Talk:War of the Spanish Succession

The infobox picture.

I think it is a good idea of @Tise exists (cool) to place a collage in the infobox. I just think that were can choose images that look nicer and represent the war better. I have made two examples.

File:War of the Spanish Succession Collage.jpg

Example: The Battle of Blenheim (1704), the Battle of Vigo Bay (1702), the Battle of Cape Lizard (1707) and the Battle of Denain (1712).

File:War of the Spanish Succession Collage 2.jpg

Example 2: The Battle of Vigo Bay (1702), the Battle of Almansa (1707), the Battle of Malplaquet (1709) and The Battle of Denain (1712)

DavidDijkgraaf DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Third example

File:War of the Spanish Succession example 3.jpg

Example 3: The Capture of Gibraltar (1704), the Battle of Ramillies (1706), the Entry of Charles III in Madrid (1710) and the Battle of Denain (1712)

DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm ok, what images should we use that represent the war best? talk 11:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you think of the 3 examples I gave? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The first one is the current one and it’s the one I prefer talk 13:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Error in the Troop Strength vs. Troop Casualties Boxes

The troop strength and troop casualty boxes don't seem to match up. Adding up the numbers in the strength box, it would seem there were 862,090-1,007,090 total soldiers who fought in the war, yet adding up the numbers from the casualty box, we get 1,050,000-1,150,000 killed and wounded on both sides, as well as the figure at the bottom listing 400,000 total combat deaths and 700,000-1,251,000 casualties including disease. Using the highest numbers on either side, we get a max casualty rate of 124% and a possible rate of about 145%, which are 1. The most appalling casualty rates I've ever seen, and 2. Quite literally impossible.

Were the numbers flipped between the casualty box and the troop strength box, the purported 1,251,000 disease-included-casualties number would still be wrong. Even the given combat death stat of 400,000 seems out of place, as that would be about a 35-46% combat death rate with the given numbers, which I don't think is at all correct given the time period in which this war occurred.

I have no sources to back up my beliefs, but I'm going to claim common sense as my rationale for this conclusion. If the numbers include civilians, shouldn't it say that?

I wonder if we could get these numbers rechecked. Would anyone have any sources we can use to verify these? If the numbers are correct but there's just more information that needs to be added to make the numbers make sense, should we not do that? VacaBlancaLoca (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Most of these numbers stand for the strength of the various armies in their peak years. Not all the soldiers that fought in the war together DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but shouldn't it say that? VacaBlancaLoca (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The Size of Armies

@Robinvp11 The comment of Childs is misleading. The armies in the Low Countries were actually greater in this war than they had been in the Nine Years' War. Like in 1710 when 165,000 allied troops operated in the Low Countries. The average size shrunk because there were many other fronts in the war, not because the countries couldn't put large armies in the field. What do you think? And do other historians share the findings of Childs? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think Childs' perspective is still valid - if you look at the 1695 Siege of Namur, each side had over 130,000 men; the combined total of both armies at Blenheim was less than that. His point was that pre-industrial societies did not have the financial power to sustain such numbers, so it has very little to do with the number of fronts.

Plus, you can argue Flanders was an anomaly - if you look at the battles fought elsewhere, the armies involved very rarely exceeded 25,000 (the Siege of Turin being the main exception).

I'll see what other writers think. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

if you look at the 1695 Siege of Namur, each side had over 130,000 men; the combined total of both armies at Blenheim was less than that.

Yes, but the battles of the Nine Years War were not particularly bigger than the battles of the War of the Spanish Succession. In fact, the largest battles of the War of the Spanish Succession were bigger than the largest battles of the Nine Years War. Campaign wise the numbers also peaked in the War of the Spanish Succession.

Plus, you can argue Flanders was an anomaly - if you look at the battles fought elsewhere, the armies involved very rarely exceeded 25,000 (the Siege of Turin being the main exception).

True, but wasn't that also the case during the Nine Years' War? Battles of Staffarda and Marsaglia weren't bigger than their WoSS counterparts. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

@136.252.163.126 I won't edit war with you, but I just want to say that Pro-Habsburg Spain and Pro-Bourbon Spain is a more accurate way to frame it than Castille vs Aragon. And we can't have them both in the infobox. Why is Castille vs Aragon better? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Campaignbox

Does anybody object to putting the sieges of the Upper Rhine with the battles of the front of the Low Countries and Upper France? The sieges of Kaiserswerth and Bonn had more to do with that front than with what happened along the Lower Rhine and in Southern Germany. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)