Talk:Battle of Blenheim

message: I understand the Kingdom of Great Britain did not exist until 1707, but the army fighting in Europe represented the Queen. Their was never an "English" army, it was the Queen's army. And the Monarch represented England, Ireland AND Scotland. Their were English, Irish and Scottish regiments at Blenheim, so it is very simplistic to put only England in the list of Belligerants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.200.130 (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Scotland should be on this

message: The page reads "Vienna – the capital of the Holy Roman Empire".
Vienna was the capital of the Habsburgs, who were Holy Roman Emperors.  However, I believe the capital of the Holy Roman Empire was Frankfurt-am-Main.
Maproom 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The capital of the Holy Roman Empire under the Habsburgs was Vienna. The seat of the Holy Roman Emperor was Vienna. 18:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vienna - Capital of the Holy Roman Empire

message: Is that destruction, pillage, etc? --AW 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactic of Spoliation? 

message: Scottish or British soldiers? There is some inconsistency in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.58.31 (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the Acts of Union in 1707, three years after the battle, England and Scotland were separate kingdoms under a common monarch, and "Britain" was just a geographical term for the islands, not a nationality (like the term "Peninsular" or "Iberian" for Portugal and Spain). David (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish or British 

message: Heilbronn was not a small village at that time, but a free imperial city with about 6000 inhabitants in the city walls, about the same size as Heidelberg. Numbers taken from pages on Wikipedia.de.
lhttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Heilbronn_1643_von_Matthaeus_Merian.jpg
Flori121 20:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marlborough crossed the Neckar near the small village of Heilbronn 

message: The info box states that the battle was fought in Bavaria. But the best sources I can find show that Blenheim (or Blindheim) and Höchstadt were then in the Principality of Palatinate-Neuburg, whose territories became part of Bavaria in 1808. Maproom (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Blenheim then in Bavaria?

message: The flag for England, or more properly, Great Britain or United Kingdom is this flag:  which shows the union of England and Scotland which occured when James VI of Scotland  became also James I of England in 1606. The red cross is a flag that precedes this see: http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e2/240px-Flags_of_the_Union_Jack.png
This 'union' flag combines the cross of St George with that of St. Andrew. The red cross refers only to England separately from Scotland, it is not the flag of Great Britain (England & Scotland) after 1606. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_George's_Cross Tttom1 (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great Britain only came into existence with the 1707 Act of Union, while previously England and Scotland remained separate countries with the same monarch, much as the various Commonwealth contries are today. MartinMcCann (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So after 1707 its this flag:  and before 1707 it is this flag: . OK.  How are the Scots & Welsh contingents at Blenheim to be handled?Tttom1 (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wales is part of the Kingdom of England, and technically there weren't any Scottish Regiments present - they were transfered to the English establishment for service overseas.  MartinMcCann (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag Icon

message: I am glad to see that Centurion Z1 has replaced references to the Holy Roman Empire, by references to the Habsburg Monarchy. I have done the same for what Vienna was capital of, in the first paragraph. Note that Bavaria was part of the Holy Roman Empire, but was fighting against the Habsburgs. Maproom (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: removal of "Holy Roman Empire"

message: There seems to be something wrong with the Wiki.  I wanted to edit 2.3 Final Positioning, but when I click Edit the source for 3. Battle comes up.  Doesn't matter hugely, I only wanted to correct some English grammar; but if a Wikipedian can access the whole page perhaps the faulty source structure can be fixed? Edetic (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki problem

message: Under this sobriquet are we to recognize Lieutenant-General Robert Jean Antoine de Franquetot de Coigny (1652-1704)? The pronunciation is identical. His estate at Coigny was raised to a comté by Louis XIV as a mark of his father's service. The comte de Coigny entered the Mousquetaires in 1667 and had a distinguished military career up to his death at Koenigsmacker, Alsace, in August 1704. In 1680 he had been appointed Governor of Caen; he was Lieutenant-General of Louis XIV's armies in 1693, and Director-General of Cavalry in 1694. The Franquetot de Coigny papers are at the University of Nottingham. The family continued to produce Marshals of France through the C18. --Wetman (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Coignies is an alternative spelling. I've changed it to the more common version. Thank you. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! it was just a hunch. Excellent; thank you. --Wetman (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "general de Coignies"

message: Does not the use of the word protagonist in 'protagonists march to the Danube' suggest that the army of Marlborough is the good side versus the evil France?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.219.59 (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of protagonist 

message: The information and sources for this article seem good, but the tone of this article doesn't seem to fit Wikipedia's conventions of style. There is a lot of overt praise in certain sections of how masterful an achievement this victory was and how cunning Malborough's tactics were. Don't get me wrong, I definitely agree that this is a very famous battle and victory. However this is supposed to be non-biased. I would argue reading tbe facts and simply scanning the infobox would lead most people to draw similar conclusions as certain biased sections of this article, without having to break Wikipedia's style rules.  SirMinkMay (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article's tone

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Blenheim. 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/20091005211235/http://war-and-battle.com:80/Blenheim..html to http://war-and-battle.com/Blenheim..html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The current articles states: what are the reliable sources that back that up?
A search of Google books for the 21st century:
* Returns 90+ for "Battle of Blenheim". Some of those will be unreliable sources, but the survey shows it is the common English language name for the battle.
*Returns 5 books books only one of which could be considered reliable.
So I am removing the phrase, if it is to be put back then see WP:BURDEN the onus is on the person who restores it to provide proof that is is fairly common name used in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be in favour of keeping it. I don't think there's any onus to prove that the name is used in recent works. Someone may have come across "Battle of Blindheim" in a 19th-century novel, and looked it up in Wikipedia to learn what it was. Maproom (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also the Battle of Blindheim 

message: This is quite an old FA (from 2006) that has never been reviewed since its promotion. Problems spotted:
* several "citation needed" tags in the text, and many other non-tagged sentences that need references;
* prose seems flowery at times:
:* "Eugene, however, became exasperated with the performance of his Imperial cavalry whose third attack had failed: he had already shot two of his troopers to prevent a general flight. Then, declaring in disgust..."
:* "During these events Marlborough was still in the saddle conducting the pursuit of the broken enemy. Pausing for a moment he scribbled on the back of an old tavern bill a note addressed to his wife, Sarah: "I have no time to say more but to beg you will give my duty to the Queen, and let her know her army has had a glorious victory.""
:* "Moreover, the myth of French invincibility had been destroyed and Louis's hopes of an early and victorious peace had been wrenched from his grasp."
:* " To the consternation of the French, the Gens d'Armes were pushed back in terrible confusion, pursued well beyond the Maulweyer stream that flows through Blenheim.[66] "What? Is it possible?" exclaimed the Elector, "the gentlemen of France fleeing?"[67] "
* Some citation clean-up needed, such as the bare url and the unsourced notes;
* Some of the quotes seem a bit superfluous:
:* The French and Bavarians, however, were almost as disordered as their opponents, and they too were in need of inspiration from their commander, the Elector, who was seen " ... riding up and down, and inspiring his men with fresh courage."
Due to the lack of inline citations where appropriate, this article does not meet current FA criteria. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been through this as part of the FAR, and have conducted an extensive c/e. Others have also c/e'd, added citations, and the remaining uncited material has been deleted. I am wondering if  might be willing to have a look at the image licensing and identify any issues? Otherwise I think we are done here. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Done. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Done. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Done. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

text:  This one is a problem, because it doesn't state who the author is (and therefore when they died), and I can't confirm it either. Not sure what licence would suffice in that case. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

text:  Done. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

text: This is problematic, because User:Rebel Redcoat is retired, so we don't know where the underlying map or the depicted movements come from. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Same problem with this one, User:Raymond Palmer has also departed. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Thanks Nikkimaria! I'll get onto it. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 21:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day all, I think the Tallard portrait and the two maps have to go. Thoughts? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, they are now removed. So far as I am concerned, the article is now FA-compliant for image licensing. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA in need of review