Talk:Battle of Fontenoy

No article on the village of Fontenoy
I was surprised not to see Fontenoy wikilinked to an article on the village. I tried to find one, and there are several Fontenoys listed in various parts of France, but none of them is the right one, as of 2016-05-26. The correct one appears to be the Fontenoy near Antoing in Belgium. If the article gets created in the future, can someone pls link it? -dmmaus (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Updating
I took a look at this for GA nomination and in my opinion, the article is too long. Its one of the earlier ones so that makes sense and I know from personal experience its always hard to leave out detail. Stuff the author finds interesting doesn't help if no one reads it.

I've done Lauffeld and Dettingen so I'm happy to have a go. I'll start with the Background - its a lot easier to comment on actual edits rather than proposed.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Now done Robinvp11 (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

CE
Tidied citations and references, auto ed, occasional wayward punctuation. Anyone know who MacDonogh 1999 is? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Update Lead and others
When you reversed this, you undid all the work I'd done. Thanks for that. Always a good idea to read the TP first.

First, thanks for the various updates etc - even when I don't agree :), it's always useful to go back and revise/take another look. I hope you'll notice I've rewritten, or removed, a lot of my own material as well.

Statement of principle; just because you can include detail, doesn't mean you should. Two things to bear in mind;

(a) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it has to be concise, so not everything can be included; and

(b) It's online. Wikipedia stats show 60% of users only read the Lead, and almost the same % do so via a mobile device. What that means is too much detail and they don't read any of the article; so adding stuff is not cost free. Its called 'Bite-size' and should be a concept familiar to anyone working online.

I seem to be unusual in thinking about the User (probably because I design online Learning solutions). I want people to read articles I work on, so I spend a lot of time trying to condense - if you look at any of my articles, I'm constantly removing stuff interesting to me, but not really central.

When adding anything, I'm asking myself "What does it tell the reader they need to know about this event?" eg the Irish Brigade charge contributed to victory, and their casualties help to underscore that, but what's the relevance of their war cry?

Happy to discuss. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Pointless debate
@Robinvp11: Greetings! I don't understand how an article about the resume of a battle in 1745 which you have claim in many of your edits should be held succint contains so much useless informations irrelevant to it, including stuff which happen one, two or even three years later. Doesn't the whole "However France in 1746 faced a financial crisis..." belong in the Aftermath section? I have been reading about articles of the War of the Austrian Succession since yesterday and don't see such dilligence by the editors in mentioning french successes that offset those of the Pragmatic Allies on articles about allied victories or their shortcomings like I see it being done on pages such as Fontenoy. Many of those contributions involve you. '''At Sandhurst and university, my lecturers taught me individual events are only significant in terms of what they achieve, ie context matters. As a result, my approach tends to be different from many others (including you, apparently) because context is all. Victories only matter if they lead to something (as Xenophon tells us)'''

And I do believe there is some urgently needed objectivity. How are battles such as the Second Battle of Cape Finisterre considered a "decisive" victories by british historians yet Fontenoy is not for example? Feel free to amend Second Finisterre; no one's stopping you.

There is no mention of everything going on in the Low Countries at the same time offsetting them. Here's a thought; why don't you edit it, rather than telling me what an article I haven't written should contain?

The war ended in 1748. If the Treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle wasn't drafted on french terms, neither was it on the terms of the Pragmatic Allies ones, hence its mixed nature.What does this mean? It is a pattern I've been noticing with the War of the Spanish Succession, but at least that one is mostly consistent. Either we focus on the matter at hand or we don't.Classic politician's sound bite ie it seems to mean something but doesn't.

Because I do understand that the contributors here are more likely to be native to english-speaking countries, including from those like Britain directly involved in such historical events, but there is much needed objectivity and consistency sir.I'm pretty sure Jules (who is the person you seem to be arguing with most) is Belgian I'm moving the details irrelevant to the battle or even to the Fontenoy Campaign to the aftermath section. It'll make the summary even shorter like you wished. Edit: Just noticed the last paragraph of the summary was mentioned and expanded upon in the "Aftermath" already which is exactly where it belonged as it had nothing to do with the battle... in the same way Lauffeld and the Siege of Maastricht didn't belong on the page of Cape Finisterre 1747. And you were the one to edit the aftermath section sir. Why did it need to be put in the summary then? The Lead is supposed to summarise''' the article; hence, it includes a summary of the Aftermath. Hey - why don't you spend some time reading the guidelines provided by Wikipedia on what it should contain?''' (93.30.224.170 (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC))

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Housekeeping again; please spend sometime understanding how to use Wikipedia before you start pontificating about how biased everyone else is. And get yourself a Talk page, rather than fiddling about anonymously.
 * You don't need to call me sir, and it doesn't make you seem more polite.
 * I can't figure out what your point is. What exactly are you asking me to do?
 * Earn the right. Do the work. Dig out the references. Put some effort in. Then let's talk. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No Robin I called you biased because you simply are. You're not objective at all. An example? You seem to consider Black and Browning to be reliable sources considering your edits, and they both actually are yes. You probably no longer remember it but you were the one who removed the whole "Fontenoy re-establishing the myth of french superiority in force and high command lost in the War of the Spanish Succession" by Browning in the lead.... In the aftermath, another paragraph aknowledged that the French were indeed back in form overall since the War of the Spanish Succession but that the battle also proved their infantry was still lacking in training and discipline when compared to their British and Hanoverian counterparts however and was therefore not still not as good. And then it closed with a doubly sourced sentence by Black and Browning which went along the lines of "Fontenoy and the campaign of 1745 dispelled the notion of british military superiority held in Europe under Marlbourough and once again established french battlefield superiority over the British and their allies".

If that sentence had entirely disappeared, I wouldn't even be here right now pointing out your bias. That sentence in the current article got embellished at the beginning to praise the Allied infantry and cut short once it considered the french troops overall to be of better quality and better led. I'm currently reading "Austrian Succession" by Browning, one of the main sources used for the wikipedia article and you seem to be quite determined not to give one of the best documented battles and campaigns of the 18th century which was, highly mediatized by contemporaries for good reason, its fair justice. Have you compared the article depth of informations to the way it currently looks after you "reworded" (to quote you) it? There are plenty more of the things I talked about going on this new version. The previous article was quite messy and badly formated indeed. But you basically cherrypicked whatever you wanted of a previously well detailed and sourced article and got rid of whatever didn't sit well with your views? (93.22.135.120 (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC))


 * I've titled this 'Pointless debate' because you keep telling me what you think. Let me assure you; I got it the first time - you think I'm biased, incompetent etc Ok; what's not clear is what you want me to do, and this is the last time I'm going to respond to these generalised accusations.


 * I've been pretty polite, given I'm being lectured on history and writing Wikipedia articles by someone who's so new to Wikipedia they haven't created a User Page, can't comment without over-writing other contributions, hasn't bothered to read any of the 100s of pages explaining how Wikipedia works. And has yet to provide a Source for their generalised accusations of bias, other than to complain I haven't quoted from a Source verbatim.


 * For about the fifth time; Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia - that means not everything can be included. The more detail you include, the less likely it is people read it. Improving an article for an encyclopaedia is very different from writing it up for a War Gamer site. Have a look at the space devoted to Fontenoy elsewhere.


 * The problem with an open collaboration platform is some editors think its a good opportunity to bang on about a personal obsession (eg how exactly did John Hampden die?), and aren't bothered about Users. The creator of the article on the War of the Austrian Succession thought Frederick the Great was God. Someone else thinks the most important thing about Fontenoy is the Irish Brigade. You seem to see it as a conspiracy to downplay the magnificent French military (albeit one commanded by a Saxon).


 * Browning is one of 20 Sources I've used. I know people often think the one book they've read on the topic is the Holy Grail; that's fine, but telling me I'm biased when I've clearly read far more than you is a trompe l'oeil of Donald Trump proportions.


 * Specific response; You seem to be really fixated on one sentence, so let's take a look;


 * (a) It dispelled the myth (note word; look up 'myth') of British superiority. I originally left the whole thing out because its a claim made by Browning, who's not a military historian and isn't really supported elsewhere. So we could remove the whole sentence; fine by me.


 * (b) Ending the myth is not the same as confirming French superiority; that's why its a good idea to read several Sources, rather than just one (I notice you've read Weapons and Warfare, which Wikipedia rejects as a reliable Source, although I disagree). The War as a whole re-established French military prowess - not Fontenoy.


 * (c) John Keegan (look him up) views Fontenoy as a strategic French victory, but battlefield draw (as did Saxe, curiously enough). Other Sources (and I quote) describe Fontenoy as The battle that gave the British and Hanoverian infantry a reputation for dogged bravery. I didn't include that either; would you like me to? Its an ongoing debate.


 * (d)the french troops overall to be of better quality...; if you think that's what Browning is saying, then you should probably read it more carefully. Saxe picked a defensive position because he himself considered his infantry inferior.


 * (e)...and better led Have you read the assessment of Cumberland in this article? Tell you what -read my article on Dettingen, then tell me I'm biased.


 * If this is your major point, I'll change it; why you couldn't simply do that, rather than waste my time with this, goodness only knows. If you want to make changes, do so but provide Sources, rather than stream of consciousness paragraphs of high school history without references.


 * Btw, I've read the article on Second Finisterre; if its mis-use of 'decisive victory' is your biggest concern about its quality, than you really do need to ask yourself what you're doing here.


 * I'll give you this for free; after five years, I've finally understood Wikipedia editors fall into two categories; those who care about the content, and those who enjoy winning arguments. You can choose which one you want to be. There are plenty of articles in Wikipedia that need improving - knock yourself out. Or spend time and energy on this kind of thing.


 * If you have a specific change you want to make, rather than constantly complaining I'm biased, then either discuss, or make it, with appropriate references.

Robinvp11 (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Name of General de Wendt
I was able to find several possible names for this person (as only the surname is listed in the artice) in Dutch books from the late 18th century, although the rank doesn't appear to match, including one person who appears to have died during the battle (Gerardus Fortuin): Is there any further investigation that can be done on this matter? HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 13:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nederlandsch Geslacht- Stam- en Wapen-Boek, ... met ... Registers ... door J. Kok. Deel 1, 2. Letter A-E. (1785)
 * Adelyk en Aanzienelyk wapen-boek van de zeven provincien: waar by gevoegt zyn een groot aantal genealogien van voornaame Adelyke en Aanzienelyke familien. Uit veele oude stukken in deeze order gebragt, Volume 1 (1760)
 * Nederlandsch Geslacht- Stam- en Wapen-Boek: waarin voorkomen de voornaamste adelyke en aanzienlyke familiën in de zeven vereenigde provinciën (1785)


 * He's Hanoverian so German-language sources might be more helpful - should be "von Wendt", so I've corrected the Infobox. He appears in the 1729 Hanoverian Order of Battle as a Brigadier and may be related to Amalie von Wendt, who was mistress to George II for 25 years. The Wendt family had a long history of political and military service to the German state into the 20th century, so should be possible to track him down.Robinvp11 (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Could someone check this from French to English translation?
Nous étions répousser sans être battus et presentement notre retraite precipitée nous donne l'air de gens battus. (...) Outre de timidité il y a encore cela de mauvais qu'on a abandonné bon nombre de fourage et beaucoup de blessés. Je dois rendre au pr. de Waldek la justice qu'il a fort desapprouvé cette retraite.

We were repulsed without being beaten and now our hasty retreat makes us look like beaten people. (...) Besides timidity there is also the bad thing that we have left a lot of the baggage and many wounded. I must do Pr. de Waldeck the justice that he has strongly disapproved of this retreat DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Cronström
This is what van Nimwegen describes

The 9th the allies stood about 10 kilometer south-east from the besieged city. Their route was blocked by the main French force at Fontenoy. The allied army had grown because of recent reinforcements to about 46,000 men. The French were about 50,000 men stron. Maurice de Saxe had additionally thrown up a line of redoubts in front of his troops, which were not to easy to break trough without heavy guns. The Allies however only possesed three and six pounders. CRONSTRÖM gave Waldeck the advice to to trouble the besiegers by taking up a position close to them, but Waldeck and Cumberland wanted to attack as soon as possible.(page 222)

And this is from P.J. Blok, P.C. Molhuysen in Nieuw Nederlandsch biografisch woordenboek. Deel 1

in this rank he took part in the battle of Fontenoy in 1745; either through misunderstanding or misplaced initiative, he gave rise here to a less favourable decision of the battle. Indeed, C. should have attacked the village of Antoing on the extreme left wing, but only did so on repeated and personal orders from the Prince of Waldeck. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Distance to Ath
"before retreating 180 kilometres (110 mi) to Ath" - looking on the map, 20 kilometers might be correct. If you march 180 kilometers from Fontenay to the east, you're nearly in Aix-la-Chapelle! 195.128.10.106 (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)