Talk:Battle of Blenheim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleBattle of Blenheim is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 6, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
October 11, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 13, 2004, August 13, 2005, August 13, 2006, August 13, 2007, August 13, 2008, August 13, 2009, August 13, 2010, August 13, 2011, August 13, 2013, and August 13, 2015.
Current status: Featured article

Scotland should be on this[edit]

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.

Vienna - Capital of the Holy Roman Empire[edit]

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)

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)

Do you have evidence for this? The wiki page on Frankfurt reads "From 855 the German kings and emperors were elected in Frankfurt and crowned in Aachen. From 1562 the kings/emperors were also crowned in Frankfurt ... This tradition ended in 1792..." Maproom 14:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Tactic of Spoliation?[edit]

Is that destruction, pillage, etc? --AW 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


Scottish or British[edit]

Scottish or British soldiers? There is some inconsistency in the article.

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)

Marlborough crossed the Neckar near the small village of Heilbronn[edit]

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)

Was Blenheim then in Bavaria?[edit]

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)

Flag Icon[edit]

The flag for England, or more properly, Great Britain or United Kingdom is this flag: Kingdom of Great Britain 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)

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)
So after 1707 its this flag: Kingdom of Great Britain and before 1707 it is this flag: England. OK. How are the Scots & Welsh contingents at Blenheim to be handled?Tttom1 (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
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)

removal of "Holy Roman Empire"[edit]

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)


. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.248.173 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Confer the terms of the Westphalian Peace 1648. The members of the Empire were allowed to have own foreign relations and alliances. 78.49.3.120 (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to distinguish between the territories of the Holy Roman Empire and the possesions of its members outside these territories. The risings in Hungary were never a problem for the Empire but for the House of Habsburg. The Hungarians wanted to get rid of the Habsburg rulers, not of any empire because they were not part of any until 1806, when the "old Empire" was disbanded by Napoleon and the Emperor called himself Emperor of Austira. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.3.120 (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki problem[edit]

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)

Blind/Blenheim[edit]

Any word on why the village of Blindheim is known "in English" as Blenheim? An 18th century typo? Sca (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's due to a mispronunciation by one of Marborough's officers. But there're more placename typos which made their way also into this article: Ober-/Unterglau (should be Ober-/Unterglauheim). - MfG Knut Grünitz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.59.83 (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
They're not typos, merely Anglicisations. Munich, not München etc. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
In case of Blenheim/Blindheim this has become an international accepted "Anglicisation" - although due to wrong pronunciation. But the Glauheims are simple typos and "Anglicisation" is a very weak excuse for bad research. Also note that the full correct name should be Nebelbach (Engl. Nebel Stream) and not simply the "Nebel" ;-) - MfG Knut Grünitz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.42.160 (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Nebel being "fog." Sca (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Not in this case. As far as I remember "Nebel" derives from an ancient word for "small". So "Nebelbach" simply means "Small Stream". Don't remember the source (so its not for this article ... just for information) but the explanation seems plausible. - MfG Knut Grünitz
It's not bad research, merely a reflection of the spelling conventions as used by the sources listed (all of them) in creating this article. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It's bad research about a battle if you only rely on 2nd hand informations from several sources but don't refer to any actual map about the battlefield. By this way not only typos have been copied on and on ... I don't wanna start a flamewar here but I also don't like the usual strict anglocentric view about this battle ;-) - MfG Knut Grünitz

If this article is part of the WikiProject Germany, it would seem proper to state in the opening paragraph that the place the battle got its' name from is misspelled/anglicisized. Also to state that "in some contries the battle is referred to as the second battle of höchstädt" is a little confusing, considering the fact that three out of four major participants call it höchstädt... MfG koookeee

"general de Coignies"[edit]

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)

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)
Ha! it was just a hunch. Excellent; thank you. --Wetman (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

yes you are right Wetman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennafern95 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of protagonist[edit]

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)

Article's tone[edit]

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)SirMinkMay

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Also the Battle of Blindheim[edit]

The current articles states:also the Battle of Blindheim 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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Blenheim&oldid=947320645"