Talk:Louis, Grand Condé

Untitled

Under Success at Rocroi, you say he "won his place amongst the great generals of modern times." That's a generous definition of "modern times", isn't it? Isn't there a better category you can put him in? Modern warfare is generally considered 20th century. Tanks, machine guns, aircraft, that sort of stuff.

It is necessary that someone remove the "Dave was born in H-Town" nonsense.

I am removing the section about Louis XIII claiming two boys as his heir. Until there is conclusive proof of the opposite Louis XIV and Philippe I, Duke of Orléans is Louis XIII sons. Carl Logan 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"In 1664 was fight against the Ottomans in Hungary and stand in the Battle of Saint Gotthard."

This sentence doesn't make sense.

Was Condé involved in that battle ? Coligny was in command of French forces, as far as I can check.

Rewrite?

This whole article reads like cheer leading, basically describing him as the greatest general, ever. The prose is also pretty bad. Maybe it should be re-written or downgraded in quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.104.61 (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

disambiguation

I don't understand why we would want to disambiguate by birth and death years when he has an ordinal which is perfectly used. This article used to be at Louis II, Prince of Condé. Why was it moved? He is known as Louis II. That is how he is typically disambiguated from his great-grandfather and his grandson. Why was this changed? john k (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I moved as he was born Louis de Bourbon and died as such just like his grandson the so called Louis III, Prince of Condé did the same. "Louis II" almost implies that there was a Principality of Condé (such as Monaco) which there was not. He only held the rank of First Prince of the Blood and the style of Prince of Condé. Anyway, it may eve be better to rename him Louis, Grand Condé which is similar to Louis, Grand Dauphin. He is/was probably known better as the Grand Condé than anything else Prince LouisPhilippeCharles 15:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it's relevant what the ordinals may imply. Reliable sources use the ordinals. Britannica, for instance. It is the most common way these people are distinguished from each other. That you think it implies a principality of Condé is irrelevant; we don't get to discard long-established ways of disambiguating people just because we don't like them. Princes of the blood from the Bourbon family are typically distinguished from one another by ordinals. john k (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

While I understand LouisPhilippeCharles's concerns (implying the existence of a somewhat independent state called Condé), I also strongly dislike using years of birth and death as means of disambiguation. If the ordinals are used, why should we ignore them? Should we ignore the fact that Michael Jackson's son is called "Prince Michael Jackson I" just to avoid implying that he is a sovereign? Surtsicna (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A related question can be found here. Surtsicna (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Now we're at "Louis, Grand Condé?" "Grand Condé" isn't a proper title, and shouldn't be used in combination with his given name. What a mess. john k (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Date of death

In this article, it says he died 11 december and after it says 11 november. What is the real date? All sources are confusing about the month.
Nicolas ANCEAU

Britannica says December. They tend to be reliable. Favonian (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I adverted the French, [1] , and a banner contradict was added in top of this article. in section Rehabilitation it says « He died on 11 November 1686 at the age of sixty-five. » and in title, honours, etc November is too mentionned. → N.A.

Lead, changes to sentences in legacy

• "He was one of Louis XIV's most pre-eminent generals and is widely regarded as one of the greatest military commanders of the early modern period."

I seriously doubt that a source from 1846 indicates "widely regarded".

Encyclopedia Britannica is hardly a reliable source.

Also, please refrain from adding references to the Lead of the article.

As for Zeller, page 234, it should be added to the body of the article, not the Lead.

If "widely regarded" can not be referenced, it should be removed.

• "Bold and impetuous, Condé was an excellent tactician and a fine strategist able to quickly grasp a situation and act swiftly." -- Bongard, page 184.

Where exactly does Bongard say Conde is bold and impetuous?? If this is from Tucker(2015), page 164, it should be cited properly.

• "His masterpiece, the Battle of Rocroi, is still studied in military acadamies around the world."

Clearly this needs a source or it should be removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Good lord... Kansas.... Are John Frost or eminent historians such as Charles Oman or Gaston Bodart slowly going to be considered unreliable because their works date date back to the 19th century, even if modern sources do not even dispute their claims? That would be a reasonable point if it were related to statistical data as modern estimates can be established with more complete sources as they are discovered. This is not the matter at hand here at all. And your nitpicking would even be justified if there were contemporary historians pointing to the contrary. I have so far not seen anything you have added even going against it. Condé is considered one of the greatest generals of the period, often named amongst the likes of Turenne and Monteccucoli. The point is neither of the sources you personally linked even dispute it. You seem to be simply going by "the sources I linked do not specifically say what yours do and therefore do not count" even if your sources do not dispute it either. It is unreliable to write of "one of the greatest French generals" that he was one of the greatest generals of the early modern period if his peer and rival (Turenne) is literally regarded as "one of the greatest in modern history"?! Tucker doesn't literally say that of Turenne in his book either but others (fellow great generals and historians alike do).

• Understood about Britannica (I think you may have told me something similar before or maybe it wasn't you or on this site) but I did not link (Olivier) Zeller?! Only Francis Carsten, John Frost and that passage in the Encyclopedia Britannica were from me?! Or what are you refering to?

• Oh and yes that one is totally on me... I rewrote the legacy part to merge both Bongard and Spencer Tucker statements with the intention of linking both sources at the end but I forgot to do so and blundered it. My bad that's entirely on me.

• I replaced the "still studied by students of military strategy" to "studied in military academies around the world" because it is basically what the previous author meant or maybe "studied in many military academies" should have been more appropriate? because it is basically what the previous author meant. Rocroi is part of the curriculum at ESM Saint-Cyr (France), West Point (the US) and RMA Sandhurst (the UK) for sure. I know that for a fact but I must admit I haven't looked beyond those three countries, but if "to be officers" do learn about it in those, it is likely that is the case in some others as well, in Europe at least. Just looked it up, and there is even a section about it as well as a map of the battle on the official West point academy site. Didn't think it would even be controversial but oh well... (Jules Agathias (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC))

Everything has to be sourced.

• "Rocroi is part of the curriculum at ESM Saint-Cyr (France), West Point (the US) and RMA Sandhurst (the UK) for sure."

Source? I tried to find a source for this(or its previous version) and was not successful. And yeah, I'm "nitpicking" because I believe this article could be GA, with a little work.

• "but I did not link (Olivier) Zeller?"

Zeller is the one from the Cambridge source, if you wrote the reference properly you would know that. G. Zeller, "French Diplomacy and Foreign Policy in their European Setting", The New Cambridge Modern History, Vol. V:The Ascendancy of France: 1648-88, ed. F.L. Carsten, (Cambridge University Press, 1975).

• " You seem to be simply going by "the sources I linked do not specifically say what yours do and therefore do not count" even if your sources do not dispute it either."

You removed "French" stating "Tucker does not mention him being "one of the greatest French generals in early modern history" but "one of the greatest French generals"". Again, if you read the entire article that Tucker wrote he is implying during Conde's time. But I have addressed this issue below. Yet you did not explain why you removed French.

• "Are John Frost or eminent historians such as Charles Oman or Gaston Bodart slowly going to be considered unreliable because their works date date back to the 19th century, even if modern sources do not even dispute their claims?"

Anyone reading this article would think the same thing. That a source from 1846 is being used to indicate "widely recognized"? Despite the fact that this 1846 source does not support "widely recognized", if we had a more modern source stating "widely recognized", then I do not see a problem. I have nothing against 19th century sources when written by historians, but when used in this particular context they can only present their views from that time period.

• "It is unreliable to write of "one of the greatest French generals" that he was one of the greatest generals of the early modern period if his peer and rival (Turenne) is literally regarded as "one of the greatest in modern history"?! Tucker doesn't literally say that of Turenne in his book either but others (fellow great generals and historians alike do)."

Actually this is supported by Tucker(2015), p.164, "One of the greatest of French generals, Le Grand Conde..." And the lead which I had initially, "....is regarded as one of the greatest French generals in early modern period.", explain how Tucker does not state this? Tucker may not explicitly mention the "early modern period", but adding Zeller to the Legacy section gives us what we need for the "early modern period/history/age". This article is not being written in comparison to Turenne, so that is not our concern. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

*Oh yeah. Checked it out again and yes you are indeed right. The fool I am did not right the full reference. And I thought you were talking about French historian Olivier Zeller, hence my total confusion. My bad.

*So it is matter of semantics then? "Widely regarded as one of the greatest military commanders of the early modern period" is inappropriate because "widely regarded" is not mentioned and that those who describe him as such in the sources I provided were historians of the mid to late 19th century? I mean your point would be understandable if the "modern era" was being discussed as a new wave of commanders may have popped well after those writings. A whole lot more happened military wise since the 19th century. But the "early modern period" generally is associated to the era from 1492 to 1789. It was pretty much done and dusted by that point to supposedly "lack perspective" which I guess is the problem you're trying to raise?

*Your last point is where the issue is though Kansas. You did what you previously told me not do.... which is to merge two statements of two different authors into one and yours actually is giving a much worse look than mine. I read the section of Tucker's book dedicated to Condé again and nowhere does he imply a period of time anywhere as you suggested. His book discusses 500 various leaders of various eras after all. Condé is regarded in France as "one of the greatest French generals" (regardless of eras) and that's what Tucker wrote he was in the last paragraph of that section as well. Zeller basically said he was one of the "greatest generals of the era". His nationality is not involved at all. But here is how you personally worded. You can go look back if you want. "He is considered one of the greatest French generals in early modern history". You are not comparing him to military commanders of the early modern period regardless of nationality. Your statement is solely comparing him relative to his peers/countrymen of the early modern period, which kind of nullifies what both Tucker and Zeller were conveying, no?! (Jules Agathias (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC))

I'be addressed your first point but the links I was providing were preventing me from publishing the post so I had to take them out and talk about it separately not to figure out what was wrong. I've properly linked them this time. I found at least a part of the curriculum on the West point site at least as I told you. It is in the "Dawn of modern warfare" section. Here is the direct link: www.westpoint.edu/academics/academic-departments/history/dawn-of-modern-warfare

Like I said it is taught in Saint-Cyr as I know quite a few cadets there but unfornately the curriculum is not liked on their website, neither is the one on the Sandhurst website. Here is where I saw it mentioned before: www.google.com/amp/s/rickydphillipsauthor.wordpress.com/2015/06/08/the-great-conde-the-greatest-general-you-never-heard-of/amp/ Jules Agathias (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Having read the legacy section I would say the first paragraph in particular contains a heck of a lot of editorializing. Firestar47 (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)