Talk:Battle of Malplaquet

Result?
Sorry, I meant to explain this edit in the edit summary, but accidently clicked Enter. I think "Pyrrhic Allied victory" is as good a description of the result as any. I think "Indecisive" isn't really clear. The French were forced to retreat, but the British suffered such heavy casualties that they were not able to persue. Hence Pyrrhic victory. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's about right. William Weir considered this one of his "fatal victories" in the book of the same title. The French had been on the ropes for several years, but remained in better shape than their enemy even though they conceded the battlefield. This battle was one of the major reasons the United Kingdom recalled Malborough a few years later and left the war and Philip was able to keep the throne of Spain and most of its possessions, which, after all, was what the war was about.--Syd Henderson (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Have moved the qualification 'pyrrhic' with explanation and refs to body of article, changed info box back to neutral indecisive.Tttom1 (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath section
The myth that the French folksong dates from the battle is debunked here: "Malbrouk or Marlbrough (Marlbro'), does not date from the battle of Malplaquet (1709), but from the time of the Crusades, 600 years before. According to a tradition discovered by M. de Châteaubriand, the air came from the Arabs, and the tale is a legend of Mambron, a crusader. It was brought into fashion during the Revolution by Mme. Poitrine, who used to sing it to her royal foster-child, the son of Louis XVI. M. Arago tells us that when M. Monge, at Cairo, sang this air to an Egyptian audience, they all knew it, and joined in it. Certainly the song has nothing to do with the Duke of Marlborough, as it is all about feudal castles and Eastern wars. We are told also that the band of Captain Cook, in 1770,..."

The quip about France being saved by a few more of these defeats apparently is from Villars, not Boufflers:« Si Dieu nous fait la grâce de perdre encore une pareille bataille, Votre Majesté peut compter que tous ses ennemis seront détruits. » Lettre du maréchal de Villars à Louis XIV après la bataille de Malplaquet du 11 septembre 1709. 

The Tories indeed used this Pyrrhic victory as a stick to beat Marlborough with, but to say that they were "moved" by it to begin agitating for withdrawal from the war is stretching events. (See W.S. Churchill, Marlborough. His Life and Times)--Ereunetes (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle section
One should keep track of the wings or "flanks" of the respective armies. Gen. Withers was never on the left wing of the Allied army, opposite the right wing of the French, though he was supposed to be there, before the battle started; unfortunately his column arrived too late from Tournai, so it was apportioned to the Allied right wing. And this was opposite the French left wing, pace the text in the article.

Also, the Dutch left wing did not "break off" (from what?) but started its diversionary attack at 9.30 am as planned, though the Dutch unfortunately had not been informed that it was only intended as "diversionary", and that they were opposed by a force twice their size. Hence the appalling losses.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Flags
There is something going on in the info box about the proper flag icons. I am no expert, so I won't get involved in the editing, but it seems to me what is needed is either the "lily" flag of the Kingdom of France (pre-Revolution) or possibly a battle flag, but not a naval flag (obviously).--Ereunetes (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Prisoners?
Does anybody know the number of prisoners taken by the Allied forces when they broke the French centre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.19.40 (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sure someone, somewhere has come up with a number. However, I'd be very skeptical as to its exactness. This also applies to the number of killed and wounded. When I researched the Dutch numbers it turned out that these were estimates based on extrapolation from the number of officers killed (for which relatively exact figures are known) and then applying "usual" casualty figures to the units they commanded. It is known that the number of wounded was enormous, as it took unusual (for the times) difficulties to organize the care for them in the aftermath of the battle, even though the Allies had the battlefiled to themselves. This probably contributed to the number of people dying shortly after the battle. As to the prisoners: I suppose the number of officers captured will be relatively well documented, but I doubt if anything trustworthy can be said about "other ranks."--Ereunetes (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

revert of anonymous edit
I reverted the edit by 90.206.194.43, firstly because it is anonymous, but primarily because it unreasonably introduces a POV. I did not write the current phrase stating that the battle in fact was a "French strategic victory," but I think this opinion is eminently defensible on the basis of a consensus among historians of the battle. If the anonymous editor thinks he/she has arguments for his edit, let it please present them.--Ereunetes (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it a bit, setting out the key points of the outcome. I disagree with idea that it was a "French strategic victory" however. Villars' objective was the raise the siege of Mons, and regardless of the damage he inflicted on Marlborough's army, he failed to achieve that objective. Captain Seafort (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your reworded version is completely acceptable. The anonymous edit I reverted seemed to be contrary to the historical facts. I won't quibble about the question whether it was a "strategic victory" and if so, whose :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

French strategic victory
Since this victory allowed France to regain its territories lost earlier in the war, I propose that the aftermath be changed to "Allied tactical victory, French strategic victory." -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What territories? The only sense in which Malplaquet was a French victory was that their army was still more or less intact, and Marlorough's had been badly mauled, strengthening the anti-war party in Britain. You may be confusing it with Denain Captain Seafort (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The weakening of Churchill's army is what made Denain a possibility, I would argue. -- LightSpectra (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ´French strategic victory´ is not consistent with text I think: according to article Marlborough wanted to take the fortress of Mons. Because of his (pyrrhic) victory he was able do that. This would be a strategic victory for the allies then. ABMvandeBult (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above poster, it shouldn't be described as a French strategic victory. Being driven from the field and losing Mons was not part of their strategy. I'm going to change it. But I don't know whether or not it should be described as an allied strategic victory instead. --Oel43 (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Bloodiest battle of the 18th century"
The page on the Battle of Blenheim says that the total number of dead and wounded was over 32,000. If that page is incorrect, then I apologize for removing the reference that in this article that Malplaquet was the bloodiest battle. -- LightSpectra (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Malplaquet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110818115805/http://www.battlefieldanomalies.com/malplaquet/index.htm to http://www.battlefieldanomalies.com/malplaquet/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

IP edit
Dear IP,

please stop altering the infobox without consensus, thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC))

Result - again.
The result has been edited to "See Aftermath", with a link to that section. Firstly, this is because of the guidance at MOS:MIL, which specifically deprecates 'pyrrhic victory' and similar qualifying terms. Secondly, there is not a clear consensus in the sources that it is being called a pyrrhic victory, since the result is also being called other things (according to the sources cited), including a "French strategic victory". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Having done a similar edit for Battle of Jamrud, I think that was the best type of edit Cinderella157. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As part of the rewrite/expansion, I have studied the Sources provided and unless I'm looking at the wrong editions, neither of them suggest a "French strategic victory". As an aside, "pyrrhic" is often misused and highly subjective, which is why its not recommended. Even the authors who write "pyrrhic victory" also say "clear French defeat". On the same page (I'm looking at you, John Lynn). Personally, I'd put "Allied victory", then add "see Aftermath" but I'm all for a peaceful life. :) I'm going to submit this for a "B" review and see what comes up. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have assessed this as B class. As far as whether it was an Allied or French victory, I would say an Allied victory (albeit a very costly one). But, I'm staying out of that argument. Djmaschek (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

French casualties
These two recent studies by Dutch historians both state that French casualties were around 17,000. Is there a good reason not to include this in the article?

Van Nimwegen, Olaf (2020). De Veertigjarige Oorlog 1672-1712: de strijd van de Nederlanders tegen de Zonnekoning (The 40 Years War 1672-1712: the Dutch struggle against the Sun King) (in Dutch). Prometheus. ISBN 978-90-446-3871-4.

Van Alphen, Marc; Hoffenaar, Jan; Lemmers, Alan; Van der Spek, Christiaan (2019). Krijgsmacht en Handelsgeest: Om het machtsevenwicht in Europa. Boom. ISBN 978-90-244-3038-3.


 * With the presumption that there is no question of these meeting WP:RS, I don't see why not - though both the range in the infobox and the text in the body would need to be amended. Pages? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Van Nimwegen writes on page 318 that although the French claimed to have only lost 8100 men, was that in reality at least 2 times as much. Van Alphen claims on page 95 that the French lost 17,000 man. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Changes made. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I see that the infobox now has two incompatible figures for French "killed or wounded". Without access to the sources, I can't tell which is right. Maproom (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "incompatible"; different sources provide different casualty figures, that's hardly unusual. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The consensus about French casualties is around 11-12,000 men. I don't really know what the source of those two Dutch authors is unfortunately. Reading the summary of Van Nimwegen's book "De Veertigjarige Oorlog 1672-1712" is interesting however, especially this extract:
 * "The resilience, fortitude and tenacity with which the Dutch fought forced Louis XIV to abandon his policy of territorial expansion [Louis XIV died one year after the end of the war of the Spanish Succession] and adopt a European balance of power. His successors had no intention of ever completing the Sun King's original plan to annex the Southern Netherlands – present-day Belgium – into France [false]. On the contrary, they preferred to declare this area permanently neutral [completely false] and thereby avoid a new showdown with the Dutch [nonsense]. After forty years of war, there could be no doubt [mmmh] that the Republic had been the cornerstone of the great European alliances that had shaken the throne of Louis XIV. The Forty Years' War had exhausted France so much that it was not until after the Revolution of 1789 that the French again waged wars of conquest [false]."
 * Apart from his tone, he probably forgot the tiny war of the Austrian Succession.
 * Moreover, I don't see the point of grouping two citations who use the exact same source/or base themselves on each other. See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fleurus_(1690) LaHire07 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't exactly understand what is wrong with the tone here? He is responding to Dutch critics (contemporary and more recent) of the policies of William III, Anthonie Heinsius and other Dutch anti-French politicians. This makes this extract obviously sound Dutch centric, but that isn't wrong in this context.
 * ""The resilience, fortitude and tenacity with which the Dutch fought forced Louis XIV to abandon his policy of territorial expansion [Louis XIV died one year after the end of the war of the Spanish Succession] and adopt a European balance of power."
 * Well, Louis XIV did change his foreign policy and attitude after the Nine Years War and during the WoSS . This isn't necessarily about the period after the 'Forty Years War.'
 * "His successors had no intention of ever completing the Sun King's original plan to annex the Southern Netherlands – present-day Belgium – into France [false]."
 * In what way did Louis XV and Louis XVI show this intention?
 * "it was not until after the Revolution of 1789 that the French again waged wars of conquest [false]."
 * Would you describe the Wars of France in the 18th century before the Revolution as French wars of conquest in Europe? I think that would be controversial. French foreign policy wasn't directed as strong anymore on expansion in Europe and it showed. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would certainly be curious to hear why the Austrian War of Succession should be considered a "French war of conquest".
 * Plus understanding why France had no interest in permanently occupying the post 1713 "Austrian Netherlands" (sic) presumably requires greater knowledge of French mercantile and diplomatic policy than is apparent from the facile dismissal of Van Nimwegen's work.
 * However, none of this is relevant to the topic under discussion here ie French casualties at Malplaquet. It seems to be part of a continued effort which appears in other articles to dismiss a source because it doesn't comply with a specific viewpoint. Disagreeing with an historian does not ipso facto make them wrong (eg I use Perini extensively but always bear in mind that he is the official French army historian, writing at a time when promoting its prestige was important - Dreyfus etc). Robinvp11 (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

"Pyrrhic Victory"
FYI - maybe you can refer this to our persistent colleague :)

I'm putting this here in an attempt to end the edits changing the Result to Pyrrhic victory. There are two reasons why this edit is unsustainable;

(a) The Wikipedia template does not allow it; the options are Victory, Inconclusive, or Disputed (rare)

(b) The term itself is poorly understood, rarely used correctly, and the Wikipedia article on it needs significant work (its on my list :)). It is not related to the number of casualties suffered by the "victorious" side relative to their "defeated" opponents, but to the strategic benefit gained thereby. Examples;

At the Battle of Cunaxa in 401 BCE, the Greek mercenary army effectively routed their opponents with minimal losses (Xenophon claimed a few lightly wounded). However, their leader Cyrus the Younger was killed, and since the battle was only fought to install him on the Persian throne, it can be considered a Pyrrhic victory.

During the 1862 Seven Days Battles, the Confederates suffered greater casualties than their Union adversaries, both in total (19k to 17k) and as a proportion of troops involved (21% v 15%). It is nevertheless considered a Confederate victory, because Lee achieved his strategic objective of forcing McClellan to retreat.

As explained in the Aftermath section, the French fought at Malplaquet to prevent the fall of Mons, which they failed to do, while Louis XIV was only saved from having to make peace by the Allies' over-reaching their demands. Along with (most) historians, I view it as an Allied victory, but Malplaquet is for the French the same sort of heroic defeat the British suffered at Dunkirk, so...(and this isn't an invitation to restart this dispute, please).

If anyone wants to discuss this further, let me know. Robinvp11 (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Requested semi-protection. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Casualties
I have found quite a few sources that describe 14,000 to 17,000 French casualties. 8,000 seems to be a number mainly supported by French writers, but not by a lot of writers outside France. Why does the article pretend like it is just as common as the 11,000-12,000 estimate and that the rest are fringe ideas? I think it is best to accept that there is no consensus. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Where did you see that "8,000 seems to be a number mainly supported by French writers, but not by a lot of writers outside France"? I was not aware that Soterios Nicholson was a French writer. Another author, still not a French one, claims 10,000 losses. The only French writer in this article supports an estimate of 11,000. However, I think you will agree with me if I say that 17,000 seems to be a number mainly supported by Dutch writers, but not by a lot of writers outside the Netherlands. Which comes from one contemporary estimate from one person. Also, I don't think you should put together the sources which claim 14,000 and those which claim 17,000. The latter is the highest possible estimate. Which I think is why those Dutch authors all chose it. Even though it is, again, only backed by one contemporary source. It is a bit like if the French authors supported the number of 6,000 claimed by Villars. Which they do not. Finally, it is written in the article that allied "casualties exceeded 20,000 killed or wounded". So the article uses the number of 20,000 as a reference. Yet many authors wrote that allied losses were around 22, 23, 24 or even 30,000 men didn't they? LaHire07 (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, you do not react to the central part of my comment. I argue that I don't understand why the article pretends that everyting above 12,000 for the French casualty numbers are ideas on the fringes when I have found numerous sources that go above that (more than I inlcuded in the article). I want to change the wording so that 8,000 isn't given more weight than 17,000. We can say that 11-12,000 is the most common estimate, but it is hardly a consensus.
 * Everyting else is really irrelevant, because we just have to represent the historiography in a fair way. We can't dismiss historians we don't like if we do not have very good arguments.
 * For the sake of it I will engage with your objections to my comment.
 * I was not aware that Soterios Nicholson was a French writer. Another author, still not a French one, claims 10,000 losses.
 * Do you think that the sources on Wikipedia are the only ones I encounter?
 * However, I think you will agree with me if I say that 17,000 seems to be a number mainly supported by Dutch writers, but not by a lot of writers outside the Netherlands.
 * Yes, I agree. Does it change anything?
 * Which comes from one contemporary estimate from one person.
 * The exact number probably does, although I am not certain. However, other arguments are put forward to support that estimate, so it isn't just that.
 * Also, I don't think you should put together the sources which claim 14,000 and those which claim 17,000. The latter is the highest possible estimate.
 * I did it to show that there are many who gave estimates above 12,000. As you see I didn't put them together in the infobox. And no, 17,000 isn't the highest possible estimate. In fact, De Vryer includes another letter, of the Allied officer who sent the intercepted letter to his friends, and he thought that the French officer was lowballing it.
 * And the 8,000 number is supported with even less evidence. It is the official number the French court gave out, but they never published a detailed casualty list of their casualties like the Allies did. The 11-12,000 estimate is based on the extrapolation of French officer casualties. Hardly any better. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry to meddle where I am not welcome, but to me it seems a bit childish to put all competing estimates of French casualties in the info box. Why not put a middle range here (say 11,000) with a footnote to it with all the competing claims? That seems less messy to me. I personally think the French "low" estimates may be closer to the mark, because the allied (especially Dutch) losses were needlessly large, because of the profligacy Friso showed with the lives of Dutch personnel (which of course included the Swiss mercenaries). I read somewhere (I think it was Jonathan Israel) that the Dutch States Army was permanently crippled because so many young Dutch officers from patrician families lost their lives being mowed down by d'Artagnan's safely ensconced musketeers. Not that Friso was the only one to blame, of course.Sicco van Goslinga was pretty gung-ho also during the battle. I think the article is "too diplomatic" about this. But who am I? Ereunetes (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ereunetes No your perspective is very welcome. I think there is a problem with the 'messy infobox' argument though. Like with the Waterloo discussion I think that people prioritize it to much. In this case we would leave people with a false sense of certainty, just so the page will look more aesthetically pleasing.
 * And I don't mind discussing personal opinions about the casualty numbers, because it quite interesting. It is however not very effective when establishing what should be written on the page and what shouldn't. I could write an essay on why I think French casualties are probably higher, but it wouldn't matter because we have to represent what historians say.
 * As for Jonathan Israel, I think he is a bit to harsh. He probably took his language from pre war Dutch historians, like Blok and Van Lennep. The States Army however took part in various succesfull actions after Malplaquet and infact grew in size. If anything, the quality might have gone down, but that would be more on the various actions of the war then Malplaquet alone. I don't hear his kind of language in most modern accounts.
 * However this has no bearing on French casualties. It isn't like they were instantly able to contest the Allies again DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we have the same objective, but disagree about the best way to reach it. I think your current approach is self-defeating, because most people don't read this talk-page and your arguments. They just see this strange series of alternative estimates (properly referenced though they are). My advice would be to not start an edit war over it, but to put your arguments in the Aftermath section (or in a footnote to the French casualties column in the info box). It is an important historiographical issue after all. Besides, I think the reason why everybody seems to get hot under the collar about this subject is that some people are making this a matter of National Prestige (as they do on the pages of many other battles) and are trying to spin the narrative in such a way that their side "actually won." The problem for those rooting for the "Allied side" in the battle of Malplaquet is that the Allied losses were relatively outsized, compared to the French losses. This makes it difficult to claim an "Allied victory", even though on other criteria it may actually have been. My personal opinion is that even if it was an Allied victory, it decidedly was a Pyrrhic one, in view of the outsize Dutch losses. But I am repeating myself :-) Ereunetes (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I propose a disclaimer in the infobox which states that casualty estimates vary greatly (not in a footnote). This would clear up for the reader why there are so much numbers in the infobox. But in any case, I rather leave the reader a bit confused than with a false sense of certainty. History is just often not as clear cut as we want it to be. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And my initial comment was actually more about the article itself than the infobox. I think we can agree that the current wording is a bit problematic DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do agree. but the question is more what LaHire07 thinks. I think avoiding an edit war is of the utmost importance. If you want to know what could happen, just look at the talk-page of User talk:Cinderella157. It ain't pretty. Ereunetes (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol, I agree that an edit war is not preferable. That is why I started this thread, and didn't just edit as I pleased. I think @LaHire07 and we can come to an agreement. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @DavidDijkgraaf What matters is to cross the sources. And not just modern sources. Because you could find as many historians as you want, if they all use the same contemporary estimate, it counts as one. My personal view is that those Dutch historians used the 17,000 estimate because it was the highest they could find. Like some French historians might use the estimate of 6,000 or 8,000, because it's a low estimate, though I have not found French historians who use the 6,000 estimate. Maybe you have. But non-French historians also use the 8,000 estimate. I'm not aware of any non-Dutch historian using the 17,000 estimate. But the point is that the most estimates (which are different from one another or come from different contemporary estimates) are centered around 11,000 losses. You have one estimate (Villars) that claims 6,000 and one (a random French officer) that claims 17,000. Statistically speaking they are both irrelevent. LaHire07 (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So, all historians who take the 8,000 number from the French court or the historians who take the extrapolated number count as one? I don't think that is a fair way to look at it.
 * My personal view is that those Dutch historians used the 17,000 estimate because it was the highest they could find.
 * What your view is of those Dutch historians doesn't really matter in this case.
 * Maybe you have. But non-French historians also use the 8,000 estimate. I'm not aware of any non-Dutch historian using the 17,000 estimate.
 * Because, as Jamel Ostwald argued in 2000, Dutch secondary and primary sources on this period are vastly underapreciated outside the Netherlands. That is not true for French historiography. Many historians from outside France speak French and use French sources extensively. Such as Dutch historians. And even then, the 8,000 estimate is very rare in English works, and non existent in Dutch works.
 * But the point is that the most estimates (which are different from one another or come from different contemporary estimates) are centered around 11,000 losses.
 * I agree that the most common estimate centres around 11-12,000 losses, but we can't call it a consensus. That is the problem here. There are to much (renowned) historians who disagree.
 * ''You have one estimate (Villars) that claims 6,000 and one (a random French officer) that claims 17,000. Statistically speaking they are both irrelevent.
 * I see what you mean, but that is not really how this works. Historians can have reasons to doubt one estimate and give more credence to another. They aren't forced to look at this statistically. That wouldn't be reasonable. I think that you would actually agree with this. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If I may interject a question here that may be relevant? I noticed that one of the sources for the 17,000 French losses number you cite is Olaf van Nimwegen, De veertigjartige oorlog 1672-1712, published in 2020. Van Nimwegen is indeed a reputable historian known for his revisionist military history. Not someone who I would suspect of Orangistic "Dutch chauvinism". Unfortunately I can't acces the book online, and it is difficult to buy it in the US, as bol.com does no longer serve the US market. So could you tell a bit more about what arguments Van Nimwegen gives for his use of the "high" French number? Ereunetes (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had overlooked the explanatory footnote that is already in the article on the subject of the "highballing" Dutch authors, including Van Nimwegen I presume. So it is in all cases the "letter of the French officer" that estimates 7,000 French killed and 10,000 wounded? Then this is already in the article, which returns us to square one. I have found Clodfelter online. It turns out the page reference was wrong. I have corrected this. Clodfelter sits smack in the range LaHire07 prefers: 4,500 French killed, 8,000 wounded. Just saying :-) I have put the url for Clodfelter in the sources. Ereunetes (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to establish first that this too isn't very relevant to the discussion. We don't need to become convinced ourselfs. We just have to represent historiography in a fair way. I am not asking La Hire to convince me of the 8,000 or 11,000 estimates.
 * But Van Nimwegen's book is wonderfull, so if you can ever get it I recommend it. However, because his take on French casualties is not particularly revisionist within Dutch historiography he doesn't spend a lot of time on it. He says on page 318 "en hoewel de Fransen beweerden niet meer dan 8100 man te hebben verloren, waren hun werkelijke verliezen minstens tweemaal zo groot". Earlier in his book he writes that according to reliable figures the French suffered 17,000 casualties and that there was a somber mood in Versailles after the battle.
 * For more detailed arguments, and the letter itself, I refer you to De Vryer which you can actually read yourself here: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=M5ob6ae_dAQC&pg=GBS.PA89&hl=nl DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe you :-) And you are right that it is not relevant to search for data/arguments to convince ourselves. That is why I "retreated" above. I had hoped that it would be possible to convince LaHire07 with something new, but he had already rejected "the letter of the anonymous French officer." Come to think of it, it is strange that he rejects sources that at least marshal an argument for their estimates, whereas many of the sources cited in the article don't present such an argument. Clodfelter, for instance just throws out his numbers without even a reference. I understand that it is difficult to arrive at exact numbers, as the parties themselves hardly bothered to count their own dead, let alone bury them. I suppose most estimates come from comparing muster rolls "before and after". Whomsoever had disappeared in the"after" tally, could be presumed to be a "loss" (either dead, wounded, missing, captured, or deserted/AWOL). The historian has no other option but to look up the relevant muster rolls in the relevant archives, I guess. The altrernative is to believe the spin of your "own" side. Which in my experience is the favorite method of many 19th century British historians :-) Ereunetes (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case, there can be more certainty about Allied casualty figures than those of the French. This is because the French court refused to publish a list of their dead and wounded, while the Allies published a very detailed list (which I might add in a footnote).
 * But indeed, even with these lists there are obvious problems. For example, Dutch officers were after the battle paid by how many men they gave up as killed or wounded. They were thus incentivised to pretend the losses were heavier than they actually were. This led to an interesting quote from Eugene of Savoy: "it was amusing to see that several regiments, which had lacked many men before the battle, were now shown as having been full."
 * But indeed, even with these lists there are obvious problems. For example, Dutch officers were after the battle paid by how many men they gave up as killed or wounded. They were thus incentivised to pretend the losses were heavier than they actually were. This led to an interesting quote from Eugene of Savoy: "it was amusing to see that several regiments, which had lacked many men before the battle, were now shown as having been full."


 * Anyway, I will give other people a few more days to respond before I will edit the article to make some changes. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to have access to Wijn, Van Alphen and Van Nimwegen's books please? LaHire07 (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know for someone who lives in France, but I can try to send you pictures of pages you want to see? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems this entire discussion is a waste of time when some of the sources used are clearly of questionable reliability. Why is the Tucker source not being used? Who is Soterios Nicholson? Why is William Weir being used?(former newspaper editor in Kansas, no less!) What are Simon MacDowall's qualifications? Who is Richard Gordon Heath Holmes? Howard Green? Edward Thomas? G.W.L. Nicholson? Clodfelter? What are the qualifications for these sources??

Why has no one used The Military Revolution Debate: Readings On The Military Transformation Of Early Modern Europe, ed. Clifford J. Rogers? Marlborough's America, Stephen Saunders Webb? The Seventeenth Century: Europe 1598-1715, ed. Joseph Bergin? The Age of Battles: The Quest for Decisive Warfare from Breitenfeld to Waterloo, Russell F. Weigley?

The only number that should appear in the Casualty section of the infobox is the "lowest estimated casualties - highest estimated casualties". --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Your comment on reliability is fair and I would, in this specific case, agree with your last sentence DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It has been 5 days since I inquired as to the reliability of certain sources used for casualty figures. I have received zero response. I will have to assume that no one has any issue(s) with my removing said questionable sources and replacing them with sources I have mentioned. I will also be fixing the casualty section to "lowest estimated casualties - highest estimated casualties" using reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would urge caution. I presume you don't want an edit war, just like the other participants in this discussion want to avoid that. Please be a bit patient. I am sure @DavidDijkgraaf will give a reply when he has the time. Ereunetes (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Zero response? I agreed with you and removed all non-historians from the inbobox. Of the ones you mentioned Holmes, G.W.L Nicholson and Clodfelter were historians. The rest not, or I at least could not find that they were DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Richard Holmes was an extremely well-regarded British military historian who wrote what is considered to be the definitive biography of Marlborough (his book is listed in the Sources, you can read the reviews online if needed). He's used as a reference by Stephen Webb, whose work I have read but didn't use because its focused on a different topic. That should stay. Robinvp11 (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * "I agreed with you and removed all non-historians from the inbobox. Of the ones you mentioned Holmes, G.W.L Nicholson and Clodfelter were historians."
 * Links to verify whether these sources are WP:RS would be helpful. G.W.L. Nicholson is a historian? "Several years after graduating from Queen's, Nicholson returned to school and in 1935 obtained a Bachelor of Paedagogy degree from the University of Toronto."
 * Clodfelter is an historian? Where is the evidence for this?
 * AND, no response on why Tucker or the three sources I listed were not used. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Malplaquet is one of the most significant battles of the modern period. It's one thing to query Sources (although they're listed in the article for this very reason, so you could check them yourself), but since the battle is referenced by literally dozens of historians, any discussion on why some have been used, and not others, could be a lengthy one. However...
 * - Clodfelter is a researcher and consultant for the Dupuy Institute of Military History, and author of a number of history books, notably Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015, which has been through four editions. It is widely used, so if you object to it, there will be a lot of articles that need amending. There's no reason why Tucker, who produced a similar work, should be considered inherently more qualified as a Source;
 * - I looked at Weighley's The Age of Battles when writing the article. On Page 98, he states The Allies may have suffered more casualties than the French; the toll probably amounted to over 20,000 on each side. Since he is the only person to suggest this level of French casualties (including the allegedly prejudiced Dutch), I didn't use him. For similar reasons, I discounted Garrison, the one source to suggest 30,000 Allied casualties, and who focuses on battlefield medicine, not tactics or results;
 * - Webb I've already addressed;
 * - The Military Revolution Debate: Readings On The Military Transformation Of Early Modern Europe; again, the battle is mentioned several times as part of a wider discussion on tactics. On Page 182, Lynn suggests 90k per side, but doesn't address casualties, and since one of his other works is the primary source for the numbers in the Infobox, I don't see the value of using two different figures from the same author. Robinvp11 (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for an answers Robinvp11.


 * "so you could check them yourself)"
 * I tried verifying the sources used, oddly I thought I had searched for Richard Gordon Heath Holmes with no results. But after your post I did a subsequent search and found him. Weird. Clodfelter? Meh, if the infobox casualty section is formatted like other infoboxes(lowest casualty estimate -- highest casualty estimate) Clodfelter's numbers may be redundant. Thanks again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Among those which are referenced on this page, Clodfelter relies on Richard Holmes, as well as another figure which has not been referenced, Gaston Bodart. However, I have looked into Bodart's method of extrapolation and found it quite faulty. For one, he gives the following officer casualties for both sides — 1,000 French and 1,800 Allies. However, this is contrary to the publicly released officer casualties by the French court (1,157) and the Allies (1,424). In the end, the final killed and wounded he arrives at are 11,000 French k/w and 25,000 Allied k/w.
 * As you can see, he low-balls the French casualty estimate while the Allied casualty estimates are inflated. This also goes for the overall casualty to officer casualty ratio (talking just killed and wounded), which is 11 to 1 for the French and 13.89 to 1 for the Allies if we were to use Bodart's extrapolation process. Why is it skewed so when the Allies had already suffered more in officer casualties? Their final casualty figure is bound to be higher than the French one, anyways, and what he does just further inflates the Allied casualty figures.
 * Whatever the case, Bodart is not reliable, so it is more reasonable instead to refer to Holmes. I do not know which references Holmes uses for his figure on Malplaquet or whether he devised the number himself (as I don't exactly have his work to check). If both of them give the same figure, then Clodfelter might be redundant.
 * Another thing is the redundancy between Andre Corvisier and John A. Lynn, as Lynn references Corvisier for his French casualty figures (and here, you can see the obvious skew towards French sources other folk on this talkpage have mentioned), with the only real difference being 500 additional prisoners (I'm not sure where he produced that from; a primary or secondary source?). Either way, I think the fact that Lynn uses Corvisier's figure and that there's such negligible difference between the both of them in regards to the French casualties means that you can argue for redundancy here as well.
 * I've also seen in the edit history that this one editor is pushing to cite Delbruck, but I've checked up Delbruck's work and it lacks a coherent page for bibliography and references. He does give the occasional reference, but it is peppered here and there across his book, so I can't exactly track down where he gave his figures of 12,000 French casualties and 30,000 Allied casualties. However, if it follows the same line of thinking as Bodart, it might very well be faulty as a source as well.
 * To say nothing of how ludicrous it would be that there was such a vast casualty disparity (or the vast casualty disparity given by Perini) and the Allies somehow still seemed to operate normally in their campaigns thenceforth and were still pushing back the French lines by a gradual seizure of fortresses. Had the Allies truly suffered so greatly, it would not have been the French who would have realistically been compelled to withdraw at Malplaquet and Villars would not have to give up Mons.
 * 2603:6081:3F00:1AB5:B0B4:B545:7838:90E6 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For its time, Bodart's work is pretty reasonable, especially given the number of battles he was trying to cover, and the lack of consistent records. But...he often either extrapolated totals from officer casualties, or in some cases used simple percentages of those engaged, which were also subject to error. That means he has to be used with caution.
 * I think Perini's figures for French casualties are so low because they seem to be based on returns from regular regiments. As is mentioned in the article, many of those present were newly formed militia, who appear to have been largely ignored in these returns. Goodness knows where he got 43k from - might be a simple error, hard to believe even the most one eyed historian could have seriously believed them. Robinvp11 (talk) 06:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the length of this comment :) and thank you to everyone for your commitment and input. I've put a lot of work into revising this article, but stayed out of this discussion as its become pretty repetitive. However, I have several points arising, which I apologise for repeating but are relevant.


 * First (a personal bugbear of mine, Pyrrhic Victory is a term constantly misused and little understood. It does not relate to relative casualties per se, but where the cost of victory defeats the purpose of fighting in the first place. As Pyrrhus was conducting a war far from home, he was unable to replace his losses, leaving him too weak to achieve his strategic goal of destroying the Roman capacity to fight, who were. Conversely, the Battle of Cunaxa was also a Pyrrhic Victory, since despite defeating their opponents with minimal losses, the objective was to put Cyrus the Younger on the throne, one of the few fatalities incurred by the winners. The French fought to prevent the loss of Mons and halt the Allied advance, neither of which objectives was achieved. Even Boufflers refers to it as an Allied victory, albeit an expensive one. It's Disputed only because Marlborough wanted to destroy the last French field army and failed. Both are related to Strategy, which according to the Wikipedia guide is not the determinant of victory, but I'm not refighting that battle. This is explained in detail in the Aftermath section.


 * Second, the reason we can be relatively clear on Allied casualties is because (as mentioned above), Dutch and British officers were paid for the number of men they reported as present, while most of the other Allied troops were paid by British subsidies. Auditing muster rolls was thus a form of cost control, in an age when Parliamentary officials would challenge expenditures of less than a modern $. This appears to have been less strict in the French army, perhaps because many of the troops present were militia, rather than regular regiments, and its not clear where Perini gets his figures from.


 * Third, Anglophone historians tend to use French estimates because (from personal experience), very few can read Dutch, whose view is often ignored (not just here, Fontenoy is another example). French and Anglophone historians often agree because they're using the same sources. I have no way of verifying Dutch estimates, but it seems wrong to simply dismiss them as biased, whilst taking as given those provided by the French Official Historian (ie Perini). This is a battle of great significance in Dutch military history, so we should include their perspective;


 * I'm not expecting others to accept these points without debate (any editor unwilling to consider the possibility they're wrong is fooling themselves), but at the very least read the entire article (not just the Infobox), and perhaps take them into account.


 * I suggest taking the generally accepted highest and lowest. Thus, most French and Anglophone historians seem to agree 6,000 is too low for the French, and 30,000 too high for the Allies. The only exception (for reasons stated above) is including Dutch estimates somewhere, if only as a FN. The rest are just variations and arguing about them doesn't change the result of the battle. Robinvp11 (talk)


 * Robinvp11, we do not take as given the numbers provided by the French Official Historian Périni since he is not even mentioned once in this article. Even though he wrote about the battle of Malplaquet. He used an estimate of 7,000 French casualties, which I judged too low and therefore did not include in the article.


 * The problem with those Dutch sources is that they all use the same contemporary source. There is, in my opinion, an issue of methodology. But I would like to have access to those sources, in order to verify what they write exactly and how they formulate it. Why would they all use that particular source and not another one? Do they assert that the French lost 17,000 men?


 * Which French estimates do those Anglophone historians use for that particular battle? The point is, there is plenty of different estimates that are centered around 10 to 12,000 casualties, maybe 14,000. 17,000, there's just one. The fact that several Dutch historians use it does not mean that it's not just one source.


 * Why would 30,000 casualties be too high, but 17,000 would be acceptable? 30,000 is 150% of 20,000 (the lowest estimate for the allied casualties), 17,000 is 155% of 11,000 (which is not the lowest estimate for the French casualties).


 * You're saying that Anglophone historians don't generally use Dutch estimates, but here, Dutch historians use a French contemporary source, not a Dutch one. Why wouldn't those Anglophone historians use that French source, since it's French and not Dutch?


 * Finally, the French fought to save their country in the first place, in a moment of huge crisis, and it seems to me that this objective was achieved. Boufflers refers to it as an allied victory for the sole reason that the allies took the field. This is a very restrictive view of what a victory is.LaHire07 (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've read your comments. I'm not willing to provide answers to questions that require me to do a lot of work, and which from experience will then either be dismissed, or replaced with a series of counter arguments. However, I will respond to the simple ones.
 * My mistake in this instance re Perini;
 * I think 30,000 Allied casualties should be excluded because it's an outlying figure, contradicted by numerous other historians;
 * I very specifically haven't claimed the Dutch figures are correct, but we should at least consider them. You yourself have previously told me you aim to "correct" English-language articles by adding French sources - DavidDijkgraaf is simply doing the same thing by presenting a Dutch perspective, so I think that should be mentioned somewhere, even if only as a FN;
 * In passing, if you applied the same rigour and critical analysis to the French Wikipedia article on Maplaquet, it would be a lot easier to ensure a fully rounded perspective. I know editing Infoboxes is simple, harder by far to produce a detailed, well structured and researched analysis, but sometimes you have to earn the right.
 * Several years back, I started using non-English sources on a large number of poorly researched English language articles. That hasn't stopped me having to respond to frequent accusations of bias, but in combination the result is a number of significantly improved articles. The comprehensive discussion of the outcome in the Aftermath section here is a good example of that, so I don't begrudge it, but it often seems very one way. If I edit an article which says "French victory" in the Infobox, I can (generally) expect you to ignore it. To do you justice, I don't think you've ever claimed to be neutral; that's fine, but in consequence these discussions often resemble the Somme or Verdun, ie lengthy, exhausting, bloody, repetitive, and of dubious value.
 * Finally, the French fought to save their country in the first place, in a moment of huge crisis, and it seems to me that this objective was achieved. Boufflers refers to it as an allied victory for the sole reason that the allies took the field. This is a very restrictive view of what a victory is. (a) You've argued the opposite when that definition results in a French victory (eg St Denis; exactly what time who withdrew, and how far - 200 metres? 500 metres?); (b) take it up with Wikipedia, because its their definition, not mine. However, if I was to suggest Dunkirk was a British victory on the same grounds, I can only imagine the s#$tstorm you'd be (rightly) generating. Robinvp11 (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you was just as critical of French and British historians as you was of Dutch historians you could become a historian yourself. On what primary sources are the other estimates based?
 * As for your questions about the intercepted letter. I am not aware that it is published anywhere else than in a Dutch work. The letter seemed to be intercepted, or at least in possession of a Dutch officer who send it to his friends back home. De Vryer also includes the letter of that officer, in which he reflects on the intercepted letter, in his book. I have not seen an English work that published the letter so that might explain why French and English historians have not dealed with this source.
 * Finally, the French fought to save their country in the first place, in a moment of huge crisis, and it seems to me that this objective was achieved.
 * Malplaquet just slowed down the Allied advance. A successfull 1712 Allied campaign would have still doomed France. Regarding Malplaquet as the thing that saved France is a very restrictive view of what happened. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to congratulate all participants in this discussion with the quality of their contribution. As @Robinvp11 graced me with a reply to my abuse of the term Pyrrhic victory I want to assure him that I take his point, but that I only wanted to use a short phrase to express my opinion about what I consider one of the most egregious examples of how a "National Hero" (as Friso still is in the Netherlands) can earn his heroic reputation with a total disregard for human suffering, also on his own side. But then I am no longer "Dutch" myself :-) As to the matter at hand, I see an emerging consensus to fill the infobox with only the range between the "low" and the "high" estimates of French losses (as @Kansas Bear advocated), but to desist from his proposed "cull" of sources. I think we could fight a second Battle of Malplaquet about our definition of "real historians" with probably the same bloody result. Leave those opinions to this talk-page and possibly a few snide remarks in footnotes. One finds amusing examples of this approach in a.o. Battle of Waterloo. Ereunetes (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As to the inaccessibility of Dutch sources to non-Dutch speakers. Many sources are now accessible online, and often in a form that renders them accessible to the new translation algorithms in browsers like Google Chrome and Bing. I often use the Chrome variant. This only requires that one left-click somewhere in the page (to establish the focus) and then right-click, which causes a dropdown menu to offer a translation of the page into one's default language. I often use it as a crib when I have to excerpt a Dutch source for a biographical article. Highly recommended! Ereunetes (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * About Abraham de Vryer, the author of the book that contains the "letter of the anonymous French officer" that mentions the contested French losses of 7,000 dead and 10,000 wounded, the following. He appears to have been a Dutch Mennonite lay preacher, who is known for his translations (also of Newton) into Dutch. He has written and published in 1738-1740 two works (one of which is in the sources) that appear to be translations from the French of parts of . The quote about the letter appears in the translation devoted to Marlborough. So I presume that the letter also appears in this earlier work. I have tried to access it online, but have not succeeded (it may be online at the French Bibiotheque Nationale, though). Maybe soneone else is luckier. Ereunetes (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * De Vryer was not the only one who translated the Dumont/Rousset de Missy book. I also found an English translation: . This book does mention the French losses of 17,000 on page 122, after a citation of the second letter of Marshal Boufflers to king Louis. The quote reads: "The Loss of the French is not certainly known, but it is generally believed that it amounted to at least seventeen thousand killed and wounded, though M. de Quincy says that their whole Loss did not exceed eight thousand;..." So here you have it, a source giving both the high and the low number for the French losses in one sentence (!) And it is an English source to boot (though he translated two French historians). What more could one require? Ereunetes (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Those two De Vryer works aren't translations, or | at least contain other sources as well. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion, which has killed way too many electrons and appears to be going somewhat in circles. This is mainly about what should be reported in the infobox. For the French, we have three separate sets of figures reported, with some nuance to each set (similarly for the Allies). This is a degree of detail that is contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox is for a [simple] summary. It is unsuited to nuance and this detail. The casualty parameter is not a mandatory field and the article should remain complete with the infobox removed. We are explicitly warned not to [try to] write the article in the infobox. The article body should report the various figures from sources with appropriate due weight. I see a lot of discussion here which would analyse the figures. If such analysis is paraphrasing the published analysis from sources, it should be reported and attributed. If such analysis is being made by Wiki editors, it is WP:OR. Footnote C would read: The 17,000 estimate is likely based on an intercepted letter from a French officer, who wrote ... [emphasis added] There is a citation at the end of the note to p 444-445 of this source. I am not seeing where the source is ascribing the likelihood and, as an aside, I am not seeing the quoted text within these pages. Saying this is likely based on falls to WP:OR unless a source is making this statement. Given this discussion and the prevailing WP:P&G, I have been WP:BOLD in deleting casualties from the infobox and created a section casualties based on existing text. The section can now be expanded to more fully explore this. If we write the article first, then what goes in the infobox (if anything) should follow naturally. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * About the footnote. I think you might have looked at the wrong pages. Google gives other page numbers than you read in the book itself. You have to look at the end of page 444 and the beginning of page 445.
 * As for what is actually written about that text in the appendix. De Vryer writes on page 89: The Paris printing press produced a list of three hundred and twenty dead, and eight hundred and thirty-seven wounded commanders; and another, of prisoners only, may be seen elsewhere (a): but the number of the missing and wounded regular soldiers, Louis's Statesmen or Generals never wished to report. Only a special letter from their army, which the allies intercepted, estimated the dead at about seven thousand, the wounded at ten thousand men. (No. I Appendix)... More about why this can be supported by the course of the battle... DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , I was looking at the pagination of the actual book. I have also relooked at the source. Don't know what happened but I am now happy with the quoted text in the note. The letter is a primary source. Other sources may report the same figure. If other sources use the same figure, we simply state that the other sources are consistent with that figure unless they are explicitly citing the letter - in which case, we can say that they are actually relying on it. Your edit to the note addresses my concerns. In the bigger picture, it was an example and a caution about what can be written in an article with respect to WP:OR and what is being said in this discussion. I think it has served the intended purpose :) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @DavidDijkgraaf I take your point that De Vryer used other sources. But this applies apparently to Campbell also. In any case, my quote from Campbell clearly does not correspond with the quote from De Vryer. Unfortunately it is not clear who exactly is quoted in Campbell. I first thought that it was De Grimaldi, the French governor of Mons, whose dispatch was "subjoined" by Boufflers to his own letter (see end of p. 121). But my quote appears to be a new part of the narrative, as indicated by the fact that the quotation marks end just before the quote starts, and also by the change in tone, and formatting. However this may be, further down page 122 one finds further information on the aftermath of the battle: the French were allowed to bury their dead, and remove 1500 wounded, who were acknowledged as POWs and would not be allowed to serve, until the French had released an equal number of Allied POWs (as I read the text; this was when Gentlemen were still Gentlemen, and accepted each other's word of honor :-). My point: could this be accepted as a second, separate confirmation of the numbers at issue? And could they be accepted as the "contribution" of Dumont/Rousset de Missy (who were, after all, French historians, though unlikely to toe the party line)? Ereunetes (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way the "De Quincy" who is repeatedly cited by Campbell is Charles Sevin de Quincy and the book is . Could be added to the sources, I think. He is the one who mentions the low number for the French losses: "La perte que fit l'armée de France ne fut pas si grande à proportion que celle des Alliées: elle n'eût que sept à huit mille hommes tués ou blessés." (p. 203) Ereunetes (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have long been searching in vain for the online text of the book by Dumont and Rousset de Missy, and finally found it on the site of the University of Barcelona. I then found the casualty numbers they give for both the Allies and the French on pages 97-98 of volume I. For the French losses I found: "En general on crue que la perte des Ennemis [the French] alloit a 18. ou 20. mille hommes; ce qui revenoit a peu pres a l'egalite. J'ai vue des lettres particulieres de l'armee qui en faissoient le calcul a 7000 hommes tuez, & 10 mille blessez. Mais les relations publiques en parlerent tout autrement. Celle de Paris n'avoue que 8000 hommes tuez ou blessez & en donne 25. mille aux Alliez."(p. 98) In other words both the 17,000 (upper) and 8000 (lower) number are here mentioned in the same context. Ereunetes (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to note that, in the Memoires du Marechal de Villars, there was a section which read, "Leur perte, de l'aveu de leurs généraux, passoit 30,000 hommes, et du côté du roi il n'y eut de morts, soit dans le champ de bataille, soit de leurs blessures dans les hôpitaux, que 5,500 hommes. Nous eûmes un grand nombre de drapeaux, et les ennemis n'en eurent que deux ou trois tout au plus."
 * Their loss, by the admission of their generals, exceeded 30,000 men, and on the king's side there were no more dead, either in the field of battle, or from their wounds in the hospitals, than 5,500 men. We had a large number of flags, and the enemy had only two or three at the most.
 * Of course, the Memoires du Marechal de Villars was published in 1884 by the Marquis de Vogue, even if it claims to collate the unpublished written memoirs of the Marechal Villars, so I would take it with a grain of salt unless the actual primary pieces can be found to state such things.
 * However, if it is true, it seems to men that Villars was under the impression that the Allies had suffered 30,000 casualties, according to their own admission. Yet, I do not believe there is any source for said 30,000 casualties on the Allied side whatsoever and none made mention of such losses. The official publication of Allied casualties was closer to 21,000 more so and, in private correspondence, Eugene appears to suggest that it was even less than that (possibly 20,000) due to overcounting.
 * On another note, though, if these were transcribed from the original memoirs and Villars actually said this, it would also be an admission that the French suffered 5,500 dead or so. For he uses the sentence, "et du côté du roi il n'y eut de morts, soit dans le champ de bataille, soit de leurs blessures dans les hôpitaux, que 5,500 hommes," which specifically mentions only the dead and does not include the wounded.
 * Considering their dispositions, I must conclude that there is no possible way that the French could have suffered a worse dead to wounded ratio to the Allies, and percentage-wise, the percent of their dead compared to overall casualties must be at least equal or less. Now, of course, the figure of Allied dead vary quite a lot.
 * According to a source by De Vryer on the revised Allied casualties (for their infantry) after Eugene's above statement regarding potential overcounting issues, the Allied infantry dead was at 5,544 out of 18,244 total infantry casualties. The cavalry cannot be too far and it can be assumed that cavalry casualties added probably led to total Allied casualties of 20,000. It can likely be assumed that the dead to wounded was similar to the infantry, quite possibly a rate of 1 dead to every 2 wounded (or about 30% dead give or take).
 * If the recorded memoires of Villars, according to the Marquis de Vogue, has validity, and you weigh it in comparison to the Allies, it is very possible then that French dead was 5,500 or so (give or take) and French wounded was 11,000 or so. Added together, you get 16,500, not a far cry from the 17,000 often given in Dutch sources.
 * It should be noted that the Marquis de Vogue wasn't just a nobody, but an archaeologist in his time, and a member of the Academie Francaise, the principal French council for matters pertaining to the French language (initially established by the Cardinal Richelieu). More specifically, he was a named member of the Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, which had an emphasis on history, epigraphy, and historical literature (including letters and memoirs). 2603:6081:3F00:1AB5:44A7:5568:4146:8310 (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Dumont and Rousset de Missy give 7000 French killed and 10000 wounded on pages 97-98 of the first volume of their book (see sources) That is probably the original source for the "Dutch sources" as their book was published in The Hague in 1729, and De Vryer translated it (as did Campbell; see above). Dumont was more or less the "official" biographer of Prince Eugene and had the official Austrian archives at his disposal. I think De Vryer's "high French officer's letter" is also somewhere in Dumont and Rousset de Missy as an appendix (it is a hard slough getting through the Barcelona U.'s website). The high allied losses are in Quincy, volume 6. He is very coy about the French losses ("sept a huit mille") but exact up to the first decimal about the allied losses. As is Boufflers in his letters of 11 and 13 July to the king. Of course Quincy had had almost 17 years to study the allied press clippings. Ereunetes (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I that the casualty section of the article should be expanded. There is so much to mention here.
 * |I also found that book in Dutch btw DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to have a go at expanding the Casualty section to reflect this discussion, I'm happy to edit it.
 * Once that's done, I'd like to nominate the article for an A class review. If nothing else, that should stop us revisiting this specific issue - or at least limit future discussion :) Robinvp11 (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Casualties, for the last time
Here is a breakdown of every author quoted under the Casualties section near the French figure of "11,000-14,000"


 * Lynn : 21T for the allies, 11,5T for the French.
 * Bodart : 25T for the allies, 14T for the French
 * Clodfelter : 24,5T for the allies, 12,5T for the French
 * Chandler : 25,5T for the allies, French casualties not given. De Villars' statement about "losing much less than the enemy" is quoted by Chandler to be "somewhat an understatement".
 * Corvisier : apparently 24T for the allies, 12T for the French. I only found a second-hand source with Corvisier himself stating only "the Allies suffered twice more casualties than the French", which still does not fit the biased and false "22,000 on 14,000" narrative that you promote.
 * Delbrück : purposefully ignored despite being, arguably, the most authoritative of the bunch. Upwards to 30T for the allies, no more than 12T for the French.

As you can see, the only one author cited in the section who claims that the French lost 14T men is Bodart, who also claims the Allied lost 25T. I did agree to put Delbrück and Périni next to the ludicrous number of 17,000 French casualties put forth by a number of Dutch authors down in the article itself, not in the casualties section, since the both are linked so that readers may find out more about fringe numbers.

My suggestion: either you leave the 22T/11T ratio that existed for weeks without disturbance, or, if you are so eager to give a broaded estimate, you face the facts and actually start quoting authors in their entirety, without leaving out the parts you do not like, that is by putting 22-25T/11-14T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тимофей Васильченков (talk • contribs) 18:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you please clarify who you think you're addressing this to? Robinvp11 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you take pleasure in perpetuating this discussion, so you purposefully play ignorant to make it last? I am sick and tired of this endless debate. I will make a concession and let you discard Bodart in favor of Somerset (although I should not as I fail to see why a biographer's data on casualties is more relevant than an actual statistitian's), on the condition that you and your party leave for good the Casualties part in the state it is at the moment, and touch not the 25,000 number I put for the Allies as it is referenced by Chandler too. I sincerely hope this is the last time I am writing something in or about this article. Тимофей Васильченков (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * , am I to take it that a consensus has now been reached that you and the other parties can all live with? If so, any further input from me would not be required, Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cinderella157 This is what I hope is the case. Тимофей Васильченков (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Few things to note;
 * (a) Re I am sick and tired of this endless debate. You and me both pal, I didn't re-open this discussion, I'm not the person who changed these figures. All I've done is to arbitrate and yet again get insulted for doing so.
 * (b) This isn't some sort of supermarket, we're not negotiating and tbf, it hasn't stopped this topic being revived on three separate occasions. We have arbitrarily selected four references out of literally dozens available, largely because they fit people's own prejudices. You seem to be saying (for example), that we should never change 25k because Chandler says its the right figure. Well, I have four other books open in front of me which disagree; I won't bother changing it, because they're all in the same ballpark ie 22 to 23 k. That's why this discussion is so tedious;
 * (c) I've already explained my objections to Bodart. While I sympathise with your reluctance to read the entire tedious exchange, I don't see why I should repeat myself;
 * (d) Whether or not this is the last time I am writing something in or about this article, for future reference, is it possible for you to write an edit summary or TP comment which is polite rather than confrontational? You'd find it easier to collaborate with others, and writing in an apparently constant state of anger doesn't seem much fun. If we have another interaction, I am going to take action if as here they include accusations of vandalism, ignorance, bias, making stuff up etc etc. I've been polite throughout, don't see why you can't do the same. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * , my question to whether this was resolved was prompted because of your edits. This article should be about a battleground not be a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not agree. The problem is that most estimates for French casualties are not around 11,000, but 11,000 and above. We have no modern sources in the article that go under 11,000 and I haven't read any myself.
 * 22,000 however is not the lowest allied estimate. A lot of sources argue 20,000 to 21,000 casualties. At least as much as argue 25,000. I would prefer either no casualties in the infobox or a French range from 11,500 to 14,500. Maybe it is good to get some outside views or something, because it seems that everyone is tired from discussing this.
 * If I am not supported by anyone else I won't try to change it anymore though. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, I can see that there is a small issue of inconsistency between the infobox, the lead and the casualty section but I don't see this to be major, just a case of harmonising the lead and infobox with the casualty section - but not tonight. Is the summary of figures by author at the start of this section accurate? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * With respect, we've been through this and the current figures in the Infobox and Lead are fine. The whole reason this discussion started up again was because another editor (rightly, in my view) pointed out we shouldn't be using the Infobox to fight battles. Suggesting we now have to "harmonise" the Infobox, Lead and article body just takes us back to the start yet again. So NO.
 * As I've said before, Malplaquet is famous now for being one of the bloodiest battles of the modern period. Omitting any mention of Casualties in the Infobox simply because we can't agree whether the French range should be 11,000 or 11,000 to 14,000 is frankly absurd. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we all live with "a minimum of 11,000" in the Lead? And leave the Infobox as is. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)