Talk:Napoleonic Wars/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The First World War?

Anyone agree?

-G

Ehh well you'll need to go against every other Historian in the world. There are plenty of "World Wars" before this one. You could look at the Fall of Rome as a world war since so many different Germanic tribes and Persians and Steppe horsemen were fighting each other and the Romans for the scraps. This was very much a European war except if you include Napoleans Egyptian expedition or the War of 1812. WW1 had America actively participating and Japan fighting the Germans in China whilst there was also a Middle Eastern Front too.Tourskin 22:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost, but i agree. The Fall of Rome may have counted many tribes but the Napoleonic wars was the biggest one in history up to that point. Its repercussions had much the same impact as those after the two world wars and it ushered in a new age. It caused devestation in many parts of the world and served as a springboard for the new British Empire. In the First World War America only declared War in 1917 whereas the American invasion of British Canada in 1812 was 3 years before the end of the war. The British also fought the French in the Carribean, India and the Mauritius.--[User:Willski72]] 20:55 25 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If we were to start counting them like this, then the American revolution would count too. the were battles from Europe to the Americas and India. Joesolo13 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

what about the mongol conquests the battles in that covered a continent and a half — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.167.43 (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I added an infobox at the bottom of the page (Template). It's not finished by all means, I haven't added any of the major battle from the Peninsular War for one, anyone else is welcome to do that if they wish. I've only added the infobox to this page for now but will put in on all the major pages when I time, unless someone else wants to do that too? I might do one for the Revolutionary Wars and even combine them unless there are objections. Experiment 47 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add United States to Side 2.

I believe that because the United States indirectly helped Napoleon by forcing England to send troops to British North America, that it makes America a de facto belligerent on the French side. However, I also propose that a note be added as well explaining their role as a line to divide the United States from the actual French allies just as we have for the Invasion Of Poland, in which Nazi Germany teamed up with the Soviet Union to invade Poland. Rainbow Dash 12:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems with that is that I do not believe that either the British nor America considered the United States a French ally, and though American privateers would use French ports this happend for the most part under the Bourbon Restoration. This subject was discussed at some great time and the conclusion if I remember was to leave the US out of the article.Tirronan (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree Tirronan. I think there are two issues here. I think this is sort of an American Perspective. From the British perspective, the British tended to see the two conflicts as connected. However, from the US perspective they were not. So to say they are not, probably leans to a US viewpoint. Secondly, the French did provide ports for US privateers, and actually fought with US in one battle. If the US and the British are fighting together in a battle, it does tend to combine the two. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If the United States are considered as allies of the French in the Napoleonic Wars, then the French must be added into the infobox of the War of 1812 as a US ally... That would be strange, as neither France nor the United States considered themselves as an ally of the other side. I must also point out that most of the so-called War of 1812 occured during the Bourbon Restauration (1814/1815-1830).DITWIN GRIM (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There was no noted alliance between the two nations. As far as the US was concerned the agreement with France following the American revolution was nul and void. As far as Napoleon was concerned an enemy of my enemy is my friend but not "lover." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.235.1.4 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Treaty of Amiens: Exactly which parts did Napoleon "violate"?

The article states that "both sides dishonored the treaty". Nothing in the Treaty of Amiens states for it being illegal for the French to intervene in the Swiss civil war, a conflict the British had supported. On top of that, which "Italian coastal cities" did the French occupy, and why are they in violation of the Treaty when the only major articles pertaining to Italy was the French evacuation of Naples and the Roman States, of which the French had fulfilled?

Britain was the one who violated the treaty, but in the name of neutrality it can be said that they did so because of the moves Napoleon did to extend French influence in Europe. That, coupled with the expedition to Haiti probably made the British think Napoleon had an insatiable aggression, but ultimately, the French did not dishonor any part of the Treaty.

I think either the article needs to specify which parts of the Treaty of Amiens France violated instead of giving out vague reasons, or say that while Britain was the one who ultimately refused to evacuate from Malta, they did so on what they saw as justifiable grounds to preserve article neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.161.120 (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the complete text of the treaty, in English.

Frankly, France didn't violate the Treaty of Amiens. Napoleon did, however, break part part of the Treaty of Luneville, specifically Article XI, which guaranteed the sovereignty of the Helvetic Republic; Napoleon's intervention in the Civil War there shortly after his troops withdrew, although it saved the country from anarchy, technically did violate Article XI of Luneville. I suppose someone could argue that Luneville was a foundation for Amiens, but that's a stretch. To be honest, the only reason why the statement that the French violated the treaty remains is because that myth is so widespread that removing it will contradict many reputable secondary sources. Marechal Ney (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Persia?

Why is Persia listed as a combatant? Not mentioned at all in the article text. best, 188.221.129.72 (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Persia was allied with Napoleon against Russia and Britain from 1806-1813. Although Persia only fought battles against Russia and they closed the embassy to the British. The Persians and Turks cooperated against the Russians. Napoleon also gave them a new model army which is almost like the Turkish Nizam Cedid.

Why is Persia also listed against Napoleon? They made peace with Britain and got back the British diplomats and officers in 1811 but they were still at war with Russia. They got rid of the French diplomats but some officers stayed and they never actually declared war on France, in fact the French officers came back when the Persians decided to make another offensive into the caucasus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems silly.

Propaganda

The text states that N was sorry not to have achieved his dream of a 'free and peaceful' Europe, then states that this was achieved in the last century by the EU. This is unsourced.

I have repeatedly attempted to edit stating that N's idea of a single Europe was achieved twice last century by Hitler and the EU. This has been censored by the thought police, stating that the comparison with Hitler is 'ludicrous' and that I havent stated sources.

The comparison: N united Europe by massive wars of conquest of almost every European state and by imposing puppet pro French regimes. Hitler united Europe in exactly the same way. The EU was created by entirely peaceful negotiation between countries. Isnt it obvious - to the unbiased person - which comaprison is more exact? Note that I do not try to delete the EU comparison, it is not me who insists on a single POV!

Ludicrous? Geyl was a serious historian who took the same view as I do, who are you to say its ludicrous? I see others on the discussion page on N himself take the same view. You are imposing a single editorial point of view that is not justfied by the objective facts

N's idea was a 'peaceful and free' Europe? The man who invented mass warfare, invaded and occupied almost every major european state and inserted puppet regiems and secret police wherever he went, was really a champion of 'free and peaceful' union? This is pure fantasy!

Sources: I am seriously supposed to source the fact that Hitler invaded and occupied most European coutnries and imposed puppet regimes? But at the same time, our good friend the EU propogandist is allowed to have unsourced remarks attributed to N without challenge?

I sont mind being challenged but in the circs, the censorship imposed on me looks like an attempt to sustain a particular POV about N that isnt justifed by the facts and isnt objective - propoganda, in short — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unraed (talk • contribs) 12:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon never declared a single war, his conquests are the direct result of the defeats of the European monarchies which had attacked France in the first place. This is sufficient to contradict your main (unsourced) point of view ("Napoleon's wars of conquest"). Read this for further information. I strongly suggest that you avoid terms such as "thought police", "censorship", "propaganda" ...DITWIN GRIM (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Even as badly cited as this article is, it should hold to the mainstream views of major historians. That said significant minority views would have to be represented. Meaning that more than a few historians held another view. Also Napoleon invaded Russian outright the Russian's didn't advance across the border declaring war. He instigated quite a few conflicts so I would disagree with your evaluation. There are a lot of interpretations of Napoleon and his goals. Comparison's between Napoleon and Hitler probably don't need to be in the article. Too much space, time, and differences in political views to be terribly useful. I would agree that terms like thought police, propaganda, and so forth are not helpful. As for a lot of time spent on Nappy's views and goals. Really to accomplish much you are going to have to have an entire article on that. It probably already exists. Oh yes the EU comment should be cited and everything else too.Tirronan (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

War with Russia was the last thing Napoleon wanted. Russia triggered the hostilities by violating the treaty of Tilsit and by gathering troops near the Polish border. Poles requested help from France, which sent the Grande Armée in Poland. Alexander responded by an ultimatum ordering Napoleon to withdraw from Poland. At each stage of his advance into Russia, Napoleon proposed peace to Alexander, which he refused. It is obvious that Napoleon always sought peace, not only by sincere humanism (he was nourished by enlightment ideals), but it was also a mean to protect his own dynasty, I must admit... Nothing common with Hitler's Lebensraum and agressions. Not to mention their respective attitude towards Jews and Poles. The only common point I see between Hitler and Napoleon is that they were both diverted in their war against Great Britain by Russia and that's what lead them to their loss. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on, do you honestly think you are the only one that picks up a history book? I don't enjoy partisan flag waving no matter what side it comes on and that and other statements come across like an Napoleonic apologist. Napoleon's invasion was to enforce the European trade block he had on England and to settle rising tensions. I enjoy reading about Napoleon but he was far more complex than you are allowing. I am an American so I really don't have much of a dog in this fight. I do however enjoy the period and its turns. We are not about glorifying Napoleon here, and frankly he was also raising another nobility while casting down one at the same time. Remember also he had his own propaganda machine in place. There was a reason why the statement "to lie like a bulletin" was common in France. There were a wealth of interesting human beings in place at the time. They were all very gifted and very complex and oh so human. I can't tell you what to do but I'd suggest you reread your histories with a more jaundiced eye. If you really want to come at the article with those views in place then honestly you need to consider finding another area to edit in, if you can't assume a neutral POV.Tirronan (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are being so agressive, I don't even understand what are the points you're contesting... Do you think that invading Russia was Napoleon's secret dream ? Do you really think Napoleon was a warmonger who whished to conquer the world ? I'd really like you to come with sources for such assertions. The truth is that Napoleon was appointed as Emperor "to protect the gains of the French Revolution at home and peace at the borders", not to make Russia a French province. Napoleon knew he had to fulfil both missions if he wanted to stay on his throne. Napoleon really had other business to do than starting the conquest of Russia... Until Russia violated the Treaty of Tilsit and threatened the Polish Border. I don't pretend Napoleon was a pacifist hippie, I'm just saying that maintaining peace was in his own interest, and the facts show that Napoleon always sought peace, even if it meant creating puppet states, overthrowing unfavorable monarchs or reorganising the map of Europe following defeats of France's ennemies. That's what distinguishes the Napoleonic military strategy (seaking favorable peace treaty through temporary occupation of land) from the clausewitzian strategy (annihilate the enemy and grab as much territory as you can). Now, keep your advice for yourself, if you can talk quietly on the subject, I suggest you to move to another article. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi to both. First, let's just tone down; we all know how these discussions in virtual space tend to easily get very heated indeed and the more heated they get, the less productive they are.

Here's my opinion on the issue. I have become interested and began studying Napoleonic history while I was a teenager. What caught my eye initially was the sheer magnitude of the character, his genius, his legacy. After a while, I became aware that he was far more complex than that. There was a darker side to his character: he was often overbearing, pushy, self-centered, uncompromising, arrogant, he couldn't bear to see a jugular without having a go at it. His personality greatly impacted his politics. However, Napoleon did not officially start any of the conflicts known as the Napoleonic Wars, although he led an aggressive foreign policy for much of his reign. Based on my studies and understanding of European politics at the time, he could be said to have been interested in going to war in 1805 against Russia and Austria, in 1806-1807 against Prussia. This was all part of France's century-old strategic interest of creating a system of alliances and a buffer zone in Germany and in Italy. The attempt at occupying the Peninsula in 1808 was somewhat different, as it was initially directed against Portugal, a country that refused to implement the Continental System. Napoleon probably occupied Spain because he rightfully saw the country as being a weak and unreliable ally. It goes back to his own personal pattern: he saw the jugular and went for it, although, to his defense, it has to be said that prominent political figures such as the highly-influential Talleyrand also advised for such a move. The ensuing war was more of a civil war and there was no formal declaration of war on any side. This war was not in Napoleon's interest at and one could argue that he could have struck a bargain at some point, but then again one has to remember that the man thought that anything else than complete victory would be a failure for him and his regime. It is true to some extent that, being the upstart that he was (himself and as the leader of a new regime), he thought he needed to look invulnerable in order to survive among the old dynasties of Europe. The 1809 war was entirely of Austria's doing, as this country was almost bankrupt and attempted to reclaim its status as a great power. The war started after Austria invaded Bavaria, a French ally, while launching an ultimatum to French forces present to stand down and withdraw or risk being treated as hostile. Napoleon had no interest in this war, as he had almost nothing to gain from it. He had already secured the territories that were vital for France following the wars in 1805 and 1806. Napoleon fought the 1812 war to force Russia to honour its commitment to enforce the Continental System, but Napoleon was actually desperate for peace long before the war ended. I guess that we could spend weeks discussing the various aspects and complexities of the Napoleonic Wars. I for one believe that Napoleon was just one of the main characters in a Greek-style human tragedy called the Napoleonic Wars. Would the wars have taken place anyway had Napoleon died at the siege of Acre (for example) in 1799? Given that the Napoleonic Wars were a natural continuation of the Revolutionary Wars, with the outbreak of which Napoleon had nothing to do, I would tend to say yes. Would these wars have been so bloody without him? Probably not. Would they have lasted so long? Would they have turned out differently? Would they have had different consequences? I don't know. What I do know and this is (unfortunately) undeniable is that war has consistently shaped human history, from the age of the protohumans and to this date. What I hold to be true is that Napoleon was "a warrior" as a popular English song went at the time, but he was not a warmonger. He was not a pacifist either. People who want simple, straightforward truths about human history would better go look elsewhere, because Napoleon and the Napoleonic Wars are just about as complicated and complex as it's gonna get. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Folks, sorry I was not trying to be aggressive. Just realize that there are many takes on Napoleon from God provided Savior to blood thirsty tyrant. This all depended on where you were visa via France's ambitions. Lets take another example out of history, Rome declared very few wars yet managed to be in one war of expansion after another. Given as a whole I would still have to say they were and expansive and aggressive Empire. Regardless of the reasons given there was many wars some provoked some not. My point being to make sure we are always center lined on the main stream historiography. As Alex said I don't personally see Napoleon so much as a blood thirsty conqueror at least no more so that an acquisitive Russia or Prussia or Austria for that matter. But he was far better at it. Claiming that the massive expansion of France was anything other than a expansion for expansion's sake is probably stretching it a bit. Napoleon was quick to take up a cause when it suited his needs, and equally quick to drop it when it didn't. Poland comes quickly to mind for one. Now that was all I was trying to say, simply keep and eye on a balanced view.Tirronan (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the above discussion (and particularly the moralizing criticism of Napoleon's foreign policy) is that it altogether minimizes the decisive role of British diplomacy, gold, and propaganda in forming and sustaining perennial anti-French coalitions with the goal of reducing France to the pre-Revolutionary anciennes limites (and in particular ejecting the French from Antwerp). Albert Sorel wrote somewhere unless Britain could be brought to accept the "natural frontiers," Napoleon would essentially have to win a Battle of Austerlitz every year for the next hundred years to survive as a ruler; this is the background "truth" or reality against which all of Napoleon's actions must be judged (if, indeed, we feel entitled to judge) or at least understood. In other words Napoleon, the supposed "megalomaniac" "corrupted by power" or "losing touch with reality," was in fact the supreme realist: accepting that his military genius would not suffice to fend off France's enemies indefinitely, he embarked on a series of desperate manoeuvres in a search for solutions against a much more powerful and aggressive geopolitical rival. In hindsight, and contrary to the Anglo-Saxon caricature of a ruthless "Ogre" and "disturber," it's clear that Napoleon showed the treacherous ancien regimes of Europe altogether too much respect (being lenient to the point of folly with the defeated House of Habsburg) and genuinely sought to win their trust through countless conciliatory measures. I think we can say with confidence that Napoleon was not interested in wars of conquest for their own sake; the Iberian intrigues of 1808, the annexation of the north-German departements; the Russian expedition; all were measures forced on him by the implacable war which Britain had been waging against France since 1792 and which would continue until France were once again reduced to a vassal-state to the emerging thessalocratic superpower. There are indeed tyrants in this "Greek-style human tragedy," but they're not always the ones you think. Albrecht (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hungary : independent belligerent ?

Hello,

I’m engaged into an edit war [1] with user:Doncsecz (talk) on the Battle of Raab article. Doncsecz wants to list Hungary as an independent belligerent. I reverted his edit as Hungary was part of the Austrian Empire and as his contribution was unsourced. After many reverts, he accused me of “falsification of history”, stating that Hungary should be listed as independent has it had an independent Diet, some commanders were ethnic Hungarians or because Hungarian troops had different uniforms… Finally, Doncsecz conveniently brought Hungarian language sources to confirm his point, but refused to follow Wikipedia guidelines WP:NOENG. I really need help from the community with this rude editor... DITWIN GRIM (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The army of Hungary (the Hungarian insurrection) in the Napoleonic wars fought only in the Battle of Raab. For this reason, Hungary is a beligerent in the Battle of Raab. But DITWIN's work is incredible. The Battle of Raab was the insignificant episode of the Napoleonic wars, the sources in English language not deal with the substance of the battle, only the Hungarian and German sources. Although in the Habsburg army fought 150-200,000 Hungarians in the Napoleonic wars, but in Austrian uniforms. But near Győr the Hungarian soldiers used hungarian uniforms and the insurrection was separate corp under Hungarian commanders. Doncsecz^talk 11:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a new source in english language, which proves the presence of the separate Hungarian forces in the battle of Raab: 1 Napoleon pushed toward Vienna, his mind made up to prevent at any cost the union of Archduke Johann's forces withdrawing through Graz with the army of Archduke Karl stationed in Austria. The battle of Györ began on 11th June 1809, lasted for several days and ended , for all practical purposes, in a draw. The better equipped, better trained, seasoned and probably better led French forces faced the more spirited and resolute Austro-Hungarian units. Archduke Johann lost 6200 men; the Hungarian insurgents fighting under the leadership of General Andrássy lost 180 dead and 580 seriously wounded. Doncsecz^talk 11:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hungary was a part of the Austrian Empire in 1809. It cannot be listed as a separate belligerent, because Hungary did not exist as a state at that time. Mainstream historians specialised in the War of the Fifth Coalition (eg. Rothenberg, Lorraine Petre, Castle, Naulet...) all speak about the Austrian army. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not true. Hungary is was the autonomous kingdom of the Habsburg Empire. The Hungarian diet was independent and sovereign. This historians is foreign historians and do not know the circumstances of the battle. 81.183.47.44 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You can say that this isn`t true and just go with it. Wikipedia is about what can be verified and as for now, Hungary did not existed at the time as a independent state with separate army and etc.. Also I have noticed that you contacted some editors1 - translated and that`s fine, but in the future please use English language. Per WP:SPEAKENGLISH. Adrian (talk)

You must be joking when you say that these historians did not know the circumstances of the battle. They are, alongside Chandler (who btw also speaks of the Austrian army), some of the best historians when it comes to the Napoleonic Wars.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, this sources is discredited: also in the article the corps are listed. You do not know the history of Hungary. The Hungarian and Austrian sources say otherwise. 145.236.101.149 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We have to distinguish between regular forces of the Empire and the Hungarian insurrection forces ( as Hungarian cavalry and infantry) [2] pp. 109-112. Moreover Hungary was a constituent part of the Austrian Empire with its own diet where the Habsburgs were the crowned Hungarian kings. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This source looks fine but I don`t think this changes anything at all. Hungarians fought as a part of the Austrian Empire, not as a separate entity. Ex: In the Kingdom of Hungary there Slovakians, Serbians, Romanians fought in the army of Hungary, but they did not fight as Slovakia, Serbia or Romania but for the Kingdom of Hungary. We can`t add some political entity as a separate participant (especially if it did`t existed at the time) just because(in this case) ethnic Hungarians fought under Hungarian management, but still for the Austrian Empire.Adrian (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It did exist as a constituent part of the Austrian Empire. Do you remember when Maria Theresa asked the Hungarian diet for help at the War of the Austrian Succession? This kingdom had its own rules own laws. There were regular imperial forces, and special Hungarian forces. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You have some valid points. I don`t know, personally, I am undecided what to do at this point. Maybe we could reach a viable solution for everybody to add some kind of note at the Austrian Empire, to show that the Hungarian forces participated as some sort of independent force ? Add Hungarian army under the Austrian Empire as a Belligerent but still as a part of the Austrian Empire? Adrian (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The listed sources confirme the presence of the Hungarian forces. The Austrian Empire authorized the Hungarian inssurection, as an independent Hungarian army, since the inssurection is worthless, poor army. 145.236.101.149 (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Iadrian, the Romanian, Slovakian soldiers fought as soldiers of Hungary, not soldiers of Slovakia, did not exist in 1809. I'am Hungarian Slovene and the Slovenes supported the Hungarians in the revolutionary war o 1848. But were not separate Slovene troops. 145.236.101.149 (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am confused with your comment. That is the exactly what I am saying too. Adrian (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not credible the Hungarian sources? Maybe the Hungarians know better, that in the battle fought Hungarian troops. 145.236.101.149 (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I know this is not relative to the discussion but as it can be more clear it would be nice if you could reconsider registering, because like this we have the impression that there are 2 different persons.

As for the Hungarian sources there is nothing wrong with them but they need to be reliable and properly translated if requested. Adrian (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Currently i not login. 145.236.101.149 (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So, the quotations will be translated from the sources? Can be solved. 145.236.101.149 (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not the only problem from my POV. Please chenk my previous comment. Also I suggest to slow down just a little bit this discussion, maybe more users would like to participate and contribute to solving this problem. Adrian (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Iadrian, I am looking for a: remain in the status quo in the article. 145.236.101.149 (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The authors above are mainstream. They quote Austrian, French, Hungarian, Italian, British etc memorialists and historians. Their work is both universal and extremely accurate. They hold PhDs and teach or taugh Napoleonic history at some of the world's top universities. FYI, Gunther Rothenberg was actually Austrian. I recommend that you read a few of them, in order to avoid in the future making such outlandish statements (that they are 'compromised'). They all explain the structure of the Austrian army: the regular troops, the Landwehr, the Grenz regiments and the Hungarian insurrectio. They speak extensively about the insurrectio, about the role of Archduke Palatine Joseph etc. They do mention that Hungary was highly autonomous. None of this is the issue. The issue is that they do not mention that Hungary was a separate combatant.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hungary is separate combatant, if the Hungarian troops (the insurrection) fought in this battle. As in other battles not fought the insurrection in the Napoleonic wars, only few thousand Hungarian soldiers between the Austrian troops in Austrian uniforms, under Austrian commanders. This troops is not separate corps. 145.236.101.149 (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a Austrian book about the Battle of Raab: 1809 The Battle of Raab 2001. ISBN 3-9501080-3-3 in the page 93.-100. separate chapter about the Hungarian forces: József Zachar Die Insurrektion des Königreichs Ungarn (Ein historischer Überblick) 145.236.101.149 (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hungary was not part of the crown lands of the Austrian Empire, unlike Bohemia since the Battle of White Mountain (1620). De jure Hungary in personal union with Austria from 1526, like Croatia with Hungary since 1102. Hungary had a sovereign parliament, Palatine, the governmental bodies operated in the capital, Pressburg. The last noble insurrection, which guaranteed the tax exemption of nobles, took place in Győr (Raab), 1809. So, Hungary appeared as a separate belligerent in this battle. Later, Austria blamed the Hungarian troops for the loss. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

„John's Army of Inner Austria looked impressive on paper, numbering almost 100,000 troops. Unfortunately for its green commander-in-chief, only about half of this number were regular German and Hungarian regiments. The other 45,000-50,000 included recently raised conscript landwehr battalions, Hungarian Insurrection militia and assorted reserve formations, all of dubious quality.” Source: 1 and 2 145.236.101.149 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is all accurate. The Hungarian insurrectio was a part of the Austrian army. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Only now in the Battle under the common commander the Archduke. But in the privileges of the Hungarian noblemen the insurrection is the separate army of Hungary. In this case the presence of the Italian Kingdom (which is a puppet of Napoleon) ist unreal in the template. Explain why the Kingdom of Italy is here? 19:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.236.101.149 (talk)

We can list Kingdom of Hungary as a separate belligerent at page of Battle of Raab in this special case because of the insurrection forces in my opinion. There are hundreds of other pages where Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary is featured as a separate belligerent. See: Siege of Szigetvár, Little War in Hungary, Battle_of_Zenta etc.... Fakirbakir (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Francis Loraine Petre and David G. Chandler are of a different opinion.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you give some quotations/sources which deomonstrate that these scholars have a different opinion? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Great! This historians are of different opinion! If this is the different opinion, this is very-very wrong, namely the other sources from Hungary and Austria have very different opinion about the history of Hungary. Petre and Chandler is unreliable! In the 19th century was this misconception about Hungary, that was the outlaw province of Austria, like Bohemia. Chandler use the sources from the 19th century and ignore the historical research of concerned states. 145.236.101.149 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So, some of the most celebrated Napoleonic scholars, including an Austrian historian, are unreliable and don't know their history, while the historians you quote are right? And no one has realised this until you happened to pop up on wikipedia one sweet September day? It is indeed a world upside down.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• • As far as I understand, the above debate has originated from a statement that the Kingdom of Hungary was part of the Austrian Empire (the latter being established in 1804). Is there any reliable source stating this? Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

See the Pragmatic sanction: "The Pragmatic Sanction voted by the Hungarian Parliament in 1723 in which the Kingdom of Hungary accepted female inheritance, allowing Austrian empress Maria Theresa to become queen of Hungary". Not Austrian Empire, but Kingdom of Hungary. Francis II it was not to Pragmatica sanctio, now simply become emperor of Austrian Empire, the Kingdom of Hungary remains the same. The emperor's absolutism matter of Hungarian Revolution of 1848. The austrian emperor simply king of Hungary. Laszlovszky András (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, just one remark. Maria Theresa never was an "empress of Austria" (the title "emperor of Austria" would be adopted by her grandson, Francis II or I in 1804). Moreover, she was not "empress" until 1745 when her husband was crowned emperor Francis I of the Holy Roman Empire. Furthermore, Maria Theresa was a monarch (queen regnant) of Hungary, but her husband (who was an emperor) was never elected or crowned king of Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that Norden1990 is right, the Kingdom of Hungary was a separate (but surely not independent) country (with well-defined borders). It was in personal union with Austria, since the Austrian Emperor was the same as the Hungarian King. Also, as Fakirbakir has pointed out, even the armies were different, e.g., in that time Hungary had a traditional noble army (insurrectio) that participated in the Battle of Raab [3][4]. Therefore, it makes a lot of sense to list the Kingdom of Hungary as one of the belligerent, potentially in a sub-point as, for for example, in the "Siege of Szigetvár" article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

KœrteFa I agree with your idea to add in a sub-point Hungarian army (something like in the Siege of Szigetvár example), as I suggested to Fakirbakir in my previous comment. I think this would be a viable compromise for everybody? I know wikipedia isn`t a democracy and things can`t be decided by vote, but if we agree to make a list who agrees with this proposal and use the result as a rule for all similar examples. Adrian (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Adrian, I must have missed your comment. Then we agree, I also think that it would be a viable compromise. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hungary should not be listed separately. Hungary was, like every other Habsburg territory its own distinct territory with its own laws, diet, etc. But in this, again, it was no different from every other Habsburg territory. It's true that the Emperor had more control over, say, Styria and Lower Austria than he did over Hungary. But Styria and Lower Austria were no more closely affiliated with one another than either was to Hungary. All that "the Austrian Empire" meant was "the lands ruled over by the House of Austria," and that distinctly included Hungary. The whole pointing of speaking of "Austria" as a belligerent is so as to avoid having to deal with the various Habsburg lands separately. Talking about Hungary separately vitiates that, and should not be done. john k (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you, please, refer to the (reliable) source stating that the Kingdom of Hungary was part of the Austrian Empire? The Austrian Empire was set up in 1804 with the purpose to unite a series of Habsburg lands. However, the kingdom of Hungary was not included into it. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Borsoka, please see below.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not see your point. If I followed your reasoning we could not demonstrate Brunswick as a separate belligerent (see this article about list of belligerents) because after 1806 it belonged to Kingdom of Westphalia and before that the country was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Hungary was not even a part of the Holy Roman Empire and we can not demonstrate it as a separate belligerent? French Royalists did not even possess a country in that period between 1803 and 1815 so they are also dubious case. Nassau is also "interesting" because it was part of the French controlled Confederation of the Rhine after 1806 and prior to that it was also part of the Holy Roman Empire. So why we can not show Kingdom of Hungary as a separate belligerent after these examples? Fakirbakir (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Could anybody tell me why we list Brunswick, French Royalists or Nassau as separate belligerents on this page? Compared them to Kingdom of Hungary it looks like "double standard".....Fakirbakir (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, there is no point in listing Hungary separately. Mainstream authors always speak of the Austrian army, within which there were Hungarian regular or insurrectio troops. I have actually searched the electronic versions of Chandler's "The Campaigns of Napoleon" and Loraine Petre's "Napoleon and the Archduke Charles" and the words Austro-Hungarian, Austrian-Hungarian etc. never appear. As for the personal union theory above, it is simply not true. Hungary was a country within the Austrian Empire. Jean Tulard in his "Dictionnaire Napoléon", p. 146 explains that (tr. from French): "On 11 August 1804, a proclamation (fr. Patente) announced that Francis II and his legitimate descendants were entitled to the title and dignity of Emperor of Austria, thus accomplishing for the first time an unitary, homogenous State. It is provided that the various countries and kingdoms, especially Hungary, would preserve their constitutional privileges." --Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit more complicated. " The empire was not a unified state but a monarchic union of Lands in which the ország ("country" in Hungarian) was part of the empire but also separate from it: ország and empire moved on different planes. From the perspective of the Court, since 1723 regnum Hungariae had been a hereditary province of the dynasty's three main branches on both lines. From the perspective of the ország, Hungary was regnum independens, a separate Land as Article X of 1790 stipulated. Hungary was connected to the other Lands of the empire largely through the monarch. The imperial matters -foreign policy, defence, and state finance - were handled by the monarch as reservata exercised by him as king of Hungary. In 1804 Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all of the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary became formally part of the Empire of Austria. The Court reassured the diet, however, that the assumption of the monarch's new title did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary. After discussion, the diet concluded that, the title change was not something that affected them. " ([5] by László Péter, p. 6) The lands were 'constitutionally united' only in 1867 by Franz Joseph (Austro-Hungarian Empire). Fakirbakir (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well it confirms what I was saying above. A country with its own internal laws within an Empire.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please share your thoughts about my question of "double standard" (see above)? Fakirbakir (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably to do with the dozens of 14-20 year old computer game junkies, for whom a Black Brunswicker = 300 hit points (vs. 50 for a French voltigeur) and the French royalist party is a faction led by the Comte d'Artois, a level 27 Paladin who leads the "Armée des Princes" to ultimate victory in episode 66... Or something like that. Seriously, it's perhaps because of low vigilence. I guess they make a good case for deletion, as they are at best political parties or minor factions with little contribution.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Alexandru Demian, you wrote earlier that "As for the personal union theory above, it is simply not true.". Take a look at this quotation: "The emperor of Austria was also, in personal union, king of Hungary. Napoleon forced Emperor Francis Joseph II to resign the crown of the Holy Roman Empire, which was dissolved; henceforth the Habsburgs were reduced to being emperors of Austria and kings of Hungary." (note taken from the book: Carl von Clausewitz: On War, Oxford University Press, 2007, page 271 [6]). Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was that there was no personal union after the proclamation of the Austrian Empire (August 1804). Before that, Francis I of Austria (Francis II of the Holy Roman Empire) was Holy Roman Emperor, King of Hungary, of Bohemia etc. Once the Austrian Empire came into existence, Hungary became a part of the Empire, as per the quote above. Sorry for not logging in.. Cheers, Alexandru Demian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.39.80 (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Alexandru: the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire (1806) was *after* the proclamation of the Austrian Empire (1804), thus the quotation above clearly states that even during the Austrian Empire there was a *personal union*, and the Habsburgs were emperors of Austria and kings of Hungary. If the former (Emperor of Austria) would simply imply the latter one (King of Hungary), then why were both titles provided? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• But "formally part of the Empire of Austria" means the Habsburgs remained kings of Hungary and they controlled the country as Hungarian kings not as "emperors" after the title change in 1804. The Hungarian diet concluded that the "title change was not something that affected them". Koertefa is right "the Habsburgs were reduced to being emperors of Austria and kings of Hungary" (because they lost most of the territories of Holy Roman Empire). The article of Napoleonic Wars lists the lands of the Holy Roman Empire as separate belligerents..... Why we can not list Kingdom of Hungary (it was not even a part of the Holy Roman Empire)? Fakirbakir (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that the Holy Roman Empire was a political entity similar to a confederation, where the various states managed their own foreign policy, their own alliances and were even at times at war with each other. The Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire had little or no control over most of them. This is sharp contrast with the Austrian Empire (again NB proclaimed in 1804), which was a unitary state. Within this Austrian Empire, there were various Kingdoms or territories which enjoyed considerable internal autonomy - the foremost of these was Hungary. Hungary was thus no more and no less than the most autonomous political entity within the unitary state called the Austrian Empire. Again, sorry for not logging in. Alexandru Demian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.39.80 (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hungary was certainly a part of the Austrian Empire until 1867. The Austrian Empire, however, was simply a formal name for the pre-existing personal union of the various Habsburg lands. Hungary's status before 1867 was, at its root, no different from the status of Carniola or Styria or Moravia. I certainly would not, as Alexandru does, call the Austrian Empire a unitary state - it was not that. There was a reason it was a Kaisertum (which literally translates more as something like "Emperorship" than "Empire") rather than Reich or Kaiserreich. The comparison to Brunswick does not seem at all a propos. The Holy Roman Empire was not in any sense a state, and we always list individual states of the old Reich in infoboxes and the like. That's not the same as Hungary's role within Austria, which is a personal union. For a comparison, note that we list "Spain" as a belligerent in the Nine Years War, even though "Spain," like "Austria," was simply a term of convenience used to refer to the whole of a personal union. john k (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I am glad, John, that we agree with respect to the *personal union*. I also agree with you that the Austrian Empire was not a unitary state. However, I do not understand why you say that the status of the Kingdom of Hungary (KoH) was not different than the status of Carniola or Styria or Moravia. Your examples were just *hereditary provinces*, while KoH was a separate *kingdom*. For example, Francis II was properly crowned as King of Hungary (6 June 1792, Buda), but can you say something similar with respect to Carniola or Styria or Moravia? Did they have their constitutions and diets? As the quotation provided by Fakirbakir demonstrates, the title change of Emperor Francis/Franz was just *formal*, it did not change anything with respect the relation of KoH and the other Habsburg lands. There are many sources which talk about the Austrian and Hungarian army during the period of Napoleonic Wars [7][8][9]. If KoH was just a similar part of the empire as Styria, then why do you think that the army was called Imperial and Royal Army (Kaiserlich-königliche Armee) [10]? In your opinion, what does "'königliche'" refer to?

The current infobox is surely misleading and must be changed as stating only *Austria* as a belligerent is very sloppy and misleading. We should give the *Austrian Empire* as a belligerent and KoH should be a sub-list of that entity, similarly to the example of France which also has a lot of sub-points (showing that those entities were not really independent). By the way: providing *France* instead of, e.g., the *First French Empire* is also vague and misleading. Seeing the list of currently given belligerents, leaving out KoH really looks like "double standard" to me, too. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like Styria, then how about Galicia and Lodomeria and Bohemia? Being a kingdom is irrelevant - all the various territories of Austria had similar relations both to one another and to the crown (even membership in the Holy Roman Empire was basically irrelevant, because Reich institutions had basically no authority in the Habsburg lands). "Austria" was taken to include all Habsburg lands until 1867, both before and after 1804. That is, in fact, what "Austria" meant. Before 1867, Austria either meant "the provinces of Upper and Lower Austria" or else "all the lands of the House of Austria." To try to separate out Hungary is to bring the post-1867 situation a half century backwards. john k (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

John, you wrote that: "all the various territories of Austria had similar relations both to one another and to the crown". Did they have a separate army, as the Kingdom of Hungary (KoH) had (e.g., insurrectio)? And how do you explain the name "Imperial and Royal Army" ("Kaiserlich-königliche Armee")? [11][12]. Why did they use the term "royal" ("königlich"), as well? Note that even contemporary Austrian journals used this expression when they reported about the Battle of Wagram [13] (so its not my projection of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy to the period before 1867). Apparently, the army had a German and a Hungarian part. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hungary as part of the Austrian Empire

Sorry, I still would like to know what is the reliable source stating that Hungary was part of the Austrian Empire in 1809. Could we state that Scotland was part of England from 1603 to 1707, because all the kings of England were also kings of Scotland? Moreover, the kings of England were not separately crowned kings of Scotland, while all Habsburg rulers of the Austrian Empire were separately crowned with the Holy Crown of Hungary in the Kingdom of Hungary. Yes, Hungary was part of the Austrian Empire from 1849 to 1867, because the Hungarians were defeated after their revolution of 1848-49. Otherwise, Hungary was not part of the Austrian Empire which had come into being in 1804 by the coronation of Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor as Francis I, emperor of Austria. For instance, Evans states the contrary "..Hungary's reluctance to bear the full weight of the Monarchy's wars and its debt attracted censure in Austira. This was not mitigated - indeed it may have been exacerbated - by Francis II's assumption of the title "emperor of Austria" in 1804, since Hungary took no official cognizance of the decree, and the Habsburgs left it at that." (R. J. W. Evans: Austria, Hungary, and the Habsburgs: Central Europe c. 1683-1867. Oxford University Press. p. 248.). Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

you have a source above (Tulard). Add to that that historians speak of the 1809 Austrian army, not Austro-Hungarian army, although there is apparently a minority (fringe?) who do indeed speak about the Austro-Hungarian army. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

look, the main reason why I do not feel comfortable with listing Hungary a beligerent is that it was not an independent state and, although it enjoyed extensive autonomy was forced to fight Austria's wars for influence in southern Germany and northern Italy. Had it been a "real" belligerent, that's to say a reasonably independt political entity, with sufficient degree of autonomy (like say the autonomy the duchy of Warsaw had from the Kingdom of Saxony), then why in the world shed all that blood in defense of the interest of an imperialistic, completely alien and ailing neighbourimg country?--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right, Alexandru, that the Kingdom of Hungary was not completely independent; but it surely participated in the war, so what's the problem with providing it as a sub-point? For example, the Kingdom of Holland was surely not independent, either, still it is provided as a sub-point of France. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Tullard is not the best source. He may be an expert of Napolionic wars, but not of the public law of the countries under Habsburg rule. I do not understand your second example. So, if my understanding is correct, under Władysław Warneńczyk (1440-1444) Poland was part of Hungary, because Polish troops fought along with the Hungarian army in the Battle of Varna against the Ottomans with whom Poland did not have a common border? Absurd. Moreover, Hungary was not forced to fight against Napoleon: the Hungarian Diet voted for the war and authorized the crown to recruit soldiers in Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

An article on the Napoleonic Wars should follow the usage of sources on the Napoleonic Wars, not sources on the public law of countries under Habsburg rule. In part because sources on the latter do not actually say that Hungary should be considered a separate belligerent in the Napoleonic Wars, which makes extrapolation from what they do say (as you do with Evans above) into original synthesis. john k (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to repeat Borsoka's opinion. There would not have been special Hungarian contribution (insurrection forces) beside the regular imperial forces (the Kaiserlich -königliche Armee, where Hungarian soldiers were also enlisted) at the Battle of Raab if the Diet had not voted. This battle is a special case. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Moreover the !separated! Hungarian units (not the insurrection forces) in the Imperial and Royal Army were always recruited by the Hungarian Diet. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So, if my understanding correct, even if the Kingdom of Hungary was a state different from the Austrian Empire, it should not be considered a separate belligerent. Borsoka (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Borsoka, considerable evidence has been brought forth to show that the Austrian Empire included the Kingdom of Hungary.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there is no "considerable evidence" on the status of the Kingdom of Hungary as part of the Austrian Empire. See the references to Carl von Clausewitz and Evans, which contradict to this assumption. Hungary's position within the lands ruled by the Habsburgs was always peculiar, because the Hungarian nobility defended by force its privileges, therefore the dynasty was forced to accept the special status of the kingdom in the peace treaties of 1606, 1622, 1648 and 1711, and in specific laws like the pragmatica sanction and the laws of 1790. Borsoka (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The supposed quote from Clausewitz - which looks to me like a quote from a modern editor of Clausewitz - contains a major error of fact. And if modern military historians don't qualify as sources because they are not experts on Habsburg constitutional history, then why should Clausewitz (or his modern editor) so qualify? Because he's saying what you want him to say? The Evans quote provides no support whatever for your argument - it says that the Hungarian Diet refused to recognize the title of Emperor of Austria. That's neither here nor there. What you are doing here is clearly OR - adding up a bunch of sources to make a novel claim (that Hungary was a separate belligerent in the Napoleonic Wars). john k (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I again missed the point. OK, I understand that there is one TRUTH: Hungary was part of the Austrian Empire. Accordingly, everything that seems to contradict this TRUTH is suspicious and everybody who seems to deny this TRUTH is an original researcher. Do you suggest that this TRUTH is so TRUTH that there is no place to cite sources which seem to contradict to it? Therefore, as I understand, you suggest that even if there were several sources stating that the Kingdom of Hungary was not part of the Austrian Empire established in 1804, they should be ignored, because they obviously contradict the TRUTH.Borsoka (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not that. You use your own interpretation to have authors say that Hungary was not a part of the Austrian Empire. None of them say that, they just explain the complexity of its status within the Empire. In the meantime, other authors state in an unambiguous manner that Hungary was a province of the Empire. Moreover, most Napoleonic specialists speak of the Austrian army and never mention the formula Austro-Hungarian army. You are simply meeting opposition because speaking of Austria-Hungary in 1804 or 1809 is an anachronism.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• No, I have not mentioned Austria-Hungary in this context. Austria-Hungary is a dualist state formed in 1867, after the Kingdom of Hungary had been integrated into the Austrian Empire for some years between 1849 and 1867. Borsoka (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the usual terminology is to only talk about Austria-Hungary after the Compromise (1867), however, some authors use this name even for the period before 1849, even though Hungary was not equal to Austrian part before 1867, for example: [14]. Regarding KoH as part of the Austrian Empire, I think that Borsoka refer to The Austrian Constitution of March, 1849, "which now recognized only a State "one and indivisible," including the "Crown Land of Hungary,""[15]. So the situation is not that simple that in the time of the Napoleonic Wars Hungary was simply a province of the Austrian Empire... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Borsoka. So far John or Alexandru could not explain the fact that the army was called "Imperial and Royal Army" ("Kaiserlich-königliche Armee"). Moreover, we should not forget about Act X of 1790/91: "In 1791 the Diet passed Law X, which stressed Hungary's status as an independent kingdom ruled only by a king legally crowned according to Hungarian laws." [16] or what about "Act X, 1790, sanctioned upon oath by the king, that Hungary was a free and independent country with regard to its government, and not subordinate to any other state or people" [17] or "Article X of 1790 stipulated, Hungary was connected to the other Lands of the empire largely through the monarch" [18]. This law was valid in the time of the Napoleonic Wars, e.g., "Law X later became the basis for demands by Hungarian reformers for statehood in the period from 1825 to 1849." [19] Or even more explicitly: "Francis I [...] had still sufficient respect for his oath, publicly to avow that Hungary formed no portion of the Austrian empire". [20] Therefore, the status of the Kingdom of Hungary was *not the same* as the status of the other Habsburg territories. Cheers KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: And we have sources that talk about the Austrian and Hungarian army [http://www.amazon.com/Austro-Hungarian-Army-Napoleonic-Wars-Men-at-Arms/dp/0850451477][21][22][23][24], thus it is not OR. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that almost all this can be true and you can still be wrong. (The exception would be a statement in a British periodical from 1851, which I shouldn't have to say does not actually constitute a reliable source.) Kaisertum Österreich doesn't actually mean "Empire of Austria." It literally means "Emperorship of Austria," or something similar. Other actual empires are always referred to in German as a Reich, a term which was never used for Austria. All that the term means is "territories ruled by the Emperor of Austria." It doesn't matter what the internal constitutional organization of any of those territories was. And note that while Hungary certainly had the most independence of any of those territories, this was a difference of degree rather than of kind. Many of the other territories had various features that you ascribe to Hungary alone, although it's true that centralization had generally gone further in the non-Hungarian parts of the monarchy. They were all part of the Kaisertum. As for "Imperial and Royal (kaiserlich und königlich)," I'd be interested if you can provide any particular evidence that prior to 1867 "royal (königlich)" referred specifically to Hungary. The Emperors ruled over numerous Kingdoms besides Hungary - Bohemia, Galicia and Lodomeria, Illyria, Dalmatia, Lombardy-Venetia, plus Croatia-Slavonia, which was sort of part of Hungary, and sort of not. The point of kaiserlich-königlich was that they were both Emperors and Kings - but Hungary was only one of several kingdoms. And, again, what is OR here is that you are combining a bunch of sources and then using them to make novel inferences. john k (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You forget a very important thing. Actually the Austrian Emperors were always crowned as Hungarian Kings. The Kaiserlich Königliche Armee was born in 1745 when the title of King of Hungary had to be distinguished from the title of the Holy Roman Emperor (War of the Austrian Succession) (Zachar p. 104). The "Königliche" part meant the Apostolic Kingdom of Hungary. There is an excellent work about military history of this period from József Zachar [25] (unfortunately it is in Hungarian). Fakirbakir (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Remember the great French revolution. France declared war against Francis II as King of Hungary (instead of Austria) in 20 April 1792. Why? Because at the time Francis was King of Hungary only. He became Emperor after 5 July 1792. France did not declare war against Francis II the Emperor, because Francis II was not Emperor yet. Hungary had own separate customs borders, no other Habsburg-ruled countries had own economic system. Hungary had not only own parliament, but Hungary had also own government , which was called as "Helytartótanács". Of course its members were appointed by the monarch as King of Hungary, because that time democracy and elections didn't exist in most countries of the Continental Europe. I suggest to read the personal union article. In the history, personal unions had always common foreign policy and common diplomacy, but it didn't means that they became united countries, or one country became a part of an other country. De facto and de iure Austria and Kingdom of Hungary were a FORCED personal union (by the common army of the Monarch) Many historians write stupidities, because they are not specialist in law-history, because they hadn't qualification for that. It is taught at universities in FACULTY OF LAW. Law historians are the specialist on this sphere of History. Sorry guys, but most of your "famous" historians (which you cited here) are not really competent in law-history.

First, Revolutionary France declared war agains "the king of Bohemia and of Hungary". Second, the context changed in 1804, when Francis took on the dignity and title of Emperor of Austria. Third, I think there's no point in going back to the fallacy "reputed historians don't know their history"; had it been a single major author holding a fringe POV, we might have discussed it, but, as things stand, it is simply immaterial.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Though I also think that some of the "major" authors of the Napoleonic Wars didn't know that much about the legal situation of the Kingdom of Hungary (KoH) in that time (or simply did not care), but we should probably not decide this here. The facts are: (i) according to Act X of 1790/91, the Kingdom of Hungary was a "free and independent country"; and (ii) Francis I's army which participated in the war was called the "Imperial and Royal Army" and it had two main parts: it consisted of "German" units and "Hungarian" units (I used quotation marks, since both troops were multi-ethnic); furthermore, according to the book cited by Fakirbakir (iii) "Royal" referred to the armies of KoH; moreover (iv) KoH sent an additional traditional army (insurrection forces), as well. These cannot be said about other Habsburg territories. Therefore, what's the problem with providing KoH as a belligerent, stating it as a *sub-point* of the Austrian Empire. This would show that KoH participated in the war with armies as well as also indicate that it was not fully independent, since the Hungarian king was also Francis I. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You can say that some of them did not know the subtleties of Hungary's status, but at least some - including the Austrian Rothenberg, an absolute specialist in matters Imperial - would see the nuance. And in spite of this knowledge, Rothenberg states in his book - I am sure that you will find his book a brilliant read, if you haven't already read it - on the 1809 campaign that for all intents and purposes 1809 Hungarians were considered "Austrian" and always speaks of the Austrian army. Thus, adding Hungary as a belligerent would, IMHO, give the wrong impression and would constitute original research. Cheers, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, the Imperial and Royal Army was organised indeed - a fact linked by 1805 to tradition rather than factual reality - into "German" (a name derived from the fact that these units were recruited on Austrian-controlled lands of the defunct Holy Roman Empire) and "Hungarian" (Hungary had not been part of the HRE) regiments. The whole was called "Austrian". However, these were ethnically-homogenous regiments, ie Lower Austrians, Upper Austrians, Bohemians, Moravians, Silesians etc. Thoughout the Napoleonic Wars, the Austrian Empire had 64 line regiments, of which 15 were composed of Hungarian ethnics (of these, IR 31 and 51 were actually Transylvanian and IR 53 was Slavonian). The short-lived light regiments, 15 in all, were composed of 5 regiments of Hungarians. There were no regular cavalry regiments, neither light, nor line nor heavy composed of Hungarians. In contrast, if we look at the "Bohemian" + "Moravian" regiments (part of the "German" regiments), here's how it goes: 22 line regiments out of 64, 0 light infantry regiments out of 15 and 14 out of the total 21 heavy and line cavalry. Regarding the Hungarian insurrectio, it refused to muster in 1800, it mustered but refused to fight in 1805, it fought in 1809 but with little effect and in 1813 and 1814 it finally provided some valuable military support.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be really very simple, however, I do not understand the above discussion. Koertefa has demonstrated by a series of reliable sources,that the Hungarian army is to be differentiated from the army of the Austrian Empire on September 15. For me, the interpretation of those books in order to demonstrate the opposite view seems to be OR. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Alexandru: the sizes of the armies, their ethnic compositions or their battle efficiencies are not that relevant; the important thing is that KoH participated in the war with both a regular army ("royal" part) and with a traditional army ("insurrectio"), therefore it has a place among the beligerents (but since Francis I was the king of Hungary, KoH was not fully independent, thus it should be stated as a sub-point). I do not think that the differentiation between the armies recruited by KoH ("royal" part and "insurrectio") and the other troops of Francis I ("imperial" part), was just a tradition without factual reality. Why do you think so? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit baffled to be honest by the fact that a few editors decided to modify the article despite the fact that the discussion is underway. Now the article infobox states that Hungary participated to the war with two armies... In reality, there was no regular Hungarian army at any moment during the Napoleonic wars. As I tried to explain above, there were only Hungarian regiments, spread around and brigaded with "German" ones, be it regular, Grenz or Light (subsequently Jaegers) and organised in multi-ethnic divisions, army corps and armies. The irregular Hungarian Insurrectio was not an army either; it was raised by the Palatine and under his administration but for operational purposes, its functioning and role was similar to that of the Landwehr: because of their low combat worthiness, the Insurrectio regiments were most of the time brigaded together with regular regiments. Alexandru Demian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.39.80 (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I continue to be baffled by the fact that argumentation based on personal convinction is still used against reliable sources. I think we all should refer to reliable sources when stating something or arguing in order to avoid being baffled. For example, I suggest that the above statements according to which the "Hungarian Insurrectio was raised by the Palatine ....." should be substantiated by reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And why should I bother to do that? Since, I see some of the participants to this discussion showing no respect for the process and altering the article while the discussion is still ungoing? All this, while turning regiments with no common command structure into the 'regular army of Hungary' and an ancient levy of raw militias into a 'second army of Hungary', without bothering to quote a source. I very much respect some of the points and sources brought up in this discussion, which I read with interest. But my experience of the process is that it's a series of contributors trying to stretch the facts to breaking point and using their interpretation to form original synthesis.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. There are editors who either make statements without referring to reliable sources or challange statements based on reliable sources without using to reliable sources. That is why all editors are encouraged to be bold. So if my understanding is correct the fact that the Kingdom of Hungary should be separately listed is now a consensual view, only the text of the footnote is debated. Is it correct? Borsoka (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

There is another good source from Zachar (in Hungarian) about this matter (and about the rescript of Francis I p. 557) here [26]. I tried to refine the text (note). Fakirbakir (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Borsoka, I think you know that there's a inevitable corollary to the Be Bold guideline... Truthfully, it's not that easy to find an accurate formula for Hungary's status vis-à-vis the Napoleonic Wars: politically it was by far the most autonomous land of the Empire (or Emperorship, as John puts it), yet its autonomy was a matter of degree, not nature, as proved, among other things by Francis I 's long-form title: Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and of Bohemia or in short, the Emperor of Austria (see any of Austria's treaties of 1805-1815, eg Pressburg, Schonbrunn, Fontainebleau...). Hungary did have a representative at the peace congresses, but then again, so did the less autonomous Bohemia... So, again complicated... Militarily, the Kingdom did not possess a proper army (the insurrectio was more of a 'force' or levy with no operationally autonomous value), but, then again, it cannot be denied that the Diet exercised tremendous control over the way troops were recruited in the Hungarian lands - for the regular units, a testament of this is the extreme difficulty with which Generalissimus Archduke Charles obtained the formation of a mere 15 line regiments; and for the insurrectio, even when the troops did muster, the Archduke Palatine Joseph was not sure to be able to use them for offensive action. As far as I'm concerned my agenda here is simple: I'm advocating for historical accuracy and no original synthesis, even based on solid sources. I'm still working on finding a way to explain Hungary's role in this article and I do not find the current formula here and at the Battle of Raab article to be accurate.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think we are communicating paralelly. I cannot accept a TRUTH which contradicts to reliable sources, even if this TRUTH is declared a hundred of times. For instance, the style used by the monarch has nothing to do with reality, so using it as a counter-argument is the purest form OR. Moreover, it is a total misunderstandig of royal styles: for instance, the same monarch also used the titles of "king of Cumania" and "king of Rama", referring to two countries that did not exist at that time. Hungary was not an independent belligerent because of the style her monarch used. So I think let us try to insist on reliable sources cited by Koertefa. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Rothschilds

This article has no mention of the Rothschilds, whereas Wikipedia's article on the Rothschilds says that they played a major -- perhaps deciding -- role in N's defeat by the British. If this is correct, then it needs mentioning here; if it is not, it needs removal from the R article.12:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Map is wrong

The world map showing the powers and their territories is wrong. Tasmania south of Australia was under the control of the Netherlands which were opposed to Napoleon so Tasmania should be coloured blue and the French had control of Western Australia.--101.165.121.13 (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This Week's Article for Improvement: French Revolutionary Wars

French Revolutionary Wars has been nominated by WP:TAFI. All contributions improving this article welcome! Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

1815 world map

The map shows New Zealand partially colored pink, but there were no European settlements there at this time, just trading stations. It wouldn't be under British sovereignty for another quarter-century. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

US Co-belligerent?

How is US Co-belligerent in this case? Yes, the US had the war of 1812 however the US involvement had nothing to do with anything going on in Europe and was fighting a completely different war than Napoleon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.24.73 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The US should be a co belligerent because the British had to fight a war in 2 different places at the same time. Although they didn't happen because of one another the do directly effect one another so the USA should be a co-belligerent. The reason why these directly effect one another is the war of 1812 forcing the British to waste more time, money, troops, and supplies to fight another war , all of which would have been great to use against napoleon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.39.119 (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To say that the War of 1812 had nothing to do with the Napoleonic Wars is absolutely mistaken. The second sentence of the War of 1812 article makes the point that it was caused by issues that were part of the Napoleonic Wars, and that its generally treated as part of them by British and European historians, though not by American or Canadian. Chandler considers it sufficiently a part of the greater conflict, for instance, that his Dictionary of the Napoleonic Wars includes entries for the war itself and for a number of its people and events (Commodore Perry, Lundy's Lane, Sackett's Harbor). It's no coincidence that peace was concluded at the same time as the Napoleonic Wars ended, even though nothing had been decided in the fighting and the Treaty of Ghent didn't resolve any of the issues that had caused it; those issues had been resolved simply by Britain and France not being at war with each other anymore. The paragraph on the war in this article makes it clear that the United States neither was a formal ally of France nor acted in conjunction with them militarily, but the statement that the war is "technically not considered part of the Napoleonic Wars" should be removed because it's often not true. Personally I think there's grounds for also including the USA in the infobox, though it doesn't really bother me. (Also should be removed: the sentence stating that British involvement in the war gave the French "a slight advantage" over the Royal Navy. Any statement about the French having any sort of naval advantage between 1812 and 1814 would really need to be backed up by a pretty solid citation.) Binabik80 (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No Ottoman Empire?

Shouldn't Ottoman Empire be in infobox? It clearly says 'The Second Coalition was formed in 1798 by Austria, Great Britain, the Kingdom of Naples, the Ottoman Empire, the Papal States, Portugal, Russia, Sweden and other states. ' elmasmelih 21:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire was removed from the infobox without explanation in February. I just noticed this, so I have put the Ottoman Empire back in the infobox. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)