Talk:Maurice, Prince of Orange

WP:MilHist Assessment
A nice, lengthy, and detailed account, which even includes pictures and succession boxes. I believe this article rides the line between Start-class and B-class. (If only there were a C, showing more than just a good start, and less than a B, which is to my mind, an article well on its way towards its final form.) In any case, as I see it, the article wants for two main things. (1) Better organization on the page - rearrange the pictures and the text somehow so it doesn't seem quite so jumbled. (2) The introduction paragraph should summarize all I need to know about the subject, and his historical significance. Dates and place of birth are a fine "introduction," in the strict sense of the word, that it goes at the beginning of a chronological account. But I believe that intros should be separate from the chronological biological section. Otherwise, thank you for a very nice start on an interesting subject. LordAmeth 19:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You call that detailed? That's a pretty bare outline for a very major historical figure.  It doesn't even discuss his technical military innovations.  It doesn't make clear which side Maurice was on, and which Oldenbarnevelt, in the Calvinist/Arminian controversy.  It doesn't give any detail on military operations, and it generally doesn't get into too much detail on much of anything.  It's nice that there's pictures and succession boxes, but the article is pretty far from comprehensive. john k 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I somehow got the wrong impression from reading it. I really don't know anything about this figure myself, so guessing at what's been left out is difficult. My mistake. LordAmeth 15:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not meant as an attack on you, but wouldn't it generally be a wise policy for people who are reasonably familiar with the subject of an article be the ones to review the quality of an article? john k 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there would be a certain logic to that. And I don't take it personally - I understand what you mean. But there is also a logic to having people review it who are historians, fairly well-learned in general, but who are not familiar with the topic, so as to better assess how accessible it is to the average reader. No? Essentially, I'm just trying to help get things assessed, and enjoying reading about subjects outside my usual field of focus. If assessments were restricted only to those who specialize in a particular subject, but not to those who wrote the article in the first place, entire swaths of history would never get assessed, don't you think? LordAmeth 04:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying specialists, per se, just people who have some familiarity. I'm certainly not a specialized on early modern Holland.  But I know that Maurice is considered one of the leading military figures of his day, and that he made various technical innovations in terms of drill and tactics and such like.  I'm not sure of the details of any of this, which is why I haven't improved the article, but I'm aware that there's a lot of room for improvement.  I suppose you're right that we can't necessarily wait for somebody who knows the subject to assess it, but perhaps some kind of steps to insure at least basic familiarity (comparison with Britannica article, if one has access, for instance, or for historical figures, with 1911 britannica article.) john k 11:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have started making some minor edits to this article, but as I am highly interested in this subject and I have got some usefull knowledge, I will start doing some major edits very soon. This way, this article will have the length it deserves. ♠   TomasBat   ( @ )  ( Contribs )  ( Sign! ) 16:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Military Influence of Maurice of Nassau

TomasBat, if you're still working on this, I think it's critical that the military influence of Maurice, both direct and indirect, be shown. For example, Jacob De la Gardie served under Maurice and began implementing Maurice's reforms in Sweden, while Lennart Torstenson studied under Maurice at the Gymnasium at Siegen in 1624, possibly at the behest of Gustavus Adolphus himself, who (with Tortenson's strong influence) enthusiastically advanced Maurice's reforms. The future Vicomte de Turenne also studied under Maurice in the 1620s. The Duke of Marlborough served and studied under Turenne and co-commanded with Eugen of Savoy, and Eugen commanded Leopold I, the "Old Dessauer," who in turn was the tutor of Frederick the Great. Thus all four of the "modern" generals included in Napoleon's list of the seven great commanders in history can trace an educational path back to Maurice of Nassau. Sofa King 20:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt - Maurits prins van Oranje-edit 1.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt - Maurits prins van Oranje-edit 1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 14, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-11-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 02:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent move
This article was moved today from Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange to Maurice, Prince of Orange, by the argument that there are no other Maurice's who were prince of Orange. Actually there is: Prince Maurits of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven. Besides that I feel it might be good to keep the "of Nassau". Maurice was 'just' Count of Nassau for most of his life, until his half-brother Philip William of Orange died in 1618, and so was known as "Maurice of Nassau" for most of his life, and is referred to as such in literature. Tom (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Princess Margriet's son is obviously known as Maurits and obviously isn't Prince of Orange. That title is presently held by his cousin, Willem-Alexander. William III of England was 'just' Prince of Orange for most of his life, yet the article isn't titled William of Orange, King of England. Normally, the highest title ever attained is used. Besides, Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange was inconsistent with Philip William, Prince of Orange, Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange and William II, Prince of Orange, all of whom were just as much "of Nassau" (i.e. the article are not titled Philip William of Nassau, Prince of Orange, etc). Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Reformed dictatorship
I think it should be emphasized more that Maurice tried to establish a Reformed dictatorship, as historian Pieter Geyl has pointed out. It's there but could be more distinct in the article. Those plans were partly thwarted by the succession of his brother Frederick Henry. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The loss of Brazil
This piece of text: Meanwhile, the Dutch also lost formerly occupied Baia de Todos os Santos, Salvador de Bahia in Brazil, 1 May 1625, under the heavy attacks of the Spanish–Portuguese Fleet, commanded by the Captain General of the Spanish Navy, since 1617, Admiral Fadrique II de Toledo Osorio y Mendoza (Naples, Italy, May 1580 – 11 December 1634), 1st Marquis of Villanueva de Valdueza, and, since 17 January 1624, Knight of the Order of Santiago" has recently been deleted by User:Palindromedairy. I wonder why he wants to delete this information and would like to ask him to discuss his edit on this talkpage. Thanks. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for opening the talk page. As for the reasons for the delete, I've explained why several times.  Your two reasons for keeping it so far have been "he presided over the country" and "Brazil at one point in its history had places named after him".


 * As for the first, "he presided over the country just prior to the event, but was dead when it happened and was not involved" should obviously be terrible criteria for keeping a piece of info: we don't have material on all the other battles of the 80 Years War that he wasn't involved with, either before or after his death, such as the Dutch victory in the Battle in the Bay of Matanzas in 1628, and rightfully so. As for the second reason, if material can be provided demonstrating Maurice's various links to Brazil can be found, by all means add it.  But that's entirely separate from what I'm proposing to axe.


 * This material does not belong with Maurice: the man is not the state, and even more so after he is dead and gone. We can't put everything remotely relevant in every article (and this is rather remote).  There are already subpages in existence where the portion I wish deleted should be dealt with, and is (I do not object to material's existence: just its location).  I must admit to being baffled by your determination to keep an uncited and so obviously irrelevant paragraph, loaded down with such info pertaining to Maurice as the birthday, place of birth, military honours, and titles of nobility of the Spanish admiral in question in charge of the operation. Palindromedairy (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edit here User:Palindromedairy. I worried about this: apart from being a warrior, Maurice was also a statesman (a pretty lousy one in my opinion but still). He wasn't just the accomplished general, he was also the leader of a country and it's cause. So I didn't think it all that strange to mention the things that happened to that country and it's cause (against the Spaniards and Portuguese) during his tenure as a Stadtholder or even slightly after he died. However as I see now.... (sorry about that) this was a somewhat minor incident as far as the continuing Dutch involvement in Brazil was concerned and the colony wasn't lost until years later. Perhaps I was too quick on my (Dutch) feet. Reverse again if you wish. I will not make any objections. Thanks. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Much obliged, thanks. Palindromedairy (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maurice, Prince of Orange. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111084906/http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/zoeken/asset.jsp?id=NG-NM-10152&lang=en to http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/zoeken/asset.jsp?id=NG-NM-10152&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Given name evangelised
The prince's given name is Maurits. Why is the anglicised form of his given name used in this article? ʍαμ$ʏ5043 16:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The prince's given name is Moritz. German father, German mother, born in Germany. Why use the Dutch form?
 * Because he has a major part in Dutch history? Mvdleeuw (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It's covered by the Wikipedia naming convention, which is "use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources".METRANGOLO1 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

House/Dynasty
Why isn't his house listed in the info box? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * And his children GamerKlim9716 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)