Talk:Nine Years' War

Archive: June 2005 – September 2006
Archive: September 2006 - February 2008
Archive: February 2008 - January 2010

First comment

Should Scotland be included among the list of belligerents? PatGallacher (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Puducherry?

The reference to Pondicherry was changed to Puducherry with the edit summary :
"Wikipedia uses Puducherry not "Pondicherry" (which is the name of the city, not the territory)"
Whether this is actually the case is a moot point (as is whether it should) but as far as the article here goes, the French colonial territory referred to was called Pondicherry, and that is what all reliable sources here will say. So changing to the modern Indian name here is confusing at best, and misleading at worst.
In any event the piped link here leads to Pudicherry page, which has an explanation that Pondicherry was the name until 2006, so I cannot see the point of changing the text here. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Election of the Archibishop of Cologne

Another testing point concerned the pro-French Archbishop-Elector, Maximilian Henry, and the question of his succession in the state of Cologne... When the Elector died on 3 June 1688 Louis XIV pressed for the pro-French Bishop of Strasbourg, William Egon of Fürstenberg, to succeed him. The Emperor, however, favoured Joseph Clement, the brother of Maximilian Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria. With neither candidate able to secure the necessary two-thirds of the vote the matter was referred to Rome.

Whose vote? What was the procedure for electing the Archibishop?

Top.Squark (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The canons of the cathedral voted, I believe. john k (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I added this clarification to the article Top.Squark (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw, was this the normal procedure for appointing Catholic bishops? Or, was it specific to the Archibishop of Cologne? Is it still the way they do it today? Top.Squark (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This was how it was generally done in the prince-bishoprics of the Holy Roman Empire. In France, I believe, the king appointed bishops. I don't think either of those situations is what happens now. john k (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction with Peace of Westphalia: Independence of Savoy

According to this article

The Allies had offered Victor Amadeus handsome terms to join the Grand Alliance, including the recognition of Savoy as a sovereign state and the return of Casale to Mantua and of Pinerolo to himself

However, according to Peace of Westphalia

The independence of the Netherlands, Switzerland, Savoy, Milan, Genoa, Mantua, Tuscany, Lucca, Modena and Parma from the Empire was formally recognized

Thus Savoy was already officially independent since the Peace of Westphalia.

Incidentally, it's also unclear what was the interest of Victor Amadeus in returning Casale to Mantua

Top.Squark (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Peace of Westphalia is wrong; Savoy remained part of the Upper Rhenish Circle of the Empire after 1648. More broadly, I think it's absolutely wrong to say that the independence of Milan, Genoa, Mantua, Tuscany, Lucca, Modena and Parma from the Empire was formally recognized. They continued to be de facto independent of the empire after Westphalia, just as they had before, but nothing in the treaty changed their status. The imperial overlordship continued to be intermittently applied - the emperor seized Mantua as an imperial fief upon the extinction of the ruling line in 1708, and the treaties resolving the Modenese succession later in the century were signed by the emperor qua emperor, and approved by the Reichstag. See heraldica for the Modenese succession. Velde has other useful material which bears on this. The Treaty of the Quadruple Alliance (1718), for instance, calls Parma and Tuscany "undoubted male fiefs of the Holy Roman Empire." Northern Italy's relationship to the Holy Roman Empire was not changed by the Peace of Westphalia. As for Casale, my understanding is that Victor Amadeus had a reversionary interest in Casale - he would inherit it upon the extinction of the then reigning duke, who was childless. According to the article on the last john k (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thx for setting this issue straight! I added the clarification regarding Casale to the article. Top.Squark (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction with Augustus II the Strong: Reason he was elected rather than Francois Louis

According to this article

Emperor Leopold I... initially resisted the treaty, but... also sought terms and signed... However, the Emperor had netted an enormous accretion of power: ... the Emperor's candidate for the Polish throne, August of Saxony, had carried the day over Louis XIV's candidate, the Prince of Conti.

Thus, this article implies the victory of Augustus in the Polish elections was the result of the Nine Years' War, possibly an item in the treaty of the Empire with France. However, according to the other article

It is sometimes incorrectly stated that Augustus "defeated" the other leading candidates, Jakub Ludwik Sobieski, son of the previous king, and the French candidate, François Louis, Prince of Conti. Augustus actually received fewer votes than Conti (despite a massive bribery campaign), but he rushed to Poland and had himself crowned before the French candidate could set foot in the Commonwealth.

The later text creates the impression Augustus won only because he "got there first". The war isn't mentioned at all.

Top.Squark (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm wary of the Augustus II article, which sounds rather partisan. It is astonishing what strong POVs make their appearance in articles about obscure questions of early modern history. I don't think the Polish election had anything directly to do with the Treaty of Ryswick - for one thing, Augustus became king of Poland five days before the treaty of Ryswick was signed. This could probably stand to be looked into more closely, though. john k (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to present an accurate picture of events, and I don't think it implies anything about Augustus's election being related to the war. Instead of dropping that ugly template on this lovely article, why not just clean up the POV in Augustus II? Coemgenus 10:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it does imply. Augustus' victory is listed among the gains of the Empire during the war. It might be the error is in other article but I cannot know it. Top.Squark (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So fix it. Coemgenus 15:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I would gladly fix it if I knew how. Who is right? Was Augustus' victory in Poland a result of the Nine Years War in some way? John K thinks it should be looked into more closely, and I agree. Top.Squark (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction with Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia: status of Vaudois inside Savoy

According to this article

From their fort at Pinerolo the French were able to exert considerable pressure on the Duke of Savoy and force him to persecute his own Protestant community, the Vaudois... Amongst other concessions Louis XIV also promised not to interfere in Savoy's religious policy regarding the Vaudois...

Thus, the Duke desired to grant religious freedom to the Vaudois and it were the French who forced him to do otherwise (initially).

However, according to the other article

Victor Amadeus II began a large scale persecution of the Vaudois (Piedmontese and Savoyard Protestants) in 1685. Due to his alliances with England and the Dutch Republic during the Nine Years War, he was forced to cease this practice from 1688, and in 1694 granted an Edict of Toleration.

Here the picture is reversed: the Duke persecuted the Vaudois out of his own will, and it were the Allies who forced him to stop the persecution.

Top.Squark (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This is also not a contradiction. Both articles say that Victor Amadeus initially persecuted the Vaudois, then stopped when he joined the Grand Alliance. This article just discusses the reasons for the prosecution in more detail. Why not just add that detail to Victor Amadeus's article instead of all this templating. This article is quite good, and these templates make it appear that it's as flawed as those two biographical articles you've contrasted it with. Coemgenus 10:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the two articles state very different reasons. One article depicts the Duke as "tolerant", and the persecutions being due to French coercion against his will. The other article claims the Duke was "intolerant", and that the end of the persecution was imposed on him by the William III of England. This is not a difference in level of detail, this a difference in essence. Regarding the templates, the aim is not making the article "look flawed". Since the articles are contradictory, there is a problem in at least one of them, and the templates draw the attention of editors towards the problems. The templates here have already done a lot of good by leading to correction of the Peace of Westphalia article and clarifications within this article. Top.Squark (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If you wish an article corrected, then find a reliable source and fix it. It is not for you to leave assignments for other editors. Why not contribute with well-sourced additions to the text, rather than this template-grafitti that purports to command other editors to fix problems? This article didn't get written because someone dropped a template and moved on; it got written because editors (mostly User:Rebel Redcoat, I believe) saw a bad article and put in the hours of work to make it a good one. Coemgenus 13:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Templates are part of official Wikipedia policy, and I'm using them exactly as they were intended. Top.Squark (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that this is much of a contradiction. Under pressure from Louis XIV, Victor Amadeus started a persecution of the Vaudois; then under pressure from the allies, he stopped persecuting the Vaudois; then in the treaty Louis XIV agreed not to pressure Victor Amadeus to persecute the Vaudois any more. I don't think one needs to view Victor Amadeus as either tolerant or intolerant in this. In all cases his religious policy is due to external pressures. john k (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but Victor Amadeus might have had an agenda of his own as well. Anyway, if the situation is symmetric than both articles must present both sides. Otherwise the result is not only omission of information but also introduction of POV. Top.Squark (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, you should look up sources on the subject, see what they say, and correct the articles accordingly. john k (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have access to any such sources. Top.Squark (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, there's not much to be done, at the moment. I'm not familiar with the details here and don't have time to look into it right now. Remind me about this in a month or so, and maybe I'll get a chance to do it. john k (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction with Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia: sovereignty of Savoy revisited

According to this article

The Allies had offered Victor Amadeus handsome terms to join the Grand Alliance, including the recognition of Savoy as a sovereign state...

Thus Savoy became sovereign during the Nine Years' War.

However, according to the other article

As a result of his aid in the War of the Spanish Succession, Victor Amadeus II was made King of Sicily in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht which ended the war. Victor Amadeus was forced to exchange Sicily for the less important kingdom of Sardinia in 1720 after objections from an alliance of four nations, including several of his former allies. Yet he retained his new title of King. The rule was that there were no kings within the Empire, but if a ruler subject to the Emperor also possessed a large territory outside the Empire he might claim this title as the Elector of Brandenburg had done, styling himself King in Prussia based on his sovereignty over the Duchy of Prussia.

This suggests Victor Amadeus was still subject to the Emperor after the War of Spanish Succession.

Top.Squark (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This might be a case where small details could mean that both articles are correct. As far as I know, the statement in Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia is correct, and Savoy technically remained part of the Holy Roman Empire until the end (or 1792/1796, at any rate). But there might have been some other type of "recognition of Savoy as a sovereign state" involved, I don't really know. Looking for a specific source would probably be the best option here. john k (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Being "subject to the emperor" was kind of a hazy standard, anyway. If a nation was strong enough to defy him, his technical status didn't matter much. Princes defied the Emperor left and right after the Reformation got started. Coemgenus 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. The Emperor and the Reichstag obviously had very limited power, especially over the more powerful secular princes, but what power they did have was real, and had real consequences. The old idea of the Holy Roman Empire as completely irrelevant after 1648 has been pretty much abandoned by more recent historians; there's a lot of interesting work about the old Reich and how it worked. john k (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Location of Nijmegen

Nijmegen is in the wrong location on the map labeled 'Low Countries c. 1700'. It is located on the south bank of the Waal river, not the Meuse. It needs to be moved a bit to the north-east, just west the small bends in the Waal after it splits from the Rhine. Coordinates: 51°50'51.1"N 5°51'49.2"E (map) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.126.97 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you comment directly to the author, who posted this map here: File:Low_Countries_1700.png His original actually showed Nijmegen in the location you describe. — Andy Anderson 22:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Kingdom of Ireland as belligerent

Shouldn't Ireland be a belligerent on the French side? Considering the Irish parliament and army was briefly exclusively Catholic and supportive of the Jacobite cause. Therefore, the Kingdom of Ireland technically fought on the side of France– and the Protestant militias were rebels so to speak, who eventually received foreign aid.

Scotland is different because the Jacobites in Scotland were opponents of the Scottish parliament. The Scottish parliament was exclusively Protestant, supported William of Orange and Scottish government forces fought against the Jacobites. So technically the Jacobites in Scotland were the rebels–contrary to Ireland where the Jacobites were in government for a brief period. Iamdmonah (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That does seem reasonable, it’s where King James II established his base, with French support, after he fled from England and was reduced from 3 to 1 kingdoms. — Andy Anderson 16:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand the point but it's more complex than that, which is why if you look at any history of the Nine Years War, Ireland is not a belligerent.

Unlike Scotland, the Kingdom of Ireland was a subsidiary of the English Crown; so whoever was king of England was also king of Ireland. When Parliament replaced James with William, he automatically became king of Ireland; so anyone fighting against him was a rebel, regardless of religion or numbers.

When James landed in Ireland, he claimed to be king of England, Scotland and Ireland, in that order. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Scotland had the same status as Ireland in terms of being ruled by the same monarch as far as I know. Scotland had the same status as Ireland so therefore I would suggest that Ireland be a belligerent if Scotland is.

Actually not. At this time the Kingdom of Ireland was considered to be under the dominion of the English, a "client state". They had a separate parliament but it was still subject to dictates of the English parliament in addition to the English King. Scotland, on the other hand, was still an independent country at this time, sharing a king with England in a "personal union", but not subject to its parliament. — Andy Anderson 22:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

But think of it this way. William claimed control of England, Scotland and Ireland, but in reality he had no control over Ireland. The Irish parliament and army recognised James as King, so therefore England and Scotland's claim that William is King is only as good as Ireland's claim that James is King, am I wrong?

If Ireland recognises that James as King, then theoretically James is the de facto King of Ireland– since he had the backing of the Irish government and army. But he could not be king of England and Scotland since both of those parliamentarians rejected him as the King of their respective nations. The parliament of Ireland, who was the official government of Ireland, went to war with England and Scotland. Does that not make Ireland a belligerent? Iamdmonah (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Ireland should be listed then again maybe not. Without sources being provided explicitly backing up the opinions being expressed here then they remain just that. There were no doubt many technicalities making the whole picture more complex, such as how independent was the Irish parliament? Did it even have the ability to appoint or recognise its own monarch independent from that of England? Surely there are some reliable published sources dealing with the topic, which could be used to determine how to deal with the issue. Otherwise we should not simply be guessing Mabuska ^(talk) 22:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

But yes in principle Ireland should be seen as a belligerent however on what side is the real question due to the technicalities involved and that would need proper sourcing. Mabuska ^(talk)

Here’s a direct analogy, I think: in the page for the American Civil War, both the United States and the Confederate States are listed as belligerents. But as far as the former was concerned, the Confederacy was simply in rebellion and had no standing as an independent country. — Andy Anderson 22:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Well in terms of which side they would be on, you could say that at the beginning (ca.1688-1691) the Irish Parliament was on the side of France, and the Williamite militias were on the side of the Grand Alliance. When the Jacobites were topped from power in Ireland, Ireland became a belligerent on the side of the Grand Alliance as the it was now in control of the Williamites? I may be wrong because the Irish Royal Army, the official army of the Kingdom of Ireland had gone into exile in France, so I therefore assume Ireland had no standing army after 1691?

But the point about the Irish parliament not being very independent is true, but at that point I would say Britain and Ireland were very different states– Ireland had their own King, their own Parliament and their own army– even if it was for only a brief period. Iamdmonah (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A reason why sourcing is important is due to editors coming out with factually incorrect statements in their justifications for changes. Take for example Iamdmonah's statement: Considering the Irish parliament and army was briefly exclusively Catholic. The Irish parliament that was called in 1689 by Richard Talbot for James I, the first summoning of parliament in two decades, actually had 15 Protestants in it (6 MPs, 5 lay-lords and 4 bishops).

Away from that, the parliament of Ireland did recognise James I, and could be seen as a belligerent on the French side. Yet what about the Treaty of Limerick? What about after 1691 when the Irish parliament was recognising William III as monarch instead? Ireland thus stopped being a belligerent on the French side and was now on the Grand Alliance side being part of the William domain. I looked at the World War II article to see how it listed belligerent's considering Italy's switch during the war but instead it only focus's on the leaders rather than nations. Ireland could be mentioned in both columns with it bracketed the way Sweden's is, i.e. Ireland (until 1691) in the French corner and Ireland (after 1691) in the alliance corner. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ireland had its own king and parliament for several centuries so it wasn't for a brief period. However please provide sources for your controversial claims such as the "Irish Royal Army" the "official army" going into exile. Many of its Jacobite officers and soldiers opted to go into exile to France, but that doesn't mean the whole army did. Many Protestants returned to the rank and file of the Irish army and its officer ranks after Talbot's prior purging of them from it. Yet was the kingdom of Ireland directly involved in the Nine Years' War after 1691 or was it solely focused on Irish affairs? That is the question that needs answering with sources. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed here is a quote from History Ireland Under Irish law, whoever was king of England was also king of Ireland and William indeed had accepted the Irish as well as the English throne from the convention parliament.. So under the law William III was king of Ireland regardless of parliament's support of James I. Quite a complex situation, maybe that's why Ireland isn't listed at all in the article's list of belligerents. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A lot of work put into this, thanks all. It's really not that difficult; William was king of Ireland, because he was king of England.

The 1689 Irish Parliament is irrelevant; (a) only the legal king, ie William had the right to call one, (b) it was 70 MPs short (230 v 300), and (c) per Poynings Law, all decisions had to be approved by the English Parliament (yes, very unfair, but since James himself supported that interpretation, hard to argue against it).

Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, which reflects generally accepted norms, and specifically excludes personal research. To the best of my knowledge, as someone who's edited a lot of articles on this period, you will not find any published resource that lists the 'Kingdom of Ireland' (ie rather than Irish Jacobites) as a belligerent on the side of France.

As a general point, if something looks odd, or you disagree, first identify a Source, then discuss; otherwise you're investing your energy, and that of others, on a debate that isn't going anywhere. There are plenty of better ways to spend that time. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Correct, and James at that 1689 parliament outright refused demands to abolish Poyning's Law. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said exclusively Catholic I meant exclusively Jacobite- bad choice of words on my part. So in theory, the Irish parliament had no control of who they viewed as King- whoever England viewed as King, was automatically King of Ireland. I understand that, but I dont understand why therefore Ireland is listed as a separate belligerent in other conflicts– such as the Seven Years' War and French Revolutionary Wars. How it is not listed on either side really– whether as a separate country fighting against William or as a client-state of England fighting the French- like in the other conflicts I have listed above.

But anyway, here is a source detailing the Irish army after the Williamite-Jacobite War in Ireland, as requested by Mabuska.https://books.google.ie/books?hl=en&lr=&id=v2XQAAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR6&dq=childs+1987+history&ots=pHePkVxIFO&sig=HXb0FSQbz9LSKwfmBoof1T7B5no&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Pages 194-202

It states that the original Irish Army (the Jacobite one) went to France, maintaining their regimental organisation, their traditions and even their red coats. But the important part is after the Jacobite army left for France. Originally, the previously purged Protestant officers created regiments in the Army of the North. These regiments would later be incorporated into the new and reformed Irish Army. I do not believe the Irish army fought in the European conflict as a force, but William nevertheless drew many of his recruits from the army.

Regarding the Treaty of Limerick, the surrendering Irish soldiers were given three options: 1.Go into exile in France 2.Join the Williamites 3.Head home.

A source I read about the treaty stated that about 1,000 joined the Williamites and 2,000 went home, but the vast majority- about 14,000 if I'm not mistaken- went to France. Iamdmonah (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I dont understand why therefore Ireland is listed as a separate belligerent in other conflicts– such as the Seven Years' War and French Revolutionary Wars.

Simple answer; they're wrong. They confuse areas of conflict with legal belligerent; in the Seven Years War, it is Britain, not Ireland, let alone British America or the East India Company. Which I've pointed out several times now :)

Easy to tell by looking at who signs treaties, and on whose behalf. William signed the Treaty of Ryswick as king of England - its not unusual; the Holy Roman Emperor signed on behalf of over 800 separate 'client-states.'

That's why I suggest finding a Source, then arguing the point; some editors seem to think they've uncovered a truth that has apparently been missed by historians for centuries. Once they've convinced themselves, its really hard to argue them out of that conviction, and I don't have the energy to fight too many of these battles. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It was not my intention to start an argument or "battle"- so I apologise if that's the way you see it. I was just speculating as to why Ireland was not a belligerent when it is in other conflicts of a similar nature. I find it strange and really puzzling if I'm honest but I accept your view since you have obviously studied this area far more than me. But you should understand my view.

Perhaps it was that there were several reliefs, reforms and acts in the late 18th century (notably the Constitution of 1782) which gave Ireland far more independence, (including greater control over their own armed forces), removing Poyning's Law and bringing Ireland to the point they were nearly an independent state. Afterwards, as far as I know, Ireland didnt have to assist Britain in conflicts- only if the majority of the members of parliament voted in favour of it. So perhaps that would explain why Ireland is mentioned as a separate belligerent in later conflicts. This obviously ended with the Act of Union 1801 when the parliament and armed forces of Britain and Ireland were amalgamated. Iamdmonah (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me say this one more time; the categorisation in the Seven Years War and elsewhere is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. It is based on the view of a single editor, is not supported by any third party, and I've pointed that out several times.

I wasn't suggesting this was a battle, but that for future reference, its a good idea to check third party source, then recommend a change. The energy spent on this topic could have been invested in improving the article - that's my point, and I really don't understand why we're still talking about it. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Most of that is irrelevant to the discussion and I did not ask for sources on something not related to the point of this discussion... was Ireland a belligerent? Robinvp11 has described it well beyond a shadow of a doubt and I provided a source stating that the king of England under Irish law was also king of Ireland, backing up Robinvp11's earlier statement. Thus the discussion has run it's course as no sources to the contrary have been provided with only contested opinion backing it up. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

An idea could be to follow the example of the William War in Ireland article and list "Williamites" as a belligerent considering it and this one list "Jacobites". Obviously Jacobites covers James Irish supporters, but what of Williams supporters in Ireland? Williamites could be a simple solution. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really; the Williamite War in Ireland is effectively a civil war, that's why they use those categories. This is fine as is. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, the williamite militias which fought against the Irish Army in the Williamite war mostly either joined the reformed Irish army or fought for William in his European campaigns. So therefore, I think they would be listed under England? Iamdmonah (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I was just making assumptions about why Ireland is listed in 18th century conflicts, I did not say that was the solution. And Mabuska what do you mean irrelevant to the subject? You said, quote

"Please provide sources for your controversial claims such as the "Irish Royal Army" the "official Army" going into exile." 

Which I did. What is the problem? You aren't making sense. Though it probably doesn't matter and this isnt really the place for it. Iamdmonah (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

First, no one is arguing the terms under which the Wild Geese were evacuated. That's not a debate.

The issue is calling it the 'Irish Royal Army', a term you keep using, and which is incorrect. (And I say that having written large parts of the article of the Treaty of Limerick). Like it or not, William was legally the king of Ireland, by virtue of being King of England; anyone fighting against him was therefore a rebel. That's been explained at least three times.

Many of the regiments fighting for William in Flanders were made up of Huguenot French refugees; one of them, Ligonier, was one of the outstanding British commanders of the 18th century. Are you suggesting we should therefore include them as a belligerent? There is no difference.

All armies included large numbers of 'enemy soldiers', because soldiering was a career not restricted by nationality. Schomberg, killed commanding Williamite forces at the Boyne, was a French marshall (and a Spanish one). A regiment composed of Irish Catholics was part of the Allied garrison that surrendered Deinze in 1695.

Until you find a Source that lists the Jacobites as a belligerent in the Nine Years War, you are not entitled to simply add them to the Infobox because you think its a good idea.

Once again, find a reputable third party source, then discuss. Or let it go. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I have already "let it go"– as I said already, I have accepted your judgement on this topic.

Furthermore, you seem to be confused as to what I am suggesting. I suggested Ireland be added– not the Jacobites, which was already present, and you have since removed. I have already accepted that William was legally the King.

I don't know what you mean on your point about the French Huguenots. Also, I never suggested soldiering was restricted by nationality– or religion for that matter– so I don't know what your point is.

Alas, I think we can consider this conversation over. Thank you for your contributions, and your insight and expertise in this topic. And I will try to heed your advice regarding third party sources from now on. Thanks Iamdmonah (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake - thought you added the Jacobites. The problem is people confuse location (where the fighting takes place, or who does it) with 'belligerent', which is a legal entity. The easy way to determine is to look at who signs the treaty ending the war - and the Nine Years War is not the same as the Williamite.

For completeness....my point on the Huguenots was that just because there are 'Jacobite' regiments fighting for France, doesn't make them a belligerent, any more than French exiles fighting for William can be viewed as a separate force.

Always happy to discuss ideas, its just this point keeps coming up, so my apologies if it appears otherwise. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to the infobox: the number of casualties/deaths. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sweden belligerent?

@Waylon1104 Stapleton writes in a footnote on page 147 that Sweden never declared war on France, altough they were part of the League. What does your source say exactly?

Source: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1061304400&disposition=inline DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@DavidDijkgraaf:My source mentions the Nine Years' War in the list of wars involving Sweden. I don't think whether had the Sweden declared war is a proper way to determine the Sweden was or wasn't. For example: In Sino-French War, both side was no declaration of war. Waylon1104 (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

In more modern wars belligerents indeed don't declare war on eachother every time, but in the 17th century declaring war was far more common. And Sweden didn't just not declare war, but also didn't wage war against France in any real way. They, just as Denmark, loaned out troops to the Grand Alliance. The only difference between Denmark and Sweden is that Sweden was originally part of the League. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit war

@Waylon1104 @Elxa izhne Can we please discuss here what should and what shouldn't go into the infobox. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure! Thank you for reaching out to me about this, it is my opinion that one of the most important things to have across Wikipedia articles is constancy. If something is said in one article (assuming it is correct) it should be followed in all others referring to the same topic. For example in the King William's War page the text explicitly states that "King William's War (also known as the Second Indian War, Father Baudoin's War, Castin's War, or the First Intercolonial War in French) was the North American theater of the Nine Years' War". In the Williamite War page, the article also references being a theater of the Nine Years' War, though not as explicitly as in the King William's War. If both the King William's War and Williamite War are theaters of the same conflict, it would make sense to include them in this article in the same level as other theaters and fronts in the war. It is also my belief that when talking about a conflict, it is important that all aspects of the conflict are included in order to broaden the scope of understanding for the reader. Why should we just focus on the war in mainland Europe and Britain and not include the other participants in the war that fought in the other theaters? What possible purpose could it serve not to include all aspects of the conflict? Elxa izhne (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Portugal a belligerent?

Do we have a source that states that Portugal joined the war? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Name Section? + confusion about redirects and alt. names

So i am aware this is far from a new issue, and there are many opinions to be made about the legitimacy and importance of names of this conflict, but thats not the main point here.

Around a few months ago the article had War of the Palatine Succession, War of the League of Augsburg, and War of the Grand Alliance in the first paragraph. This has since been removed, the only thing remaining is a footnote that includes some of the names. To get to the point:

There are still very much redirects from names like War of the Palatine Succession, but they just link to the Nine Year's War without the reader getting any elaboration on the name. This isnt a case of a slightly different spelling or formulation, this is a pretty big point of confusion and arguably inconsistency. there are all these links under historical names to this article which doesn't reference those names adequately, do you think we could have a name section

An old thread related to the name(s) of this page: [[1]]

Solution: A "Name"/"Names" section, both to clear up redirect/linking-related confusion and it feels like this is a topic that deserves a section about the name considering both historical and modern differences in naming this event. SpokenClaw (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The alternative names were moved into a FN per Wikipedia MOSCLUTTER guidelines - that's not the same as removing them.

"Grand Alliance" and "League of Augsburg" are two different things entirely, as explained in the article I wrote on the Grand Alliance, which is why historians now use "Nine Years War" (see below - why do we have an apostrophe in the current article title?)

I cannot find an English source that references "War of the Palatinate Succession", the only Wikipedia entry for it is a holding page, with no data, that simply redirects here. So surely the solution is to delete that empty article?

I don't think we need another section on names. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think an opening "names" section explaining the different names and why they exist would be helpful. Compare World_War_I#Names (actually a much simpler situation). Robinyp11's point about the "League of Augsburg" only makes this more necessary - readers deserve some explanation of why they've been redirected to an article about a war fought after the league had ceased to exist.

A quick google books search shows plenty of English academic sources for the "War of the Palatine Succession" [2].

Nine Years' War has an apostrophe because it is a Saxon genitive. Compare Thirty Years' War. Furius (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

"Nine Years' War (version 2)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nine Years' War (version 2) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 19 § Nine Years' War (version 2) until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of the redirect, but while we're here, I believe the title of this article should be "Nine Years War", rather than "Nine Years' War", ie no apostrophe. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)