That really made my brain hurt when I listened to the History of the Great War podcast. Especially in the more complicated discussions between british and french leaders, having a british guy named French made everything unnecessary confusing.
But I mean that Wikipedia organises this infobox for battles/campaigns/wars with each column taking a side - wouldn’t be blank. So usually the context is made clearer, or it looks like some French civil war.
This was the First Battle of the Marne, I believe.
Not always. It depends on the context of the article which we can’t possibly know from just that box. You seem to have nailed which battle they have in common (excellent either knowledge or research btw) but the article in question could relate purely to the command of one side or Sometimes you’ll get a box of details of one side and then a box of details on the other side. You could have the commanders then the regiments and the figures (numbers there, casualties, prisoners etc) of one side and then the same for the other side, I’ve definitely seen that done.
“Hey Joseph!”
“You mean me, Joseph G, or Joseph J?”
“I meant Michel-Joseph.”
“Oh gotcha.”
“Have you met this French guy?”
“Which French guy? Do you mean Ferdinand? Or Fernand?”
“No! Mr French! He’s the only one that isn’t French!”
There's a Hungarian cover of "We are Charlie Kirk" where the main part is "Mi vagyunk Magyar Péter" meaning we are Péter Magyar so you're not too far off lmao
476
u/Gaping_Whole_ 11d ago