Talk:Battle of Rocroi

message: The article say "Outraged by this, Enghien ordered a renewed assault. The remnants of the Spanish squares were broken."
The spanish square never were broken, which is the source? According with the accounts of the battle, the french attacked three times the spanish position unsucessful, then they offered to the spanish a good surrender, and the spanish agreed.
-Fco
       What accounts are those, Francisco?.
Here you can see it: http://www.geocities.com/aow1617/Rocroi1uk.pdf --Bentaguayre 15:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The spanish losses described in the article disagree with those enumerated in the battle summary.
:Changed that. Aran|heru|nar 12:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link above by Bentaguayre would appear to put in dispute both the assertion that the Spanish were broken, and the assertion that the Spanish lost 15,000 men.  Perhaps the figure is based upon French sources only? Doug 14:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish losses 

message: Just a curiosity:  in what way was the battle "decisive?"  It didn't end the war, it didn't force negotiations, and it didn't even end campaigning in that sector of the war, so far as I can tell.  I know it was a clear French victory, but in what way are we using the term "decisive?" Doug 14:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about that earlier.  Looking at other battle pages, it appears to have become convention here to say "decisive" when we mean that the fighting on that day was one-sided. It doesn't seem to be related to whether or not it brought an end to the war. For example, Battle of Carillon of 1758 is described as a "Decisive French victory" although it occurred in a war that France ultimately lost. Funnyhat 06:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to be related to whether or not it brought an end to the war. Of course not. Are we to suppose that Napoleon never won a decisive victory simply because France ultimately lost the Napoleonic Wars? Who would pretend that the Battle of France was not decisive? The term has nothing to do with the outcome of the conflict. Rather than cite a hundred different adjectives—"Crushing victory," "Brilliant victory," "Overwhelming victory," etc.—we've chosen to use one adjective across the board; decisive: convincing, emphatic, unmistakeable, unquestionable. (Now, whether Rocroi fits the bill is another matter. The revisionist school makes a strong argument that the victory was merely a tactical one.) Albrecht (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisive 

message: An earlier version of the article indicates that the surrounded Spanish tercios attempted to surrender, that Enghien approached to take these terms, that some in the tercios mistook his approach for a charge and fired on him, and that the "enraged" French army converged upon and cut down much of the Spanish infantry. This account is corroborated in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry referenced by this article, and by pages 443-444 of C. V. Wedgwood's "The Thirty Years War," a dated but seminal work on the period.
According to Wedgwood, this final episode is what made Rocroi so decisive. Instead of being allowed to withdraw intact, the elite veterans of the Spanish infantry were killed, preventing them from training a new generation of infantry to carry on Spain's military tradition. She calls it the gravestone of the Spanish army.
Unless anyone is aware of more modern sources that contradict this narrative, I will edit it back in.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.154.40 (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fate of the Tercios 

message: According to the article, "The king died on 14 May 1643, leaving his son Louis XIV to inherit the Kingdom of France. Despite receiving overtures of peace, the new king did not wish to change the course of the war"
Comment: Louis XIV was only four years old when his father died, and his mother Anne of Austria was appointed regent. I do not know who was making decisions about "the course of the war", but if seems unlikely that it was the four-year-old new king. Someone who knows more about the government of France in 1643 should correct this statement.
Kunjilon (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Louis XIV 

message: Summary box has 18k Infantry and 5k Cavalry on the Spanish side, West Point battle map lists 18k infantry and 9k cavalry. Which is the correct one?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.73.47 (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers of Spanish troops in the summary box do not agree with the numbers on the West Point battle map 

message: I agree with user Kujilon re Louis XIV. Anyone who doesn't already know the history who just reads the introduction:
"The Battle of Rocroi, fought on 19 May 1643  ... between a French army, led by the 21-year-old Duke of Enghien ... and Spanish forces under General Francisco de Melo ... only five days after the accession of Louis XIV."
Is going to think that Louis XIV's age is irrelevant and that he was an adult champing at the bit, waiting for his father to die so he could wage war. 
Why is the Duke's age - 21 - highlighted, but not the fact that Louis XIV was only 4 years old? It's an important part of the history of the European wars that Louis XIV had nothing to do with this battle, that others were pulling the strings. How else to understand the causes for the battle?
One other thing, the comma between "army" and "led by" should be removed, or else commas should surround both prepositional phrases: "led by ..." and "under ...". The comma isn't needed. So the sentence should be amended to say:
"The Battle of Rocroi, fought on 19 May 1643  ... between a French army led by the 21-year-old Duke of Enghien ... and Spanish forces under General Francisco de Melo ... only five days after the accession of 4-year-old Louis XIV." 2601:14A:503:64C0:9455:22B8:FB4B:4C7F (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro is missing important piece of information; may be misleading.