Talk:Battle of Königgrätz

Untitled

I'd like to mention that an enlarged, detailed map (or two) would probably be most helpful to make sense of what I've just written. Brutannica 05:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many people really care about this, but you never know. I don't know the Czech names of the red-linked place-names. If anyone knows, please provide them and fix the links. Brutannica 05:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The article states that "the battle, already involving the largest number of combatants in Europe until that time." I may be mistaken, but didn't the battle of Leipzig in 1813 have more combattants? [[User:Andrew Wright] 01:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.206.247 (talk)

It depends - it seems that at Königgrätz actually more men actually took part in the battle, while Leipzig combatants number is greater only when the total effectives of Allied units (some of which actually came too late to the battlefield to take part in the action) are taken into the account. -78.128.178.105 (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Austrian Commander

I posted this in a reply on my talk page, but it's worth including here too:

This was thoroughly discussed on the talk page Battle of Waterloo when one editor (and I'm going to guess it was you) decided to change what had been previous consensus about who should be mentioned in the infobox. It is not for leaders of individual detachments, it is for the person or people who can take command decisions during the battle. A corps commander is not such a person. On the Prussian side for Sadowa, William and Moltke both get mentions because they were both commanding separate forces. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you quote where the template documentation states so and what exactly? Otherwise I'd have to ask you to not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. BTW - the term "Austrian commander" is not entirely correct, as the allied forces of the German Confederation employed both Austrian and Saxon forces at Könnigrätz. (Not to mention your apparent mistake with Prussian side commanders - Wilhelm I was the head of state and C-i-C of the Prussian Army, while Moltke was the Prussian Army Chief of Staff. The Prussian field armies (the First, Second and the Elbe-Armee) were commanded by Princes Frederick Charles and Frederick William and by General Herwarth von Bittenfeld, respectively. Thank you. -Tom soldier (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't understand why the Battle of Waterloo discussion seems to be relevant for the infobox in general, but I can give many examples of articles where other commanders than Commanders-in-Chief, simply because they're significant for the battle - battle of Lützen (1632) (look also at the template documentation - commanders other than commanders-in-chief are included too; Spanish Armada; battle of Trafalgar; Battle of Dürenstein; battle of Jutland, Siege of Toulon (1793); battle of Okinawa. I couldn't count on a "discussion" on the battle of Waterloo talk page - either you'd explain me where in the template documentation your stated limit on "Commanders-in-Chief only" is given, or I'd revert your edit, supported by nothing other but your claims, which I'd have to count as a disruptive one.)-Tom soldier (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

p.s.:On the page you directed me to - there's lot talking about notoriously known facts who was Commander-in-Chief of the Anglo-Allied Army; which part of the army the Prince of Oranje commanded etc. - could you perhaps be more specific and point me to the part you believe proves your belief on the Template:Infobox military conflict being restricted for the Commanders-in-Chief only? Thank you again.Tom soldier (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The template documentation states it is for "the commanders of the military forces involved". The Austrians had one army involved, and its commander was von Benedek. If you have edited other articles to add incorrect data to the infobox, I will fix those in due course. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The talk page for that template has more detail. The discussion by the template authors makes it clear that the Commanders field is for those who had active strategic / operational command. This does not include corps commanders. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

a) It does not limit the "forces involved" to "forces of the army level" only, neither says that only "the Commanders-in-Chief of the forces involved" are to be included, neither forbids inclusion of important subordinate commanders: "[....]the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary)." See also the example of the template which clearly includes commanders other than Commanders-in-Chief. Quite clear any such purported limit on the Commanders-in-Chief only is your personal idiosyncracy, not any official limitation. (As for your factual mistake - these were armed forces of the German Confederation, and while Benedek was both the Austrian and Allied commander-in-chief, Prince Albert commanded the Saxon Army Corps.)

b) No it does not. It had been proposed in the discussion, but the result was "Commanders should be restricted to the most prominent or influential in the conflict. An upper limit of about seven per belligerent(s) column is recommended." - which is perhaps guideline useful when the infobox is used for the entire conflict, not a single battle, but certainly Prince Albert is relevant as the commander of the Saxon army corps present in the battle.

c) Please restrain yourself from using untruthful arguments, as you've already done with claiming that Wilhelm and Moltke on the Prussian side each held an independent command. Thank you.Tom soldier (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling it my own personal idiosyncrasy (note the correct spelling) is blatantly incorrect. I've already directed you to the argument you previously lost (Talk:Battle of Waterloo#Commander in Chief) where several editors told you that you were wrong to include the Prince of Orange in the infobox. Exactly the same arguments apply here. As you were advised then: Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Man can hardly lose an argument he was not involved in. Nevertheless I don't believe that personal opinions regarding the Battle of Waterloo infobox should apply here (I check the discussion you're pointing to, and the dearth of rational arguments for not to including other commanders was remarkable there, and in fact, the only which made some sense was the supposed peril of "overcrowding" of infobox if every corps commander was included), as the situation is a different one. If you had any problem with the Battle of Waterloo article, it hardly justifies your disruptive editing here to make your point. Re: Spelling - I noted. As for the dropping of stick - I'm not proposing including of Albert of Saxony, you are keeping him removed - you should find some argument for his removal, other than your profound personal belief that only Commanders-in-Chief should be included in the infobox (not to mention your bunch of untruths, such as false quotations of the infobox guidelines; nonsense regarding the Prussian side commanders, etc.). Thank you Tom soldier (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet again you quote a totally irrelevant policy to support your non-existent point. WP:POINT has nothing to do with my edit and could, again, be seen as violating WP:AGF.

My argument against including Albert is that he was not in charge of any army during the battle. He was entirely subordinate to Benedek - a point you have never refuted. For some reason you seek to include one Austrian corps commander but not any of the other seven (or the commanders of the four cavalry divisions). There's an argument for adding Prince Friedrich Karl, Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm and General Herwarth von Bittenfeld to the Prussian side because they commanded actual armies (1st, 2nd and Elbe respectively) but that's a different matter.

You have supplied NO worthwhile argument for including a corps commander, and since the null state is to NOT include him, the burden lies with YOU to provide a reason for his inclusion. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes - no one ever disputed that Albert was not in charge of army. The point you failed in was to prove is why he shouldn't be included in the infobox. (And I do repeat again - Albert of Saxony was commander of the Saxon Army Corps, not of an Austrian corps.)

You have supplied NO argument for not including an important Allied corps commander (with the exception of the single guideline proposal which you incorrectly presented as the guideline), and since he was already included, I'd expect that you'd produce some quite good argument for his removal, not resorting to notoriously known fact that he was a Corps commander, which per se bears no relation to his inclusion in the infobox. I gave you (above) many examples, which you chose to ignore completely, when an important subordinate commander and/or commander of allied contingent is included in the infobox, contrary to your personal taste (because in your "arguments" you never ventured behind your personal beliefs, arguing that only army commanders should be included, without slightest backing in the Wikipedia guidelines - with the exception of the made up one).

The null state? That's the problem - you've failed to support any proof for your belief what the null state is/should be.

The point is completely relevant here, as I can't see no other reason for editing the battle of Königgrätz article by someone who expressed his interesting opinion that "Wilhelm and Moltke both commanded separate forces".Tom soldier (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I'll give you a reference then.

"Opposing sides: (a) Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke co-ordinating the advance of the Prussian armies - the First (Prince Friedrich Karl), the Second (Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm) and the Army of the Elbe (General Herwarth von Bittenfeld); (b) Field Marshal Ludwig von Benedek commanding the Austrian army in Bohemia"

- The Battle Book, Bryan Perrett, ISBM 1-85409-328-2, Arms and Armour Press, 1992.

Nowhere does Albert get a mention - because he commanded an army corps, entirely subordinate to Benedek. You keep saying you understand that but you evidently don't.

Either provide a reference indicating that Albert had any kind of independence in his command or remove him from the infobox. Since I have supplied a reference to the contrary, the weight of evidence is on my side and so I will be justified removing it if you don't. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You've provided evidence that Albert was not the commander of Benedek's army, which we already know, from the very beginning. He was the commander of Saxon Army Corps. Any suggestion on your part why he shouldn't be included in the infobox? Any rationale for including only Commander-in-Chief/having independence in his command, other than the guideline proposal you tried to present here for the guideline?Tom soldier (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've provided a citation that doesn't include Albert (or any other corps commander) in the list of principal commanders. In other words, unless you can provide a source that does, what you are doing constitutes Original Research and is not allowed. I'll remove Albert and replace the Prussian commanders per the source tomorrow to give you time to find a competing source. And remember to make it Reliable.

Don't bother replying unless you have a source to supply, because you're simply repeating yourself. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Your faith in your "Commanders-in-Chief only" dogma is certainly very impressive, but you still fail to find any argument, guideline or rule of Wikipedia in support of it (with the exception of the one you made up from a guideline proposal). Therefore be careful if you are planning to follow such (non-existent) guideline, because Wikipedia does not follows your personal idiosyncracies. I proposed keeping Albert of Saxony because he was an important subordinate commander/commander of an Allied contingent in the Benedek's Army of Bohemia (to which effect I submitted above examples of articles where important subordinate commanders/commanders of allied contingents are included in the infobox), to which you do not respond at all, sticking with your personal opinions on Commanders-in-Chief/independent commanders only you expressed above but utterly failed to back with a Wikipedia policy/guideline. Tom soldier (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Still no competing reference I see. You keep adding unverified material, while I'm proposing a source to back my version. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Let me point out some salient points to you. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." - ie, you need to provide a source that justifies including Albert. "This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material" - again, since I'm challenging the inclusion of Albert, you need to provide a source. "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed" - that's what I've been doing but you have been violating policy. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." - you have never shown that Albert operated any kind of independent command. Instead you keep adding him while not adding anybody else at the same level of command. You have never provided any kind of explanation for this.

Let me be very clear here: I'm going to add accurate, cited content. If you remove it, you will be violating a core policy and I'll take you straight to DR. I've tolerated as much as I'm going to from you, and it stops now. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no such limitation you believe in the Template:Infobox military conflict. I haven't been violating any policy. Thank you for improving the Prussian side, though. Tom soldier (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

p.s.:Regardless of the personal attack involved I'd like to clarify that I appreciated improving the Prussian side (for which I'm so immodest to claim a share of credit for giving you the information), while reported the continuing removal of Prince Albert from the Austrian side, which is backed nor by any Wikipedia policy neither by consensus of parties involved.Tom soldier (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I'd propose, when the Prince Albert is returned to the infobox, to add a footnote, explaining that he commanded the Saxon Army Corps, so as to prevent any possible confusion.Tom soldier (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No. I have provided a cite in which he is not mentioned. Unless you provide one where he is, drop this matter. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Your cite is obviously rather irrelevant here. Anyway, I proposed it the "when he is returned", not as a condition for his return now-.Thank you Tom soldier (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My cite gives a full list of the commanders. Albert is not on it. Stop being disruptive. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, do read the discussion above. Thank you.Tom soldier (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

p.s.:Be careful with your wording - your cite gives a full list of the army commanders.Tom soldier (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

Does anybody have a source for the current casualty figures? The Battle Book gives very different figures:

• Prussia: 1,935 killed and 7,237 wounded
• Austria: 13,000 killed, 18,393 wounded, 13,000 prisoners and 174 guns captured.

These are so different from the current values I didn't want to change them without asking first. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey Wawro lists Benedek’s losses in his book at 20000 killed and wounded and 24000 captured. Significantly less in killed and wounded than those figures but far more POW's. – fdewaele, 5 July 2011, 18:52 CET

The Prussian Official history supports the Prussian casualties of 1,935 killed and 7,237 wounded. What the official history leaves out are the numbers of missing. THe Prussian Official History is: Prussian General Staff, Department of Military History, The Campaign of 1866 in Germany, Translated by Colonel von Wright and Captain Henry M. Hozier, (Uckfield, East Sussex: Naval & Military Press, 2005)

The Austrian after action report claims 5,793 dead, 7,836 missing and presumed dead, 8,514 wounded, 9,291 missing and presumed captured. Those are the official numbers provided by the Austrian General Staff in support of the Austrian official history. They are to be found in Vienna at the Kriegsarchiv with the following reference Austrian General Staff. "Verluste der Kiegsfuhrenden im Feldzuge 1866." KA, AFA. Kt. 2274, 1866-13-69. Vienna, June 10, 1871. - Scout1067 (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wawro

Shouldn't the book by Geoffrey Wawro (The Austro-Prussian War: Austria's War with Prussia and Italy in 1866, Cambridge University Press, 1997, ISBN 978-0521629515) be included in the article? It's one of the more recent books about the topic.

In the book Wawro contents that although the Austrians had a truly incompetent commander in Benedek (plus an incompetent staff), who placed the army at Königgratz in a terrible position (backs to the Elbe), the Austrians did have the posibility to win the battle by envelopping the Prussian left (Fransecky) with superior numbers (3 Corps and various cavalry divisions) before the Prussian crown prince's army arrived at the battlefield. And that in effect his only option to escape the trap was in attacking, which he neglected to do. In effect, between 11:00 and 13:00 - when the Prussian left and center was on the verge of breaking and Moltke feared such a move - various Austrian corps commanders pleaded with Benedek (Mollinary, Ramming, Thun, Ernst,...) to do just that, but were rebuffed or ignored by the vacillitating commander, until it was too late and the Crown Prince arrived. -- fdewaele, 5 July 2011, 18:42 CET.

I agree. Seems almost incomprehensible that an article on the Austro-Prussian war could be written without any reference to Wawro. Extraordinary. 2A00:23C4:49B:F100:10DC:1EE0:BAAE:1708 (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Kannoneer Jabůrek

Should we be including mention of fictional figures without specifically stating that they are fictional? Would it not make more sense to have a section about figures and the battle mentioned in fictional works?Scout1067 (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

it was my joke. I just wanted to wikilink the page so that someone sees it and expands. Jabůrek is an almost foregotten precursor of Švejk. - Altenmann >t 06:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Königgrätz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725191101/http://www.concharto.org/search/eventsearch.htm?_tag=Battle%20of%20Sadov%C3%A1&_maptype=0 to http://www.concharto.org/search/eventsearch.htm?_tag=Battle%20of%20Sadov%C3%A1&_maptype=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)