Talk:Battle of Malplaquet

message: Sorry, I meant to explain this edit in the edit summary, but accidently clicked Enter.  I think "Pyrrhic Allied victory" is as good a description of the result as any.  I think "Indecisive" isn't really clear.  The French were forced to retreat, but the British suffered such heavy casualties  that they were not able to persue.  Hence Pyrrhic victory. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have moved the qualification 'pyrrhic' with explanation and refs to body of article, changed info box back to neutral indecisive.Tttom1 (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Result?

message: The myth that the French folksong dates from the battle is debunked here:
"Malbrouk or Marlbrough (Marlbro'), does not date from the battle of Malplaquet (1709), but from the time of the Crusades, 600 years before. According to a tradition discovered by M. de Châteaubriand, the air came from the Arabs, and the tale is a legend of Mambron, a crusader. It was brought into fashion during the Revolution by Mme. Poitrine, who used to sing it to her royal foster-child, the son of Louis XVI. M. Arago tells us that when M. Monge, at Cairo, sang this air to an Egyptian audience, they all knew it, and joined in it. Certainly the song has nothing to do with the Duke of Marlborough, as it is all about feudal castles and Eastern wars. We are told also that the band of Captain Cook, in 1770,..."
The quip about France being saved by a few more of these defeats apparently is from Villars, not Boufflers:« Si Dieu nous fait la grâce de perdre encore une pareille bataille, Votre Majesté peut compter que tous ses ennemis seront détruits. »
Lettre du maréchal de Villars à Louis XIV après la bataille de Malplaquet  du 11 septembre 1709.
The Tories indeed used this Pyrrhic victory as a stick to beat Marlborough with, but to say that they were "moved" by it to begin agitating for withdrawal from the war is stretching events. (See W.S. Churchill, Marlborough. His Life and Times)--Ereunetes (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath section 

message: One should keep track of the wings or "flanks" of the respective armies. Gen. Withers was never on the left wing of the Allied army, opposite the right wing of the French, though he was supposed to be there, before the battle started; unfortunately his column arrived too late from Tournai, so it was apportioned to the Allied right wing. And this was opposite the French left wing, pace the text in the article.
Also, the Dutch left wing did not "break off" (from what?) but started its diversionary attack at 9.30 am as planned, though the Dutch unfortunately had not been informed that it was only intended as "diversionary", and that they were opposed by a force twice their size. Hence the appalling losses.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle section 

message: There is something going on in the info box about the proper flag icons. I am no expert, so I won't get involved in the editing, but it seems to me what is needed is either the "lily" flag of the Kingdom of France (pre-Revolution) or possibly a battle flag, but not a naval flag (obviously).--Ereunetes (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: Does anybody know the number of prisoners taken by the Allied forces when they broke the French centre?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.19.40 (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure someone, somewhere has come up with a number. However, I'd be very skeptical as to its exactness. This also applies to the number of killed and wounded. When I researched the Dutch numbers it turned out that these were estimates based on extrapolation from the number of officers killed (for which relatively exact figures are known) and then applying "usual" casualty figures to the units they commanded. It is known that the number of wounded was enormous, as it took unusual (for the times) difficulties to organize the care for them in the aftermath of the battle, even though the Allies had the battlefiled to themselves. This probably contributed to the number of people dying shortly after the battle. As to the prisoners: I suppose the number of officers captured will be relatively well documented, but I doubt if anything trustworthy can be said about "other ranks."--Ereunetes (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prisoners? 

message: I reverted the edit by 90.206.194.43, firstly because it is anonymous, but primarily because it unreasonably introduces a POV. I did not write the current phrase stating that the battle in fact was a "French strategic victory," but I think this opinion is eminently defensible on the basis of a consensus among historians of the battle. If the anonymous editor thinks he/she has arguments for his edit, let it please present them.--Ereunetes (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded it a bit, setting out the key points of the outcome.  I disagree with idea that it was a "French strategic victory" however. Villars' objective was the raise the siege of Mons, and regardless of the damage he inflicted on Marlborough's army, he failed to achieve that objective. Captain Seafort (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your reworded version is completely acceptable. The anonymous edit I reverted seemed to be contrary to the historical facts. I won't quibble about the question whether it was a "strategic victory" and if so, whose :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert of anonymous edit 

message: Since this victory allowed France to regain its territories lost earlier in the war, I propose that the aftermath be changed to "Allied tactical victory, French strategic victory." -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What territories?  The only sense in which Malplaquet was a French victory was that their army was still more or less intact, and Marlorough's had been badly mauled, strengthening the anti-war party in Britain. You may be confusing it with Denain Captain Seafort (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The weakening of Churchill's army is what made Denain a possibility, I would argue. -- LightSpectra (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

text: ´French strategic victory´ is not consistent with text I think: according to article Marlborough wanted to take the fortress of Mons. Because of his (pyrrhic) victory he was able do that. This would be a strategic victory for the allies then. ABMvandeBult (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the above poster, it shouldn't be described as a French strategic victory. Being driven from the field and losing Mons was not part of their strategy. I'm going to change it. But I don't know whether or not it should be described as an allied strategic victory instead. --Oel43 (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  French strategic victory 

message: The page on the Battle of Blenheim says that the total number of dead and wounded was over 32,000. If that page is incorrect, then I apologize for removing the reference that in this article that Malplaquet was the bloodiest battle. -- LightSpectra (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bloodiest battle of the 18th century" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Malplaquet. 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/20110818115805/http://www.battlefieldanomalies.com/malplaquet/index.htm to http://www.battlefieldanomalies.com/malplaquet/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dear IP,
please stop altering the infobox without consensus, thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP edit 

message: The result has been edited to "See Aftermath", with a link to that section.  Firstly, this is because of the guidance at MOS:MIL, which specifically deprecates 'pyrrhic victory' and similar qualifying terms.  Secondly, there is not a clear consensus in the sources that it is being called a pyrrhic victory, since the result is also being called other things (according to the sources cited), including a "French strategic victory".  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Having done a similar edit for Battle of Jamrud, I think that was the best type of edit Cinderella157. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As part of the rewrite/expansion, I have studied the Sources provided and unless I'm looking at the wrong editions, neither of them suggest a "French strategic victory". As an aside, "pyrrhic" is often misused and highly subjective, which is why its not recommended. Even the authors who write "pyrrhic victory" also say "clear French defeat". On the same page (I'm looking at you, John Lynn). Personally, I'd put "Allied victory", then add "see Aftermath" but I'm all for a peaceful life. :) I'm going to submit this for a "B" review and see what comes up. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have assessed this as B class. As far as whether it was an Allied or French victory, I would say an Allied victory (albeit a very costly one). But, I'm staying out of that argument. Djmaschek (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result - again. 

message: FYI - maybe you can refer this to our persistent colleague :) 
I'm putting this here in an attempt to end the edits changing the Result to Pyrrhic victory. There are two reasons why this edit is unsustainable; 
(a) The Wikipedia template does not allow it; the options are Victory, Inconclusive, or Disputed (rare)
(b) The term itself is poorly understood, rarely used correctly, and the Wikipedia article on it needs significant work (its on my list :)). It is not related to the number of casualties suffered by the "victorious" side relative to their "defeated" opponents, but to the strategic benefit gained thereby. Examples;
At the Battle of Cunaxa in 401 BCE, the Greek mercenary army effectively routed their opponents with minimal losses (Xenophon claimed a few lightly wounded). However, their leader Cyrus the Younger was killed, and since the battle was only fought to install him on the Persian throne, it can be considered a Pyrrhic victory.
During the 1862 Seven Days Battles, the Confederates suffered greater casualties than their Union adversaries, both in total (19k to 17k) and as a proportion of troops involved (21% v 15%). It is nevertheless considered a Confederate victory, because Lee achieved his strategic objective of forcing McClellan to retreat.
As explained in the Aftermath section, the French fought at Malplaquet to prevent the fall of Mons, which they failed to do, while Louis XIV was only saved from having to make peace by the Allies' over-reaching their demands. Along with (most) historians, I view it as an Allied victory, but Malplaquet is for the French the same sort of heroic defeat the British suffered at Dunkirk, so...(and this isn't an invitation to restart this dispute, please).  
If anyone wants to discuss this further, let me know. Robinvp11 (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Requested semi-protection. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pyrrhic Victory"