Talk:War of the Fifth Coalition

Major rewrite

I'm beginning a major rewrite of this article, with aspirations of taking it to featured status. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!UberCryxic 00:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

References

The article could use more references. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation request for Poniatowski caption

I just now added a request for citation for the Poniatowski caption's claim that he was the most famous Polish military figure during the Napoleonic wars. While I think the claim is true, it is challengeable and needs a source. Eubulides (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Commanders?

Two of the leaders mentioned under 'commanders' never held a field command. Both Bavaria's king Max-Joseph and Saxony's king Frederick August were not commanders. Wurttemberg's King Frederick however, did command Cooalition troops during the anti-insurgent battles around Lake Konstanz. (ref. see Gill - With Eagles to Glory) --ansbachdragoner (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Where did this come from?

This appeared at the beginning of the "Fourth Coalition" section when I opened the article from the front page:

How Reliable a source is Wikipedia? by the time they alter this information, a college student has already mistaken his work. and has false information.

It's not in the article history anywhere (at least recently), didn't show up in the wiki text, and although it stayed there while going back and forth to the history page a few times, it disappeared after a full reload a few minutes later. What the hell is this?? KarlM (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly template vandalism? A template in the page was altered, the text was added there and it appeared here but was absent from the history since this page itself wasn't changed. Ironholds (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

In the first paragraph of the Aftermath section, it says "The Austrian army would never field more than 150,000 men at a time for the duration of the Napoleonic Wars", but it's unclear how that relates to the war's aftermath. If it means that Austria never again fielded such a large force (because if I'm reading "Austrian preparations" right, the armies fielded in this war were larger than 150,000), then it should say so, and ideally explain why. Was it due to population losses, to lack of funds or political will, to recognition that bludgeoning the enemy with enormous armies was not the best strategy, or to some combination thereof, and how was it caused by this war? A. Parrot (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Joachim Murat

Where is Joachim Murat in all of this? He is supposed to be the head of the reserve cavalry but instead we find Bessiers taking this role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian quasi-participation on the Austro-Polish front

This article makes no mention of the fact that Russia was technically obligated to assist France in the event of an Austrian breech of the peace, by way of the Treaties of Tilsit, and that a corps under the command of Sergey Fyodorovich Golitsyn entered Austrian territory in Galicia and occupied it at the expense of their former allies the Austrians, while also blocking the ambitions of their one-time Polish allies in the Duchy of Warsaw. The article does mention that a piece of the frontier was ceded to Russia at the end of the war, but does not explain why: this offensive of Golitsyn's is why.

http://www.cairn.info/revue-napoleonica-la-revue-2011-1-page-4.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Boland (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Peninsular War

Currently this article promotes a dismissive point of view about the Peninsular War. Apart from barely mentioning the conflict, in the lead it states that:

"Although fighting in the Iberian Peninsula continued, the War of the Fifth Coalition was the last major conflict on the European continent until the French invasion of Russia in 1812 sparked the Sixth Coalition."

Yet the number of French of soldiers and casualties in the Peninsular War indicates that for the French it was a major conflict.

• "Already by 1809 France had suffered more losses in the peninsula than in all the battles since Napoleon became first consul a decade before, and this total increased in the desperate fighting which followed. By 1812 the French were maintaining as many as 300,000 troops south of the Pyrenees. ... The 'Spanish ulcer' eventually cost Napoleon around 250,000 casualties and perhaps four billion francs"[1]
• "1813... Napoleon ordered Joseph to establish his headquarters at Valladolid, pacing his force of some 250,000 troops between Wellington and the French border. ... The Peninsular War had cost France in the region of 300,000 casualties and untold sums of money and material."[2]
• "Culamative French losses in the Peninsular War 1807–1813, 'the Spanish ulcer' as Napoleon once called it may have totalled 300,000."[3]
• "The Russian losses seem more dramatic to us because they occurred over a short period of time, whereas the Spanish ulcer bled for six years. Tranie and Carmigniani say that there were 200,000 Imperial casualties in Spain, half of them half of them accounted for by the guerrillas. Owen Connelly estimates 260,000 French killed and wounded, plus another 40,000 allied casualties. The French general Bigarre wrote that guerrillas had killed 180,000 Imperial troops not counting wounded and missing. [cited sources removed]"[4][5]

And it continued as a major war into 1814. In the last year of the Sixth Coalition there were as many or more French troops facing Wellington in south west France as there were in north and east France to face the combined Coalition armies.

So I think that there should be an alteration to the lead, so that it does not dismiss the Peninsular war, and a section in the article summary style of the events that occurred on the Iberian peninsula during the years of the Fifth Coalition.

-- PBS (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sicily flag

I think the flag shown is incorrect. Shouldn't it be Sicily, rather than , which is the flag of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. That country did not exist until 1816. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Spain ?

Whose side was Spain on ? Currently it says the side opposed to the French. I am very dubious.Lathamibird (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

So, Napoleon's brother Joseph became King of Spain in June 1808, and remained so until after he was decisively defeated at Vittoria in 1813. In 1809, after their defeat at Corunna, the British were at their weakest position during the entire Peninsula War. I think it is ridiculous to claim that Spain was part of the 5th coalition. In 1809, it was a French client state.Lathamibird (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Appauling distortion of history here. Can't believe that an edit changing Spain from an enemy to ally of France has stood for 9 months, unchallenged, on a Featured Article. Spain declared war on France in May 1808 after uprisings which started in Madrid and spread across the nation. Doesn't matter that it was a "French Client State". It was an occupied nation, France invaded it and ousted the royals, it wasn't a willing ally it was taken under false pretenses – the invasion of Portugal was an excuse for Napoleon to flood Spain with over 100,000 men, cause civil unrest and userp the throne. The Spanish juntas sent for British aid, along with Portugal. They fought the French in pitched battles, they had guerrila forces. They hated the French invaders, the Continental System, and having Joseph as king. The French executed and massacred thousands of Spaniards in retatiation for riots and its rebellion. After getting chased back out of Madrid by Napoleon the rag-tag Spanish armies joined up with Wellington and fought alongside the Anglo-Portuguese Army from 1808 until 1814 and helped reclaim their country. That doesn't make them allies of the French in any shape or form. Please do some backgrouond reading, there are plenty of books available on the Peninsular War. Not one of them support Spain being a French ally after 1808. — Marcus^(talk) 14:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War of the Fifth Coalition. 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/20160303205119/http://www.napoleonicwars.org/campaign_5coalit.htm to http://www.napoleonicwars.org/campaign_5coalit.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Austria stands alone...

… except for Britain, Portugal and Spain! This is a very Austro-centric view of things, isn't it? The war in the peninsula was already over a year old when Austria rejoined the fight, and it continued there after she threw in the towel (again!) And I’m not convinced about this "nth coalition" division of events, either: As far as I was taught, there was only one Napoleonic War between 1804 and 1814, which various European states dropped in and out of over time. I would also dispute that these coalitions only lasted as long as Austria was involved (which seems to be the position here); I've come across different periodizations in different sources. Moonraker12 (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, "Britain...took advantage of the Austrian intervention to launch the Walcheren campaign": WTF? The only reason for Britain to launch the Walcheren campaign was to assist Austria; Britain certainly didn’t need another complication on the mainland of Europe, nor did it need Walcheren. So I've edited that, too. Moonraker12 (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

FA concerns

I am concerned that this article does not meet the featured article criteria anymore. I have outlined some concerns below:

• Many paragraphs and sections do not have citations.
• The lede needs to be reformatted to remove the short paragraphs and ensure it summarizes the major parts of the article.
• There are concerns above about the POV being Austro-centric. Has this been resolved?
• There jargon in this image caption: "to throw off the yoke of Napoleon's Bavarian allies"
• The article could use a copy-edit. I recommend this happens after all the information has been verified (as this process might cause the prose to change or new information be added)
• Ref 15 cites 23 pages. Is there a way to narrow this down?

Is anyone interested in improving this article? Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC) I can take on some of this, it won't happen overnight however. --Frobozz1 (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

sfn vs. Rp citations

From the reader's perspective the list of 119 sfn tags is difficult to follow back to a source, whereas the named tags with Rp quickly get readers to the source material and page. Can we pick a format please? I'm willing to move everything over to Rp if we can agree to it. My thoughts are simply a matter of WP:VER being overly complex as it is now. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Rp is a better option because it clogs up the text, there's no effective way to add quotes from the sources (as some Sfn-type cites have), and I really don't think Sfn is too much of a hassle-- one extra click. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What if I told you that quotations are actually fairly easy with Rp? I redid all or the Plymouth colony this way and the main contributors thanked me. I also got a thank for starting this cite rework. Here's what the quote looks like (from Plymouhth colony):

On March 16, 1621, the first formal contact occurred with the Indians. Samoset was an Abenaki sagamore who was originally from Pemaquid Point in Maine. He had learned some English from fishermen and trappers in Maine, and he walked boldly into the midst of the settlement and proclaimed, "Welcome, Englishmen!" It was during this meeting that the Pilgrims learned how the previous residents of Patuxet had died of an epidemic. They also learned that an important leader of the region was Wampanoag Indian chief Massasoit, and they learned about Squanto (Tisquantum) who was the sole survivor from Patuxet. Squanto had spent time in Europe and spoke English quite well. Samoset spent the night in Plymouth and agreed to arrange a meeting with some of Massasoit's men.

I agree the inline cite is longer, but I disagree finding the source is only one extra click. You have to click the sfn which takes you to the massive ref list at the bottom, scan the list of refs for your author/year, then click that link.

I just feel heavily cited works could benefit from one-click verification. Can we see what others think?--Frobozz1 (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You do know that clicking the SFN highlights the reference in question, right? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Frobozz1: since you have solicited other opinions, I agree with Eddie891. {{Rp}} citations make a mess of the article text and make it harder to read. I see nothing wrong with the referencing scheme currently in use in the article. Wham2001 (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Re-review questions

I did a copyedit of the article, mostly removing MOS:EASTEREGGs and redundant words. Please revert anything you think is unhelpful. While reading the prose, I had a couple of questions which I listed below:

• Can we reduce the lede to three paragraphs?

I've had a go - Dumelow (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the lede: Can we expand this to, "The War of the Fifth Coalition was a European conflict in 1809 that was part of the Napoleonic Wars and the Coalition Wars." This gives a little more information in the lede to put this war into context.

Done - Dumelow (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• "On 14 October French forces won the battles of Jena and Auerstadt, eliminating Prussia from the war." How did Prussia withdraw from the war? Treaty, unconditional surrender, other info?

As some Prussian forces actually continued to fight alongside the Russians in the east I've removed this statement - Dumelow (talk)

• "The artillery was not as dynamic as in some contemporary armies" What does dynamic mean in this instance?

Slower to respond to threats. In the French army, for example, the artillery was under its own commanders whereas the infantry generals commanded the Austrian artillery, which sometimes left it "forgotten" and out of position. They also lacked horse artillery, which was much quicker on the march and on the battlefield. I've had a think but couldn't come up with a better way to put this, open to suggestions - Dumelow (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

What about flipping the sentence? "Infantry generals commanded the Austrian artillery but struggled to utilise the machines, forgetting about them during combat and leaving them in ineffective positions. The Austrians also lacked horse artillery units and relied on the strength of their soldiers to move the machines, slowing the artillery's movement." Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• "designed to isolate the French forces in northern Germany and lead to a rapid decision." What does lead to a rapid decision mean?

Reworded

• "In the end, they had their way, but not before precious time had been lost." Can we be more specific? How long did it take for this to be decided? Who made the final decision?

Charles came round to the councils point of view. It cost a month of preparation time. I've tried to clarify this in the article - Dumelow (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• "the I under Bellegarde, consisting of 38,000 troops, and the II of 20,000 troops under Kollowrat," I'm not sure if the Roman numerals would be used here, I would check with MILTHIST

No, it should be "I Corps", "II Corps" etc. I've changed the ones in this section and others I spotted elsewhere, but if I've missed any just add "Corps" after the numeral, thanks - Dumelow (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• "It stated that Charles had orders from Francis to cross the frontier." Can we be more specific on what "the frontier" means?

He had orders to invade Bavaria, I've tried to clarify - Dumelow (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• "but Berthier focused on a sentence that called for Davout to station his III Corps around Regensburg and he moved back to the city despite massive Austrian pressure." Can we define what this pressure is?

Rewritten this whole section to clarify the confused movements of the French at this stage - Dumelow (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• "after a furious trip from Paris." Why was the trip furious?

I presume they meant quick, but its not really important. Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Davout anticipated the problems" What problems?

Clarified, hopefully - Dumelow (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• "in hopes of rolling up the entire Austrian line" What does rolling up the entire line mean?

It means to get onto their flank and advance along their line, defeating each unit in turn. I didn't think it added much (the next sentence describes what Napoleon hoped to achieve) so I've gotten rid of it - Dumelow (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• "central Austrian V Corps guarding Abensberg gave way to the French advance." Were the corps guarding Abensberg because of the Battle of Abensberg? I want to remove this MOS:EASTEREGG

Reworded to explicitly mention the battle - Dumelow (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• "The Austrians captured the village but lost the eastern half." The eastern half of what?

Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Napoleon replied by sending a part of the Imperial Guard under Jean Rapp," Where was this guard sent to?

Clarified - Dumelow (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• "To secure his center and his left," Center and left what?

Clarified, hopefully - Dumelow (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• "and launched a more mature offensive" What makes an offensive "mature"? Can we use a better word?

This section was not well written, added more detail.

• "In July 1809," Why is the citation here? What is it verifying? Can we move it to the end of the sentence?

No idea, it was duplicated there anyway, removed - Dumelow (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• "it was essentially un-capturable" Why?

I've expanded on the Walcheren campaign, which hopefully solves this - Dumelow (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• "After taking the capital, Dresden," Whose capital is this?

Saxon added - Dumelow (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Hofer was betrayed in January 1810 and executed by the French." How was he betrayed?

Added detail - Dumelow (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• "was looked for a period of three days" What does it mean to "look for a period of three days"?

Typo by me, I meant "looted"! Corrected - Dumelow (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for considering my questions. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this Z1720, most helpful. I'll start working through your points - Dumelow (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Z1720, I think I've addressed all your points now if you want to take another look - Dumelow (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Added one comment above. I will do another copyedit soon. Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I reverted the introduction of "The war weakened the French Empire's military, particularly after Spanish forces and civilians helped Portugal to oppose France." - Spain did not help Portugal since themselves were interested in Portugal's invasion (see Treaty of Fontainebleau (October 1807)). It now reads "particularly after Spanish forces and civilians opposed France" so I think a clarification is needed that Spain saw itself being occupied by French forces on their way to Portugal, hence the ensuing resistance by Spanish forces. (Peninsular_War#1808) RetiredDuke (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyedit 2 by Z1720

Further questions are posted below:

• "Spain and Portugal was occupying a significant portion of the French Army." Were Spain and Portugal distracting the French army, or were they part of the French army? Reword to clarify

Reordered to hopefully make this clearer, but open to other suggestions - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• "but failed to make much impact and were withdrawn in December." Can we clarify what "failed to make an impact" means in the lede? What was the British objective?

I reworded to mention Antwerp - Dumelow (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I removed the eastereggs in the rebellion sentence in the lede, which might have changed the meaning of the sentence. Can you recheck it to make sure I didn't mess anything up? The new sentence is: "The war led to the Tyrolean Rebellion, the 1809 Gottscheer rebellion and rebellions in Italy which, although suppressed, foreshadowed future nationalist and anti-French risings."

Looks fine to me - Dumelow (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• "were intercepted by France." Do we know who intercepted the communications?

Nothing more than "French agents", but I've elaborated on this a little - Dumelow (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• "This leant support to Stadion's "war party" at the Austrian court." What is a war party and why is it in quotes?

Those who favoured war with France. I've changed to "pro-war faction" and removed the quotes - Dumelow (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Charles and the Aulic Council were divided on the best strategy" The best strategy to do what?

Clarified, hopedfully - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• "after screening the fortress at" What does screening the fortress mean?

To leave sufficient troops there to ensure the enemy can't break out. It didn't add much and we don't have a relevant article to link so I've removed it - Dumelow (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Bavarian Salzachkreis (Salzach Circle)" Is this a new state? Province in France? Some other entity?

It was a district of Bavaria. Not important to go into depth here, I think, so I've just said it was transferred to Bavaria - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me know when this is finished and I will do another readthrough. Pinging Dumelow although I invite other editors to help answer these questions. Z1720 (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Z1720, I've made changes per above - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Upon my third reading, I made some minor edits but I think this is in great shape! My only concern is the "Further reading" section: Why are these not used as sources in the article? I would either use them as sources or delete them from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your work on this, Z1720. Hopefully it's now in good enough shape to be retained. I'll ping the FAR nominator on the review page. I think the further reading section is useful to the reader, providing additional books with more detail on the subject, and in compliance with WP:FURTHER? - Dumelow (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Doh, I didn't realise you were the nominator! Do you reckon we can close the FAR as retained? - Dumelow (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dumelow, the FAR co-ordinators decide if the FAR is closed. I'll post a note there that I have finished reviewing the article. For the Further Reading section, some editors have opposed promotion because of this section as WP:FA? C1.3 says an article should be well researched, and some don't consider the research complete if there's a further reading section. I'll ask about it at the FAR. Z1720 (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

POV

This article is POV and biased towards Napoleon's dictatorship. Austrians would call it the French invasion of Austria-Hungary. By calling it the War of the 5th Coalition, you deny that it was a war of aggression and thus support the French dictator and war criminal Napoleon Bonaparte. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:44D0:3C52:B1B8:B212 (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Euphemisms, anachronic use of country names

The article is full of euphemisms and disrespectful wordings, among others concerning civilians, the people that fought, were wounded, killed, captured, their friends and families. The article mainly is written from the point of view of the rulers and in boysbook terms. Unfortunately many editors might not be aware and maybe even not understand this comment. This is not the only article written this way. Hundreds of them.

The use of country names is anachronistic. The countries did not (yet) exist as such, it mainly were bundles of territories, connected to one owner or ruler by all kind of (partly ages old) feudal agreements, (peace) treaties and other legal arrangements. Each territory with it's own sub-ruler, (common) law, tradition etc. Not comparable with what we now know as "country". By using the name of a modern country, the facts are being distorted. Also distorted is the fact, that there was one ruler, one person that in the end did decide. We now could say dictator. No government, no parliament etc. Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Missing aspects: financing, organisation, logistics, impact on civil society

Much is missing in almost all warfare articles - to mention a few points:

• in what ways were the wars on each side being financed
• how were the wars organised (logistics)
• why did a battle take place on a certain location
• how were the soldiers recruted, trained, what were their wages
• how were the fighting people being fed
• how were the wounded taking care of
• how were the dead bodies being taking care of
• what was the impact of the wars on civil societies
• did people flee, where to?
• what where the media reporting on the wars
• what were the main criticisms on a war

etc. Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Count your Garden by the Flowers, thankyou for your interest in this article which underwent a Featured ARticle Review last year by some very competent editors. I have reverted your changes again for now and am willing to discuss your proposals here as per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I have some concerns with the changes you are proposing:

• The first sentence should identify where the war was and its wider context, I don't think placing casualty numbers here is helpful
• "was a row of mainly large military conflicts" doesn't make sense to me. I think the original "was a European conflict in 1809 that was part of the Napoleonic Wars and the Coalition Wars" is clearer.
• "The main battles took place in central Europe between troops organised, financed and commanded by Emperor Francis I of the Austrian Empire and Napoleon of the French Empire" is a bit strange. Francis and Napoleon did not personally finance their armies it was done by the Austrian and French states.
• "Napoleon was supported by a row of other rulers, including monarchs of the Kingdom of Italy, the Confederation of the Rhine and the Duchy of Warsaw" is less clear than the original "The French were supported by their client states, including the Kingdom of Italy, the Confederation of the Rhine and the Duchy of Warsaw" which makes it clear why these states supported the French, ie/. they were under the political control of them.
• Changing the names of nations/empires to the "rulers of" is not helpful, particularly for constitutional monarchies where the ruler was not making foreign policy or military decisions. Changing "British forces" to "Forces of the British king" is an example of this. George III wasn't telling his armies where to go.
• The "Low Countries" was not a state at this time, it was the Kingdom of Holland
• "Civil society suffered a loss of 20% of it's population" makes no sense "Austria ... lost her Mediterranean ports and 20% of her population." is clear
• "Tyrolean Civil Revolt" gets precisely no results on Google Books, there are hundreds of reliable sources that call it the "Tyrolean Rebellion"
• "civilian movements and risings against suppression" is not supported by the sources I used, but "nationalist and anti-French risings" was
• Changing "Europe was embroiled in warfare, pitting revolutionary France against a series of coalitions in the Coalition Wars" to "Europe's emperors were embroiled in warfare, pitting revolutionary France civilians against a series of military coalitions, later called the Coalition Wars" isn't helpful. The wars were known as the time as the "war of X coalition". Not just emperors were fighting in Europe, the period saw the most significant warfare between nations up to that point
• Changing "declared war against France" to "declared war against Napoleon" isn't right, nations declare war on other nations not on individuals.
• Changing "the Continental System" to "later called the Continental System" doesn't make sense when there are English language sources of the period that call it this
• Changing "Spanish forces and civilians rebelled against France" to "Spanish forces and civilians did pick up arms to defend themselves against French agression" seems to be picking sides and romanticising
• It is not necessary to preface "forces" or "units" with "military", it is clear that these are military by nature
• Changing "After Austria was defeated in 1805, the nation spent three years reforming its army" to "After Austria was defeated in 1805, the king spent three years reforming his army" makes it sound like Francis was rushing about doing everything himself. It is clear in this context that "Austria" means the Austrian state. Likewise "Francis I's army and strategy", "Francis I built the largest army in its nation's history", "Napoleon's preparations", "Maximilian I strikes first"
• Changing "The men were conscripted from across the Austrian Empire and included Austrians, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles, Croats and Serbs; some, including the Hungarians, did not enthusiastically support their Austrian rulers" to "The men were conscripted from across the Austrian Empire and included Austrians, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles, Croats and Serbs; many, including the Hungarians, did not support their Austrian rulers on their own free will". I haven't checked but is "many" supported by the existing source?
• Is the change from "The Austrian militia, the Landwehr, were intended as a home defence force but were moved to serve with the field army." to "The Austrian militia, the Landwehr, were intended as a home defence force but were forced to move to serve with the field army." supported by the existing source?
• Is the change from "They were used later in the war as cannon fodder to divert French fire" to "They were used later in the war by Francis I, without being informed about their role, to divert French fire, disrespectfully framed as cannon fodder" supported by the existing source?
• Why change "Other theatres" to "Other battle places", this is not common useage
• The sentences you tagged for citations in "Italian rebellions" are cited to Gregory (2001) p169 as per the citation a sentence or two later. I can duplicate these if you like.
• Do you have citations for the changes to made to the Tyrolean Rebellion and Aftermath sections?
• "Galicia was moving under the power of the Duchy of Warsaw" doesn't make sense to me, but the original "Galicia was given to the Duchy of Warsaw" does
• It is not necessary to italicise "theatres", this is a common term

If you are able to add information relating to your bullet points above I am sure this will be useful, but we should take care not to overwhelm the article with detail. I am pinging the participants in the Featured Article Review (User:웬디러비, User:Chuntuk, User:Eddie891, User:Z1720, User:Hog Farm) and will post a pointer to here from the WP:MILHIST talk page to seek wider input. All the best - Dumelow (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Dumelow ,

1. There is much more to a war than the military aspects. What from your perspective might look like a detail, from other perspectives might seem very important. Discussing can be effective when all members are aware of their own perspective, and of possibly narrow-mindedness that a certain perspective eventually brings.

2. From your perspective time and place of the military acts might be the most important elements to mention in the first line, from other perspectives there is much more: casualties, geo-political effects, the time it took to rebuild a city, to repay the debts that had to be made for financing. From your perspective "theatre" is common use when describing a battle field, for others it's a euphemism. "Conflict" is downplaying the issue, "canon fodder" is very very disrespectful, "client state" is written form the perspective of the dominant ruler and generalises too much etc.

3. Side note: "Galicia was given to the Duchy of Warsaw" describes a (legal) situation that with a 95 % possibility is not according to the facts (keyword: feodal law)

cc User:웬디러비 User:Chuntuk User:Eddie891 User:Z1720 User:Hog Farm

Keep up Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Whatever my perspective or yours, what matters is the perspective reflected in the sources.

2. If you have sources that describe "casualties, geo-political effects, the time it took to rebuild a city, to repay the debts that had to be made for financing" feel free to add to the article. Theatre is not "common use when describing a battle field," but the correct term to use when describing a broader region where battles take place (see wikt:theater, also our article Theater (warfare)). You might feel cannon fodder is disrespectful, but can you find a source that feels the same way? Client state is a well established term, which accurately describes the Confederation of the Rhine nations (and is used in sources).

3. The transfer of West Galicia to the Duchy or Warsaw was mandated in Article III.4 of the Treaty of Vienna. If you have sources to prove that it didn't happen, let's see them. I think it'll come as a surprise to the people of Krakow, who are still pretty sure they're part of Poland to this day.

Chuntuk (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

War of the sixth coalition

Can someone add a link to this in the intro please so it can be followed in logical fashion 2A00:23C4:241:8C01:B9A5:D9CC:96DA:3885 (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no need to. Remsense ‥ 论 10:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)