Talk:Siege of Douai (1710)

Size of allied besieging force in info box

@DavidDijkgraaf I put "27,000" for the size of the besieging force into the info box, because I figured 40 battalions of 600 men infantry (= 24,000) plus 32 squadrons of cavalry at 100 troopers apiece (c. 3000). However, the French, according to Quincy, used 20 battalions of infantry (17 in the city and 3 in the Scarpe fortress) and sundry other troops (2 regiments of cavalry the largest extras) and only gets to a total of 8,000. So either the French had smaller battalions than I figured for the Allies, or someone made a calculating error (maybe intentionally; I would not put it past Quincy). Is there a better estimate in Wijn or elsewhere for the Allied total? If so, please corrrect the number in the info box, with reference. Ereunetes (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Wijn gives the same numbers of battalions and squadrons for the allies. For the French he says 7,500 btw. I can include that. Bodart give a total of 60,000 allied troops, but that sounds quite suspect DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@DavidDijkgraafThanks for looking it up. Maybe I was overstating the size of a battalion. Let's try it from Quincy's perspective. Suppose that 20 French battalions would be 7,000 men. That would amount to a battalion size of 350 men. In the Dutch States Army the size of a regiment was 10 to 12 companies after the reforms of 1678, and each company was about 70 to 80 men (both infantry and cavalry), so a regiment was between 700 and 800 men (see Van Nimwegen, Deser Landen Crijgsvolk, p. 259 and the Appendixes) And if a regiment counted 2 battalions that comes down to 350 men per battalion also. I therefore propose to recalculate the allied strength at 40 times 350 = 14,000 + 32 times 80 = 2560 for the cavalry, gives a total of 16,560 (round up to 17,000). What do you think? Ereunetes (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

That might be closer indeed. See the Bombardment of Arras, but at Arras the battalions weren't at full strength. Just 300 per battalion. And didn't Van Nimwegen different give different numbers for battalion size in De Veertigjarige Oorlog? I thought to remember that he says 600 men somewhere in the beginning of that book, but I could be wrong. I don't have access to it at the moment. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@DavidDijkgraaf Van Nimwegen in "Veertigjarige Oorlog", p. 12 indeed gives 600 as the average strength of a battalion in the States Army. But in the same paragraph he repeates 60-80 for a company, and 10-12 companies to a regiment. So that may not tally, as in that case a regiment would be 1 1/3 battalion. However, in the same paragraph he also says that a cavalry regiment would be 6 companies, and that a cavalry squadron would consist of 150 troopers (though a cavalry company would be of equal strength with an infantry company. In other words he makes a difference between organic units and fighting units, and a cavalry company would be half a squadron). In any case this explains how I arrived at my original battalion strength of 600 (though I did not remember where I got it :-) Of course, this only applies to the Dutch States Army, but I remember that William III in 1689 reorganized the English army along the same lines, so I think English battalions would be 600 strong also. Which leaves the German and other "subsidized" troops. And the French, of course. However this may be, we now have a source for my original calculation. So leave it be as it stands? Ereunetes (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I found this online for the size of one of Marlborough's battalions: 600 also (see "Brtish Infanty Colours". Ne Plus Ultra - Archive of the Colours. Retrieved 2 September 2023..) Here also, a battalion strength (full complement) of 600 (Allied) or 800 (French) men is mentioned: "The Battle of Malplaquet". Battlefield Anomalies. Retrieved 2 September 2023.. But on the other hand I feel for the argument that by 1710 many battalions on both sides would have been far understrength. So a lesser strength might be reasonable. Ereunetes (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It is probably best to do a range since we aren't very certain or to place a footnote with a disclaimer. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@DavidDijkgraafEven a range needs a reference. "Everybody" seems to use the "40 battalions, 32 squadrons" numbers for the Allies, but I haven't found one single number. On the other hand, again "everybody" uses the "7500-8000 men" number for the French, but only Quincy specifies the 20 battalions and change. I would go for "about" 17,000 for the Allies" (see above), but I suddenly realized that if that were true their losses would amount to 50% (as there again seems to be a consensus on the "8000 Allied losses" number). And 50% is so unlikely that it would certainly have caused some comment (as it is, 8000 would amount to 30% losses, which is also on the verge of "unacceptable"; not because it is impossible, but because it would imply that the affected Allied battalions would be effectively "hors de combat"). So, could we not forego the numbers, for a change, in the info box, and just enumerate the numbers of battalions, companies and squadrons, for which we can provide references? Ereunetes (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ereunetes We could do that, but the problem I have with it is that nobody will know what those numbers actually mean DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

As demonstrated by my own ruminations above. On balance I am in favor of letting things stand as they are for the time being, until somebody starts making problems, as in the case of the Battle of Malplaquet article. I am not waiting for that, but if it happens, we may fall back on this discussion. Ereunetes (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ereunetes I agree DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)