Talk:Battle of Dettingen

revert
Undid unexplained deletion of referenced statement.Tttom1 00:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

flag icon
reverted to sourced flag icon; "Prior to the French Revolution, there was no national flag which represented France. A variety of flags were used by troops, different types of ships and for other purposes. From 1590-1790 this flag is one of four that was used on warships and fortresses. The plain white flag, known as the Bourbon Banner, and this white flag with three golden fleurs-de-lis, a white flag with many fleurs-de-lis, or a white flag with many fleurs-de-lis with the arms of France in the center. The simpler designs such as this were used in ordinary circumstances and it is believed that the white flag of France flew over all or most of the French forts and settlements in America."
 * French Fleur-De-Lis:Prior to the French Revolution, there was no national flag which represented France. A variety of flags were used by troops, different types of ships and for other purposes. From 1590-1790 this flag is one of four that was used on warships and fortresses.
 * French Fleur-De-Lis:This flag and this design with the coat of arms of France in the center are most commonly associated with ceremonial occasions from 1590 - 1790.
 * :on the reverse of this plate it says: "Le pavillon royal était véritablement le drapeau national au dix-huitième siecle...Vue du chateau d'arrière d'un vaisseau de guerre de haut rang portant le pavillon royal (blanc, avec les armes de France)."
 * : reverse of Flag plate in New York Public Library.

Pronunciation
I am fairly sure that the German pronunciation of Dettingen is with a hard "g". In English, when referring to the Battle of Dettingen is it traditional to follow the German pronunciation (hard "g") or use a soft "g", i.e. a "j" sound?
 * Neither,  an "ng" sound.Lathamibird (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Dual dating
The note against the date of this battle (currently given solely as a Gregorian date) is misleading. It was common at the time for dates to be given according to both calendars (i.e. dual dating) when the event being described involved countries, some of which had already adopted the Gregorian calendar while others had not. In this case Britain (which was still using the Julian calendar) was involved with other countries which had long since converted to the Gregorian calendar.

It is therefore not surprising that "many British sources from the time have the date as 16 June instead of 27 June according to the Gregorian calendar, which the British had not yet officially adopted", as stated in the note. Since this is the English language Wikipedia and the battle, in which a British army was engaged, took place on what was then the 16th June in England, giving the date simply as 27th June is misleading. Contemporary European (i.e. not solely British) sources prior to Britain's adoption of the Gregorian calendar also gave dates in the form "16/27 June 1743" in similar circumstances.

Readers may not see the note in the present article (which is indistinguishable from a footnote) and therefore miss an interesting historical aside; if the contemporary 18th century form of the date (which is unusual for modern eyes) were presented instead, the reader's interest would more likely be aroused enough for her/him to look at the note. I suggest (a) changing the date to the form in use at the time and (b) amending the note to read e.g. "Sources at the time often used the dual dating form of the date when one or more countries were involved which had not yet converted from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar. Britain and its colonies did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until 1752." --TraceyR (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying your position, I wouldn't mind expanding the note, but I think the 16/27, or using the 'old style' date itself, is confusing without more explanation in the lede that should be there for this minor point. Most modern historians, writing in english, adjust the dating to the 'new style', prominently - Reed Browning - for one, Skrine for another. Some editors on WP, on occasion, not regularly, simply put the 'old style' date in parenthisis: ('Old Style' 16 June 1743). However, with most current historians, as shown, converting to new style, I favor leaving it that way with a note and unless there is a consensus to change, or a policy for that in Milhist. I think we should follow the lead of published and prominent historians in this.Tttom1 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is confusion in this area. As I understand it, "Old Style (OS)" and "New Style (NS)" generally (but not always) refer to the change from starting the new year on March 25th (OS) to the current system in which January 1st is deemed to be the first day of the new year (NS). This change did not take place at the same time in every country.


 * The adoption of the Gregorian calendar was similarly staggered in Europe over a period of some 350 years (see e.g. Old Style and New Style dates, Gregorian calendar; the former includes as an example an excerpt from the Treaty of Lübeck (between Catholic and Protestant parties), which shows the date in both systems - 22 / 12 May 1629). Tacitly 'converting' dates from this period of overlap into the current system glosses over an interesting and important historical fact; this could lead to unnecessary confusion and possible contradiction between articles. Perhaps the various History projects should look into this (unless they have done so already). --TraceyR (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The confusion is neither in the article or note, but in the past, and the dating change, as well as its confusions, are covered in several articles on WP (one of which I just linked the note to) and the current dating standard, as written, can be referenced to prominent and reliable current historians. I wouldn't described that as 'tacitly' by historians or WP editors - this is the standard use at this time. Its an interesting fact, but not particularly relevant to the lede in this article, or in the many other articles, possibly hundreds or more, that are converted to new style without any reference to the change at all. It doesn't matter that the / dating technique was used in 1629 and not used in the lede of Treaty of Lübeck its handled elsewhere in that article - as is done in this article, where's its clearly explained and linked in the note. There was, of course, enormous confusion with the date changes as they originally occurred country by country at the time of each change - the same holds for measurements, its an interesting fact that the english or german 'foot' that were not equal or standardized internationally for a long time, WP doesn't cover each and every occurrence - in the lede of an article- to remind readers there once was  difference long ago. So I'm opposed to using any further explanation beyond a footnote for this tangential point.Tttom1 (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I came to this section via Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Guidance on this was worked out years ago see Manual of Style/Dates and numbers (short link WP:OSNS) for a detailed description of the problem see the article Old Style and New Style dates.

As the guidance explains we do not date things via primary sources (which the note in this article implies) we date them from secondary sources, which in this case I suspect will overwhelmingly be in the Gregorian calendar. This is explained in more detail in the article Old Style and New Style dates and an example given which matches this battle is the Battle of Blenheim. There is no need to dual date Blenheim because most secondary sources do not diverge on the date of the battle.

The problem of primary sources and dates is addressed via the issue of the execution of Charles I which took place on 30 January 1649, we do not tipple date that event: 30 January/9 February   1648/49 because there is no need to, as secondary sources inevitably use either 30 January 1648/49 or for books aimed at the general public "30 January 1649" only occasionally does Wikiepdia need to use dual dating -- as in the example of the Glorious Revolution -- were events are described using two different dating systems (because the events move between two counties that used different systems) so the detailed secondary sources that cover the events in different countries use different dating systems: eg William of Orange came ashore in England on 5 November having left Holland on 13 November! The modern equivalent of this is the international date line and the notion that the Pacific war started in Asia shortly before or at the same time as the attack on Pearl Harbor but nearly a day later according to the local time.

This thing with primary sources gets much more complicated in the medieval period because primary sources may date years from the start of a monarch's reign (and for battles there are two monarchs with different start dates for the year), or using the Ides (calendar)) or the Christian saints calendar. For example see the date explanation by Juliet Barker mentioned in the Battle of Agincourt. This is one very good reason not to mention primary sources as good secondary sources will already have worked this out for Wikipedia editors and working out such dates from primary sources is OR, particularly when primary sources disagree. -- PBS (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

New old plan of battle map


I hope this proves interesting. The image was sent to me by a guy who copied it off microfilm from the church doc, and I trust it is what he says. I enhanced it a bit. The caption could use work, if anyone can decipher the old German writing. Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)