Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Ramillies

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.

---

Battle of Ramillies

Would like to self-nominate this article for FA status. Thank you. Raymond Palmer 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article has this: "(abandoned by the French the previous summer)". This needs rewording. Firstly, "summer" is an ambiguous time period, and it would clarify it greatly if a date or month was provided. (The Wikipedia audience is not exclusively made up of people who live in the temperate zone of the Northern Hemisphere.)

The article also has long stretches of text in which the date is given without the year. I suggest that the year be mentioned more often, say with the first date in each section, and the first date with a different year to the preceding date. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 11:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. There was only one change in year however, from the 'Background' section which dealt with 1705, to the 'Prelude' section which begins with 1706 (the year of the battle). This was clearly sated in the article. Thank you for your comments. Raymond Palmer 11:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment The lead needs some work. It seems to me it does not cover adequately the whole article because it has two large paragraphs dealing with the background and prelude to the battle while only one small paragraph covers the actual battle and its aftermath. A second problem with the lead is prose, there are several unwieldy sentences which need to be rewritten. For instance The encounter was a resounding success for the Allies but it had come after a year of indecisive campaigning in 1705 where, unable to carry the momentum of victory following the success at the Battle of Blenheim, the Duke of Marlborough had been forced to abandon his position along the Moselle and cancel plans for an advance into the heart of France is a huge sentence. Sentences like this should be broken down. It might also be a good idea to avoid cramming to much detailed info on the lead so as to make it attractive for the average reader. --Victor12 23:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What are these several unwiedly sentences in the lead that you have found fault with? Raymond Palmer 11:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, the unwiedly adjective refers to just that really long sentence. Still I think the whole lead needs work per my other points. --Victor12 22:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The casualties for the French side are not as clear as the arcticle states. However, it is not a good idea to just write down the highest numbers one can find. For example, if we take a look in Chandlers "Marlborough as a Military commander" we find the following: "the Allies had inflicted at least 13,000 casualties on the French" (p.178) The same number can be found in some German and French publications. This would mean killed, wounded and captured. This differs large from the 23,000 the article mentions by now. Of course, it is no easy task to find out, which number is right, but a FA should at least tell its reader, that there are different statements about the casualties and it should also tell him, which author believes in what number. Everything else could be interpreted as too pro-English point of view. By the way I really consider it a great disadvantage of the article, that no French literature has been used. --Memnon335bc 16:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Memnon, but I think you’re wrong. You state:

For example, if we take a look in Chandlers "Marlborough as a Military commander" we find the following: "the Allies had inflicted at least 13,000 casualties on the French" (p.178) The same number can be found in some German and French publications. This would mean killed, wounded and captured.

You’ve misquoted Chandler. The 13,000 casualty figure from Chandler is the dead and wounded ONLY. It does not include the captured as you suggest. Chandler’s Marlborough as a Military commander Appendix A – 12,000 casualties AND 7,000 prisoners.

Or, Chandlers A guide to the Battlefields of Europe p.28 – Quote “18,000 casualties, including 6,000 prisoners”

Similarly with Chandler in the Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough or The Oxford History of the British Army. So Chandler certainly doesn’t say 13,000 INCLUDES prisoners.

Churchill also states 12,000 killed and wounded PLUS 6,000 captured. Marlborough His Life and Times Vol 3

I didn’t simply state the highest figure I could find as you suggest. If I had done that I would have use Correlli Barnett’s figures from Marlborough p.170 – 15,000 dead and wounded, AND 15,000 prisoners.

As stated in the ‘Notes’ No2, all casualty figures are taken from Falkner ie: 12,000 dead and wounded AND ‘up to 10,000 prisoners’. This was clarified in Note No3 with a near contemporary account from John Milner, Quote “John Milner, 17 years after the battle reckoned that 12,087 of Villeroi’s army were killed or wounded, with another 9,729 taken prisoner.” These figures approximate to Chandler, Churchill, Falkner etc

In fact, the French Wikipedia article puts the dead and wounded for the French army at 13,000. That’s 1,000 more than I stated I this article! I don’t think that’s evidence as being ‘too pro English’ regarding the casualty figures. The French article also states 6,000 prisoners. Therefore ~20,000 casualties. More or less what I put in the lead of English article.

The Dutch Wiki article: 6,500 dead, 5,300 wounded. Again ~12,000 (excl. prisoners) as I stated.

In summary therefore, we have about 12-13,000 dead and wounded PLUS 6-10,000 captured.

I have found Dupuy who puts the ‘dead and wounded’ at ‘about 8,000’ however. I could certainly add this to the notes and clarify as you suggest. Thankyou. Raymond Palmer 00:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't get my point. Otherwise you wouldn't have written such a long answer. But thx for doing it - it indicates your proper knowledge. The case is quite simpleasIpointed ot before. If there are different sources which provide us with a wider range of possible casualties, one cannot simply chose one account, which one likes best. The only thing one should dois the explain,that there are different numbers and tell he reader what the range of them is. In a note there is room enough to go into more details. Everythng else cannot be neutral. (And only to comment this: A normal Field Commander seldomknew the actual strenght of his forces and in even less times the absolute number of casualties(only guessing), a 17 year old is therefor not a reliable source, and not at all for french dead and wounded, who were however not counted before buried ... Ah,and I quoted Chandlercorrectlyfor "casualties" always consist of dead, woundedn and prisoners, furthermore Chandler is in this book not talking about a higher number of prisoners, so they must be included in the number given before -althourgh I don't believe that either, it demonstrates how uncertain these numbers are)

By the way, this is all connected to the second problem I mentioned: No French or German author and no French or German literature on the battle in the article. (which would be also interesting concerning the French-Bavarian casualties) It is ok to write a normal article just with on-sided-literature. But a FA should provide a wider approach. So far I really miss that. --Memnon335bc 00:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I understood what you were saying. First though, let’s be crystal clear about Chandler. You quoted his book Marlborough as Military Commander. Please turn to the back of the book in Appendix A where he clearly states: 12,000 casualties AND 7,000 prisoners

Look at his book A Guide to the Battlefields of Europe, p20. I quote: ‘18,000 casualties including 6,000 prisoners’. Therefore 12,000 dead or wounded.

Or The Oxford History of the British Army. In his chapter entitled ‘The Great Captain General’ he states the Ramillies casualty figures for the French, I quote - “The French left 13,000 casualties on the field and A FURTHER 6,000 were taken prisoner besides all their cannon and camp”

Do you accept, therefore, that Chandler believes the casualty figures for the French at Ramillies is 12,000-13,000 dead and wounded PLUS 6,000-7,000 taken prisoner?

If you require a French source, try Voltaire,"One had fought nearly eight hours at Hochstedt (Blenheim), and one had killed nearly eight thousand men; but at the day of Ramillies, one did not kill two thousand five hundreds of them: it was a total rout: the French lost there twenty thousand men, the glory of the nation."Raymond Palmer 12:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I quoted Chandler correctly, that's a fact. He may has written other things in other works, but that doesn't mean I quoted him wrong. But that is of no importance at all. While you are still struggling to find the "correct" numbers, you don't relise, that this is not the topic. There are different sources to this and the article should give them all. Right now it doesn't do that at all, instead it quotes some, that you may find proper. A 17 year old ist still no reliable source and an French source is also missing for the whole article. Voltaire was no military nor was he a military author, not even a contemporary - so far his "Histoire du siecle du Louis XIV." is not woth much. But there are quite a lot memoires of high ranking French officers (Puysegur for example or Quincy), which one could consult, not to mention a good number of German accounts. And this is not about the casualties only. The no-French, no-German sources is a problem of the whole article.

To make my point as clear as possible: There are many differnt numbers for the casualties. It is not ok to put up just one or two of them in an article. The highest casualty numbers must be mentioned as well as the highest! If it is necessary to write a whole paragraph on this, that's absolutely ok. But not in only in a note, which most readers wouldn't relise. AND I like to see there at least one source about the casualties from a French military writer (not of a philosopher), for it is unacceptable that the whole numbers base only on English writers. (about French losses - this is not even logic ...)

I hope you are not too angry now, but maybe you understand the basic problem: Too often in the English language Wikipedia (and literature in general) the topics are treated from the Anglo-American perspective only. I don't consider this to be an accaeptable niveau and so I see myself forced to demand a neutrality and this braod approach at least from the FA articles. --Memnon335bc 16:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. I took a look in: Bernhard von Poten (Edt.): Handwörterbuch der gesamten Militärwissenschaften, Vol. 8, Leipzig 1880, p.81, s.v. Ramillies. There one can read: 13.000 dead, wounded and and prisoners, 50 cannons and 80 colors were lost by the French-Bavarian army .. just to indicate, that the range of possible casualtis is wide and should be treated this way ;-)

You misunderstood Chandler.

The French memoirs I used were Jean-Martin de la Colonie’s Chronicles of an Old Campaigner. He, like Millner (whose memoirs you dismiss as not reliable), was there, and actually fought in the battle. I will cite de al Colonie directly throughout the article and add him to the References (when I get the chance) to make it clearer his memoirs were used in the article. He gives no casualty figures, however, and it won’t substantially change the article – Voltaire (philosopher, essayist, Historian!) is correct, it was a rout. You perhaps think otherwise.

Despite your assumptions, I have not massaged/manipulated the French casualty figures (as you have implied) to suit some innate prejudice or to further extol Allied (and by association, English) glory. I was very careful which numbers I used and put in the infobox – considerably more careful than you yourself seem to have been with regards to Chandler.

John Lynn does not write from an ‘Anglo-American’ perspective. He writes from a French perspective. That is why he is very important – which is why I tend not to use Churchill to avoid accusations of Anglo-centric bias. So much for that theory!

Adding endless casualty sources would be nothing more than tinkering at the edges. Saint Simon in his Memoirs of Louis XIV called the battle a ‘Disaster’, Voltaire a ‘Rout’, or in the words of Marshal Villars from his memoirs it was – “The most shameful, humiliating and disastrous of routs.” If you think article is fundamentally flawed in it’s tone, and biased in it’s tenor, you should oppose it for FA status. I’ll cite de la Colonie throughout and add him to the sources, but that is the end of my contribution as far as I’m concerned. It’s time to move on. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:13, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

What you call tinkering at the edges is what I call scientific standart - and this is what one should expect from an FA article. I was very careful which numbers I used and put in the infobox - well, the fact I critsized is, that you DID chose numbers at all, no matter for what reason. I was asking for nothing more, than for you to add a paragraph, in which you discuss the differences of the various French casualty numbers instead of simply chose numbers. This would be scientific and exemplarily for other FA candites. You know the sources well, it shouldn't be any problem for you to do this and I could add the one or the other German source. That is all asked for from the beginning on and actually the only obstacle, which prevents me from suppoting the article to become FA (althrough I miss the German perspective in it). --Memnon335bc 03:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memnon335bc (talk • contribs)

• Why is there bolding in footnotes? Pls see WP:MOSBOLD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Ramillies—Offus—Autre Eglise ridge-line"—Should be en dashes.
• Bizarre ellipsis dots, and MOS says to space them from the adjacent characters. Try just ... that.
• "To make quite sure that Orkney obeyed"—"quite" is idle.
• "5 – 3"—MOS says unspaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Support -- an excellent article on an important battle, this article is well-cited with compelling prose. The layout is quite nice, too. Good luck! Coemgenus 00:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support I would ask you to take a look at the refernces/notes section, some of your citations could be combined since they go to exactly the same place. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. A good article which I think meets FA standards. Kyriakos 09:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Appears to meet the criteria. Cla68 20:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support Meets all FA criteria. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.