Talk:Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military biography task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Dutch military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

[edit] 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)