Talk:Battle of Saint-Denis (1678)

Note on sources

Re recent edits, there's been extensive discussion on Sources elsewhere, (some of ) which is worth capturing here;

(1) Olaf van Nimwegen is not 'an associate professor affiliated with Utrecht University;' he is Professor of History at Leiden University, and lecturer at the Dutch Defence Academy. Here is a list of his publications https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=olaf+van+Nimwegen+publications&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Doesn't mean he can't be challenged, but he's one of the leading experts on Dutch military history, and should be treated as such.

(2) Tucker, Nolan, Sandler, Young and other editors of Military Encyclopaedia generally use the same original Source, the 1970 work produced by Trevor and Ernest Dupuy. Hence using Sandler and Dupuy to reference the same point doesn't make it twice as reliable.

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Duly noted, it has been discussed that Nimwegan is very biased on his views towards the Dutch but the recent changes are in my view accepted. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I've seen the discussions elsewhere. The criticisms are not valid, and chiefly relate to treatment of prisoners, which Nimwegen doesn't consider casualties; the rank and file were returned asap, since their captors didn't want to feed them. You can argue about that, but he applies it to the French as well. That is the only significant 'difference'. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation

• "As a result, the battle is generally viewed as a draw, or inconclusive."<Sandler, p.514>

"Sandler, Stanley (2002). Ground Warfare: An International Encyclopedia. Vol. 1, page 514;"The victories accumulated in the following years: Valenciennes and Cassel in 1677 and Ypres and Saint Denis in 1678."

Someone should find a source(s) for "..draw, or inconclusive", and show that Sandler calls Saint Denis a French victory. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

AND, the Dupuy source states:

• "1678, August 14. Battle of Saint Denis (near Mons). Presumably unaware that the treaty had been signed, William attacked Luxembourg and was defeated after a fierce struggle."

So the current reference in the infobox is misrepresented as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The Infobox and article have been updated so there are Sources provided for French victory, Allied victory and Inconclusive. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Robinvp11, looks good. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Wording

@Jules Agathias: "Whether Luxembourg having gotten the word led to the withdrawal order that night and to him deciding to return to France the next morning remains unclear".

Would you mind pointing me to exactly which of the Sources provided actually says this and I'll update the content accordingly. Assuming its taken in the "right context" of course. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Van Nimwegen describes the French retreat as "disorderly" and writes that they left behind their dead and wounded, field hospital and provisions. And also that the Allies and not the French remained in possession of the field. How can this be incorporated into 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. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

If you can provide the page number for Van Nimwegen, then I'll incorporate it; given the speed with which Luxembourg withdrew, it wouldn't surprise me. His claim that it was an Allied victory is included in the "Aftermath" section.

The problem (as discussed extensively by historians of the period) is so many of the battles in this war were inconclusive, hence the extremely technical discussions as to who retained possession of the ground and/or the number of flags/standards captured. It's also why William of Orange was such an important figure; while not the best general, he was extremely determined and constantly sought to renew the offensive, convinced the French would run out of men long before the Allies did (in WWI, the French Quartier Generale called this approach "grignotage").

Luxembourg claimed victory (and he was very proud of never losing a battle) because the Allies withdrew first; William did the same on the grounds that (a) his troops only pulled back a couple of hundred metres to re-organise and prepare for renewing the assault and (b) when they did so early the next day, they found the French had retreated, leaving him in possession of the ground.

Childs suggests an Allied victory, because Luxembourg was in no position to renew the fighting and as a result abandoned the siege of Mons, the entire reason for fighting the battle. Most other English-language sources are either non-committal (Lynn says different things in different books) or a French victory (hardly surprising because Tucker, Clodfelter, Dupuy etc use the same source).

"Disputed" seems reasonable although I can expand on this in the "Aftermath" section; I haven't done so previously because it's a fairly obscure discussion for most. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

He writes on page 165 and 166 that: The French had made a disorderly retreat in the dark of night, leaving behind 2,500 dead and wounded, their tents, field hospital and provisions. The Allies had lost about 3,000 men. Huygens went to see the abbey that very evening (talking about the day after the battle). He admired the Dutch troops who had dared to storm such a strong post. The ground was still littered with three to four hundred corpses, all of them shaken naked. Huygens discovered among the dead a few Frenchmen who were still alive and begging for help. This surprised him, because wounded (from now page 166) soldiers left behind by the losing side usually fell prey to looters. After the Battle of Seneffe, Chavagnac had therefore detached a hundred horsemen to protect the helpless victims. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Robinvp11 In the source material you've now moved to the background section next to Childs' assertion, Lynn implies just like Childs did that it is unlikely Luxembourg, or William for that matter, had been informed of the treaty being signed before the battle took place, even if people such as Sevin de Quincy believe he was, and that the whole thing remains a bit of a mystery. Lynn then stated on page 154 that news of the peace did reach both camps that night but it was after the engagement. Wanting to move the source up is totally fine as I have now noticed this was previously addressed but what purpose does it serve if the statement it is supposed to support has been removed?

Your clarification here on Childs' take, however, is pertinent. Your choice regarding the chronology of events is nonetheless a matter of discussion. Luxembourg withdrew his forces that night after the engagement, lifted the siege and returned to France the next morning. Was it a matter of 1- learning of the peace that night, 2- deeming his position untenable as Childs said and opting to abandon it or 3- choosing not to engage the Allies the next day and retreating after learning of the Allies resuming their march on Mons the next day? Because as it is, the latter is what you imply. Neither Childs nor the Britannica article you linked next to each other link the retreat to the renewed allied advance or the siege being lifted as a result of it. Because, there would be zero reason anyone would consider this a French victory or "inconclusive", even with the initial success in mind. The whole passage of "The French were forced to abandon the siege... (as a result of the allies resuming their march as implied by the previous sentence)" is nowhere to be seen on the original page you linked. Jacob Field, doesn't mention the circumstances of the French withdrawal and in fact even states when mentioning William achieving his strategic objective, that he did not win the battle. I haven't seen any source mention a disorderly French retreat but Van Nimwegen seemingly, who has proven himself to be sometimes quite the outlier when compared to Anglophone sources or French ones and has considered various battles in his book not exactly disputed like the one at Saint-Denis by other sources as Dutch victories. We went over this a while ago. Jules Agathias (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The suggestion neither William nor Luxembourg were aware the treaty had been signed has been in the Background section for some time, I just added another Source and expanded some of the earlier detail. Since Louis deliberately made peace with the Dutch hoping to isolate William from the Dutch Peace Party and delayed signing it with Spain hoping to take Mons, it's not clear either side would have avoided fighting anyway, which is why the point is disputed. No general of the period would have voluntarily retreated at night, abandoning his baggage train and wounded, so the idea Luxembourg won the battle and withdrew only because he was ordered to do so is debatable at the very least. If I add all this detail, the article would be far longer and you'd still object, because much of it is speculation (by other historians).

Louis wanted to take Mons. That's not disputed. When fighting ended late at night, Luxembourg withdrew from the battlefield and abandoned the siege as soon as possible. That's not disputed. The details of the battle, the numbers involved and associated casualties, are taken from French sources. So what are we arguing about, other than semantics? And you must be reading a different version of the EB than me because "forced" is exactly the word Field uses.

Van Nimwegen, who you previously dismissed as some sort of visiting associate professor at a low level college in Utrecht, is a prominent historian of the 17th century and lecturer at the Dutch military staff college, a point we have indeed covered before. There's a reason why he's an "outlier" which I will explain (again).

The Franco-Dutch War is not well studied by English historians because Britain had very limited involvement and I cannot find an English-language source which covers its battles in detail (even Lynn only provides an overview). Hence, when researching this article I had to rely on French sources; the battle narrative of this and other articles comes largely from Perini, the French Army's Official Historian, writing at a time when maintaining its prestige was seen as a patriotic duty. That reliance on a single possibly biased source concerns me but neither you, nor the other editor who has raised the same issue, objects to that.

From my own experience and that of other academic friends, if you do any kind of European history degree or Phd, British universities require the ability to read French and/or German and so most English-speaking historians writing on this period (including Lynn) rely on French language accounts (particularly as the default language of diplomacy was also French). Very few non-Dutch historians can read Dutch and Van Nimwegen is an "outlier" only because his work is based on Dutch sources; I'm trying to present a comprehensive view, so as elsewhere I will include his perspective but clearly note it as such.

Spanish Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on this battle. Dutch Wikipedia says "Dutch victory". Until it was recently changed (without explanation) to "French victory", even French Wikipedia had it as "Indecisive". While there is no obligation to ensure these articles align, it does at the very least show that the result is not nearly as clear cut as you seem to assume.

Neither article is anywhere near as detailed or well researched as this one, so why don't you rewrite one of them to the same standard. Then we can have a reasonable discussion about any differences you identify, rather than this to and fro about exactly what time Luxembourg withdrew, why he did so and if it matters. Robinvp11 (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)