Talk:War of the Grand Alliance/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Name change

What's going on? Why has this been changed to "Nine Years War"? Who calls it that? And where's the discussion? Xyl 54 (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is here. This article was originally called the NYW but it was changed (the user had good intentions) but after the discussion it was decided to put it back to its original name. NYW is the modern, standard, scholarly name for the war.

Who uses the name, you ask! Just about every well-known published scholar there is: John Wolf, John Lynn, Geoffrey Symcox, Guy Rowlands, Christopher Storrs, Derek McKay, John Childs. Which modern publication or academic institution doesn’t use the name?

Example of PhD dissertations:

Combined operations and the European theatre during the Nine Years’ War, 1688–97 [1]

Forging a coaltion army: [2]

Rebel Redcoat (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well originally, in May 2003, it was the War of the Grand Alliance; it changed to Nine Years War in early 2005, presumably after the discussion you highlighted, then went back to WGA in early 2006. So I’m not sure where that gets us.

But I’ll check the authors you mentioned; our library recognizes a couple of them.

I can’t say I do, but then it’s not really my area. I’m more interested in the naval side of things, but all those sources (NAM Rogers, EH Jenkins, P Aubrey) use WGA (or War of the English Succession, though that has its own problems).

When I was at school it was the War of the League of Augsburg, (which had a nice ring to it) but I recognize that is an older useage.

But the only place I’ve seen Nine Years War is here, or on elsewhere on the internet.

So is it an American term?

Xyl 54 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Xyl 54. I e-mailed Professor John Childs (about a book of his aptly entitled The Nine Years' War and The British Army, I688-I697) and I asked him about the name: He replied - 'The nomenclature 'Nine Years' War' is neutral: all other names imply either a national slant or a tendentious position. It certainly did not originate in America ...'. Hope that helps. (it helped me because I didn't know either). Thank you. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Typo: meant to say 'sorry its late' not 'so its late' on the edit summary. The latter sounds rather rude. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well (finally!) I’ve checked the books in the library; There are about a dozen books in the 944.033 ( history of France in the time of Louis XIV) section that mention the conflict.
There are 4 references to Nine Years War, in books published from 1970 to 1999 (including title by John Lynn and Geoffrey Simcox).
Surprisingly, there are 7 references to War of the League of Augsburg, from 1967 to 2006;
And, (equally surprisingly), no refs at all for War of the Grand Alliance.
One (a translation from French by Philippe Erlanger) hedged his bets, referring to WLA, NYW and the War of Orleans (new one on me).
So NYW doesn’t seem to be the most common usage, or a particularly more modern one. But there isn’t really a case for changing it back to WGA either, so that’s that. (I thought you might be interested.)
Xyl 54 (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is extremely unfair. This should be made disambiguated. The nine years war in Ireland has to have Ireland in brackets after it. There is only one word for this - Discrimination!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.15.238 (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Global war?

I've trimmed this:
"The Nine Years' War was the first of the nine truly global wars, the last of which was World War II ":
It needs a citation, for one thing; and how many global wars there have been, and what constitutes one, and so on, is a can of worms we can do without. Xyl 54 (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct decade?

This line is from the "Naval Developments" sub-section:

By the 1680s French ship design was at least equal to their English and Dutch counterparts, and by the time of the Nine Years’ War they had surpassed ships of the Royal Navy whose designs had stagnated in the 1690s.

Is that last decade correct? It doesn't seem to make sense that by the time of the war (1689-97), we would talk about Royal Navy designs that "had stagnated in the 1690s." My assumption is that a different decade should be there, but I'm not learned enough on the subject to know. Funnyhat (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Name

Let's be crystal clear. The name King William's War is the name North American's sometimes call the Nine Years' War, (or, alternatively the War of the Grand Alliance or, innapropriately, the War of the League of Augsburg - England never was part of the League). It is NOT the name of the North American theatre of the European war. This also applies to Queen Anne's War etc. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. King William's War, etc., in America has always referred to the colonial phase of each larger war. Americans were rather parochial about that sort of thing, on down to the French and Indian War, which of course isn't what Americans call the larger war it was an appendage to either. Cf. the Encyclopedia Britannica: "King William’s War (1689–97), North American extension of the War of the Grand Alliance, waged by William III of Great Britain and the League of Augsburg against France under Louis XIV.... Because of the importance of Indian participation, it is also known as the first of the four French and Indian Wars." 69.229.233.0 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

'The Nine Years War has at least five different names. The title War of the Grand Alliance infers responsibility for causing the conflict on the coalition of Catholic and Protestant states which opposed the ambitions of Louis XIV. French historians perhaps employ this nomenclature. A close neighbour, but different in one vital respect, is the term the War of the League of Augsburg. Again culpability rests firmly at the door of the Dutch and Germans, and indeed Spain and Sweden, but whereas England signed the GA she was never a member of the LoA. In North America and the West Indies it is usually known as King Williams War.' John Childs Nine Years War and the British Army Rebel Redcoat (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that at all demonstrates the point you are trying to make. I challenge you to find any North American historian who refers to the European theater of the war as "King William's War." john k (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I missed out the word ‘just‘. KWW is not ‘Just’ the name of the NA theatre. King Williams war is synonymous with the Nine Years War hence the J Childs reference.

John Wolf’s (an American) Emergence of the great Powers -”The phase of the great conflict of 1683-1699 that followed Louis’ declaration of war has been called the War of the League of Ausgburg, the War of the English Succession, The Orleans War, the War of the Palatinate, and in American histories, King William’s War.

These names imply either a national slant or a tendentious position, but they are not theatre specific. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankfurt

Sorry, I cannot restrain myself from making a point here! In the article as written, we see the French make an attack from South to North, burning and destroying numerous cities and "countless" communities (Note the use of "countless" in any article provokes my anger, since almost everything can be counted, so to make me even more agitated, I hereby used the word myself! Laugh!), which is said to have ended with the taking and burning of Mainz! Whilst I know little about this war, and its proceedings, it seems to me that some mention might well have been made concerning the battle worthy city of Frankfort, which is but a few clicks from Mainz! Was this fortress city not involved at all in the proceedings which occured basically "next door?" It just seems strange that such a powerful and important city within gunshot of Mainz, should have no mention in the accounts of this war? Maybe I should have started a new section? Regards to all! 69.92.23.64 (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes69.92.23.64 (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at my copy of John A. Lynn's The Wars of Louis XIV, the war began with a French siege of Philippsburg on 27 September 1688. The city fell on 30 October. Mannheim capitulated on 11 November. Next the French took Frankenthal, and apparently Neustadt, Oppenheim, Worms, Bingen, Alzey, Kreuznach, Bacharach, Kaiserslautern, Heidelberg, Pforzheim, Heilbronn, Speyer, and Mainz surrendered without a fight. Koblenz was bombarded in November, gutting the city without capturing it, due to the Elector of Trier's refusal to surrender it. Note that all of these towns are either on the left bank of the Rhine or very close to the Rhine on the other side. At this point, Louis XIV had hoped that the German princes would give in to his demands, but they didn't. As a punishment, he decided to largely burn down the cities he had taken - notably, Heidelberg, Mannheim, Oppenheim, Worms, Speyer, Bingen, and others. It does not appear the French army ever got to Frankfurt. john k (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3