Talk:Battle of Cassel (1677)/Archive 1

Strength
@Robinvp11 Doesn't that make the claim of William's army being outnumbered by over a 5,000 unrealistic? The other sources point to the armies being roughly equal. If de Perini gave the numbers of the Allies as 35,000 strong, and Luxembourg received reiforcements that outnumbered the Allies by over 5,000 as said by Van Nimwegen, the French would have had over 40,000+ troops present at Cassel, no? The numbers in the infobox and those given in the "Battle" section need to match. That's why I opted for Nolan "roughly equal" approach. Jules Agathias (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No - Perini also says circa 30k, plus the reinforcements; so both are 30-35k. Why are you dismissing French and Dutch Sources for a French-Dutch battle? That just seems weird.


 * Seeing as you're here, I cannot understand why you have such a hard-on for NW. You've decided he's unreliable and biased - maybe, don't know, never met him. Its your reasons for doing so (alleged differences in casualty figures) I object to.


 * You can approach this in two ways; (a) he's a biased idiot; or (b) assuming you don't get to be a university lecturer and publish eight books because you're a moron, why is there a difference? So far you've used (a)


 * As I've said already; Tucker, Nolan and Young all base their figures on Dupuy - 'so its hardly surprising they agree. The only one where there's a variance is Seneffe - because no one can figure out why Dupuy doubled the numbers of allied casualties. Curiously enough, for that battle, you picked the upper figure of 30,000, rather than the consensus of maximum 14k.


 * Re Cassel, VM says 3,200 killed and wounded for the French, 7,000 to 8,000 for the Allies, which is the same as everyone else; he even provides references, one being Lynn - although I've seen elsewhere you think he also understates.


 * The only major difference, which has been discussed previously, is whether you consider prisoners losses; in the 17th century they were returned asap because their captors didn't want to feed them. He does that consistently for both sides eg he ignores French prisoners taken at Graves and Maastricht for the same reason.


 * As a history student, if you investigated that yourself, it would have given you some interesting insights into the nature of 17th century warfare, recruitment processes, attitudes towards surrender etc. My first tutor told me 'Curiosity is the most important quality for a serious historian - followed by a willingness to challenge your own assumptions, not just those of others.' Worth remembering.

Robinvp11 (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no hard-on for VW. I don't know how old you are but that expression is supposed to have a positive connotation... as in being a fan. As you can guess that is not the case. And come on... seriously Robin... Are we seriously playing this game now? lol How can you read the Dutch Army and the Military Revolutions, 1588-1688 and tell me he does not have a fairly pronounced pro-Dutch/pro-William stance... for real...


 * What "consensus" about the battle of Seneffe you're talking about? There is no such thing as a maximum of 14,000 around here. You were the one to put VW's 10,000 allied casualties on the page, no? Bodart's numbers are the consensus now? You don't get it, do you Robin? We've had this discussion on your talk page. De Perini is one french source... not "french sources". And I've told you he was not as reliable a source as you seem to think he is either. I even linked you the "archives" de Périni supposedly had access to for his studies... and his what was it? 850 prisoners at Seneffe? being absolute bollocks. I did not see a reply, nor do I even see the message I left on your talk page anymore. Shall I link the Archives de Seine-Maritime again? I did not go around randomly putting Lynn or Tucker's numbers out there for no reason. They roughly matched french sourceS including the ones in the archives and do explain why the battle was and still is made a big deal out of in french historiography. 8,000 french and 10,000 allied casualties as given by de Perini and VW is not THAT shocking by 17th century standard for the French Royal Army... It doesn't explain contemporary concerns about it, nor the attention it gets. There have been plenty of similar battles in the 17th century. The casualties are not really shocking at all, which is how they are portrayed to be. I told you in french sources, 10,000 french casualties and a range of 25,000 to 35,000 allied ones are generally given and those have nothing to do with Ernest and Trevor Dupuy.
 * That argument as to why prisoners are not listed is quite unconvincing. They generally are even in the 17th century in french sources. For example, most of the 8,000 spanish prisoners taken at Rocroi were released soon after. 8,000 is still the number of prisoners taken and given in sources. Taking them out on the silly basis you've given practically makes the defeat pretty uneventful for what that battle represents. I don't know maybe you guys do things differently where you're from?! I've never been told "Hey in this century and because of how stuff happen, prisoners in battles are not counted as casualties".


 * All that jazz about Tucker and Nolan... You conveniently forgot Lynn as well though. Does he also take his numbers from Dupuy like the others do. He stated 15,000 allied dead at Seneffe and thousands more wounded. Tucker stated 10,000 dead, 15,000 wounded and 5,000 captured (most of them also wounded) for a total of 30,000 casualties. Doesn't seem like the same to me. The only thing most people seem to agree on is the 10,000 french casualties. (Jules Agathias (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC))