Talk:Battle of Ekeren

A few years ago, the local history society of Ekeren did an exhibition about the Battle of Ekeren. Contrary to what is said in this article, they said that after the battle, the victory wasn't very clear at all.

It also appears as if this article was written after only one source; it could probably use some extra sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.77.46 (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is biased. I have found two dutch sources who give a totally different view of the battle. Firt of all J.W. Wijn, in het Staatsche Leger and second an article, now published on-line in 'Mars et Historia' http://www.marsethistoria.nl/pdf/Jaargang%2007/Mars-j07-n03.pdf . The pdf file has a very detailed OOB, casualty list, and literature in Dutch and French. Basically the articles blame Marlborough for the isolation of the Dutch forces, who were outnumbered two to one, as Marlborough misinterpreted the French intentions. The States's troops were isolated but managed to brake out, inflicting double casualties on the French and capturing more French flags than the French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.254.231 (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Ekeren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927051819/http://www.strecker.be/2004/primsiana/prims-asia28_46_ekeren-oorderen_96.pdf to http://www.strecker.be/2004/primsiana/prims-asia28_46_ekeren-oorderen_96.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Solution to edit conflict

The problems I have with the changes:

1. Wijn explicitely mentions that the casualty number he mentions is the lowest possible. I don't know why 'at least' gets deleated.

2. We can add the amount of guns and standards captured if we like, but don't do it selectively. The Dutch also captured a gun and more standards then the French did. The guns captured by the French is also not as high as 48. It only comes close to that when you include Hand mortars, something which is never mentioned in any infobox. The French captured 4 artillery pieces/cannons.

3. Lastly, for the numbers of soldiers present I would like to use the figures which are currently in the infobox. The historians who have published the most detailed works on this battle mention that the Dutch had around 12,000 man and the French around 24,000. But, most importantly, Bodart's numbers are very rare and I have found more sources supporting the 40,000 French soldiers and 10,000 Dutch soldiers narrative. I do not want to include both of these extremes. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Wijn takes his casualty numbers from the French writer Jean-Jacques Germain Pelet-Clozeau btw. These numbers were only from the infantry of Bedmar.[1][2]DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• I was summoned here by DavidDijkgraaf, which could be construed as canvassing but I would think that it is to give a non-partisan third opinion and because of my involvement in closely related articles. Sigh, there is a squabble over the infobox yet again. Please see my comment made at Talk:Battle of Malplaquet, since the essence is entirely applicable here. Let's stop trying to write the article in the infobox and write about the casualties (and strengths) in the body of the article. Then and only then can we sensibly determine what goes in the infobox. Remember, both casualties and strengths are optional fields. If we cannot reach a consensus on how these fields should be populated, then the best solution is to leave them unpopulated. To the result, my reading along with MOS:MIL is that see Aftermath is most appropriate here. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)