Talk:Battle of Le Cateau

Incomplete article
Jeez that's a lot of stubs on the article! Is there any way to limit them? -- Spawn Man 00:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. All you need do is read Terraine, Ascoli and Lomas, then get editing. --Wally Tharg (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Zuber and copyvio problems
In looking at the page numbers, the first two I checked were taken verbatim from Zuber. I stopped after the first two, as I assume the rest are plagiarized as well. The article needs to be rolled back to before the additions were made, with subsequent revisions deleted to avoid copyright problems. Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I'd thought they were paraphrases.Keith-264 (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

All right, they should be paraphrases now. My initial changes were pretty inadequate. I'm not interested in seeing my additions deleted. I'm pretty new at this, so I'll just be more careful next time.TiltuM (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your "strength" and "casualty" figures seem very wrong, and are inconsistent with the figures given in the Wiki article about the Battle of Mons, of which Le Cateau was a direct continuation. According to the detailed account provided by British Battles.com, the respective "strengths" at Le Cateau were 160,000 German vs 68,000 BEF; and "casualties" were >15,000 German vs 8500 BEF - figures which are much more consistent with the known size of the respective armies and the course of the encounter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.24 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Online sources don't carry as much weight as published books.Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with the previous user. The article appears heavily slanted and I am neither convinced by the casualty figures nor by the text (certainly I've never heard Le Cateau described as a German victory before: I would request a source for a claim like this). The text beyond the lede is particularly misleading, omitting the splitting of I and II Corps at the Foret de Mormal, giving a false picture of Smith-Dorrien's decision, as well as the contribution of the French territorial unit at Cambrai. As it stands this is not a historical piece.
 * That's why it's start class. Care to work on it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a shot, though it's not in my nature to remove or rewrite large tracts of existing material. I'll try my best to respect previous editors.94.14.205.196 (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Numbers and casualty figures seem very wrong
Other users have made mention of this, but the article seems grossly misleading. Le Cateau is considered one of the most superb delaying actions of the entire war (of any war really) but you wouldn't know it from this article. I do not have the knowledge or skills to edit vast swathes of a wikipedia page beyond making an amendment here and there, but I feel like the sources that have been used for this have either been used selectively or are not very complete ones. Zuber's work for example is considered contradictory at best; a revisionist work that seeks to challenge the common narrative as he sees it. My question is, can such a work be taken as truth? I personally do not think so.

would I merely have to replace the information here with my own from a published academic source, and that would be enough? Because it seems to me as though this page is almost malicious in its attempts to mislead and present a narrative that isn't the accepted one. Being challenged is great, but a lot of this flies in the face of most published works. Which was indeed the original author's intent; my feeling is however, that just because something is revisionist, does not mean it is true.
 * "In 1926, James Edmonds, the British official historian, wrote that of the 40,000 British troops who fought at Le Cateau, 7,812 became casualties, 2,600 being taken prisoner. Thirty-eight guns were abandoned, most having their breech blocks removed and sights disabled by the gun crews."

This is from the British official history. Zuber may be a revisionist but what matters is whether his writing counts as a reliable source. You can add data from other RS but not remove Zuber unless you can reach consensus with other editors that he is unreliable. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not the British casualties that are the issue at all, they seem right; the issue is really the low German ones, and the fact that the article seems to indicate the British had the advantage of numbers for this action, which is hard to credit when taken against the majority of other sources. I have issues with both of these statements, plus the lack of description indicating the importance of the battle to the overall strategic picture. But very well, I shall gather some sources and hopefully reach a consensus with others so as to at the very least contextualise the Zuber statements.

If I wanted to make edits to German casualties as lain down in other academic sources, I suppose a fair way to do it would be to write it down as a range alongside what is already present? For example, 2,900-15,000 which allows both sources to be present without (hopefully anyway) the potential for edit wars?
 * In the infobox, then add the source to the Casualties section and the book details in the References section. Oh and you should sign your posts with ~, regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've had a look through my sources and can find no other enumeration of German casualties. Keith-264 (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I am waiting for a few books I am sure had them listed, which should be here either today or tomorrow according to Amazon. Since moving house I have seemingly had a lot of things vanish. Either way I hope to use these books to add some more context to the article as it stands. Rest assured I would not add anything that I couldn't back up; I don't have the energy for edit wars with other users who might complain (not your good self of course), so I always need that proof. Looking through the reference list it does seem as though this article could do with a few more anyway. 146.200.201.204 (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope your house move doesn't get any more stressful; during my last move I gave way more than a thousand books and I've just run out of room again. The article is barebones so it could do with a really good re-edit. PS thanks for remembering the ~ ~ ~ ~ ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

They say its the most stressful thing you'll do, and I am not sure they're wrong. Books arrived, so I'll take a few days to get my sources in order, read through them, and hopefully bulk out the article a bit. I'll make a username proper at the same time too. Basically super new to this so learning on the fly! 146.200.201.204 (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Tally ho! Chaps! Happy to help with the minutiae if you need it. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to say, I haven't forgotten! I am just going through my sources; I have a couple of books on this battle specifically and wanted to make sure I get this right, so I should be ready to make updates within a week. The move was finally completed too, hallelujah. 146.200.201.204 (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just in time to settle in before Xmas. Keith-264 (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been over a year and I gather (not however having consulted the edits) that the project discussed has not been pursued.
 * This seems a good place to note that both the "Casualties and losses" and "Stength" tables lack the customary icons.
 * I came here from watching Spencer Jones account of the battle on YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHQVYkW31QU Casualty summary at 1:07:24.
 * He's quite critical of Zuber, but that's somewhat undermined by the faults in his own presentation. where the German units are identified by number on his maps but are otherwise a faceless undifferentiated mass. If he's consulted any of Zuber's German sources it is not in evidence.
 * I do not place much trust in what your interlocutor calls "the common narrative" as what's common in English appears to be largely "patriotic" (as Jones refers to it, with considerable un-self-awareness) British myth. That this much more costly battle even took place (not to mention the also more costly than Mons intervening Brit defeat at Audregnies) seems to me to put paid to the myth that Mons was any check on the German advance. 15:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Andyvphil (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that Mons and Le Cateau meant a lot to the BEF but that the Germans were concentrating on other things. The German OH describes the actions but in no great detail and without fanfare. I have the view that English language writing will tend to measure their significance comparatively. I was surprised at how muted the British OH was (written about 100 years ago) when I looked through it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Question about reverted edits
I made some edits earlier that you seem to have reverted; as far as I can tell, I sourced them and added the source I got the numbers from, howcome they have been deleted? Is it because I did something wrong, or is the source I listed not good enough? As a published historical work, I would have thought it was on the level of Zuber's book.

In terms of the Cave and Sheldon book, I have read page 14 (and the surrounding pages) up and down and can find no reference to German casualties in that part of the tome.

This isn't an attempt to cause issues; I would like very much to know what I did wrong. Alooulla (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You wrote that Sheldon and Cave did not give the casualties quoted when they did and gave undue weight to one source which offers 9,000 a figure mostly found in discredited sources.

"German casualties are not likely to have been any more than 2,000."

It's early on in the chapter Le Cateau: British Introduction. Thanks for replying though, I'm sure that we can sort something out. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Bird is admittedly cagey about casualties; he seems to like the war office figure of 8,970, but then he does mention in his book Sheldon and Cave's figures of being about 2,000 as well, but also says he estimates this to be too low when taking into account wounded and missing, which they apparently have not done. As for their figures, it seems the page number is not accurate to the edition I myself got last year, I found the reference (at last!) on page 9, not 14.
 * It doesn't help that the British recorded all wounds as casualties and the Germans apparently did not, plus they lost a lot of records in bombing raids. Ultimately this is a very shaky thing whichever way you look at it; Spencer Jones seems to think the British casualties are too high for example. And strangely enough, Cave and Sheldon also seem to think casualties are about 5,000 all told.
 * I suppose there's nothing that can truly be done without accurate German figures for wounded, prisoners and missing, which we just don't have. Alooulla (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you find it objectionable to edit German casualties to 2,000- 8,970, with a proper sourcing of the page in question of Bird's book, with an explanation that the Germans and British recorded casualties differently, and thus the greater part of both armies casualty numbers, if taken at face value, are probably lightly wounded? And that this is still a debated subject? I feel like the difference in available knowledge leads to a very lopsided infobox and might give people the wrong idea that this was a German whitewash, which is surely as inaccurate as claiming the Brits inflicted 15,000 casualties. Alooulla (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If Bird is an outlier temporally and statistically-speaking, that is a reason to discount his account unless it is described that way. I could agree to using a note to include the information with a gloss that other historians have been unmoved by his conclusions. I wouldn't want to give equal prominence to his views just because he has them. You're right about differing ways of counting casualties, the British counted them all and the Continentals went for a snapshot, more suitable for million-man armies. See here for an example Casualties. A problem with Le Cateau (but not in the official history) is that some historians want to cling on to a disproportionate view of British effectiveness not borne out in German accounts or later more dispassionate analysis. If Bird is disputing with other historians the detail on which he bases conclusions matters a lot. That he is cagey isn't good thing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * i wouldn't have said he was an outlier so much as his work is directly contradictory to someone like Zuber or to a lesser extent Hastings, and stands out against the current page as a result; I found his book well researched with a good amount of primary and secondary sources of both armies, and he did credit the lower casualty numbers of Cave and Sheldon, whilst thinking the truth was probably a little higher, if not as high as official records. I would say his work tallies close with the Spencer Jones talk, but we must be careful not to assume any view that makes the BEF look good is automatically suspect. I think he's a source to be relied on, but ultimately anything that is different to the page as stands is going to be scrutinized.
 * But with Bird and Spencer Jones providing a snapshot of the battle that is counter to claims by those like Zuber, (and let us be fair, the German records that survive are in their own way going to be just as biased as the Brit ones, so we can't take them for gospel either) it's probably at least worth noting that there is considerable debate still about exactly what happened, and not all of it outdated. Incidentally I highly recommend Birds book if you haven't read it, despite the jingoistic title I found it fair and balanced. As mentioned he gives considerable airtime to other researchers.
 * I'll have a think about the best way to approach this; possibly an increase in the amount of known context would be enough. Alooulla (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you think, you need consensus before editing. Your views above are your views, not those of RS so are OR, not editing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I am quite new to this. To that end, I did make an edit to casualties, but if you want to remove it so i can gain consensus, I'll post it in here instead. Alooulla (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Large edit to 'casualties'.
I would like to add the following the the Casualty section, because I feel the page as it currently is leans heavily towards the view of Le Cateau as an unquestionable British mistake, which doesn't tally with the views of a lot of historians. I will not say the page is biased towards the German army as such, but it lacks the full context of how the casualties were counted and as such might lead a casual observer to view the battle in incomplete terms.

''Nonetheless, casualties for Le Cateau continue to be debated in published works, and accusations of bias continue to plague writers who come down favourably on the side of the BEF or the German Army. In 2008, Antony Bird in Gentlemen, We Will Stand and Fight, wrote extensively on the various conflicting casualty reports of Le Cateau; according to the official Commonwealth War Graves Commission, BEF casualties killed were 1,200, but otherwise tally with the infobox above for a total figure of 7,812. Bird seconds Cave in suggesting that British casualties were swollen by the failure to allow stragglers time to return to their units after the confused retreat, and were thus never corrected after the fact; he does however, offer some criticism for Cave and Sheldon suggesting that German casualties were merely 2,000 without sources. In terms of German casualties, because the German Army and BEF counted casualties differently, a true comparison is difficult; German forces only counted killed and seriously wounded as casualties, a technique more suited to 'million man' armies, and the British in contrast counted all wounded, no matter how slight. Therefore, true casualty figures for the German Army measured the same way as the BEF are speculative at best; the 1933 War Department Battlefield Tour Guide speculated a complete figure of 8,970 casualties in total, however slight, for the German forces. As mentioned however, this is completely speculative, based on surviving data from similar battles of the period such as Mons, at which there was less British artillery present.''

The section will be correctly sourced and referenced. Alooulla (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Further, I would like to add context to the casualty infobox, that currently shows 2,900 German casualties; I do not wish to change the figure, but I would like to make it clear those casualties are dead and wounded, as the Germans as mentioned did not count lightly wounded, and we have no figures for their missing. They had no prisoners taken. Alooulla (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * In 2008, Antony Bird wrote that according to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the number of British troops killed was 1,200. Bird suggested that British casualty figures were exaggerated because stragglers were not counted during the retreat and [X were left as missing].


 * The article isn't the place for an essay just a description of the RS. I usually put varying casualty numbers in chronological order. Keith-264 (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Would this be a bit more tidied up?
 * In 2008, Antony Bird wrote that according to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the number of British troops killed was 1,200. Bird concurred with Cave's suggestion that British casualty figures were exaggerated because stragglers during the retreat were listed as killed or missing.
 * In terms of German casualties, because the German Army and BEF counted casualties differently, a true comparison is difficult; German forces only counted killed and seriously wounded as casualties, a technique more suited to 'million man' armies. Therefore, true casualty figures for the German Army measured the same way as the BEF are speculative and based around similar battles of the period; the 1933 War Department Battlefield Tour Guide speculated a complete figure of 8,970 casualties in total, however slight, for the German forces. Alooulla (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Using words like "concurred" is OR again unless the word appears in Bird's writing. The stuff about German (and French) casualty counting goes back to Edmonds and the Official History and is not indisputable; see McRandle, J. H.; Quirk, J. (3 July 2006). "The Blood Test Revisited: A New Look at German Casualty Counts in World War I". The Journal of Military History. Lexington, VA. 70 (3): 667–701. doi:10.1353/jmh.2006.0180. ISSN 0899-3718. S2CID 159930725. Note that the German Verlustliste were supplemented after the war by the Sanitätsbericht über das Deutschen Heeres, im Weltkriege 1914–1918 Band III Die Krankenbewegung bei dem Deutschen Feld- und Besatzungsheer [Medical Services of the German Army During the World War 1914–1918 Transport of Casualties about the German Field and Garrison Armies] (in German). Vol. III. Berlin: Verlag Ernst Siegfried Mittler und Sohn. 1934. OCLC 493867080. This work contradicts the "add 30%" school. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Essentially, I am attempting to make it clear in the article that some view Le Cateau as a positive, important battle for the BEF, and I do not think the content of the page reflects that at present; your edits to my edit have done nothing to change that either. I do not wish to change the page to entirely reflect that view of course, as that would be as wrong as claiming it was a pointless waste of life and a complete German victory, but I do not think it carries enough of the positive BEF viewpoint at present; and as it is still a viewpoint held by many historians, I feel it should at least be here in some capacity. How would you advise I do this, without essay writing and keeping to the relevant facts; for example the large german casualty numbers of 8,970 whilst speculative are still from sources and therefore a viewpoint to be considered, based as they are on other situations at the time, even if other sources disagree with them.
 * Naturally, casualties do not reflect the entire story of the battle or its importance, but it is one aspect amongst many. Alooulla (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sadly that smacks of point of view pushing contrary to Neutral point of view. You'll find that the Official History does not vaunt the battle, rather its coverage is muted. The truth seems to be that in August 1914 the British were overrun the same as the French, inflicted some casualties but that both armies had to spend two weeks running for their lives. Keith-264 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You can see OH 1914 I here . Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is best achieved with a broad spread of sources and works when something like this, about which information is actually still hotly debated, is being discussed. The article doesn't read neutral at the moment at all. In fact, speaking bluntly, it reads as though Terence Zuber himself wrote it, and I don't think that's appropriate.
 * Whilst the OH is muted, many eminent historians have written on how important this battle was for the BEF as a holding action, and how it may have saved the whole army from encirclement. Whether someone subscribes to this view or not, or instead ascribes it to the faults of German intelligence, the page as stands contains little to nothing about the importance of the battle for the BEF. Some speculation is allowed (Cave's German casualty figures for example) but other speculation is not, such as the 1933 War Department guide figures. You will forgive me for finding this distinction a little bit unfair, but perhaps someone with a better ability to debate you than I might convince you of the necessity of these changes in the future.
 * No hard feelings; but I feel like you and I differ too much about how neutrality might be achieved for me to make any meaningful progress here. Best regards. Alooulla (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that you are mistaken and that it would be a pity if you gave up, the article is start class which means that it is of low quality and needs a lot of work. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Possibly. Like I said, I am (fairly) new to this, and my edits thus far haven't required nearly as much indepth work. I will try my hand over the coming week to work on it here and there. I'll check in before I make any edits. Alooulla (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To do it justice it would look something like this Battle of Albert (1916). There are ratings for articles that you can see if you adjust your preferences. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Casualties section
The question of inconsistent casualty criteria began between the wars and has an extensive bibliography much of which is found World War I casualties here. Keith-264 (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)