1704 Battle of Blenheim

“It had been largely accepted that “Charles the Sufferer”, the feeble and sickly King of Spain, would die without an heir. The nearest claimants to the Spanish Crown were the kings cousins; the Bourbon King of France, Louis XIV, and the Austrian Habsburg Leopold I, the Holy Roman Emperor. Married Charles’s Sisters, both had a strong claim.

With the succession storm brewing Europe’s monarchs entered into agreements in order to place themselves in favorable positions at the moment of Charles’ death. Some aligning themselves with the house of Bourbon, others with that of Habsburg.”

This episode was written by Matthew Gawelczyk.

Matthew holds a collaborative Bachelor of Arts in History from Mount Royal University and Athabasca University in Alberta Canada. History have been his passion since the earliest days. Born in Danzig Poland, Matthew moved with his family to the Mazurian Lakes of North Eastern Poland where his passion for History grew among tales and ruins of former East Prussia. Currently Matthew resides in Calgary where he continues to pursue his passion.

 >>Download<<

 

There are 2 comments

  1. Ralf Arnemann

    Dear Sirs,

    as usual this was an excellent podcast giving an accurate depiction of the battle and its background.
    I had the chance to visit a conference on “300 years battle of Blenheim” on the spot itself, and the development on the battlefield was very well described in the podcast.

    There was only one little, but disturbing error: Nearly every time the franco-bavarian forces were mentioned, they were called “franco-prussian”. And there were enough mentions of this kind to really confuse the listeners. Perhaps a short correction notice could be appended to the podcast file?

    Many thanks for your great work and kindest regards

    Ralf

  2. admin

    I’m glad you enjoy the podcast.

    You are absolutely right half way through the podcast we seem to have slipped from talking about Franco-Baverian to Franco-Prussian forces. I cant explain why I think its an error once made was easy to remake. Certainly when I edited it for Matthew I was concentrating on actually trying to explain the action (so it made sense without visual references) that I overlooked the mistake and only perpetuated it.

    Thank you for pointing it out, we’ve issued a correction.

    I hope that doesn’t diminish your enjoyment, any other errors please point them out as we are far from infallible.

    All the best,
    Angus

Comments are closed.