This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good day! Thanks for creating this article. I encouraged and hope that you will write more articles! Have a blessed day!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Тимофей Васильченков: and @ DavidDijkgraaf: you are engaged in an edit war. Neither of you has bothered to start a discussion about whatever the hell it is you disagree, is there any reason why you both should not be blocked for a long time? DuncanHill ( talk) 14:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@DuncanHill I have asked Cinderella157 to intervene, and i was at work so had no time to write something at length. I have asked the other user counless times to write what he wants to change here. I am familiar with all his sources and there are reasons to not include them the way he does. I can expand on that in a few minutes DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) 14:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@DuncanHill This user was already threatened with being reported on the Battle of Malplaquet page, by another user DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) 14:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I've reported you both. DuncanHill ( talk) 14:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@DuncanHill I have expounded at great length the information I want to add, only to receive one-worded comments and multiple reverts from DavidDijkgraaf who is dead-set on not including any other sources in the article except his own. I am still looking for explanations as to why information given by Gaston Bodart does not deserve their place in the article and must be excluded from this article specifically, as DavidDijkgraaf is not at all opposed to their presence elsewhere when the information given suits his narrative. I repeatedly modified my entries to reach some kind of compromise only to be met with unfounded rejection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тимофей Васильченков ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

To you both: The continual reverting MUST STOP. You are both behaving unreasonably and disruptively. Neither of you has bothered to use this talk page until I intervened, which I think shows that neither of you is interested in working collegially with each other or indeed with anyone else. DuncanHill ( talk) 14:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I understand your outlook, but I have always used the talkpage for these things. It is just that I couldn't write an essay at work. But, I guess it will be talked about on the other page DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) 15:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@DuncanHill Please note that the direction that this discussion is steering in is already wrong. DavidDijkgraaf is, by his own admission (see the comment), engaging in original research about the merits of one of the most widely quoted and prominent authors in the military domain on Wikipedia, and wholly dismisses the information presented by him on account of one supposed "mistake" he ostensibly found, all the while retaining the information given by the same author in other places, such as Battle of Ekeren or Battle of Malplaquet. I repeatedly told him to take the discussion to the corresponding Wiki page, to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тимофей Васильченков ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It is rich to accuse me of not bringing it to the talk page. Everywhere I have ecountered you have refused to do so. I simly couldn't until now. The reason for not including Bodart in the Battle of Ekeren is simple. He is an outlier and not an expert on this battle compared to some of the other historians used. He doesn't even spend one page on it. But, I did not include him, because I didn't want to include the extremes. Churchill, Bosscha and Gillespie all mention the 40,000 figures for the French and the 10,000 figure for the Dutch is also mentioned by many authors as the lowest possible estimate.

What is currently in the article even leans more towards the lower estimates.

And I don't want to retain Bodart at other pages. Other editors do. When other sources are available I rarely use Bodart. DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Once again, what makes one an outlier is not in your capacity to decide, unless you have a reliable source to prove your claim. Bodart is not an expert on this battle (he is not an expert on any specific battle, in fact), however he is the first man of reference on statistics and casualty rates and is widely quoted in almost every 17-19th century European battle wiki page. What is currently in the article is heavily Dutch-biased, as every single source you used is Dutch, with overlapping information between sources. You can not just delete the parts you do not like to leave only what suits you. Тимофей Васильченков ( talk) 17:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I have two main problems with the changes made.

The first is that everything on this page is sourced. The quote of Quincy and the remark of about the quality of the Anglo-Dutch army both come from Jan Willem Wijn, the cited source. He is an expert on this war, as British historian Jamel Ostwald remarked: First, a perusal of the large number of English-language works on Marlborough will turn up the surprising fact that none bother to consult the secondary literature written by Dutch historians, much less delve into Dutch primary sources. J. W. Wijn's three-volume narrative of the War of the Spanish Succession provides a much more balanced account of the war, yet it remains practically unknown among English readers.

The second main problem is that @ Тимофей Васильченков confuses the skirmish with the whole operation. We are dealing with an operational failure here. The goals of the French and the result of their advance are clearly outlined in the article. A large part of the French force wasn't even at the skirmish. That explains the difference between the numbers of Bodart and Van Lennep. I didn't have time to work that out yet. That the French inflicted more casualties in the skirmish is does not change that the assault was a failure. The user can make a seperate page about the skirmish if he wants.

And the casualties I decided to put into the article is the middle ground. Wijn mentions lower casualties for both sides than Bodart and Perini. I don't mind adding all figures into the infobox, but I prefer taking the middle ground. DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) 15:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

My edits reflected just that : operational failure, victorious skirmish. For once, take time to read my edits (such as this one https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assault_on_Nijmegen_(1702)&diff=prev&oldid=1169175413) instead of reverting them on the grounds that you do not like the information sourced. I also never touched the Strength part, so I am not sure what difference between the numbers of Bodart and Van Lennep you are talking about since I did not edit that. Since the skirmish took the majority of time that the assault lasted, it should remain a part of the article, but it should be correclty referenced as "French victory" as Bodart put it, with Result pointing to Aftermath part. You may leave the casualty section intact, as long as French losses are correctly referenced to be three times lower than the Allied. Тимофей Васильченков ( talk) 16:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I read all your edits every time. You deleted cited content a few times, and in you last comment you still added CN's were it wasn't needed.

Anyway, I am glad that we are close to a solution. Two things still. I don't think it is necessary to put a 'See Aftermath' in the infobox. We can say that the French suffered less losses in the skirmish, but it doesn't change that the assault failed. I think you would actually agree. DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) 17:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

What about something like this image? DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) 17:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I am still waiting for you to quote cited content that I deleted. Also, the assessment that the allied army had "excellent military qualities" while losing thrice more men than the attacking force is obviously Wijn's personal opinion, and must be quoted immediately. As for the aftermath, I won't agree. Again, you are ignoring a reputable source to make the article fit a Dutch-centric narrative by using exclusively Dutch sources. The skirmish was part of the assault and was clearly lost by the allies, who lost all their baggage and were driven into the fortress whence the French failed to dislodge them. This is what stated by Bodart and explained by Périni.

Тимофей Васильченков ( talk) 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

As far as I am aware, nothing major, written by Perini wasn't already in the article. But my French is not very good so maybe you can help me out? Were does he explain that the skirmish was a French victory? His account doesn't differ that much from that from Wijn.

It is all about Bodart. First you should know that Bodart is not always accurate. Like when he confuses the Battle of the Downs with the Action of 18 September 1639. [1] Secondly. He is the only one to state a French victory as far as I am aware and he doesn't provide any details about the goals of the commanders or the developments of the assault.

Don't you think that this is problematic? DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) 18:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

So no quote, as expected. Why did you keep lying in the history section then about me deleting quoted parts?

What makes you think that Wijn or Van Nijmegen are more accurate than Bodart, as VN was accused of revisionism in the Malplaquet talk page? Again, you are doing original research about authoritative historians which has no place on Wikipedia. You have no bones to pick about the casualties themselves though, you simply dismiss an authoritative source that is Bodart because he made a mistake in something that has nothing to do with the article. Bodart is the only author to suggest the French lost 14T at Malplaquet : why you don't question that? Why did you delete his own estimate of 25T allied casualties that I put?

To quote Périni about the last part of the skirmish : "elle (la cavalerie ennemie) se débanda; partie se jeta dans le chemin couvert comme elle put, partie...gagna les bords de Wahal et par là entra dans Nimègue. Cependant, comme le cannon de la place tira sur nous..., on se retira. Quand la cavalerie ennemie avait disparu, duc de Bourgogne fit reculer toute son armée... Il eut mieux valu sans doute de donner assaut et coucher dans la ville prise". The French won the skirmish, chased the enemies in the fortress but did not give assault. This minor battle is not widely known outside of the Dutch sources, so there must be a more weighed perspective given by Bodart and Périni. Тимофей Васильченков ( talk) 19:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Did you forget that you deleted this for example?

The French therefore presented the action at Nijmegen as a significant feat and a success for the French arms. The Duke of Burgundy's behaviour at his first feat was also praised. In reality, however, the operation was a failure.

Anyway, let us know what you think of Cinderella's comment and my reaction. DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) 18:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Some comments/observations - some general but mostly specific to this discussion. When I am referring to text, I am referring to the this version.
  • The article mentions several places but there is no map to put these in context and the links don't help.
  • I'm really not certain (don't think) that Allies etc in this atricle should be capitalies. It is a common noun that might be capitalised in the context of WWII but per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS we don't capitalise for emphasis or distinction.
  • MOS:TIME would indicate we should use 1:00 pm rater than 1 o'clock.
  • We have [an] Anglo-Dutch corps of 27 battalions and 62 squadrons, under Earl of Athlone, which is the allied force engaged. But we also have: An Allied army under the Prince of Nassau-Usingen (not too confusing of itself at this point); Still, Athlone's army remained in camp at Klarenburg still sort of OK; French discovered that the entire Anglo-Dutch army was marching in battle order towards Nijmegen this is where it gets confusing; but by then the army under Athlone; and, the excellent military qualities of the Dutch-English army OK just which Anglo-Duthch army are we actually talking about now. How about we just have, Althone's corp, Nassau's force and the Anglo-Dutch army that includes at least those two?
  • We have: Some cavalry skirmishes took place; But these fights to were nothing more than skirmishes that the French captured twice but were recaptured; and, Although the French defeated the Allies in the skirmish - but which one? There are obviously a series of skirmishes but the last statement is referring to the overall attack or engagement? How about: Although the French defeated the Allies in the engagement? Anything but skirmish - or is it a reference to the skirmish that capture the baggage train?
  • The claim that the French won the engagement (or was it just one of the skirmishes?) is presumably because the capture the baggage train (and killed more than they lost). The French cavalry followed at a short distance but did not dare to attack without infantry support. The latter joined the cavalry around 1 o'clock, but by then the army under Athlone had already reached the outworks of Nijmegen. So just when was the baggage train captured? Seems to me that the most important part of the story is missing (from the battle section)?
  • I don't see an issue with reporting the casualties as a range rather than the single figures in the preceding version, assuming that these figures are explicitly supported by the cited sources. There is not a significant variation between them. The loss of the standard though, is unsourced and not supported by the body of the article. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE applies. If it is important, write it into the body of the article and tell us how it was lost.
  • To the first cn tag, it follows a quotation. Per WP:VER, quotations do require a citation immediately following. The tag is justifiable.
  • The second cn tag follows this statement: The retreat to Nijmegen counts as a striking testament to the excellent military qualities of the Dutch-English army. This is a POV that should be attributed to the person offering that opinion and, as an indirect quote it should also have a citation. The tag used is perhaps not the most appropriate but ultimately, there is justification for tagging the text.

Now comes what I see to be the nub of the dispute - what the result parameter says. MOS:MIL gives voice to the template documentation. The documentation tells us to consider the immediate result of the engagement. It also limits the appropriate responses to be used in the field to: X victory, inconclusive or see section. Consequently, dot points are right out. The scope of the article is defined by the lead. It was an attack on the Anglo-Dutch corps that happened to occur on the way to and at Nijmegen. Strategically, it was to draw forces from the siege at Kaiserswerth. An opportunity to capture Nijmegen presented itself but was not exploited. No battle actually occurred but a series of skirmishes. On that basis, it may be said to be inconclusive save for the capture of the baggage train - which was probably damned inconvenient for the officers when it came to setting the mess tables for dinner. The engagement could be characterised as a tactical victory for the French (the immediate result) but a strategic failure. Of course, what we write in the body of the article must be supported by sources. I see no sources sepcifically supporting an Anglo-Dutch victory. It would be disingenuous to label this as a French victory because they won one of several skirmishes. On reading the article as it stands, I conclude that see Aftermath is the most appropriate entry. I trust I have touched on all of the relevant issues. Let me know if I have not. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• The article mentions several places but there is no map to put these in context and the links don't help.

I was planning to take the one of Churchill's book on Marlborough.

• I'm really not certain (don't think) that Allies etc in this atricle should be capitalies. It is a common noun that might be capitalised in the context of WWII but per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS we don't capitalise for emphasis or distinction.

Not sure either, but it is also done in other articles on the Grand Alliance.

• We have [an] Anglo-Dutch corps of 27 battalions and 62 squadrons, under Earl of Athlone, which is the allied force engaged. But we also have: An Allied army under the Prince of Nassau-Usingen (not too confusing of itself at this point); Still, Athlone's army remained in camp at Klarenburg still sort of OK; French discovered that the entire Anglo-Dutch army was marching in battle order towards Nijmegen this is where it gets confusing; but by then the army under Athlone; and, the excellent military qualities of the Dutch-English army OK just which Anglo-Duthch army are we actually talking about now. How about we just have, Althone's corp, Nassau's force and the Anglo-Dutch army that includes at least those two?

I can change it too The French discovererd the etirety of Athlone's force. The remark about the quality of the Dutch English army is about all forces. Not just the forces of Nassau or Athlone.

• The claim that the French won the engagement (or was it just one of the skirmishes?) is presumably because the capture the baggage train (and killed more than they lost). The French cavalry followed at a short distance but did not dare to attack without infantry support. The latter joined the cavalry around 1 o'clock, but by then the army under Athlone had already reached the outworks of Nijmegen. So just when was the baggage train captured? Seems to me that the most important part of the story is missing (from the battle section)?

The baggage train was lost during the retreat I think. When I have access to Wijn's book again soon, I can probably write that down.

• We have: Some cavalry skirmishes took place; But these fights to were nothing more than skirmishes that the French captured twice but were recaptured; and, Although the French defeated the Allies in the skirmish - but which one? There are obviously a series of skirmishes but the last statement is referring to the overall attack or engagement? How about: Although the French defeated the Allies in the engagement? Anything but skirmish - or is it a reference to the skirmish that capture the baggage train?

Indeed, there were more then one skirmishes or you should argue that it all was one big skirmish. I think that it doesn't make sense to say that the French came out victorious in the skirmish either. We can say that they inflicted more losses on the allies, but that was already in the article.

• I don't see an issue with reporting the casualties as a range rather than the single figures in the preceding version, assuming that these figures are explicitly supported by the cited sources. There is not a significant variation between them. The loss of the standard though, is unsourced and not supported by the body of the article. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE applies. If it is important, write it into the body of the article and tell us how it was lost.

Relative the variation is pretty big, but I don't really mind to add a range of casualties. Just take into account that Wijn's casualty estimate quite a bit lower. And about the standard. I don't mind including that either if there is a source, but I never include them in the infobox of the articles I write. Should we do that? None of the battle pages of the War of the Spanis Succession mention it.

• The second cn tag follows this statement: The retreat to Nijmegen counts as a striking testament to the excellent military qualities of the Dutch-English army. This is a POV that should be attributed to the person offering that opinion and, as an indirect quote it should also have a citation. The tag used is perhaps not the most appropriate but ultimately, there is justification for tagging the text.

Alright, I will move the same citation upwards and include that Wijn wrote it.

• It was an attack on the Anglo-Dutch corps that happened to occur on the way to and at Nijmegen.

I don't think I would frase it that way. For the French capturing Nijmegen or destroying Athlone's corps were both outcomes that would be deemed a success. Nijmegen was a very strategic town, and it would have forced Nassau to end the his siege too. I should expand on that

On reading the article as it stands, I conclude that see Aftermath is the most appropriate entry. I trust I have touched on all of the relevant issues. Let me know if I have not. Regards,

Okay. If we do it like this I think it is best then to remove all mentions of victory on both sides from the lede and infobox, and just explain what happened. The French failed in their strategic objectives, but inflicted more losses on the Allies. In the aftermath we then state that both sides claimed victory. Something that I already wrote in a way, but I can expand on that if needed?

You also mentioned in an edit remark that Assault on Nijmegen isn't the common name. It might not be in English, but it is in Dutch. 'Aanslag' can be translated as attack or assault. Most literature on this event is also in Dutch. There aren't many English works which cover it.

If I forgot to react to something please mention it. DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) 18:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary break 1

• Not sure either, but it is also done in other articles on the Grand Alliance.

Just means we might have to look at them too.

• I can change it too The French discovererd the etirety of Athlone's force. The remark about the quality of the Dutch English army is about all forces. Not just the forces of Nassau or Athlone.

Could equally say: The French discovererd Athlone's corps. I think you might have misunderstood my point. There appears to be mixed terminology that makes things confusing/ambiguous since army could refer to Athlone, Nassau or the total when it is used in different places in the text - hence the confusion. My proposal is to consistently use corps for Athlone's force. Just force for Nassau's force, which I think is only mentioned once, and army only when referring to the entire Anglo-Dutch army. That would largely resolve any ambiguity. Not saying that this is the best or only way but better clarity is required.

• Indeed, there were more then one skirmishes or you should argue that it all was one big skirmish.

Again, my point is one of clearer language - skirmish for individual skirmishes and engagement for the overall thing. Then follows the question of whether the French won a skirmish [at the baggage train] or the engagement. In the Aftermath, we could say that the French claim that they won the engagement - meaning overall. We can also say somewhere (perhaps the lead) that the engagement consisted of a series of skirmishes. This establishes the distinction between the two terms.

• Alright, I will move the same citation upwards and include that Wijn wrote it.

It is appropriate to cite Wijn twice in this case. Once for the quote and then for the rest of the material in the paragraph at the end. Also attribute the POV material to Wijn (eg Wijn opined) since I gather the opinion is theirs.

• It was an attack on the Anglo-Dutch corps that happened to occur on the way to and at Nijmegen. I don't think I would frase it that way.

That was my summarising for clarity of explanation and not a suggested change. It is, however, how I am reading it. My point would be, that the French did not set out to capture Nijmegen. It was an opportunity they failed to exploit and would have been a success. But it is not our place to make such judgements when writing here.

• Okay. If we do it like this I think it is best then to remove all mentions of victory on both sides from the lede and infobox.

By all means. But I don't see a great need to change the substance of the aftermath section as it stands?

• You also mentioned in an edit remark that Assault on Nijmegen isn't the common name. It might not be in English, but it is in Dutch.

I take your point too. My comment was in the context of capitalisation in the lead sentence and my edit to lowercase assault. If you disagree, then we can discuss this further in a new section.

I haven't responded to everything, only where I though necessary to clarify. I am not seeing anything that remains an issue/point of contention. If there is more than one particular issue requiring further discussion, perhaps we can start a new sub-section for each. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply