Talk:Battle of Ramillies

As a Featured Article, is there a correct pronunciation for the title?--Eli Todd (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ram-ill-ees 88.110.142.252 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the following sentence did you mean "vice" or "vise": In less than four hours, Villeroi’s army was utterly defeated. Marlborough's subtle moves and changes in emphasis during the battle – something the French and Bavarian commanders failed to realize until it was too late – caught his foe between a tactical vice? ANSK (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The first 3 paragraphs are a grammatical nightmare. I fixed them once, but Rebel Redcoat apparently thinks his grammar is superior and reverted all the edits. He chooses to use fantastic phrases, like "Nevertheless, despite" which is a redundant statement. Or that last sentence in the first paragraph: "Far from standing on the defensive, therefore, French armies in 1706 would everywhere go over to the offensive.", which makes no sense whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojodaddy (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I find it funny that you criticise my writing when your attempts to improve the lead are laughable and incompetent. If you want to be rude fella, bring it on. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd agree with the previous comment. the grammer needs fixing PatrickC22 (talk)

Would "Count Schulemberg" be the son of Jean de Schulemberg, marshal of France 1658, [died 1671], or a Prussian Schulemberg, noted at the siege of Béthune, 15 July 1710 (noted (as "Saxon") in this contemporary remark)? Or possibly an error for the duke of Schomberg, who had left France after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes and fought for William? Perhaps both Schomberg and Schulemberg had abandoned France after 1685. --Wetman (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Count we are looking for is Matthias-Johan (or Johann) Count of Schulemberg (or Schulenberg). (1661-1747). Also seen it spelled Schulemburg. Imperial commander; also fought under Eugene at Malplaquet. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bethune? Yes Wetman, just found this in Chandler - ... "on 10 July they [Marlb & Eugene] advanced boldly towards Vimy . . . on 16 July [they] detached Generals Fagel and Schulenburg ... to besiege Bethune." Rebel Redcoat (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the author should include a link to backround info on the actual war so people like me can not be clueless. Please message me with a link to the article presuming that it is an actual article.Historybuffc13 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

War_of_the_Spanish_Succession#Background Raul654 (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link! Please put the link on my page next time or I won't see it!Historybuffc13 (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the Irish song "Clare's Dragoons" it's pronounced /ˈræmˈjeɪ/, perhaps altered from /ˈræmɪˌjeɪ/ to fit the meter. Is Ramillies, Belgium pronounced [ʁamje], [ʁami.e], [ʁami], [ʁami.ji], something else ...? jnestorius^(talk) 14:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Apparently (Google books Elements of Geography, Modern and Ancient with a Modern and an Ancient Atlas (1844), Joseph Emerson Worcester, p.127) it was formerly pronounced in Britain with the intuitively anglicized /ˈræmɪliz/: is it still? jnestorius^(talk) 14:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The catholic Roman empire is an allied with the protistant England ? Aren't they in a long term conflict in the Midevel period ?  A M M A R  17:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, at this time the (Catholic) Holy Roman Empire (headed by Austria) was allied with (Protestant) England, Holland and Prussia, plus a number of German and Italian states (of both persuasions), in opposition to (Catholic) France and Spain plus Bavaria. The war was about King Louis XIV's ambitions to place his grandson on the throne of the Spanish Empire, thus giving him control of an autocratic 'super-state' which would dominate Europe. Guthrum (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Catholic-Protestant conflict refers to the Reformation, which dates to the 15 and 1600s. It had mostly blown over by 1706 (though I'm sure there was some discomfort). Brutannica (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Seriously? You do know the saviour of protestantism (in this context rule and control of the states' churches by the state) were the Catholic cardinals Richilieu and Mazarin who brought France against Spain and won the 30 Years War for the protestant princes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.195.39 (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Link HMS Ramillies don't led to specific ship but to disambiguation. Can someone fix this?--Vojvodaen (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Read the sentence - The battle was used as the name of several British ships; HMS Ramillies -- it's supposed to go to a disambig page listing the several ships that have born that name. Raul654 (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Оk.--Vojvodaen (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The infobox lists Bourbon Spain as having been in the battle. However, as far as I can see, the article text does not mention Spain at all. 92.99.114.108 (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not so sure about that, anyone got source of this? Before the Great Northern War Denmark hired a lot of mercenaries from Germany in order to defeat Sweden. However after the disappointing peace in 1700 Denmark had a lot of mercenaries left but nowhere to use them, so they hired them out to other continental armies. In other words, Denmark was most likely not a participant in this war and the Danish army in this battle was surely not independent. I don't know why Denmark is included to start with. Imonoz (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply