Talk:Battle of Cerignola

message: Additionally, Louis d'Armagnac may have been the first general KIA by musketry. Trekphiler 12:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite likely. Taylor's The Art of War in Italy cites only Nicolo di Pitigliano being wounded in 1495 as an earlier firearms casualty. Kirill Lokshin 14:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

message: The introduction contains some statements that are neither part of the battle, nor at this time of the developement of the Spanish infantry correct (afaik). Examples:  "He formed his infantry into new units called Coronelías"... did he? Sources? References to Colunellas or Tercios are a bit early here. The battle is, if anything, famous for introducing small-arms defended field fortifications. The pike-block that developed later into an integral part of the Tercio was (as at La Motta, Bicocca or Pavia) made up from Landsknechts. Perhaps a seperate article on the military developments during the Italian wars would suit this better.
If nobody objects, I will delete these statements here and try to come up with a suitable alternative.ASchudak (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Preparations" and the development of the Spanish infantry 

message: I saw that when it comes to the numbers of soldiers involved, the 8 000 vs 32 000 version has been up ever since the article was created. Does anyone know which source was it taken from? 
In Piort Tafiłowski's 2007 monography "Wojny Włoskie 1494-1559" (ISBN: 978-83-89943-18-7) he states that the French had some 2 0000 heavy cavalry (Gens d'armes) and 4 000 infantry including Swiss mercenaries. The French artillery did not take part in the battle and was captured in the wagon train by the Spanish after combat ended. The spanish accordig to Tafiłowski had 4 000 infantry and 2300 cavalry, both light (Jinetes) and heavy.
My point is: If we have no concrete source to back up the 8 000 vs 32 000 version, then we should go with the concrete source we have (Tafiłowski). Especially since Tafiłowski provides a lot of details about both sides, commanders etc. In general, I found his book very accurate when dealing with other events in the Italian wars  (such as Fornovo). Thus I have no reason to suddenly doubt him in this case. 
I'lll go ahead and edit the description of the battle and numbers based on Tafiłowski. If anyone can provide sources that back up the  8000 vs 32000 version, I'd be most pleased and open to any new info.
Wilhelm Klave (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I adjusted the numbers to those given in Mallets book.ASchudak (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: Casualties are not the most interesting fact about the significance of a battle, but at least they should prove consistent. It is stated in the main text : "French reported to have lost around 2,000 men, Spanish losses amounting to some 500 men". The frame on the right states "Casualties and losses : Spain 100 casualties, French 4000 casualties". Could someone possibly correct one of those ? Tehem (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the same thing -- that the casualty numbers in the text and the casualty numbers in the box at upper right do not match, and they should.  It is nearly three years later and this still is a problem.  I am not knowledgeable enough about the topic to solve the problem myself.  --Skb8721 (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties