Talk:Battle of Steenkerque

Page name
As far as I can tell, this battle is the only to occur here or have this name, so the date is not needed in the title. Battles should only have the date in the title when it is needed to disambiguate between several battles of the same name. Grunners 14:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess you're right about the date. I'm curious about what the battle (and the town) are called in contemporary English, Steinkeerke looks pretty archaic. The French name is Steenkerque, Dutch Steenkerke. Probably "Battle of Steenkerque" would be a better name. Markussep 15:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, and as it stands, the town and the battle have the place name spelt differently! Grunners 21:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Britannica says Steenkerke, the 1911 EB had Steenkirk (and Steinkirk and Estinkerke). The Columbia encyclopedia has Steenkerque for the village and Steenkerke in references to the battle:, , , . I have no idea where Steinkeerke comes from, it's only in wikipedia and clones. Probably a typo. I'll move this page to B.o.Steenkerque, and make a redirect from B.o.Steenkerke. Markussep 22:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Scottish Regiments
There were Scottish Regiments fighting at Steinkirk such as the "Earl of Angus' regiment" later the 26th (The Cameronian) Regiment of Foot this is not represented in this article, and I am not an expert on such late warfare. I think, however should be reflected in the box. The Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland were not politically united at this point. Brendandh

Nationalities
Hi,

The intro mentions France vs an alliance of four other nations, but in the description of the battle, two others appear (Danish and Swiss). This is perhaps insignificant, nonetheless it is a little confusing.

T

85.166.162.202 (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

In English it should be: "Battle of Steenkirk" not 'Steenkerque'
Has any gander on googlebooks will prove, "Steenkirk" (cf. Dunkirk) is the historical English exynom of the Dutch placename "Steenkerke". Therefore, the aforesaid should be reflected in this wikipage's heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.33.120 (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

wiki page needs link to neckcloth called: steenkerk/steinkirk...
Could someone do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:25F3:BF29:2B60:672C (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

'William III of England' instead of 'Prince William of Orange'
The article mentions 'a joint English-Scottish-Dutch-German army under Prince William of Orange'. While he was Prince of Orange from birth until his death, shouldn't he be referred to as King of England here? I believe he'd become king right after the Glorious Revolution in 1688. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChalonArlay (talk • contribs) 19:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Redundant Argument
"The British blamed their great losses on the ineptitude of Dutch General Count Solms, in command of the Allied cavalry. That was, however, unfounded, because the losses on the allies at Steenkirk were evenly distributed among the different nations present."

I'm not sure how the allies having an even distribution of casualties somehow counters the argument that the large number of casualties suffered by the allies was heavily influenced by the Dutch commands' ineptitude in deploying their cavalry and infantry? Due to the tactical error the statement was in regards to, only 15,000 of the Allied force could engage the full force of the enemy at any one time. The fact that everyone, regardless of nationality, suffered for this blunder, means nothing to counter the statement that British losses (along with all others) were heavily influenced by this strategic allied error. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Don't disagree per se but what does the Van Nimwegen reference actually say? Robinvp11 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is what Van Nimwegen writes on page 230 (translated from Dutch)
 * A noisy group of MPs in the House of Commons seized on the Battle of Steenkerque to demand Solms' resignation as general of the English infantry. They blamed him for deliberately allowing the English troops to be slaughtered. He supposedly even said: 'Let's see how we can have fun with these English bull-dogs.' In the House of Lords, a group of Lords voiced the same criticism. They called on William III to replace Solms with Marlborough. To this, the Stadholder King gave a reply that would have sounded familiar to Louis XIV: 'I will think about it,' thus putting the matter on the back burner. After all, William III knew that the English criticism was unfounded. The losses suffered at Steenkerque were divided equally among the various nations of the allied army. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Van Nimwegen also gives another reason for why there were only 14,000 allied troops engaged during the battle. He writes that the corps under Henry Casimir II and the corps of Solms had probably been lost in the woods around the battlefield. Only after the retreat of the allies started did they reach the end of the woods and came in to contact with the French, which explains the heavy French casualties during the allied retreat. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wurtemburg had 5000-6000 men under his direct control and the corps of Mackay (8,000 men) was the only one out of the three intended corps who reached the battle before the allied retreat. And was also pretty late at that DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Having done some research, I've made some changes :)
 * To be precise, it was the allegation Solms deliberately sacrificed the British brigade which doesn't bear examination, not his incompetence.
 * The various accounts I've read clearly state Solms blundered by placing his cavalry directly behind McKay and Wurttemberg, thus preventing the infantry behind him reaching the front line. It was the order of march that caused the problem, not getting "lost" in the woods (which may have happened, but isn't the point); Robinvp11 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)