Talk:War of Devolution

Untitled

Dans un document familial datant de 1854, un de mes aïeux fait état de ce que son arrière-arrière grand-père est venu s'établir à St Léger ( dans le Tournaisis, ouest de l'actuelle province du Hainaut ) " à l'occasion des guerres de Louis XIV "... Cela me permet d'estimer que le souvenir de la guerre de Dévolution était encore assez vivace dans cette région du pays à presque deux siècles de distance. Il serait intéressant de savoir si des mouvements de population étaient d'usage courant dans les territoires conquis. Le village de St Léger n'est pas resté en possession de la France, au contraire de ce qui est dénommé actuellement la "Flandre Française" = (Lille, Dunkerke, Amiens..)

Generally there wasn't much planned colonising. It should be remembered that the notion, such as it existed, of a French people, had then very little to do with what language was spoken. Of course individuals took advantage of opportunities offered. In war people die and were replaced by others. At the time there was a lot of individual migration in Europe. Of course your ancestor might have been a highranking French official, sent to gouvern :o). --MWAK 09:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Swedish war

How was Sweden involved in this war? Did they participate in any fighting?Imonoz (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A French victory?

The French did not win this war. Most of the French conquests were returned to the Spanish. It should be considered a draw, or indecisive. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Article fully protected

@LeHappiste and King Philip V of Spain: In view of the slow-burning edit war that has been going on for several months, I have taken the unusual measure of upgrading the existing semi-protection to full. The semi-protection, which put a stop to the series of edits from IPs in the Toulon area, caused a named account to pick up the torch. I was strongly tempted to use the clue stick, but decided on this method instead. Both parties will now have to contribute to the discussion initiated above. Failure to do so followed by renewed edit-warring, once the protection expires or is lifted, will likely lead to a long block. Favonian (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Belligerents

The Triple Alliance was formed to prevent French expansion - no problem with that, I wrote the article on it. That doesn't make them a belligerent and its misleading to include them as such.

That's not an unusual position but one consistent with every other reference on this topic eg the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the New Cambridge Modern History etc.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes that's why they were under a specific line. I think it should be restored - the Triple Alliance was a substantial threat. Perhaps we should use Supported By instead? Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The war and the settlement at Aix-la-Chapelle are different issues and should be treated separately. For example, the Congress of Berlin was called in response to the 1876 Russo-Turkish War and the Greater Bulgaria issue - if you look at the way those are treated in Wikipedia, the parties at Berlin are not listed as co-belligerents in the war or anything else. So its not clear why this is different and my limited understanding of Wikipedia templates is we shouldn't be expanding them unless its part of a wider discussion.

More important, having updated the article on the Triple Alliance, I'd argue its actively misleading to suggest they 'supported Spain.' Spain may have benefitted from the outcome (although various Spanish officials disagreed, since it tied them to maintaining a province they couldn't defend) but that's not the same as motive.

Technically, the Triple Alliance was invited by Louis to mediate a settlement and the terms stated if either France or Spain continued fighting, the Alliance would declare war on them. The Dutch wanted to prevent France controlling Antwerp; not the same thing. Charles wanted to prove to Louis the Dutch were unreliable; not the same thing. Sweden wanted to disrupt the alliance between Denmark and the Dutch; not the same thing.

The article needs more work; so maybe wait until I've finished and then we can come back to it but I think the current treatment is inconsistent and misleading.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree - the difference is that the Triple Alliance was so, the congress of Berlin was not an alliance - as it says in name. It involved all parties including the warring nations - so there's no comparison. The Triple Alliance threatened France with war. The line as I have mentioned segregates the Triple Alliance from Spain which works well for the article. I think we will rely on consensus and see what other users think. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The article does need work. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok. You seem to be relying on John Lynn, who is great on military tactics but not so good elsewhere. The current treatment is factually wrong and actively misleading but lets make it simple.

Find me any other historical site or reference that includes the Triple Alliance as co-belligerents in the War of Devolution. Not involved in the Aix discussion but co-belligerents.

I'll give you a week; if you can find one, then end of conversation. If you can't, I'll take it out; if you want to send it to arbitration after that, then fine.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not up to you to decide the matter, especially when this hasn't been a problem since it's addition back in 2010 - other users as such have not found this to be an issue, that is until now. This will be done by consensus or arbitration. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd really like to solve this without a fight. The fact no one has objected is not a reflection of accuracy; there's plenty of other stuff in this article that needed correcting.

My bigger issue is it's not an accurate reflection of the purpose of the Triple Alliance; technically, the treaty committed the parties to enforcing the deal on both France and Spain, but both the Dutch and English were far more interested in the mutual defence elements.

I'm not being unreasonable; the treatment I'm suggesting follows every other authority and source on this. So you need explain why Wikipedia should adopt a different path.

If this goes to arbitration, I know what the answer will be (I've already asked, informally). More importantly, it will impact our ability to collaborate. It doesn't seem worth that. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The decision can not just rely on us two, it needs other opinions. I propose arbitration. However perhaps we can put it in the infobox as part of the result? I'd be happy with that. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)