Talk:Battle of the Dunes (1658)

message: When I expanded this article I left in
:including the bodyguard of King Charles II under the command of Lord Wentworth 
As a previous contributer had included it. But I do not know whether it is true or not as I have not seen it mentioned anywhere else on the web. I find it very odd that Charles was a guest of the French and his brother could fight for the Spanish against the French in the hope of invading England one day in the name of his brother! Philip Baird Shearer 11:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is the Don John in this article the same as Don John of Austria? That one seems like a naval commander. --Awiseman 17:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don John? 

message: In the summary box, the number of casualties is listed as 4500 but in the text it says there were only 500 of them. So which is it?
Also, there is no description of the battle. Anyone know anything about how the battle played out? I find this odd since both commanders were amongst France's finest generals in history...The Nouv (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of French/English/Dutch casualties 

message: There are two Dictionary of National Biography articles that state a Fenwick was killed at the Battle of the Dunes:
*
*
Both of them name a man the former "John Fenwicke" says "He died of wounds received in the battle of the Dunes in June 1658 (Commons' Journ. iii. 645, iv. 612, vi. 435; Thurloe State Papers, vii. 175; Cox, Hist. of Ireland, ii. 195; Mackenzie, Durham, ii. 340)." but this is refuted in the ODNB article that states John lived until 1670. George Fenwick (Parliamentarian) says. "In some accounts Fenwick is confused with Lieutenant-colonel Roger Fenwick, who was killed in the Battle of Dunkirk, 4 June 1658".
There is a need to identify which Fenwick or Fenwicke died at the Battle of the Dunes (1658)
-- PBS (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fenwicke 

message: The infobox lists the Dutch Republic (United Provinces) as having fought with the English and French. Nowhere else in this article or related articles mentions this fact. Did they really participate? Or should they be removed from the infobox? King Philip V of Spain (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dutch Republic in this battle 

message: Hello, Tttom. First of all, let my greet your work in expanding the article. It's much better now. However, I'd like to discuss some points, because, as the article seems based mostly in English narratives, some insights had been lost. There is an analysis of the battle by Antonio Cánovas del Castillo 1 (in Spanish, I don't now if you can deal with it) which uses French, Spanish and English sources and highlights several aspects that aren't in the article: the French-English superior numbers, the role played by the English fleet was decisive, and the lack of artillery by the Spanish, Condé, English Royalist army. Cánovas basically follows Napoleon's comment on the battle 2. He also claims that the Spanish and English Royalist cavalry broke the Cromwellian infantry at the foot of the dune and retook the height, but too late the change the sign of the battle. 
Regards. Weymar Horren (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Weymar Horren, thank you for your kind comments. Previously the article was all about the Commonwealth English,  a couple years back I added some of the English Royalist information, but it was still very one sided towards the English and lacking neutral POV - the reader was hardly aware that this is generally considered one of Turenne's great victories. I'll take a look at that Spanish version, I don't speak Spanish but managed with various translation programs to get the gist when I did the Battle of Cartagena de Indias some time back. So far, the consensus of English and French historians give the the sides even numbers, more or less, with the Spanish having more infantry and the French more cavalry on the field. I mentioned the role of the fleet, I don't believe its generally considered more decisive than the tide aspect and I covered the the fact that the Spanish out-march their artillery. There doesn't seem to be any practical reason (beyond those of the terrain that Turenne overcame) for them to have  not brought artillery with them as Dunkirk is in no danger of falling that day, or the day after - in other words they could have waited for it, or marched up with it the next day.Tttom1 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are interested in check old sources, there is a digitalized Spanish relation on the 1658 campaign 1, and also a French one 2. The Duke of York's memories would also be interesting, given he was present at the battle and are in English, but I don't know if they are on the Internet. Regarding to the numbers, Cánovas claims the French-Cromwellian army was superior in infantry, while the Spanish-Royalist army had the advantage in cavalry, which is also stated in the Spanish relation above. The numer of English warships firing over the Spanish-Royalist troops may have to be included in the infobox. For the rest, the only point we can discuss is wether the Cromwellian infantry was broken or not. Regards Weymar Horren (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the links to sources. I moved this discussion to the article talk page. Before my recent edits, the sizes of the armies were taken by another editor from Paul Davis' 100 Decisive Battles, Davis doesn't footnote or reference where he got his numbers. Most of the others , aside from, Maganiello, seem to follow the numbers given in Turenne's memoirs for the French and York's memoirs for the Spanish - both of which are available in english in . I think that the Davis referenced breakdown of strengths needs to be changed, even though it is a citation, for two reasons 1. other reliable sources disagree with it and 2. Davis doesn't explain his numbers or ref them - so they can't be checked. If any editor has a reason not to change from Davis in face of the other references, please explain here before I make the change. As to whether or not the Cromwellians broke, this appears to derive only from York's somewhat enthusiastic account of his own role in the battle and would need additional sources that don't rely on his account. It would be great to get the numbers on the english ships as a whole and those involved in firing on shore (which would be the lighter vessels).Tttom1 (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This links to an old engraving in the Marburg Archives from 1698 of the battle which shows the Spanish with 13 infantry formations and the French with 20  infantry formations.  aside from the information, the image would be great for the article - does anyone know how to get this image into wikicommons?Tttom1 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Davis' book issue is that, as it covers many different battles, it can't go deep inside each one. I've uploaded the map to Wikicommons. It's here. I'll also look for a source that provides the number of English ships. Weymar Horren (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Army sizes, etc

message: I'm not sure that the special section on English Involvement should remain. Most of the info pertinent to the battle  has been incorporated into the main body of the article. In terms of balance, there is no special section on the Fronde rebels or, most arguably, the very notable Condé, let alone the Walloons or French units. I am loath to just delete it as it is well researched and referenced, perhaps that info could be moved to some more appropriate article on the English army?Tttom1 (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  english involvement