Talk:Battle of Fleurus (1690)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Fleurus (1690) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Casualties
editChilds, Van Nimwegen, Van Alphen and others claim that both sides lost 7,000 men or that the losses were quite even and Van Alphen writes clearly that Waldeck was able to save most of his army. It there a satisfying explaination for the differences with the sources in the infobox? I myself can't understand how it is possible that historians can come to such different conclusions. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Recent edits
editCan I have you guys opinion/reaction?
Jules wrote that Quite a few statements in the body which are nowhere to be seen in Van Nimwegen's book.
Could you point those out? I can check it if needed.
Jules also said that Bodart is a complete outlier in regard to the strength of the respective armies and found no other source to corroborate 50,000 men on the French side.
While that might be true, I think it is important to point out that Stapleton writes that the French had more that 42,000 men and that a lot of authors write expressly that the French outnumbered the allies by 10,000 or more. That also touches upon the edit of Robin. To write that Luxembourg had 35,000 men and Waldeck 38,000 doesn't represent the literature in a fair way. Childs, Stapleton, Van Nimwegen, Wijn, Bodart and more do not agree and sometimes mention the numerical superiority as something wich partly explains the victory.
Lastly the casualties. I think what Jules did in the article can be acceptable as there might be a lack of historical consensus on the course of the battle. The same should however be true for the casualties. A lot of historians mention just 7,000 killed and wounded for the allies. It does however seems obvious that this isn't complete because it lacks the numbers for the allied prisoners. It is therefore difficult to include them in the infobox. However, Stapleton does provide complete casualty numbers. He says over 11,000 for the Allies. Meanwhile, Bosscha gives numbers of 3,000 captured as opposed to De Quincy's number 8,000 captured. Could we do something with that?
I think the least we could do is make it clear that there is no consensus. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry. I've only just seen this. As with other articles, I think the Infobox should show the generally accepted figures, rather than all the different ranges. I don't personally have a strong view on what those "generally accepted figures" are, but we need to pick one for the Infobox. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)