Podcasts about malplaquet

Send us a textThe Battle of Nagashino is one of the most famous battles in Japanese history. It was the climax of the Sengoku Jidai, the Age of Warring States, a century-long period of civil wars and social upheaval. It represented the culmination of a revolution that had transformed Japanese warfare. And it punctures many myths of the samurai, the warrior-heroes of Japan.This episode also ends a long hiatus for Great Battles in History. For the past couple of years, I've been working on a book. Researching and writing it took up all the time I would have devoted to this podcast. With the book now done, I'm planning to return to a more regular release schedule.If you enjoy this podcast and would like to support it, please consider buying my book. It's called 1709: The Twilight of the Sun King. In 1709, France faced the coldest winter of the past five centuries, famine, financial collapse, and foreign invasion. The Twilight of the Sun King is an expertly researched, engagingly written narrative history of how France survived one of its greatest crises. It explains how Louis XIV, the aging Sun King, and his state passed their greatest test. It presents a total history of an early modern campaign, one that integrates finances, logistics, and diplomacy with military operations. It culminates with an account of Malplaquet, the largest and bloodiest battle of the eighteenth century in Europe. 1709 offers new insights on the development of the French absolute monarchy and the nature of early modern European warfare.Here's a link to my publisher, Rowman and Littlefield and a link to everyone's favourite online bookseller.You can also order it from your local bookstore. 

Année sombre du règne de Louis XIV, 1709 a été marquée, le 11 septembre, par la bataille sanguinaire et paradoxale de Malplaquet. Mention légales : Vos données de connexion, dont votre adresse IP, sont traités par Radio Classique, responsable de traitement, sur la base de son intérêt légitime, par l'intermédiaire de son sous-traitant Ausha, à des fins de réalisation de statistiques agréées et de lutte contre la fraude. Ces données sont supprimées en temps réel pour la finalité statistique et sous cinq mois à compter de la collecte à des fins de lutte contre la fraude. Pour plus d'informations sur les traitements réalisés par Radio Classique et exercer vos droits, consultez notre Politique de confidentialité.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Das Söldnerheer war in der Schweiz über die Jahrhunderte hinweg ein wichtiger Wirtschaftszweig. Bis zu der schicksalshaften Schlacht von Malplaquet, als sich 1709 zwei Söldnerheere gegenüberstanden und 8000 Eidgenossen bei dem Bruderkampf ihr Leben verloren. Wir sprechen mit dem Schweizer Autor und Kunsthistoriker Dr. Michael Tomaschett über das Ende des Schweizer Söldnerwesens und seine Arbeit als Inventarisator von Kunstdenkmälern - von der Orgel bis zum Winterthurer Ofen. Michael Tomaschett studierte Kirchengeschichte und klassische Archäologie und arbeitet seit 2009 für das Kultur-Amt des Kantons Schwyz. Ein Chronist der Schweizer Kulturgeschichte im KAP Podcast. Website: www.irh.ch Instagram: kanton_schwyz KAP Podcast website: www.kapture.ch @kap_kapture Unterstützen und Patreon werden: Hier ist der link zu unserer Patreon-Seite patreon.com/kap_podcast Patreon ist eine Crowdfunding Plattform auf der ihr unsere Arbeit oder die Produktion unserer Podcast Folgen unterstützen könnt. Wenn euch also unsere Beiträge gefallen und ihr Patreon werden wollt, ist es ganz einfach. Ihr könnt einen Betrag eurer Wahl anklicken, mit dem ihr uns einmalig oder monatlich unterstützt. Foto Ⓒ KAP

Though common and self-limiting in older children and adults, herpes simplex viral infection can cause a spectrum of neonatal disease from simple lesion to devastating encephalitis. How can we identify babies at risk and provide appropriate treatment? In this episode, Sarah discusses her devastating story of losing a child to neonatal HSV and her work in raising awareness of neonatal HSV. Featuring Emma Lim and Christo Tsilifis with Sarah de Malplaquet, parent of Kit, and founder of the Kit Tarka Foundation.  See transcript at https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-10/The-paeds-round-HSV-infection-transcript.pdf This podcast is a collaboration between the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (https://www.rcpch.ac.uk) and Medisense (https://www.medisense.org.uk). Subscribe to The paeds round for more educational episodes! And, you can find more RCPCH educational resources on RCPCH Learning (https://learning.rcpch.ac.uk).  Want to hear more from RCPCH? Search for and subscribe to RCPCH Podcasts, our main channel.

Prince Andrei and his pregnant wife (Lise) arrive Andrei's father's Smolensk estate known as “Bald Hills.” Andrei only plans to spend the night, as he is rushing toward the career path of his father, Nikolai, who performed a lifetime of (fictional) military service. Nikolai Bolkonsky (nicknamed “The King of Prussia”) is symbolic of the era of expansion and colonization under Catherine the Great.West of Moscow, this involved partitions of Poland, which was split between Russia, Prussia and Habsburg-Austria. A good portion of the territory of modern Ukraine was moved from Polish to Russian influence. These partitions motivated many Poles to join Napoleon's army. This period also involved Russians battling the Ottoman Empire, where Russia gained control of territory north of the Black Sea. The elder Bolkonsky would have internalized all this “glory.” With this epic age passing, Andrei is experiencing a new world ushered in by Napoleon, where Russia is on the precipice of major change. Tolstoy questions whether it is the man himself (Bonaparte) or the vast movement of men that created an inevitable new age. As Andrei arrived to the estate by horse-drawn-carriage, he could hear his sister practicing her clavichord. They are greeted by Mademoiselle Amelie Bourienne, who takes them to Marya, as her father is taking his afternoon nap. It is a warm meeting between sisters-in-law. They discuss the latest gossip and news in the big cities (like who is marrying who). Andrei stood by, the subject of his sister's warm gaze.  Lise feels abandoned with her husband leaving for war, as she is progressing in her pregnancy. The house servant, old Tikhon, takes Andrei to his father, who is getting dressed for a formal meal. The old man sarcastically notes how his son is off to “conquer” Napoleon. Andrei then greets his father with a respectful kiss. They talk about the upcoming conflict with the General revealing what he has learned about the military Coalition against Napoleon. He speaks about who is leading the efforts and name drops a "General Tolstoy," who was likely an ancestor of the author. He asks his son to give his understanding of the overarching plan against Napoleon. Andrei notes that the strategy is that Russia intends to invade Prussia, to “convince” them to align -- a forced treaty. Some units will also unite with Sweden (already an ally). it is expected that 220,000 Austrians and 100,000 Russians will operate in Italy and the Rhine. Other forces, including the English, will land in Naples. In total, the Coalition will be 500,000 strong in a simultaneous attack. The Old General astutely responds that Napoleon surely has a plan of his owe -- and his demeanor implies that it is likely better. He then sings himself a nursery song about a men who go off to war, while family awaits news of their fate. He sings: “Malbrough s'en va-t-en guerre" written after the battle of Malplaquet in France in 1709, during the war of Spanish Succession. It is about the supposed death of the Duke of Marlborough – John Churchill. It has a similar structure as “For He's a Jolly Good Fellow.” Napoleon is rumored to have sung the song to himself on occasion.

L'expression "victoire à la Pyrrhus" signifie qu'une telle victoire s'assimile plutôt à une défaite ou à un échec. Mais quelle est son origine ?Des batailles peu décisivesPour comprendre l'expression "victoire à la Pyrrhus", il faut remonter au IIIe siècle avant notre ère. Pyrrhus Ier, souverain d'Épire, royaume de la Grèce continentale, doit alors affronter les Romains, lancés à la conquête de la région.Il parvient à les battre à deux reprises, à Héraclée d'abord, en 280 avant J.-C., puis, un an plus tard, à Ausculum. Mais, à ses généraux, qui le félicitent de l'issue de ces deux batailles, Pyrrhus aurait répondu, d'après Plutarque : "Encore une victoire comme celle-là, et il serait complètement défait".En effet, les deux batailles avaient fait beaucoup de victimes. Ce n'était pas un problème pour les Romains, qui n'avaient aucune peine à combler les vides en recrutant de nouveaux soldats.En revanche, les ressources humaines du petit royaume d'Épire étaient presque épuisées. D'où la remarque désabusée de son souverain, pour lequel une telle victoire équivalait à une défaite.D'autres victoires à la PyrrhusAu cours de l'Histoire, les généraux eurent à déplorer bien d'autres "victoires à la Pyrrhus". Parmi de nombreux exemples, on peut citer la bataille de Malplaquet, en 1709. Cet affrontement oppose, pendant la guerre de Succession d'Espagne, les Français aux troupes anglaises, autrichiennes et hollandaises.Ces dernières finissent par l'emporter, mais au prix de pertes beaucoup plus importantes que celles de l'armée française. Par ailleurs, le territoire français est sauvé de l'invasion.Le maréchal de Villars, qui commandait l'armée française, aurait dit à Louis XIV que ses ennemis seraient défaits si "Dieu nous fait la grâce de perdre encore une pareille bataille".Autre "victoire à la Pyrrhus", la bataille d'Eylau, qui, en 1807, oppose les Français aux Russes. Napoléon en est bien le vainqueur, mais au prix de telles pertes qu'il n'en retire aucun véritable bénéfice.Le lendemain, le maréchal Ney, parcourant le champ de bataille, où gisent tant de morts et de blessés, s'exclamera d'ailleurs : "Quel massacre ! Et tout cela pour rien !". Voir Acast.com/privacy pour les informations sur la vie privée et l'opt-out.

The war continues with continued victories for Marlborough, but coalition politics and politics in London spell bad news for John Churchill.    A discussion of the strategic realities of seapower leads us to cover Rooke's first expedition in 1702 that ends with the utter destruction of French and Spanish fleets in Vigo Bay.With Camie we discuss the puzzle of the Dutch trading with the enemy, which is some presentism on our part and what I prefer to call a mindset problem for us.  Also of course she is curious about Sara Churchill and her relationship with Anne Stuart and Anne's unhappy efforts to create a family.

The French army of Louis XIV was on the ropes, but fought hard against the British, Dutch, Austrians and Prussians at the Battle of Malplaquet 1709. Peace was finally agreed in with the Treaties of Utrecht 1713 and Rastadt 1714, establishing a new balance of power on the continent.Composer - George Friedrich Handel, Water Musicwww.historyeurope.net See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Daniel Penant, membre des sociétés archéologiques et historiques de Mons et d’Avesnes.

Bankruptcy, famine in the countryside, and a starving army were just some of the crises facing Louis XIV in 1709. Eight years into the War of the Spanish Succession, the allied armies led by the Duke of Marlborough, had also managed to breach the French defences on the Flanders frontier. Threatened with the prospect of invasion, Marshal Villars and his French forces met Marlborough in the field resulting in the climactic Battle of Malplaquet, halting the allied advance and changing the course of the war. Or so this is how the battle if often remembered. Darryl Dee is not so sure. His research questions the idea that the Battle of Malplaquet, and battles in general, can ever be so decisive. In this episode of On War & Society, Darryl Dee and Kyle Falcon discuss researching and teaching the great battles in history.

9 de Septiembre de 1654. Muere San Pedro Claver. 10 de Septiembre de 1487. Nace Julio III. 11 de Septiembre de 1709. Se libra la batalla de Malplaquet. 12 de Septiembre de 1818. Nace Richard Gatling. 13 de Septiembre del año 81. Muere Tito Flavio. 14 de Septiembre del 891. Muere Esteban V. 15 de Septiembre de 1762. Ocurre la Batalla de Signal Hill.

James Whitman wants to revise our understanding of warfare during the eighteenth century, the period described by my late colleague and friend Russell Weigley as the “Age of Battles.” We commonly view warfare during this period as a remarkably restrained affair, dominated by aristocratic values, and while we recognize their horrors for the participants, we often compare battles to the duels those aristocrats fought over private matters of honor. Not true, claims Whitman, who argues instead that battles during the period 1709 (Battle of Malplaquet) and 1863/1870 (Gettysburg/Sedan) were understood by contemporaries not to be royal duels but “legal procedure[s], a lawful means of deciding international disputes through consensual collective violence.” [3] Understanding war as a form of trial is what gave warfare of the era its decisiveness (sorry Russ) and forces us, according to Whitman, to change the way we interpret, for example, Frederick the Great’s invasion of Silesia. Whitman, who is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and an academically trained historian (PhD Chicago 1987), brings the perspective of both lawyer and historian to his work ways that teach us much about both the military history and the law of the period he considers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Whitman wants to revise our understanding of warfare during the eighteenth century, the period described by my late colleague and friend Russell Weigley as the “Age of Battles.” We commonly view warfare during this period as a remarkably restrained affair, dominated by aristocratic values, and while we recognize their horrors for the participants, we often compare battles to the duels those aristocrats fought over private matters of honor. Not true, claims Whitman, who argues instead that battles during the period 1709 (Battle of Malplaquet) and 1863/1870 (Gettysburg/Sedan) were understood by contemporaries not to be royal duels but “legal procedure[s], a lawful means of deciding international disputes through consensual collective violence.” [3] Understanding war as a form of trial is what gave warfare of the era its decisiveness (sorry Russ) and forces us, according to Whitman, to change the way we interpret, for example, Frederick the Great’s invasion of Silesia. Whitman, who is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and an academically trained historian (PhD Chicago 1987), brings the perspective of both lawyer and historian to his work ways that teach us much about both the military history and the law of the period he considers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Whitman wants to revise our understanding of warfare during the eighteenth century, the period described by my late colleague and friend Russell Weigley as the “Age of Battles.” We commonly view warfare during this period as a remarkably restrained affair, dominated by aristocratic values, and while we recognize their horrors for the participants, we often compare battles to the duels those aristocrats fought over private matters of honor. Not true, claims Whitman, who argues instead that battles during the period 1709 (Battle of Malplaquet) and 1863/1870 (Gettysburg/Sedan) were understood by contemporaries not to be royal duels but “legal procedure[s], a lawful means of deciding international disputes through consensual collective violence.” [3] Understanding war as a form of trial is what gave warfare of the era its decisiveness (sorry Russ) and forces us, according to Whitman, to change the way we interpret, for example, Frederick the Great’s invasion of Silesia. Whitman, who is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and an academically trained historian (PhD Chicago 1987), brings the perspective of both lawyer and historian to his work ways that teach us much about both the military history and the law of the period he considers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Whitman wants to revise our understanding of warfare during the eighteenth century, the period described by my late colleague and friend Russell Weigley as the “Age of Battles.” We commonly view warfare during this period as a remarkably restrained affair, dominated by aristocratic values, and while we recognize their horrors for the participants, we often compare battles to the duels those aristocrats fought over private matters of honor. Not true, claims Whitman, who argues instead that battles during the period 1709 (Battle of Malplaquet) and 1863/1870 (Gettysburg/Sedan) were understood by contemporaries not to be royal duels but “legal procedure[s], a lawful means of deciding international disputes through consensual collective violence.” [3] Understanding war as a form of trial is what gave warfare of the era its decisiveness (sorry Russ) and forces us, according to Whitman, to change the way we interpret, for example, Frederick the Great’s invasion of Silesia. Whitman, who is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and an academically trained historian (PhD Chicago 1987), brings the perspective of both lawyer and historian to his work ways that teach us much about both the military history and the law of the period he considers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Whitman wants to revise our understanding of warfare during the eighteenth century, the period described by my late colleague and friend Russell Weigley as the “Age of Battles.” We commonly view warfare during this period as a remarkably restrained affair, dominated by aristocratic values, and while we recognize their horrors for the participants, we often compare battles to the duels those aristocrats fought over private matters of honor. Not true, claims Whitman, who argues instead that battles during the period 1709 (Battle of Malplaquet) and 1863/1870 (Gettysburg/Sedan) were understood by contemporaries not to be royal duels but “legal procedure[s], a lawful means of deciding international disputes through consensual collective violence.” [3] Understanding war as a form of trial is what gave warfare of the era its decisiveness (sorry Russ) and forces us, according to Whitman, to change the way we interpret, for example, Frederick the Great’s invasion of Silesia. Whitman, who is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and an academically trained historian (PhD Chicago 1987), brings the perspective of both lawyer and historian to his work ways that teach us much about both the military history and the law of the period he considers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices