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

Military history: British / Dutch / European / French / German / Spanish / Early Modern C‑class 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force Dutch military history task force European military history task force French military history task force German military history task force Spanish military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) 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 Austria This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Spain This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. England 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. France 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Childs, Van Nimwegen, Van Alphen and others claim that both sides lost 7,000 men or that the losses were quite even and Van Alphen writes clearly that Waldeck was able to save most of his army. It there a satisfying explaination for the differences with the sources in the infobox? I myself can't understand how it is possible that historians can come to such different conclusions. DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) 16:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jules Agathias @ Robinvp11

Can I have you guys opinion/reaction?

Jules wrote that Quite a few statements in the body which are nowhere to be seen in Van Nimwegen's book.

Could you point those out? I can check it if needed.

Jules also said that Bodart is a complete outlier in regard to the strength of the respective armies and found no other source to corroborate 50,000 men on the French side.

While that might be true, I think it is important to point out that Stapleton writes that the French had more that 42,000 men and that a lot of authors write expressly that the French outnumbered the allies by 10,000 or more. That also touches upon the edit of Robin. To write that Luxembourg had 35,000 men and Waldeck 38,000 doesn't represent the literature in a fair way. Childs, Stapleton, Van Nimwegen, Wijn, Bodart and more do not agree and sometimes mention the numerical superiority as something wich partly explains the victory.

Lastly the casualties. I think what Jules did in the article can be acceptable as there might be a lack of historical consensus on the course of the battle. The same should however be true for the casualties. A lot of historians mention just 7,000 killed and wounded for the allies. It does however seems obvious that this isn't complete because it lacks the numbers for the allied prisoners. It is therefore difficult to include them in the infobox. However, Stapleton does provide complete casualty numbers. He says over 11,000 for the Allies. Meanwhile, Bosscha gives numbers of 3,000 captured as opposed to De Quincy's number 8,000 captured. Could we do something with that?

I think the least we could do is make it clear that there is no consensus. DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) 16:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry. I've only just seen this. As with other articles, I think the Infobox should show the generally accepted figures, rather than all the different ranges. I don't personally have a strong view on what those "generally accepted figures" are, but we need to pick one for the Infobox. Robinvp11 ( talk) 17:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC) reply