This is coolbert: When doing research for this blog, it is interesting to see how the various sites and authorities are at variance for statistics. Let me explain. A few examples will suffice:

At Dien Bien Phu, the French defenders had 14,000 troops, and then some say it was 10,000 troops.

At Khe Sanh, the North Vietnamese had 40,000 troops, and then some say it was 20,000 troops.

At Waterloo, Napoleon had 78,000 troops, and then some say it was 72,000 troops.

During the partition of British India, 1 million refugees died, and then some say it was 2 million.

During the mfecane [meff-ah-kahn-a], the dispersion of persons in southern Africa by the predacious Zulu, it is said that 2 million had to disperse, and then some say it was only 1 million.

The Viet Cong/North Vietnamese had 300,000+ troops under arms, and then some say 800,000 under arms, depending upon the source.

The Australian cavalry advanced 35 miles a day after the Battle of Megiddo in 1918, and another source says 25 miles a day [De Puy].

This is a smattering of examples to be chosen from!

Well, which of these are correct? Well, they are probably all correct to some degree. It seems that it all depends on how you count these things. What is your definition, the time frame, and the sources are all pertinent. There is no good one way to do these statistical things. Just like the previous post about counting bodies on the battlefield during the Vietnam war. One whole body is one whole body, no disputing that. But is one hand, one foot, one leg, and one head to be counted as only one kill or four kills? Hard to make judgments on this sort of thing.

coolbert.