Talk:Prince Eugene of Savoy/Archive 1

Name discussion[edit]

Considering this prince was never ruler of Savoy, and from a sideline on top of that, shouldn't this article's name be something like "Prince Eugene of Savoy"? My understanding is that the format "xxxx of xxxx" for males applies only to monarchs, see point 1 on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). In this case though, he falls under the category "Other royals", see points 1-4. Gryffindor 11:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gryffindor makes a good point. The WP:NC are in place for a reason, to bring a little order to the chaos that is WP (not complaining, of course), I agree, this should be listed at Prince Eugene of Savoy. Prsgodd e ss187 12:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gryffindor and Prsgoddess187. Charles 21:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nightst a llion (?) 11:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Importance[edit]

I've bumped him down to "High", as I don't believe he's actually well-known to anyone outside of people already familiar with that period of military history. Feel free to change it back if you know something I don't, though ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene of Savoy was the most important general in Austrian history. He almost single-handedly made Austria a great power of Europe with his victories at Zenta, Höchstädt, Turin (witch secured Northern Italy for Austria until Napoleon), Oudenarde and Peterwardein. Without him central europe would be dominated of the Ottoman Empire and France. --Carl Logan 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not the criterion we're using; see the scale. What we're trying to determine is whether he's "well-known" to people not familiar with military history. Kirill Lokshin 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, but have you read the second section in the the scale. Until this is changed to "notably from a strictly Anglo-American perspective” Eugene of Savoy remains a Top-importance article. --Carl Logan 15:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I left it there ;-) I have no problems with assessing against his "well-known-ness" from (what I assume is) an Austrian or German standpoint; I just wanted to be sure we were actually looking at the right characteristics here. Kirill Lokshin 17:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Eugene of Savoy was one from most important and graetest military leader in 17/18th century. He was very important from Anglan-perspective too, because John Churchill, duke of Marlborough win his greratest victories with Eugene's significant assist (viz battle of Blenheim and battle of Oudenaarde. And this was battle with worldwide impact and this battle had directly impact on history of Great Britain and proportion of power in North America. I don't know Importance scale on this wikipedia, but I think, that real importance of person is more important from recognition of person. Cinik 07:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

This article is currently being rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really wondering what this phrase should aim "Eugene never married, something that was highly unusual at the time; there is in fact not a single recorded relationship of any kind. He may very well have lived in celibacy his entire life." Its well-known that he was gay, and I see no point not to mention that but obscur speculation about if he had ever sex or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.68.45 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have for that claim. It is NOT well known he was gay, it is mere inference. Raymond Palmer 23:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The World War I British monitor HMS Prince Eugene, Austro-Hungarian battleship Prinz Eugen, and the World War II German 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen, heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen and Italian light cruiser Eugenio di Savoia were named after Eugene of Savoy, the only person[citation needed] whose name has been given to warships of four different navies--on opposite sides in the same war!"

This section doesn't make any sense as written. WWI and WWI are not the same war. Perhaps there were 4 different nations with warchips named for Eugene in one or the other of those wars, but they are not all listed, nor does the mountain division have anything to do with navies.

-jefullerton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefullerton (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 February 2008‎ (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality[edit]

Scientist discuss, if Eugene was homosexual. See therefore:

Bernd-Ulrich Hergemöller, Mann für Mann, Page 210
Magnus Hirschfeld, Die Homosexualität des Mannes und des Weibes, 1914/1984, Page 661
Albert Moll, Berühmte Homosexuelle, Wiesbaden, 1910, Page 36

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GLGermann (talk • contribs) 15:01, 8 April 2008‎ (UTC)[reply]

Western methods[edit]

I don't understand this sentence: "Although the Ottomans lacked western organisation and training...". During the time in question western methods were in their infancy, while the Janissaries at least were some of the best trained troops in the world.Cavort (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"By the early 17th century, the Janissary corps had ceased to function as an elite military unit. Many Janissaries were not soldiers and simply extorted money from the Turkish state and dictated its government, adding to the steady decline of the Ottoman Empire. Any sultan who attempted to modernize the Ottoman military structure and replace the Janissaries was either immediately killed or deposed. By 1826, the Janissaries were almost universally hated throughout the Ottoman Empire. When they noticed that the Sultan Mahmud II was forming a new army and hiring European gunners, they mutinied, ..."

from The Auspicious Incident. --Zslevi (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

I see this is discussed in the archive, where it is claimed that the naming policy requires the "prince", but I don't see why that should be...I think everyone knows he is a general, and not the ruler of Savoy, since he is well-known simply as "Eugene of Savoy". The naming conventions don't have to overrule the most common way of referring to someone. Is there any evidence that he is referred to as "Prince Eugene of Savoy"? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current title seems clunkier than the alternative, which is more commonly used. Whatever the conventions dictate, the current title implies nothing whatsoever about whether he ruled or did not rule Savoy. Srnec (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lernet-Holenia on Eugene[edit]

The Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Prince Eugene of Savoy contains the following:

Even as he faced a world of foes before him, he had a world of enemies at his back, nourished by the "hereditary curse" of Austria: slothful souls and thoughtless minds, low intrigue, envy, jealousy, foolishness, and dishonesty. He served three emperors: Leopold I, Joseph I, and Charles VI. Toward the end of his life, Eugene observed that, whereas the first had been a father to him and the second a brother, the third (who was perhaps least worthy of so great a servant) had been a master.

The end of the article contains the initials A.L.-Ho. In the index of contributors, these initials correspond to Alexander Marie Norbert Lernet-Holenia (1897-1976), a famous Austrian writer, dramatist and poet.

For reasons that are unclear to me, the above has been removed from the article several times. Italus (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Italus. let's see. First it's repetitive. How many times do we need to state in one article that Eugene served those three emperors. Secondly, his relationship with Joseph is already mentioned, but in a more unambigious manner - 'Joseph was a 'brother'? What does that mean? (BTW the Encyclopaedia Britannica conatins errors about Eugene, so let's not use that as a definitive account. If you've read Arneth and Braubach I would be more receptive). Thirdly, Alexander Marie Norbert Lernet-Holenia. To which my response would be - Who? A dramatist and poet? Not good enough. Plus we can do without the flowery language. Thanks Rebel Redcoat (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers song removed[edit]

This unreferenced material has been removed because it is irrelevant to the article. This song does not concern Prince Eugene but: “The great Condé being caught in a storm as he sailed down the Rhine with his friend the Marquis de la Moussaye”.^[1] The story came from an exchange of letters between the Prince of Condé and the Marquis de La Moussaye, in which La Moussaye writes Condé that they would end up being burnt as a punishment for their homosexual relationship.”^[2] That story is even related by Proust in In Search Of Lost Time.^[3]

References

^ Bannister, M. (2017). Conde in Context: Ideological Change in Seventeeth-century France. Taylor & Francis. p. 90. ISBN 978-1-351-19833-2.
^ Descharmes, B.; Heuser, E.A.; Krüger, C.; Loy, T.; Asch, R.G.; Dabringhaus, S.; Gander, H.H. (2011). Varieties of friendship: Interdisciplinary perspectives on social relationships. Freunde – Gönner – Getreue. V&R Unipress. p. 69. ISBN 978-3-86234-108-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
^ Proust, M. (2010). In Search of Lost Time, Volume 5: The Captive, The Fugitive. Modern Library Classics. Random House Publishing Group. p. 406. ISBN 978-0-307-75537-7.

[Bannister_2017_p._90-1] Bannister, M. (2017). Conde in Context: Ideological Change in Seventeeth-century France. Taylor & Francis. p. 90. ISBN 978-1-351-19833-2.

[Descharmes_Heuser_Krüger_Loy_2011_p._69-2] Descharmes, B.; Heuser, E.A.; Krüger, C.; Loy, T.; Asch, R.G.; Dabringhaus, S.; Gander, H.H. (2011). Varieties of friendship: Interdisciplinary perspectives on social relationships. Freunde – Gönner – Getreue. V&R Unipress. p. 69. ISBN 978-3-86234-108-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[Proust_2010_p._406-3] Proust, M. (2010). In Search of Lost Time, Volume 5: The Captive, The Fugitive. Modern Library Classics. Random House Publishing Group. p. 406. ISBN 978-0-307-75537-7.

[1]

[2]

[3]