Talk:Battle of Seneffe/Archive 1

Casualties.... again.....

No @Robinvp11... You can't just "guess" or "assume" what authors are doing when they give out their figures. Tucker gives 10,000 dead, 15,000 wounded and 5,000 captured. Those are indeed the exact same numbers as Dupuy's. They are explicity even mentioned by Lynn in his notes below the page. However, he mentioned himself that allied casualties went as high as "15,000 dead" and thousands more wounded.... I read that part again and again and I still can't understand how you linked it to Dupuy. You can't just randomly turn around and claim he based it on Dupuy's numbers and therefore they both constitutes the exact same source, when there is a good 1/3 (5,000) more dead to the casualties out of nowhere while the other author's takes on the casualties are explicitly listed below. And you're calling my edit "misleading"? lol I've been reading Van Nimwegen's book as well... you know the one you linked a source when you inserted figures as low as 8,000 dead, wounded or captured as allied casualties in the infobox........ Well it turned out he gave "10,000 to 12,000 dead or wounded" and "15,000" when prisoners are included. Weren't you the one who told me he simply did not account for prisoners because "it was the 17th century"? I did think the dude was not exactly partial... and indeed he is not. The way he phrases the conflict and the dutch struggles or defines french successes by their minor shortcomings instead as he did with Cassel for example is extremely weird. But it is actually not as bad as I previously thought. You can't deliberately do what you're currently doing Robin. And please, stop with that consensus nonsense.... There is none! It took me bringing out de Périni only counting officers taken prisoner at Seneffe when you brought out his figures about allied prisoners taken at the battle for you to actually realize it. The only one in the aftermath section giving a similar number to Bodart is probably the less reliable of all authors we have discussed so far.... Clodfelter.... yes! Why do you give any authority to his claim of 14,000 backing up Bodart but not to the hilarious 6,000 french casualties then? There is no consensus. That battle is one of the biggest european shitshows of 17th century. (Jules Agathias (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

French victory 85.107.225.196 (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Jules, all you've got to do is to front up and stop hiding behind socks. Simple enough.Robinvp11 (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

El Gran Salvador (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Battle resulted French victory

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Continuing vandalism

I'll just leave this here in case anyone is curious.

(a) Seneffe is one of the most contentious battles of the period, not helped by the 17th century convention of claiming "Victory" if you still held your position at the end of the day. On that basis, both sides claimed victory.

(b) William's objective in invading Northern France was to bring Conde to battle and weaken him sufficiently to end any offensive capability. At midday, Conde had won a significant victory in repulsing the Allies for relatively little loss. However, he then did William's work for him by launching a series of bloody frontal assaults for no gain, leaving his army too exhausted and weak to follow up and limiting them to defensive operations for most of the next four years.

This is clearly explained in the article and the designation of the battle as "Indecisive" is sourced. The result is fundamental to understanding the strategy followed by Louis XIV - a point explained in detail in the article.

(c) Casualty numbers are also disputed; if you look at French Wikipedia, a similar edit war is taking place. I have included a range of Sources for these, including French, German, Dutch, British and American and again it is explained in detail in the article.

Robinvp11 (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have sources that support all that you have written?

The current source in the infobox(Tucker, pages 650-651) states, "Conde's victory in the Battle of Seneffe prevents an allied invasion of France that autumn." :FYI, Tucker source should show pages 650-651.

Madame de Sévigné source is a primary source, and why are you using her opinion here?

Do you have a list of source(s) that state indecisive/stalemate for this battle. At first glance I did not happen to see any in the article.

I would not base any opinion on Clodfelter(non-academic).

"Casualty numbers are also disputed; if you look at French Wikipedia, a similar edit war is taking place."

What occurs on French Wikipedia is meaningless here.

If we can clearly source everything then maybe the IP will stop edit warring. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This is interesting. Per the Lynn source page 126;

"This Pyrrhic victory epitomized the costs and limited value of combat in a battle culture of forbearance..."

This is right after Lynn quotes Sevigne. Why quote her in this article and ignore the following sentence? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I have clearly Sourced multiple elements of this especially the casualty figures and it hasn't made any difference.

Tucker; not provided by me but I will check.

Madame de Sévigné; what's the objection? It is clearly labelled as a perspective which explains French strategy in Flanders for the rest of the war (as explained in detail in the article);

Clodfelter; that's not a helpful comment. I don't find him particularly useful but others do; the person who keeps changing this objects to Van Nimwegen because they're Dutch and thus unreliable but likes Dupuy, whose calculations of Allied casualties are a mystery, because his figures are higher. Making judgements on the value of specific Sources is a very slippery slope.

French Wikipedia; I referenced this to make the point even the French don't agree on casualty figures (describing it as "meaningless" is at the very least an unfortunate choice of words).

Lynn; I didn't include him because I quoted from the original entry by Sévigné, hence the sentence doesn't appear. Up to you if you want to include it, but I'm not sure how helpful it is. Wikipedia states results are either "Victory" or "Indecisive", thus excludes definitions like "Pyrrhic" or "Strategic" while the meaning of "value of combat in a battle culture of forbearance" is pretty obscure. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• "I have clearly Sourced multiple elements of this especially the casualty figures and it hasn't made any difference."

  I completely understand. There are just individuals that have nothing better to do than change the figures concerning battles. *"Wikipedia states results are either "Victory" or "Indecisive", thus excludes definitions like "Pyrrhic" or "Strategic".."

  Actually, the MOS is not written in stone as some would like to think. I have on two separate occasions placed disputed for the result in an Infobox and linked it to a section in the article. From what I understand, pyrrhic can be placed in the infobox if there are reference(s) that support it.

• "..while the meaning of "value of combat in a battle culture of forbearance" is pretty obscure."

  Was not what I was intending. I quoted Tucker since he was the source in the infobox and he states victory. So placing Indecisive next to the Tucker source is source misrepresentation. Which is why I removed the Tucker source.

• "Clodfelter; that's not a helpful comment. I don't find him particularly useful but others do; the person who keeps changing this objects to Van Nimwegen because they're Dutch and thus unreliable but likes Dupuy, whose calculations of Allied casualties are a mystery, because his figures are higher."

  Does Clodfelter show where he gets his figures? Van Nimwegen checks out as does Dupuy for being academics.

• "French Wikipedia; I referenced this to make the point even the French don't agree on casualty figures (describing it as "meaningless" is at the very least an unfortunate choice of words)."

  Actually, what other Wikipedias state is meaningless since Wikipedia articles can not be used to reference Wikipedia.

• "Madame de Sévigné; what's the objection?"

  Does the source indicates her opinion was the general feeling at the French court? Alas, I can not find a copy to check the source for that quote.

  Aside from Van Nimwegen are there other sources stating Indecisive/Stalemate for this battle? Lynn states Pyrrhic victory followed by stating the situation afterwards was inconclusive. Tucker states Victory. What does Dupuy say? Tony Jacques? Gaston Bodart?

  "Anonymous (1744). The History of England, During the Reigns of K. William, Q. Anne and K George I, with an Introductory Review of the Reigns of the Royal Brothers Charles and James, Volume 1".

  Seriously? Yeah, this source needs to be tossed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm happy to make changes presented in a reasonable way (I have a good track record on that); if you have specific/additional requests for changes, please list them but I don't want to waste time on point scoring and some of this veers into that area.

  You wrote; This Pyrrhic victory epitomized the costs and limited value of combat in a battle culture of forbearance...This is right after Lynn quotes Sevigne. Why quote her in this article and ignore the following sentence? I can only answer the question asked ie because I didn't take her quote from Lynn. How am I supposed to tie that into Tucker and the Infobox?

  As stated in the article, Clodfelter takes his figures from Dupuy (and is one of five different Sources quoted);

  Does the source indicates her opinion was the general feeling at the French court? Since Lynn himself states the perception of Seneffe as a bloody catastrophe impacted French strategy for the rest of the war, what's the issue?

  Anonymous (1744). The History of England, During the Reigns of K. William, Q. Anne and K George I, with an Introductory Review of the Reigns of the Royal Brothers Charles and James, Volume 1. Seriously? Yeah, this source needs to be tossed. This Source is used to explain differences in strategy between the Allies, based on the reminiscences of people who were there. Again, its not clear what your objection is - should I also be "tossing" Madame de Sévigné? Do you want to let John Lynn know?

  Actually, what other Wikipedias state is meaningless since Wikipedia articles can not be used to reference Wikipedia. Come on; I have not used French Wikipedia as a reference and I have now explained this point twice.

  Various German and Dutch authors describe the battle as "Indecisive" including Bodart. I have changed it to "French victory" in the Infobox because life is too bloody short. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Casualties (again)

I'm just quite surprised of a few things. I understand that Dupuy's figures can seem exxagerated. However, it's not fair to put Seneffe (first bloodshed since some time) and Malplaquet (an enormous bloodshed after more than three decades of constant warfare) on the same level. And saying that the Dutch were not prepared to risk another battle for the rest of the war after Malplaquet is just not true. Furthermore, it's strange that you decided to put inconclusive in the infobox as a result, when Dupuy writes it was both a tactical and strategic victory, Lynn, a Pyrrhic victory and Tucker, a victory. Dupuy states that the French wanted to résume the battle the next day but the allies had withdrawn completely. Also, Périni writes that the French took 102 flags or standards, 2 guns, 2 mortars and almost all their baggage, implying it was a strategic victory when he says that the battle destroyed the allied plan to march on Paris and that they instead had to lose one month to prepare the siege of Oudenarde when Condé was in the meantime rebuilding his army. LaHire07 (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Let's be honest; I've looked at your contributions to other pages and if Dupuy had suggested figures for French casualties double those of any other historian, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
• I have spent a considerable amount of time researching this, largely to satisfy one or two people who won't let it go. There are various Sources (mostly Dutch) who suggest French losses were much higher, which I have left out. In selecting the most likely, I am being consistent.
• I'd rather not get into an argument about Malplaquet but your reasoning (what is "bloodshed", habituation etc) is completely specious, while the Dutch fought at Denain because Villars attacked them. Nevertheless, I'll remove the entire discussion, because its clear Dupuy is simply or its a typo - mistakes happen when compiling an encyclopedia. If the Allies had lost half their force at Seneffe (whether captured or killed), there would be no discussion about the result and they certainly would not have been able to retake the field less than a month later.
• In the 17th and 18th century, claiming victory was often a technical matter of who still held the ground. William argued since his troops remained on the field until next day and Condé withdrew, it was his. Van Nimwegen argues it was a Dutch victory; Wikipedia does not recognise "Pyrrhic" - it is either a victory for one side or the other, or Inconclusive. The Sources don't agree; Dupuy is unreliable and (as I've now stated about six times), since Tucker copied his account of the battle from Dupuy, its hardly surprising they agree.
• Périni's assessment of the Allied strategic purpose is incorrect - William was seeking to force Condé onto the defensive by threatening his rear, not attack Paris (when was the last time anyone succeeded in that?)
• If you want to take this further, then I suggest you do so using the Arbitration process. I have moved this to the article TP where it belongs. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll admit it, Dupuy's figures are certainly vastly exaggerated, I won't tease you with it anymore. Now, I've just read in "Losses of life in modern wars : Austria-Hungary and France" written by Gaston Bodart, published in 1916, that he also considers the battle of Seneffe as a French victory (page 93, like Saint-Denis by the way). Thus, it seems that Van Nimwegen is the only guy who asserts anything else than "French victory or pyrrhic victory". Consequently, I think it would be better to put "see aftermath" in the infobox and give an overview of the conclusions of all the historians we've talked about, instead of having a fixed result many people don't agree with. Actually, we should do this for every battle with a contentious result, that would solve many problems. LaHire07 (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

(and a Pyrrhic victory is still a victory) LaHire07 (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• I changed it to French victory a while back (life's too short) but other editors disagree so its Inconclusive. There is considerable debate over whether "Disputed" or referring to "Aftermath" is a valid Infobox entry.
• You need to be consistent; Saint Denis was fought to prevent Luxembourg capturing Mons. French and Allied casualties were roughly similar in terms of percentages and Luxembourg withdrew from Mons next day, but claimed victory because he held his positions until then. Which is pretty much the mirror of why William did the same at Seneffe; they can't both be French victories.
• As an ex-British Army officer, militaries like to claim victory regardless of the result - I served in barracks named after the Marne (poorest British performance of 1914 and possibly the whole war) and the Somme (originally viewed as an unmitigated disaster). This is particularly so when its a technical debate about who holds the ground (as above); the truth is its often hard to establish. If you look at the articles I edit, I use as many Sources as possible, they don't always agree and we need to be comfortable with that. In my (personal) view, Lynn often uses "Pyrrhic" as shorthand for "not sure".Robinvp11 (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I amended the result to "inconclusive" per MOS:MIL. In the first instance, disputed is a pretty good synonym for inconclusive (which aligns with the guidance). I also looked at the article and these three bits in particular:

• Fighting continued into the evening and both sides suffered heavy casualties with no concrete result.[5] After holding his position overnight, William retired the next day in good order, both sides claiming victory.
• Luxembourg destroyed much of the Dutch baggage train and despite heavy losses, the French finally over-ran the Allied positions at St Nicolas in the early evening. The two armies remained where they were until daybreak, when William withdrew to Mons, and the French resumed their original positions on the Piéton. (ps - I hate not having a map of the battlefield to put things in perspective)
• Madame de Sévigné, writing to the Comte de Bussy: "We have lost so much by this victory that without the Te Deum and captured flags at Notre Dame, we would believe we had lost the battle".[20] While in hindsight victory ended any threat of invasion, at the time the result seemed inconclusive, and Condé thereafter sought to avoid a repeat.

The first point is the lead. It states (with a ref) that there was "no concrete result". There is no reference for the assertion that both sides claimed victory nor is it developed in the body of the article. At the end the day (actually the start of the next) both armies remained on the field but disengaged (neither side was forced from it). Point 3 shows that the French at the time thought they had won but this statement does not reflect the view of a source (an historian) as to who won. The last sentence say that victory ended the threat of invasion (from the allies). The same sentence also says that the result appeared at the time to be inconclusive (with the same ref in point 1).

The outcome for the result parameter is the immediate outcome. We don't appear to have sources that the result is disputed. We do have sources that it was inconclusive but it is inconsistent because it also suggests a French victory. However, neither side was forced from the field. The quote from Madame de Sévigné doesn't count. There are no sources saying it was pyrrhic (which might be used in the body but not the infobox. My conclusion is that "inconclusive" probably still holds; however, the couple of issues I have identified should be clarified. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification; as the editor who did most of the work on this, I think its "Inconclusive" but Seneffe as a French victory appears to be an article of faith for some.
• The problem is all sides were prone to claiming victory, regardless of the actual result and (as discussed above) it often comes down to a highly technical argument over who "holds the ground" at the end. William claimed victory because the French withdrew to their original positions several hours before he did; Conde because he inflicted more casualties. So the official contemporary sources are not always helpful; Madame de Sévigné "does count" (she's also quoted by Lynn) because it tells you the reality, rather than the propaganda - and since it led Louis XIV to order a change in strategy in this theatre for the rest of the war, highly relevant.
• That means it comes down to objectives, which are often highly complex; I've clarified the Lede to make it clearer. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  In determining the "result" in a case such as this, we should rely on how this has been assessed in independent reliable (and preferably scholarly) sources. Madame de Sévigné doesn't count in that respect. I am not saying that the quote does not represent how the French viewed the result at the time and what Lynn would make of the quote is perhaps more significant than the quote itself. My concern is that Lynn (as the article reports it) appears to contradict himself slightly. Secondly, the body of the article does not show how the alliance has claimed victory (what sources say this? What do they say?). To your last point, it probably does come down to objectives but it is not up to us as WP editors to make such an assessment. That would be WP:SYNTH. We must rely on the sources. I can appreciate your position and that such constraints can be difficult. I don't think it is the lead so much as the Aftermath that needs tweaking (and the lead then follows). Hope this is of help. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand that at the time, the battle could be seen as inconclusive even though both sides claimed victory, but this doesn't mean it was actually inconclusive. What people can think of something in the moment is often different from the reality. This is the principle of History : to judge events with decades or centuries of perspective. When a result is disputed, we shouldn't, in my opinion, make a compromise by asserting it was "inconclusive", even more when we consider that most historians actually state "French victory". If some people don't want you to put "French history", we shouldn't try to statisfy them. What we should do and what is the best option by far is to redirect to "aftermath" where we can calmly and in details give the point of view of historians so that people can make their own idea. Rather than to give a fixed result. LaHire07 (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Most historians actually state "French victory" needs to be qualified; French historians and a number of those writing in English suggest this (although "Pyrrhic" for me is not a victory). That is not the case necessarily for Dutch, Spanish or German - unfortunately, while I can read French and know where to look, I'm not fluent in either Dutch or Spanish. Van Nimwegen is one of those to view it as Inconclusive and I have amended this in the Infobox.
• The articles on Spanish and German Wikipedia both say "Inconclusive" or "Disputed"; at the very least, that indicates the idea of it as a French victory is far from unanimous. The reason Lynn "contradicts himself" is because even he isn't sure.
• I have spent way more time than anyone else chasing this down - even looking at War Game sites. And before you tell me those aren't "legitimate sources", these people spend literally weeks determining which regiments were present, their uniforms, weapons, tactics etc (even going so far as to produce original Dutch casualty reports) so they shouldn't simply be dismissed. And they all class it as "Disputed" or both sides claiming victory.
• To clearly state my position; Seneffe was inconclusive and "Inconclusive" is a valid Infobox entry. Over 60% of Wikipedia users only ever read the Lede and the Infobox; so directing them to the "Aftermath" section is neither helpful, nor generally recommended by Wikipedia.
• I changed it to "French victory" only because a French-speaking editor made it a personal campaign to continually reverse "Inconclusive" and I got tired of it. They're conducting similar campaigns about Entzheim and one or two others - thats why this article has been protected. I'm glad we agree I shouldn't simply give in to pressure.
• Let's talk about "Impact"; William's objective was to weaken Conde sufficiently to prevent any further French offensives in the Netherlands. Within three weeks, he was back in the field and only prevented from having another go because his Allies wouldn't agree (as explained in the Aftermath). It destroyed Louis' (remaining) faith in Conde's abilities, while the French went on the defensive in this theatre for the rest of the war. So if you want to argue "Impact", its an Allied strategic victory - and that's why Wikipedia doesn't allow opt outs like "Tactical" or "Strategic" because they are often subjective.
• I have now tweaked the Aftermath section to reflect this discussion and I hope we can now draw a line under this. Again, I have expended vast amounts of energy on what seems a fairly uncontroversial article and have been through all of these discussions (eg on Bodart) several times now. It's not like I'm suggesting Austerlitz was really a draw - its simply one indecisive battle in a war that was full of them, not an assault on French military tradition. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is just not fair. The result of this battle is not supposed to be what you think of it. Saying "To clearly state my position; Seneffe was inconclusive and "Inconclusive" is a valid Infobox entry." is not a good argument. The result of the infobox should not be about your own opinion. Also, you claimed that Van Nimwegen saw that battle as a Dutch victory, and now you're saying he's one of those to view it as inconclusive. So, Dutch victory or inconclusive? The result of the Infobox is supposed to reflect what professional historians think of it. In this case, "inconclusive" does not reflect what they think. It reflects what a part of them, and probably a small part, thinks. And using Van Nimwegen as the only source for the result of that battle whereas several reknown historians don't agree with it is not fair. We need to give the overall opinions of the historians who gave theirs on this subject. Therefore, I stand with the fact that "See Aftermath" is the best option (with a complete aftermath about the opinions of historians on the result of the battle, not just Van Nimwegen). And we shouldn't forget about that possibility because some people are too lazy to read a few lines. LaHire07 (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

And it seems to me that the battle of Cassel and Saint-Denis happened after two French offensives. Seneffe made Louis XIV realised that siege warfare was perhaps less costly and more appropriate for the region. A decision easy to take when you have a genius in siege warfare like Vauban with you. LaHire07 (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• (1) Accusations of bias; I've been patient, I've been polite and I've done the work; the result is a better article, so I don't begrudge it. But I'm tired of arguing the same points and I'm not going to continue doing so. Again, let's be honest; this isn't a fervent search for historical truth - if I changed the result to French victory, this conversation would end immediately.

• (2) Some time ago I looked at the French Wikipedia article on Seneffe, because I hoped to use the Sources and references provided. Unfortunately that proved not to be the case; this article is considerably better researched and sourced. Go away and improve the French article, use a variety of Sources like I have (ie Dutch, English, French and German), then come back here and explain how we can improve this one.

• (3) "Inconclusive" reflects the consensus among the Sources I have identified (more than anyone else), three separate editors on this TP and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Contrary to the assertion that it is my personal opinion, I'm not in the minority.

• Van Nimwegen sees the battle as "Inconclusive" but elsewhere suggests it was a Dutch strategic victory, thrown away by the reluctance of de Souches to risk any losses (as explained in the Aftermath section). As noted above, Wikipedia does not recognise "tactical" or "strategic" as valid options, so I have used his first assessment ie "Inconclusive". Jacques categorises it as "Indecisive", while Nolan states neither side gained an advantage.

• In three different locations, Lynn variously calls it a "Pyrrhic victory" (which I know is a popular phrase but one that makes zero sense), one viewed by the French court as a defeat, then mentions Conde elsewhere as the "supposed "victor" of Seneffe". These statements contradict each other so can't be used.

• Perini never actually says "French victory". On P108, he suggests it stopped the Allies marching on Paris (which as explained in the article was never William's intention), while it is also a "strategic" interpretation and thus unusable, like Van Nimwegen's suggestion of a Dutch victory. I'm being consistent.

• Van Nimwegen, Nolan and Jacques are the only Sources I've found so far which give a definitive answer. Despite repeated claims otherwise, you have yet to produce a single Source that contradicts this.Robinvp11 (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Here comes the victimization. I have not accused you of bias. I stated your own words : "To clearly state my position; Seneffe was inconclusive". But you're ththe one accusing me of trying to change the result to "French victory" when I've repeatedly been asking to put "See aftermath" which would actually make everyone happy, except it doesn't make you happy, I've no idea why. It's the simplest and best solution.

"Pyrrhic victory" makes total sense, and even if you think it doesn't, it does not change the fact that Lynn talks about a French victory. That's a first source. Dupuy was another source. You said that his exaggerated casualty numbers were perhaps a typo, but I'm not sure that the sentence "he could justly claim tactical as well as strategic victory. The allied plan of invasion was foiled" is a typo. Périni doesn't literally write "French victory" : his book is not a collection of wikipedia pages where there must be an infobox where the result is written in big so that people can realise who did what... You don't have to use the word victory when you're describing a victory. Périni clearly implies it was a victory. You don't take the entire enemy baggage and more than one hundred of flags or standards when you don't win a battle. And of course that strategy must be taken into account to determine the result of a battle. But if you want another source which writes "French victory" in all letters, you just have to look at "Losses of life in modern wars : Austria-Hungary and France" page 93 by Bodart, which was his last notable publication. Finally Tucker also stated a French victory. Now, if you consider that those sources are wrong or victims of a typo... LaHire07 ([[User(talk) 19:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I've answered all these points several times; I see no reason to continually repeat myself. If you want to take this further, I suggest you raise a request for arbitration. As I suggested some time ago. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

No no, you've asked me for sources stating French victory, I gave 5 of them. Now, since you don't want to do it, I'll write myself something clean and balanced in the aftermath, stating the point of view of each historian, as it should always be done. That's not a problem. LaHire07 (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, it seems that in order to file a dispute resolution, the discussion on the talk page needs to be very recent, and that two months is not recent enough, so you'll excuse me to reopen it. In summary :

• Robert C. Tucker and Trevor N. Dupuy write in their encyclopedias that the battle was a French victory, both tactically and strategically.
• Gaston Bodart writes that the battle was a French victory.
• Hardy de Périni implies that the battle was both a tactical French victory because the French captured more than 100 flags and standards and took the enemy baggage train, and a strategic victory considering it prevented the allies from reaching their objectives of campaign and caused distrust between allied commanders.
• Clodfelter writes that Condé won a narrow tactical victory at Seneffe.
• Lynn writes that the battle of Seneffe was a Pyrrhic victory for Condé. Whether Pyrrhic is accepted or not in the infobox is not the question, a Pyrrhic victory is a victory.
• Should I add historian Stanley Sandler according to which "Condé won his last victory at Seneffe in 1674"?

Which makes, at least, seven respected sources according to which the battle was a French victory. Now saying that the battle is "generally viewed by historians as inconclusive" (with absolutely no proof of this assertion) is very strange.

As for the sources who supposedly claim that the battle was inconclusive, let's see :

• The Spanish source is based on contemporary Spanish sources that claim Seneffe was a Spanish victory. Thus, not credible.
• Nolan writes that "the armies met in an unusually close and bloody fray at Seneffe (...) Wounded badly by the clash, each army fenced and maneuvered in the aftermath" (p.123) "While sometimes praised for the audacity in this fight, he [Condé] might be fairly criticized for failure to take FULL advantage of his initial position." (p.183) Thus, Nolan writes that the battle was close and that Condé didn't take full advantage of his position, not that the battle was inconclusive. And he doesn't make a single comment about the strategic result of the battle.
• Jacques writes that the struggle was indecisive, but that the invasion of the allies was thwarted and that Condé claimed the strategic gain as a result.
• Even for Van Nimwegen, it's not even clear. He writes that "Condé could show off a great many colours and standards captured from the allies and his troops had also seized most of the Dutch army's baggage waggons, but this could not conceal that his intention of inflicting a crushing defeat on the allies had failed". Indeed, nobody claims that Seneffe was a crushing French victory.

In conclusion, we have seven sources that clearly assert that Seneffe was a French victory. Jacques clearly implies that although tactically inconclusive, Seneffe was a French strategic victory. Nolan didn't say anything clear. Van Nimwegen wrote that the battle was undecided but that the French captured many flags and the Dutch baggage train, which doesn't often happen after a draw, I think. I will thus modify the article tomorrow. LaHire07 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Very simple question; why do you care so much? I have been through these Source discussions multiple times and it makes no difference because every single one of your edits as La Hire (and I would remind you using multiple editor accounts is a violation of Wikipedia policy in itself), on this article or any other, is made to push a specific point of view. That means you are not acting in good faith and hence we're not having a discussion.

For about the 25th time; Wikipedia clearly states you cannot use "Tactical", "Strategic" or "Pyrrhic victory" in the Infobox. The options are either Victory or Inconclusive - why you find this so difficult to grasp is beyond me.

What you've done once again (and we've been through this) is to carefully cherrypick statements that support your view, while ignoring ones that don't (eg Lynn describes the result differently on different pages, so you've picked the one you like). "Inconclusive" means neither side gained a clear advantage or victory - not the same as a Draw (because the Allies certainly lost more men). This entire tedious argument is largely caused by your apparent inability to read Wikipedia guidelines.

"While sometimes praised for the audacity in this fight, he [Condé] might be fairly criticized for failure to take FULL advantage of his initial position." (p.183) Even by your own admission, this DOES NOT translate as "Historians argue the battle was a narrow French tactical victory", so why you've felt it appropriate to attach this Source as a reference for that statement is unclear. In addition, as is clearly stated in the Lead and the main article, by midday Condé had won a small but significant victory, which he then proceeded to throw away in a series of frontal assaults - so what exactly is your point?

I have left the Infobox as "See Aftermath", added back the References you removed and changed some wording eg "some historians" as opposed to the blanket "historians". I can live with that - I have teenage kids who are more than willing to engage me in endless circular arguments, I don't need to find more on Wikipedia.Robinvp11 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Simple question; why do YOU care so much? Aren't you the one whom tendency to cherrypicking has been pointed out by numerous editors before me on this talk page? Aren't you the one using sophisms such as using a quote from Sévigné as if it was reflecting the global feeling of the court, or pretending that since the battle convinced Louis XIV that sieges would be more effective and less costly, then the battle must have been inconclusive, or even claiming that a Pyrrhic victory is not a victory, or even using sources which don't actually support your opinion despite pretending the contrary? It's not because I'm French and I'm trying to correct several wikipedia articles about French military that I'm wrong. Once again, it's a sophism. Where did I modify any wikipedia article based on false or invented allegations?

I have nothing to worry about, considering that this account is the only one I have ever created on Wikipedia. But you seem to be quite paranoid, as you also accused Jules Agathias of using secondary accounts based on nothing.

Claiming I'm the one who's cherrypicking is a proof of your bad faith. You're the one completely ignoring at least seven different sources (Tucker, Dupuy, Périni, Bodart, Lynn, Sandler, Clodfelter) who clearly indicate a French victory. You're the one pretending that Nolan and Jacques support your opinion, whereas Nolan only wrote that the battle was unusually close, and Jacques that the struggle was inconclusive but that the allied invasion was thwarted and Condé claimed a strategic victory. Even your ultimate source, Van Nimwegen, wrote that Condé captured many flags and the enemy baggage train, a fact you of course never quoted before I did. You had to dig on the Internet to find a last source supporting your opinion, and you only found a Spanish document that base itself on contemporary Spanish sources according to which the Spanish won the battle.

What you don't seem to understand is that an inconclusive battle is a battle that is inconclusive on both the tactical and strategic levels. You can't claim that a battle which had positive strategic effects for one side is inconclusive. It's nonsense. But anyway, we have far more authors who talk about a tactical victory than authors who talk about an inconclusive battle, and even more who talk about a strategic victory. Thus, how can you even dare to write that "historians generally view the battle was inconclusive", when it's blatantly false, and you knew it.

Firstly, based on the 10+ sources we have, it's just true that most historians argue the battle was, at least, a narrow tactical victory. Secondly, I attached the Nolan source to "that could have been an overwhelming one had Condé taken full advantage of his position", don't miss that part of the sentence... What Nolan writes is that Condé had a significant victory in his hands but didn't take FULL (once again, the "full" is important) advantage of his initial position. It's not because you end up with a smaller victory that you could have expected that it's not a victory. Is it so hard to understand?

Anyway, we shouldn't indeed have this discussion. At least seven, SEVEN, sources indicate a French victory, what do you seriously need more?

"I have left the Infobox as See Aftermath" Oh thank you, your Majesty, this is so kind and generous from you. I'm honoured.

"added back the References you removed and changed some wording eg "some historians" as opposed to the blanket "historians"" I didn't remove your sources, and at least not like you're ignoring the numerous ones you don't agree with. And once again, you're lying. I didn't write "historians agree that", (you even dared to specify "the blanket "historians"") I wrote "most historians agree that", which is just a fact based on all the sources we have.

::: "I have teenage kids who are more than willing to engage me in endless circular arguments, I don't need to find more on Wikipedia" Come on, why do you feel the need to project your own behaviour on me? Everyone can see on multiple discussions on this talk page that you're the one engaging people in circular arguments, since you're refusing to take into account the sources that don't support your own opinion.LaHire07 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel better? Robinvp11 (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Contempt is indeed all you have to answer. Thank you for this confession. Anyway, I'll still modify the aftermath when I have time considering how biased the tone and how cherrypicked the information are. LaHire07 (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been through every single one of the points above at least six times and it hasn't made any difference so why would I do it again?

The result is disputed; I still can't see why that simple fact is so controversial. The Dutch think its a Dutch victory (William sent 47 captured French standards back to Amsterdam as proof, which is why counting standards is not a useful guide to who won). Spanish Wikipedia says its an Allied victory. German Wikipedia says Inconclusive. French Wikipedia says French victory. I've tried to use a variety of Sources and present a balanced view.

It would save both of us a lot of time if you read (a) the article and (b) the Sources you reference, rather than just picking out phrases. The point about Madame Sévigné comes from Lynn, in his discussion on the impact of the battle (I traced it back to the original because Lynn's translations are not always complete). The capture of the Allied baggage train is clearly referenced in the Battle section, as is the fact Conde had gained a small but significant victory by midday, then threw it away with a series of bloody frontal assaults. Read the whole article, then let me know which bits I've missed out/deliberately omitted.

"Pyrrhic victory" is defined as one where the costs of achieving it are so great it amounts to a defeat; that's not my definition, that's both Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica. So no, "Pyrrhic" is not a victory; its a defeat. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Your bad faith is appalling. Appalling. The problem at this point is that you just can't admit that you were wrong, and to save face, you're sinking into denial, and indeed, lies.

Firstly, everyone can see that you've clearly been ignoring the plethora of sources that do not support your opinion. For months, you've even been refusing to put a simple "See Aftermath" and to add the opinions of all those sources in the aftermath. Everyone can see it on the talk page and the page history. So when you say that you used a variety of sources and presented a balanced view, that's a first lie. And a bad one. When you write "Van Nimwegen, Nolan and Jacques are the only Sources I've found so far which give a definitive answer.", it's just a blatant lie.

Secondly, we don't care about what the other wikipedia pages say, and no, the Spanish one doesn't talk of an allied victory, unless "indeciso" means "allied victory". Even that, you missed it. Worse, the Spanish version before 3 August 2021 talked about a "victoria francesa". Even worse, the Dutch wikipedia page talks about a French tactical victory. I mean, seriously. We don't really care about what they say, but you can't even properly check what is written on the other pages. It's just one click.

Thirdly, counting captured flags and standards is a good way to have a picture on who had the advantage tactically. The fact that the Dutch captured 47 and the French more than 100 prove that the fighting was brutal. But still, that's 100 flags and standards for the French, plus the baggage train. It's enormous. "The capture of the Allied baggage train is clearly referenced in the Battle section" I have no words for such a bad faith. The "clearly" even adds to it. You're really telling me this about something that was never referenced at all until I wrote it myself yesterday (a fact that I even showed to you months ago, but that you didn't feel the need to quote)? It's beyond insolence.

Fourthly, it's quite funny that you dare saying I'm just picking out phrases, given that when using Jacques to support your claim for inconclusive battle, you strangely forget to add that he wrote that the allied invasion was thwarted (literally one sentence later), and given that you're proving yourself in the next sentence that it's exactly what you're doing. Indeed, you are quoting Sévigné from Lynn because it backs you opinion (even though you have no information at all about if it was the general feeling of the court or not, but the way you wrote it, people will automatically believe that it was) but you strangely forget to add that a few lines after, Lynn wrote that the immediate effect "seemed" inconclusive but that the battle "forestalled any allied threat against French territory for a long time"... When you pretend that Van Nimwegen wrote that "the Allied army was now stronger relative to the French than before Seneffe", it's another lie. He wrote that five fresh Dutch regiments brought "the Dutch corps to the same strength as before the battle of Seneffe", which doesn't mean the same thing at all. Even more when we know that Condé also received numerous reinforcements while the allies were getting stuck at the siege of Audenarde, and chased them thereafter.

Fifthly, when you wrote that "historians generally view the battle as inconclusive", while perfectly knowing that at least seven sources on the ten sources we have clearly indicate a French victory, it's called... a lie. When you pretend that you've "added back the References I removed and changed some wording eg "some historians" as opposed to the blanket "historians", whereas I didn't remove any reference (except the Serrano one you've taken from nowhere and that you didn't quote anyway) and I didn't write 'the blanket "historians"' but "most historians", that's also called a lie. You could have checked the definition of a lie on Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica too... And if a Pyrrhic victory is a defeat, which is clearly not what Lynn implied whhen we read him, I hope you'll have the intellectual honesty to put "French victory" in the infobox of the battle of Malplaquet. Lol.

Finally, it is very strange that you made remarks on my nationality implying that I was biased, but that your ultimate source, Van Nimwegen, is Dutch, and you've never judged important to take his nationality into account. Double standards?

You seem really angry and its never a good idea to edit when that's the case.

Thank you for expanding my horizons, I'm surprised to learn there is a Dutch language Wikipedia. If you look at the article history, the result was listed as "Inconclusive" until May 2021, when the same unknown IP address simultaneously changed the Spanish language version to "French victory". I've come across that individual before.

Nimwegen appears three times in the article, Perini seven. Not sure how that makes him "my ultimate Source"; if you want to know, I went looking for Perini precisely because Nimwegen was Dutch. Only to get monstered for being biased.

"However, de Souches had been given secret instructions from Vienna to minimise casualties and late in the afternoon ordered the Imperial troops to withdraw, which allowed Luxembourg to capture much of the Allied baggage train.[19]" Luxemburg's capture of the baggage train was first mentioned by me in 2018.

When you changed the result to 'See Aftermath' (edit date 16 January 16:12), you deleted the references which accompanied 'Inconclusive'. Not hard to trace that.

I once had to write an article on "Pyrrhic victory"; it doesn't equate to suffering heavier casualties, is almost always used incorrectly and Camberley (UK Staff College) does not consider Malplaquet one. Nor do I. Sorry. Perhaps the best example is the Battle of Cunaxa.

Because I'm interested in 16th and 17th century history, I've worked perfectly amicably with a number of English-speaking French editors on other articles. That's because we share a common interest in improving the coverage of French history on English Wikipedia, rather than reaching a specifresult. This article on Seneffe is the most comprehensive, best researched and Sourced available on Wikipedia; I've invested a lot of time and effort in it, so its reasonable to feel annoyed by being constantly berated as a liar, dishonest, biased etc simply for arriving at a conclusion widely shared elsewhere, which I then explained in some detail in the Aftermath section.

If I look at your "edits", I can't find one that doesn't change the Infobox in favour of France (eg Quatre Bras was a draw). If this battle is so important (which surprises me), I would have thought you'd spend at least some time updating the French language version (currently based on the outdated English version). You haven't, presumably because it says French victory. That makes it hard to position yourself as a neutral.

I'm going to step away from this for a while and I suggest you its hard to imagine this relatively obscure battle is worth so much emotional energy. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It's funny that you complain I called you a liar (I never did, that's another lie lol) when you accused me twice of using secondary accounts, which is a false allegation based on nothing. Périni appears seven times since I added several quotes from him two days ago. Not a single quote from Périni about the result and the aftermath of the battle before I added some, strangely. And you're complaining that I call you acting in bad faith? Seriously? Why only using Van Nimwegen's opinion about the result of the battle, and not the seven sources (of which six are not French) that talk about a French victory? You've never answered to that, except when you wrote that they didn't give a definitive answer about it, which is mind boggling considering Tucker, Dupuy, Bodart, Sandler and Clodfelter all write "French victory" in all letters.

It's true that you mentioned that the Dutch baggage train was destroyed, when you also mentioned that the battle was a French victory... But for no reason at all, you decided on 15 March 2021 that the battle was inconlusive, writing "Not a 'Typo' and this is what the reference provided says", talking about Tucker who wrote in all letter that "Condé wins both a tactical and strategic victory (...) the battle is inconclusive. Joined by the remainder of his army, however, Condé plans to renew the fighting, only to learn that the allies have withdrawn (...) Condé's victory in the battle of Seneffe prevents an allied invasion on France that autumn." Of course, you only kept the part "the battle is inconclusive". A distortion of statement as I've rarely seen before. When other editors told you about this strange mistake, you wrote on 8 July 2021 at the end of the bttle section "While some historians argue the result was indecisive, it is generally seen as a narrow French victory". Then, one week later, you decided to write that "It has been variously described by historians as a French victory, French pyrrhic victory, and indecisive" Finally, on 31 October, you decided to write that "historians generally view the battle as inconclusive". Let me tell you, this is a very strange method.

One can also see that you've been desperately looking for sources stating that the battle was inconclusive, I wonder why. Of which one is not reliable and the three other actually give a much less definite answer than the seven, not one, two or three, seven sources according to which the battle was a French victory, and you've refused to take them into account.

"This article on Seneffe is the most comprehensive, best researched and Sourced available on Wikipedia" I see you have a very high opinion of yourself. You've finally admitted why you do not want to acknowledge your obvious mistakes. It seems it's a question of pride. "for arriving at a conclusion widely shared elsewhere" A conclusion widely shared elsewhere, except by most historians.

Now you're telling me that Malplaquet was not a Pyrrhic victory? But don't you remember what you wrote about it to justify that Dupuy's estimates about Seneffe were exaggerated? "In comparison, Allied losses of 24,500 from 84,000 at Malplaquet in 1709, or approximately 30% of those engaged, were considered so appalling neither the British or Dutch were prepared to risk another battle for the rest of the war." So you're saying that a victory where losses for the victors are so appalling that they were never prepared to risk another battle for the rest of the war is not a Pyrrhic victory?

I never claimed I was neutral. I hope you don't either. Once again, you're off the mark. The question is not about why I want to modify articles, the question is do I modify them based on false allegations, unverified sources or without sources. The answer is no.LaHire07 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Take a break

I do think that this is starting to get a bit uncivil. Consequently, I have made a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Talk:Battle of Seneffe#Casualties (again) for some more eyes to consider this "discussion". Cinderella157 (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me; I don't mind being disagreed with but I do object to being called a liar. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how many times can another editor call me a liar, insolent, acting in bad faith etc before it becomes an actionable matter? Robinvp11 (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Flags

Why where the flags removed in the commander section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDijkgraaf (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia Inbox guidelines recommend not using them.Robinvp11 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a case where flags are acceptable as they serve a useful purpose. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been asked to remove them elsewhere and it would be useful for my own reference to understand what constitutes "useful purpose" but its not something I care about. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Robinvp11, when a conflict is between two parties, the flags serve no useful purpose. When there are multiple combatants, the flags can be (are) a useful "shorthand" identification for other parts of the infobox. In this particular article, it identifies the nationalities of the commanders of the allies. Personally, I don't think it is necessary for the French but is an aesthetic balance to use them for the French too. Hope that helps? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we use this map?

This is from Van Nimwegen's book and I edited it a bit. I am just not sure if this falls under fair use.

File:Map of the Battle of Seneffe.jpg

Map of the Battle of Seneffe. Doorwaardbare plaats = River crossing
Brug = Bridge

DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Probably not. Minor changes not constitute "original work". The file will probably not survive long at commons which does not have a "fair use" exception. If the map was originally published in a much earlier work that would be different. Something compiled from several sources would be an original work - particularly if the underpinning topographical