Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Early Modern warfare task force
Are explorers "military"?
Am I the first to post on your talk page here? oo, I feel special. Well, congrats on forming a task force. You'll go far. I'm excited. Though I do have two annoying questions.
- To what extent do explorers and the like count as "Early Modern military history"? Hernán Cortés and Francisco Pizarro clearly do, as they are conquistadores, literally "those who make conquest". And many explorers did serve the dual purpose of privateer (or pirate, I suppose); I'd imagine very few ships of this era went without cannon, especially given the constant sea battles between Protestant England/Holland and Catholic Spain/Portugal. (Is there a name for that conflict?)
- And now, the more obnoxious question. How do other cultures fit in here? East Asia I'll leave alone, as they have a whole different time scale as to their feudal and modern periods. But if, for example, Cortes is "Early Modern military history", then that would make the siege of Tenochtitlan early modern history. Does that mean that Montezuma is early modern military history? I suppose so... I guess. What do you all think? Are people and other elements associated with pre-modern cultures, which come into contact with early modern cultures, count as "Early Modern" topics?
Thanks all, for your help. LordAmeth 05:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Some thoughts:
- As you said, many explorers tended to get involved in conquest and warfare. The ones that really didn't, we probably shouldn't get involved with (as there's probably no military-related content in those articles); but I suspect that during this period, the majority will be closer to Drake and Pizarro then to, say, Amudsen. (Not to mention the fact that many explorers were military officers, which makes things even easier.)
- As far as other cultures: I think it'll be much easier to consider the scope of the task force to be the entire period without looking too much at whether the finer points of warfare match the European development on a per-culture basis. This will, perhaps, be somewhat more intuitive than with the Middle Ages task force because the most salient characteristic of the period—small arms—became pervasive pretty quickly via colonization and so forth. (Certainly the powers with significant military histories tended to get involved in this regard in one way or another. There are probably some interesting fringe cases of, say, nations in inner Africa that didn't have any European contact until much later; but, in article terms, such topics will be a very small minority—and likely so limited by systemic bias that we don't need to have any practical concern over their inclusion.)
- Kirill Lokshin 06:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- As Kirill Lokshin and LordAmeth pointed out explorers of this periode have a knack for finding themselves in our scope. By either leading military / military like expiditions or being / having been military personnel thse are to be included do doubts about it. In general I beleive with these logical attributs we woudl of already taken into account most explorers, we should also include adventurers that where funded by military organisations or towads a military goal. This too shall reduce entanglement when trying to decide weither to include the explorer or not. for if he wasn't funded by hte military, did not participate in military action nor hold military status thatn there is verly little to include him in our taskforce is there?
- As far as other nations... I think our scope as definied by 1500-1792 is rather universal and therefore can incorporate worldly events within this time frame. At the very least until we split these into theatres. For the ment I think we'll have our carts full with the european expansions and there exploration (which will definitly effect other parts of the world such as LordAmeth's exemple of the siege of Tenochtitlan, wich I would clump wiht our taskforce.)
- --Dryzen 13:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll throw my support in with all the others - if an exploration was funded by, worked alongside, or used any military force/soldiers or attacked/defended another group, I'd say that constitutes as military action and falls under the task force. And I too agree that the task force could easily reach to include a non-eurocentric article base, though right now there is a still a lot to do on that. I even think the far eastern countries could come in eventually, as they did not exist in their own bubble, and it would be interesting to see comparisons and notes on the way the far east developed in relation to the west and any military ideas and technologies that were exchanged between the two (for instance, some samurai forsaking traditional garb and using western style cuirasses given as gifts).-- Xiliquiern 18:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Peer review request
If anyone with knowledge of the Italian Wars (or just an interest in the overall period) could comment on the Battle of Ceresole peer review, I'd really appreciate it! Thanks! :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Peer review request for Crawford expedition
There's a new peer review request for Crawford expedition that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 05:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I stubbed Polish-Sweden War (1600–1611), Polish-Sweden War (1620–1622), Polish-Sweden War (1625–1629) out from this one, which was getting unwieldy, but am having difficulty rewriting them into independent articles, with a beginning, middle and end etc. Any takers to help? Neddyseagoon - talk 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Shouldn't all of those be at "Polish-Swedish War" rather than "Polish-Sweden War"? I don't recall ever seeing a compound name with one part using the adjective form and the other the noun form. Kirill Lokshin 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Might I draw your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles. Neddyseagoon - talk 13:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
A-Class review for Pontiac's Rebellion
There's a new request for A-Class status for Pontiac's Rebellion that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Trying to find an American Revolution Battle
Hi, I am writing an article on Ann Eliza Bleecker. Sources [1] say she was displaced by the Saratoga Campaign in 1777, and again in 1779. I know the Saratoga Compaign ended in 1777. Do any of you know of a battle that took place in or near Albany or Saratoga in 1779? Thanks, you can answer here or on my talk page Epousesquecido 19:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, I'm not aware of any fighting that took place particularly close to Albany in that year - it's possible the reference is to the Sullivan Expedition, which took place mainly in the summer of 1779. You might also ask at the US task force - someone there might have a more concrete answer. Carom 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I had considered the Sullivan Expedition (by checking all the battles in the Northern campaign against years, it did come up as a candidate) but it seems further west, out by Elmira, which is well on the way to central New York. I'll reference this question at that task force's talk page, thanks for the pointer. Epousesquecido 19:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I initially had the same though, but this map seems to indicate that the expedition did make it's way fairly near to Albany, although I don't know if there was any fighting in the area. Carom 19:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- A couple problems with that theory (pretty map though!)..
- I think she lived on the E side of the Hudson, near Tomhannock. I have not found exactly where that is, but the modern day Tomhannock Reservoir is well to the east, as shown on Google Maps.
- The original source seems to suggest she was fleeing from the British but the map (and my reading of the Sullivan article) suggests that Sullivan used Albany as a start point and worked his way west.
- Thanks for the further thinking on this, though! Certainly not categorically ruled out, as the data is very sketchy! I have cross posted as you suggest. Epousesquecido 21:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- A couple problems with that theory (pretty map though!)..
Peer review request for John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough
There's a new peer review request for John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Peer review request for Battle of Seminara
There's a new peer review request for Battle of Seminara that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Peer review request for Lochry's defeat
There's a new peer review request for Lochry's defeat that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Peer review request for Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War
There's a new peer review request for Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Lines of Ne Plus Ultra, 1711
Hi, I've just created an acticle on Marlborough's passage of the Lines of Brabant at Battle of Elixheim. I hope to create a similar article for his passage of the Lines of Ne Plus Ultra, but would first like clarification whether the title Passage of the Lines of Ne Plus Ultra would fall within WP and this project's guidelines, given that no actual battle occured. MartinMcCann 21:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if there's no obviously better name, that should be fine. We can always rename it if something more appropriate comes up. Kirill Lokshin 21:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- You could write the article on the Siege of Bouchain and use Marlborough's very impressive manoeuvres through the Ne Plus Ultra Lines, outwitting Villars, as the article's prelude. The siege of bouchain is every bit as interesting, and this was afterall, Marlborough's intention all along. Raymond Palmer 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Peer review request for Battle of Marston Moor
There's a new peer review request for Battle of Marston Moor that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
A-Class review for Pontiac's Rebellion
There's a new request for A-Class status for Pontiac's Rebellion that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A-Class review for Battle of the Plains of Abraham
There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of the Plains of Abraham that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 10:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Peer review request for Battle of Ramillies
There's a new peer review request for Battle of Ramillies that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 16:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
A-Class review for Battle of Panipat (1761) now open
The A-Class review for Battle of Panipat (1761) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
A-Class review for Battle of the Plains of Abraham now open
The A-Class review for Battle of the Plains of Abraham is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Peer review request for Duke Louis Ernest of Brunswick-Lüneburg
There's a new peer review request for Duke Louis Ernest of Brunswick-Lüneburg that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 12:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
A-Class review for Smolensk War now open
The A-Class review for Smolensk War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Peer review request for Vasa (ship)
There's a new peer review request for Vasa (ship) that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Peer review request for Italian War of 1542–1546
There's a new peer review request for Italian War of 1542–1546 that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 05:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Peer review for Military Revolution now open
The peer review for Military Revolution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 17:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
A-Class review for Italian War of 1542–1546 now open
The A-Class review for Italian War of 1542–1546 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
A-Class review for Michael the Brave now open
The A-Class review for Michael the Brave is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 17:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
American Revolution GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed American Revolution and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this task forces's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with other task forces/WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Portal?
Is there any interest in creating a Portal:Early Modern warfare for this area? I'm thinking of putting one together, so does anyone have any suggestions, input, objections, and so forth? Kirill (prof) 13:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Maps Discussion
Can anyone who has experience making military maps for wiki purposes please comment on the following questions?
1. Is there a particular map style preferred for this period (i.e. black & white line drawing, marked-up historical map, modern topographic, et cetera)?
2. Is there a particular unit symbology preferred? Are simplified modern American military symbols (infantry, cavalry, artillery, et cetera) acceptable? Is there a preferred color scheme?
3. Is there a convention concerning the notation of ad hoc or irregular formations? I.e. would an ad hoc collection of fifty Massachusetts militiamen engaged together in an action constitute a company?
4. Is there a convention concerning unit movement vector notation? Should a mapmaker prefer fewer maps with an enumerated timeline noted on each, or more maps, each representing a discrete time period? Or some other model?
5. Are there any other guidelines that a person interested in creating maps for this period aught to know beyond those guidelines common to all of wikipedia?
Thank you for your thoughts.