Battle of Constantine
1836 battle
The aim of the 1836 Battle of Constantine to conquer the Algerian city of Constantine involved an attack that was a French failure. It was a part of the siege of Constantine.
The expedition
Commanded by Bertrand Clauzel, the French expeditionary force amounting to 8,040 men and 30 officers, left Bône on November 9; on the 18th, it crossed the pass of Râs-el-Akba and was only two marches from Constantine. After an encampment at Raz-Oued-Zenati, the French army encountered harsh climatic conditions in high areas. During the night, heavy rain, snow and hail fell upon the soldiers, who were sheltered in bivouacs. The land, completely broken up, recalled the mud of Poland.
The army marched further on the 20th and arrived, with the exception of the baggage and a rear guard, in Constantine, where it was forced to stop. The cold was excessive. Several men had their feet frozen; others perished during the night, since there was not enough wood in Raz-el-Akba to start a fire. Finally, the reinforcements, thanks to which the teams were doubled and tripled, joined the army, and the French army crossed the Bou-Merzoug, one of the tribes of the Wadi Rhummel, on the 21st, and took up position under the walls of Constantine.
The public source identifies “Battle of Constantine” as 1836 battle. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Battle, Constantine and battle.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Battle of Constantine”, the useful work is to connect “1836 battle” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 15, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q3485860. Authority coordinates are 36.283, 6.617. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1836.
Later summaries often reconcile disputed chronology or motive more neatly than the contemporary record permits. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Battle of Constantine”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Battle of Constantine primary sources, Battle of Constantine archive and Battle research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Battle of Constantine”?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
- What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Battle of Constantine” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.