Talk:Siege of Ostend

Untitled
The story about not switching shirts seems historically uncorrect: See http://www.takeourword.com/TOW135/page1.html


 * Then there is the color known as isabella. It is said to derive from Isabella, the Infanta of Spain whose husband, Archduke Albert, set siege to Ostend, Belgium in 1601.  Faithful Isabella undertook a solemn vow never to change her underwear until her hubby had possession of Ostend.  Well, he took the city all right, but not until 1604.  You can imagine how the Infanta felt about that!  Isabella  is, therefore, a delicate shade of yellowish-brown: the color, some say, of a princess's undies after she's worn them for three years.  What a great story... shame it isn't true [see Sez You, Issue 136].
 * Then there is the color known as isabella. It is said to derive from Isabella, the Infanta of Spain whose husband, Archduke Albert, set siege to Ostend, Belgium in 1601.  Faithful Isabella undertook a solemn vow never to change her underwear until her hubby had possession of Ostend.  Well, he took the city all right, but not until 1604.  You can imagine how the Infanta felt about that!  Isabella  is, therefore, a delicate shade of yellowish-brown: the color, some say, of a princess's undies after she's worn them for three years.  What a great story... shame it isn't true [see Sez You, Issue 136].

--WouterVH 22:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Note Isabella the boss of Soutern Netherlands said that she would'nt switch her shirt until Ostend fell that is why today there is a grey brown colour that has the name Isabella.

Will have to rework, I'll try to do a bit on the article (and correct this paragraph with a "Legend has it", although otherwise it isn't worth crap as it stands) Snapdragonfly 11:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Charles van der Noot the Dutch commander was WIA, wounded in action too, when he surrended the city to the Spanish in 1604. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.94.206.24 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Result to be reported in the infobox
At present, the result reported in the infobox is Spanish Pyrrhic Victory. This is contrary to the guidance at MOS:MIL, which also defers to and gives voice to the advice given in the documentation for the infobox (see Template:Infobox military conflict). The guidance specifically deprecates the use of various qualifying terms, including "pyrrhic". Under the guidance, suitable results for the infobox are: Spanish victory; Spanish victory (see Aftermath); or, See Aftermath. In each case, "Aftermath" would link to the Aftermath section of the article where the result is discussed.

An attempt to bring the article into line with the guidance (Spanish victory (see Aftermath)) has been reverted here. The revert would ignore the guidance and rely instead on the assertion that it is reliably sourced.

What is a pyrrhic victory?: It is not a term consistently defined but generally, it refers to a result where the casualties suffered are of such an extend as to render the victor ineffective. In some cases, it appears to refer to a hollow or meaningless victory.

Is this a pyrrhic victory?: The lead states: ... and the enormous number of casualties sustained turned the result into a Spanish pyrrhic victory. In the body, ... the scale of the Ostend siege and Spinola's subsequent campaign had exhausted the Spanish treasury ... As a result, the draining Ostend siege has been accounted a Pyrrhic victory for Spain. In this respect, the body is not supporting the assertion in the lead that it was considered a pyrrhic victory because of the scale of casualties. Furthermore, Spain's bankruptcy and the Twelve Year Truce occurred well after the end of the seige. While Maland (1980, p31) does refer to the victory being pyrrhic, it is in the context of it being a hollow victory because, while the Spanish won Ostend, they lost Sluys, which, for the Dutch, replaced the need for Ostend. Maland does not substantiate the claim being made nor does Belleroche appear to claim it was a pyrrhic victory. While sources have called this a pyrrhic victory (perhaps not as many as cited), they have not done so for the reason most commonly associated with the term (ie the scale of casualties suffered in achieving the victory). Furthermore, there is nuance to why authors would assert that it is a pyrrhic victory.

What is the rationale for the guidance?: Terms that may be used to qualify the nature of a victory such as pyrrhic can have different meanings in different contexts within sources and different interpretations by readers. Such nuance of meaning cannot be captured in a simple (two-word) phrase. As an overall summary, such nuance is best left to the lead, where prose can be employed. Using Spanish victory (see Aftermath) or See Aftermath flags to the reader that the result is not cut and dried. This is a case where, while several sources do refer to the victory as pyrrhic, they do so for different reasons and not for the reason most likely associated with the term (ie crippling casualties). There does not appear to be a consensus in the sources as to why it would be called a pyrrhic victory. Furthermore, in calling the result pyrrhic, it does not represent the immediate outcome.

Proposal: The proposal is to align the infobox result with the guidance to state: Spanish victory (see Aftermath) (or such other result consistent with the guidance). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * Seems rather clear-cut: the infobox shouldn't use qualifiers like "pyrrhic". Spanish victory (see Aftermath) as per Cinderella157 sounds good to me. Argument/analysis regarding what specific qualifier fits the victory best can then be presented in the linked section. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It was a Spanish victory. End of. I can live with "(see Aftermath)" being added, but don't see the point; the infobox template instructions say that "See Aftermath" is an alternative to "XXX victory". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that the template says "Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result.", so using both should be technically fine. But fair point regarding whether it actually adds anything of value here. –Ljleppan (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Changes would need to happen in order to best link the infobox to the aftermath. The aftermath section woukd need to be tweaked to better describe the outcome to fall in line with the infobox result. Hope this helps and thank you for the input. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the MOS doesn’t trump what the reliable sources say. There are three cited in the article that call it a Pyrrhic victory for the Spanish. What reliable sources call it something else? Some of the argumentation above is far too focused on slavishly following a little known MOS guideline or wanting to define a term instead of focusing on what the reliable sources say about the result. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)