo began the insurgent movement in Dolores, in the intendancy of Guanajuato, on 16 September 1810. The conspirators had contemplated a later date; exposure forced them to act.
Before the public address, Hidalgo's adherents freed prisoners and detained local Spaniards.
INEHRM's chronology places his address to the assembled people in the parish atrium at about 7:30 a.m. — not at 2:30 in the morning, as the listing has it.
A speech with no script
Hidalgo called the population to join and defend the patria. The spoken appeal, later called the Grito de Dolores, began the armed insurgency traditionally identified as the start of Mexico's war for independence.
No authenticated text survives. It was spoken rather than written, and later witnesses and political traditions produced differing versions, so every familiar quotation is a reconstruction.
Accounts disagree over whether he invoked Fernando VII, the Virgin of Guadalupe, America, religion, the end of tribute, opposition to bad government, or hostility toward peninsular Spaniards.
More than seven hundred by eleven o'clock
By about 11 a.m. more than 700 people led by Hidalgo had left Dolores for Atotonilco, where he took an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe as the insurgents' standard.
Five days later the insurgent strength reported at Celaya was more than 4,000.
Ringing the parish bell is the established national tradition, repeated by the Library of Congress and INAH, but the evidence does not establish whether Hidalgo rang it himself or had someone else do it.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·7 sources·not yet audited
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
What the sources leave uncertain
No authenticated text of Hidalgo's address survives. It was spoken rather than written, and later witnesses and political traditions produced differing versions.
The precise sequence and timing are reconstructed. INEHRM places the public address around 7:30 a.m.; the article's 2:30 a.m. time is not supported by the consulted institutional chronology.
Ringing the parish bell is the established national tradition and is repeated by the Library of Congress and INAH, but the evidence does not securely establish whether Hidalgo personally rang it or ordered someone else to do so.
Later versions differ over whether Hidalgo invoked Fernando VII, the Virgin of Guadalupe, America, religion, the end of tribute, opposition to bad government or hostility toward peninsular Spaniards.
Carabobo was fought twice on the same plain, and the article filed under this date describes the wrong one: the famous 1821 victory, not Bolívar's win seven years earlier.
View full image ↗AI-generated illustration · Ideogram 4 (fp8) · 2026-08-29How was this image made?
The creative brief sent to the image model. These are instructions, not a record of what actually happened.
On 28 May 1814, republican forces of Venezuela's Second Republic under Simón Bolívar fought royalists commanded by Field Marshal Juan Manuel Cajigal y Niño on the plain of Carabobo.
Cajigal deployed in front of the Las Hermanas hills, artillery forward and an infantry regiment in reserve.
Bolívar advanced in two lines: three infantry divisions in the first, two divisions and most of the cavalry in the second.
Cavalry at the rear, answered by the second line
When the republican first line attacked, Cajigal sent cavalry against its rear. Bolívar committed his second line, the royalist front broke and Cajigal's army retreated.
Rafael Urdaneta pursued the withdrawing royalists while Bolívar returned to Valencia.
The Academia de la Historia del Estado Carabobo puts the armies at about 5,000 republicans against about 6,000 royalists with seven guns, the fighting at roughly five hours, and the losses at 300 royalists killed and 1,100 captured against 400 republicans killed or wounded.
The wrong battle attached to the date
The catalogue entry contradicts itself: its year points to the 1814 action, while its linked topic and the whole of its article narrate the second battle of 24 June 1821.
Miguel de la Torre, José Antonio Páez, the British Battalion, and the deaths of Pedro Camejo, Ambrosio Plaza and Manuel Cedeño all belong to 1821, as do the June 24 commemorations and Venezuelan Army Day.
The 1814 victory settled nothing: José Tomás Boves, who did not command at Carabobo, beat Bolívar at La Puerta on 15 June — eighteen days later — and the Second Republic collapsed.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·5 sources·not yet auditedDate disputed
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
Date disputed. Sources disagree; the research places it at 1814-05-28.
What the sources leave uncertain
The catalog entry is internally ambiguous: its year, 1814, identifies the First Battle of Carabobo on May 28, but its linked Wikipedia topic and the entire current article describe the second battle of June 24, 1821.
Troop and casualty totals vary markedly among later accounts. The numbers retained here are explicitly attributed to the Academia de la Historia del Estado Carabobo and should not be presented as uncontested.
The event date itself is well supported; the disputed confidence reflects the catalog's conflation of two separate battles.
On the morning of 26 February 1815 Napoleon told his entourage that he was leaving Elba, at first concealing the destination; the island's dignitaries were informed that afternoon.
He then stopped vessels from leaving Elba's ports, which kept the hostile observers who had detected the preparations from getting word to Livorno.
He boarded the brig Inconstant at about 7 p.m., and it sailed at about 9 p.m.
Seven vessels and about 1,100 soldiers
The flotilla numbered seven vessels including Inconstant in the Fondation Napoléon account, and the German Historical Museum puts the accompanying force at about 1,100 soldiers.
Napoleon did not leave alone: loyal troops, officers and civilians went with him, while his mother and sister stayed behind on the island.
Colonel Sir Neil Campbell, the British commissioner assigned to observe him, was away from Elba.
A departure, not a landing
The flotilla headed for France and avoided interception by both Campbell's British brig and French naval patrols. It reached Golfe-Juan on 1 March, which is a separate date from this one.
Calling the departure an escape is conventional, though Napoleon was sovereign of Elba rather than an ordinary prisoner; the surveillance and the patrols still made it a clandestine evasion.
The article filed under this date has nothing to do with any of it — it describes Mount Tambora's April 1815 eruption and supplies no facts about Napoleon, Elba or Inconstant.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·2 sources·not yet audited
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
What the sources leave uncertain
Contemporary and later accounts differ slightly over the size and composition of Napoleon's force and flotilla. The approximately 1,100-soldier and seven-vessel figures used here are explicitly attributed to the consulted sources.
Calling the departure an “escape” is conventional, although Napoleon was sovereign of Elba rather than an ordinary prisoner; surveillance and naval patrols nevertheless made the departure a clandestine evasion.
The tidy signing session in the paintings did not happen: Spain refused to sign, and Brian Vick reports that part of the German settlement was signed the next day and backdated.
View full image ↗AI-generated illustration · Ideogram 4 (fp8) · 2026-08-29How was this image made?
The creative brief sent to the image model. These are instructions, not a record of what actually happened.
The Final Act was formally dated at Vienna on 9 June 1815, gathering months of negotiation and numerous earlier treaties, declarations and regulations into a single general instrument of more than 100 articles.
It compiled agreements rather than inventing everything it named — the German Federal Act it incorporated carried the date 8 June.
Spain's plenipotentiary refused to sign on 9 June and acceded later, and Brian Vick's study reports that some material, including part of the German constitutional settlement, was signed on 10 June and backdated.
What the articles settled
Article I attached most of the former Duchy of Warsaw to the Russian Empire under Alexander I, who assumed the title King of Poland; the entity conventionally called Congress Poland was constitutionally distinct but attached to Russia, not an independent Polish state.
Articles LIII–LXIV carried the German federal settlement, establishing an Austrian-presided Germanic Confederation with 17 ordinary votes enumerated for its Diet and members that included the Netherlands, for Luxembourg.
Articles LXXIV–LXXXIV settled Switzerland's cantonal composition, naming Valais, Geneva and Neuchâtel as new cantons and confirming the Allied declaration of 20 March that the Swiss Diet had accepted on 27 May.
Unfinished business
Luxembourg was raised to a grand duchy assigned to William I, king of the Netherlands, and made a member of the German Confederation. It did not become self-governing that day.
Swiss perpetual neutrality and territorial inviolability got their definitive great-power recognition and guarantee in Paris on 20 November 1815, not in June.
Delegations left Vienna quickly, while accessions, ratifications and supplementary settlements continued afterwards.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·6 sources·not yet auditedDate disputed
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
Date disputed. Sources disagree about when this happened.
What the sources leave uncertain
The instrument's official date is securely 9 June, but Brian Vick's scholarly study reports that some material, including part of the German constitutional settlement, was actually signed on 10 June and backdated.
Spain's plenipotentiary refused to sign on 9 June. Spain acceded later, so depictions of eight powers jointly signing in one clean ceremony are misleading.
The German Federal Act itself was dated 8 June and was then incorporated into the Final Act.
The Final Act confirmed the March Swiss declaration, but Switzerland's perpetual neutrality and territorial inviolability received their definitive great-power recognition and guarantee in Paris on 20 November 1815.
HMS Northumberland completed its passage from Britain and anchored off Saint Helena with Napoleon aboard on 15 October 1815 — at noon, according to a Saint Helena chronology.
Napoleon remained aboard rather than stepping ashore that day.
The scholarly account puts the passage at 67 days.
Cockburn makes the arrangements
Rear-Admiral Sir George Cockburn, who held responsibility for Napoleon's custody, began arranging temporary accommodation in Jamestown and inspecting Longwood as a permanent residence.
The island chronology dates Napoleon's landing at Jamestown to 7:30 p.m. on 17 October. After one night in Porteous's house he stayed at the Briars, and moved to Longwood only on 10 December.
Sir Hudson Lowe was not yet his jailer: Cockburn kept custodial responsibility until Lowe reached the island in April 1816.
Elba was the mistake not to repeat
The end of the voyage placed Napoleon inside a specially planned island security regime, designed to prevent a repetition of his escape from Elba.
"Begins his exile" is a loose label for the date, since British detention and the decision to send him to Saint Helena both preceded 15 October; the day is best described as his arrival offshore.
The article filed under this date is about a 1929 German silent film and gives no account of Northumberland's arrival at all.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·5 sources·not yet audited
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
What the sources leave uncertain
The 15 October date securely marks Northumberland's arrival and anchoring, not necessarily the moment Napoleon set foot on the island.
Sources disagree over whether members of the French party disembarked on 16 October and over shorthand descriptions of Napoleon's own landing. The detailed Saint Helena chronology dates Napoleon's landing to 17 October at 7:30 p.m.
“Begins his exile” is imprecise: British detention and the decision to send him to Saint Helena predated 15 October. This date is best described as his arrival offshore.
The 5,423-man army did not march out in a single column, and San Martín was not at its head — he stayed behind until the 24th, then set off to catch his own leading divisions.
View full image ↗AI-generated illustration · Ideogram 4 (fp8) · 2026-08-29How was this image made?
The creative brief sent to the image model. These are instructions, not a record of what actually happened.
The army's operations diary records that on 19 January 1817 a train of 4-pounder field artillery left El Plumerillo, following Colonel Juan Gregorio de Las Heras's rear toward Uspallata.
The same diary records a vanguard division under Antonio Melián — the 4th squadron of mounted grenadiers with four companies of grenadiers and voltigeurs — departing toward the Los Patos route.
Both were components of a staggered, multi-column operation already in motion.
Not one army, and not one morning
San Martín's letter of 24 January states that the army had begun leaving on 18 January, completed its departure on the 24th, and that he himself would leave that afternoon to catch the leading divisions.
Men, artillery, livestock and supplies moved in timed stages along different Andean passes, both to manage the logistics and to confuse the royalist command about where the main attack would come.
The figure of 5,423 men — with 9,280 mules, 1,500 horses and 16 pieces of artillery in a later Argentine military-history synthesis — describes the whole army, not the troops documented as leaving on the 19th.
A date pinned to the wrong continent
Summaries date the broader operation to 12, 17, 18 or 19 January depending on whether they count diversionary columns, logistical movements, the two principal columns, or San Martín's own departure.
The objective immediately in front of these formations was Chile; the later expedition to Peru belonged to San Martín's wider strategy rather than to this day's marching.
The article attached to the date describes RTA 5, a twentieth-century Thai television network, and mentions neither San Martín nor the Andes.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·4 sources·not yet auditedDate disputed
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
Date disputed. Sources disagree about when this happened.
What the sources leave uncertain
The date is secure for the two movements recorded in the operations diary, but not for the sweeping listed claim that all 5,423 men began crossing together.
San Martín's own 24 January letter says the army began departing on 18 January. Other summaries date the broader operation from 12, 17, 18 or 19 January depending on whether they count diversionary columns, logistical movements, the two principal columns or San Martín's own departure.
The figure 5,423 describes the overall army in later syntheses; it is not the number documented as leaving on 19 January.
The Jessore civil surgeon Robert Tytler reported a rapidly spreading epidemic in the town bazaar on 23 August 1817, describing vomiting, frequent stools, circulatory collapse and deaths within 24 hours.
The alarm prompted Jessore's judge and magistrate, Charles Chapman, to close his court, and many residents fled the town by the end of August.
A later historical estimate puts the reported Jessore death toll at at least 10,000.
Calcutta, fifty miles away
On 6 September the Bengal Medical Board reported that a similar epidemic already prevailed in parts of Calcutta, about 50 miles (80 km) from Jessore.
On 17 September Calcutta's magistrate described the disease as unusually fatal and capable of running its course within hours.
The Board had initially regarded the outbreak as an unusually severe version of the region's seasonal epidemic; the outbreak was soon officially designated "cholera morbus."
Origin, or first documentation?
The explosive Bengal epidemic spread beyond its endemic region and is conventionally treated as the start of the first cholera pandemic.
But cholera-like disease had been recorded in South Asia for centuries and was endemic in Bengal well before 1817, so "originated at Jessore" is not securely demonstrated. Some historians accept a Jessore origin; others point to contemporary evidence of nearly simultaneous outbreaks elsewhere and to the colonial assumptions built into later origin narratives.
The article filed under this date describes the seventh cholera pandemic, which began in Indonesia in 1961 — a different event, nearly a century and a half later.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·9 sources·not yet auditedDate disputed
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
Date disputed. Sources disagree about when this happened.
What the sources leave uncertain
Cholera-like disease was endemic in Bengal long before 1817, so “originated at Jessore” is not securely demonstrated. Jessore is better described as the first well-documented explosive outbreak associated with the pandemic.
Some historians accept a Jessore origin; others note contemporary evidence of nearly simultaneous outbreaks elsewhere and the colonial assumptions embedded in later origin narratives.
The year 1817 is secure, but the listed event is a process spanning August and September rather than a single day.
One document promised to protect Holkar's territories and, a few articles away, forbade him to communicate with any other state without British consent.
View full image ↗AI-generated illustration · Ideogram 4 (fp8) · 2026-08-29How was this image made?
The creative brief sent to the image model. These are instructions, not a record of what actually happened.
At Mandsaur on 6 January 1818, Sir John Malcolm for the East India Company and Vitul Punt Tantea Jogh for Maharaja Malhar Rao Holkar concluded a 17-article peace treaty. The young ruler named in it did not sign; his minister did.
The Holkar army had been defeated by Company forces under Sir Thomas Hislop at Mahidpur on 21 December 1817, and Malcolm had pursued the retreating government to Mandsaur, where submission was offered.
The place appears in contemporary English sources as Mundisore, and in later forms as Mandsaur, Mandasor, Mandeswar or Mandeshwar.
What the seventeen articles required
Holkar surrendered tribute claims over named Rajput rulers and ceded territories north of the Bundi hills and within or south of the Satpura range, including possessions in Khandesh.
He had to obtain British consent for communications with other states, accept a resident British minister, reduce his forces, and keep not less than 3,000 horse available to cooperate with Company troops.
In return the Company promised to protect his remaining territories and to maintain a field force for their defence and internal tranquillity.
Not the end of the war
This settled the Holkar front only. Peshwa Baji Rao II went on fighting until his surrender on 3 June 1818, so the Third Anglo-Maratha War did not close on 6 January.
Nor was Holkar's state absorbed: recently conquered possessions not ceded by the agreement were restored, while what remained was subordinated through protection, a residency and control of its foreign relations.
Holkar had two days to return his ratified counterpart; the Governor-General, Francis Rawdon-Hastings, ratified the treaty on 16 January 1818.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·4 sources·not yet audited
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
What the sources leave uncertain
The place appears in contemporary English sources as Mundisore and in later forms as Mandsaur, Mandasor, Mandeswar or Mandeshwar.
The agreement was concluded on 6 January; the Governor-General ratified it on 16 January. These are distinct dates.
On 5 April 1818 the combined Chilean–River Plate United Army, commanded in the field by José de San Martín, met Mariano Osorio's Royalist army at Cerrillos del Maipo, south of Santiago.
The Patriot force stood at about 5,400 men with 21 guns at the start of April, rebuilt and rearmed after Osorio had surprised and dispersed it at Cancha Rayada on 19 March.
San Martín deployed divisions under Gregorio de Las Heras and Rudecindo Alvarado, with Hilarión de la Quintana holding the reserve.
The reserve sent obliquely
When Alvarado was pushed back, San Martín sent the reserve obliquely to support him while Las Heras kept up pressure on the other flank.
The Royalist line broke and withdrew toward the Lo Espejo estate. Osorio escaped; José Ordóñez carried on the final resistance there and was captured.
The cavalry officer Santiago Bueras was killed while his horsemen attacked and dispersed the Royalist cavalry.
What the dispatch says, and what it doesn't
At 6 p.m. San Martín reported more than 1,500 prisoners, the capture of the Royalist artillery and cavalry still in pursuit.
He said only that Patriot deaths were "very few," which does not support the precise casualty totals often attached to the battle; recent archaeological-historical research argues the combined death toll may have been below 1,000.
Bernardo O'Higgins, still recovering from a wounded arm, reached the field near the end with roughly 1,000 more men and met San Martín there in the encounter remembered as the Abrazo de Maipú.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·7 sources·not yet audited
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
What the sources leave uncertain
Published army strengths and casualty totals vary considerably by source and by whether late arrivals are counted.
San Martín's same-day dispatch is strong evidence for more than 1,500 prisoners but says only that Patriot deaths were “very few”; it does not support the article's precise casualty totals.
Recent archaeological-historical research argues that the combined death toll may have been below 1,000, substantially lower than traditional accounts.
View full image ↗ 
