Talk:Battle of Cassano (1705)

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

France Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Italy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Austria Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Early Modern This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

The infobox gives a:"Tactical French victory", but the text says: "...there was no direct result from this battle." As the former is accompanied by a reference, I am deleting the result in the text.

If it is wrong, could somebody please take restorative action ?

RASAM (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really clear; I think you can make arguments for various interpretations, I've seen it listed as an Imperial victory by other sources. I've tried to explain this in the Aftermath section.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having compared the Wikipedia entries for this event in Italian, French and English, I think this is the most comprehensive account, but it seems still in need of numerous checks and corrections.

The most interesting thing, to start with, is that no reference is made to the eye-witness account of the battle given by Chevalier Folard, an aide-de-camp of the French general, the Duke of Vendôme, in his commentary on the Histories of Polybius. This account must be regarded as reasonable, as it is included in the selections ("diamonds in a dunghill") of Folard's work made by Frederick the Great (L'esprit du Chevalier Folard, Leipzig, 1761). Folard gives very specific casualty figures (5,000 dead and wounded for the Imperial forces, 3,000 for the French), says the fighting lasted only three hours, and says the day of the battle was 15 August, Assumption Day, and not the 16th. He also notes that the battle represented a significant lost opportunity for the French, as a part of their forces under the younger brother of the Duke of Vendôme, were immobile at Rivolta d'Adda, about 10 kilometers distant on the left bank of the river. Folard says that if they had joined the battle the Imperial forces could have been entirely destroyed, even with cannon fire alone, as they retreated to the southeast toward Crema. The failure of Vendôme to capitalize on his "victory" can be seen with hindsight as decisive in the loss of Italy by the French in 1707.

Another aspect of the battle which none of the three accounts I have reviewed mention is Folard's contention that Vendôme was the victim of bad counsel from a Spanish lieutenant general, Colmenero, supposedly come over to the French side. Colmenero told Vendôme that Prince Eugene was shifting his forces toward Mantua and Cremona and would attack Vendôme's brother at Rivolta en route. He is said to have urged Vendôme to go to this brother's aid. This would have left the bridge at Cassano undefended and Prince Eugene could have crossed to the right bank and gone on to Milan. In the event Vendôme hesitated then stayed at Cassano, but did not alert his brother or ask him to come to his aid, perhaps because of the hotness of the battle in which he unexpectedly found himself.

Please note that all this implies that Prince Eugene was on the left bank of the Adda and not the right as stated in Para. 5 of Background. A check also needs to be made of the place name "Iveza" in Brianza in Para. 6. I can find no such place in any reference or map source...

GianniBGood (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, I've made a few corrections/additions.

Re date; I know Folard refers to 15 August on P131 but on P106 he refers to "the morning of 16 August" which is the date provided by Perini and others, so I think we should stick with 16.

I can't find Iveza either but its mentioned in one of the accounts; must be crossing point somewhere, maybe a mis-spelling? Robinvp11 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]