I try really hard not to use this term. Why? Well don't get me started as to why I don't like John Churchill but mainly I think it's outdated and unhelpful. For a start it needlessly divides a period that doesn't need dividing. We don't refer to the Wellingtonic era for 1812-15 and so I feel the Anglocentric creation of an 'age of Marlborough' to be confusing - it's not so different to the War of the Grand Alliance to make a differentiation necessary. Most of the images we associate with this concept 'Marlburian' are generally from the decades after - tapestries, commemorative art and so on also create an anachronistic vision of an era that never existed. The images we associate with the term 'Marlburian' are for the most part wrong. There are literally only 2 images of redcoats of the early 18th century from the actual time. Wargames figure designers haven't helped - they seem to think there was a directive passed round on 1 January 1700 that the informal hat is henceforth replaced by a tricorn. Plug bayonets and matchlocks were still in use by large numbers at Blenheim in 1704. Certainly there are differences between say 1709 and 1685 but by and large these changes were organic and the individuals involved were of the same generation. I'm not saying that a British regiment of 1708 isn't Marlburian but there isn't a Marlburian period - that implies Britain to have been a more dominant cultural force than it was.
Pic is a detail from the Execution of deserters at Meldert Camp 1707 Marcellus Laroon.