Talk:War of the Sixth Coalition

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Remsense (talk | contribs) at 12:16, 19 October 2024 (→Revisiting USA as Co-Belligerent due to recent editor disagreements). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:16, 19 October 2024 by Remsense (talk | contribs) (→Revisiting USA as Co-Belligerent due to recent editor disagreements)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This

level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European / French / German / Italian / Nordic / Polish / Russian & Soviet / Spanish / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	German military history task force
	Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
	Nordic military history task force
	Polish military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Spanish military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries: Prussia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Austria Mid‑importance

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spain Mid‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Misplaced Pages

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

Italy Mid‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bavaria

It says in the top box that Bavaria changed sides after the Battle of Leipzig. However, Bavaria switched sides a few days before with the treaty of Ried on 8th Oct and declared war on France on the 14th Oct, two days before the Battle of Leipzig. Changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.118.123 (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Russia

Should the invasion of Russia really be considered part of this war? The coalition was established, I thought, by Prussia's defection from France in January 1813. john k 13:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it was a continuous war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admikkelsen (talk • contribs) 15:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

War of Liberation

Is "War of Liberation" one of the names of this war? The page War of Liberation says so and so does Britannica 1911, but this article here doesn't mention it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. From the reading I've done, it's known as the War or Wars of Liberation, which is exactly what it's German name — die Befreiungskriege (plural) — means. I've never heard of the "War of the Sixth Coalition."

Also, this article says "191,000 French fought more than 450,000 Allies" at the Battle of Leipzig (Battle of Nations, or Völkerschlacht), but the article on the Battle of Leipzig says "the French had around 190,000 soldiers and the Allies almost 330,000."

Sca (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say "War of Liberation" is in more common use. As far as coalitions go, nobody ever seems really sure how to count them - notably, is the 1806-1807 war part of the War of the Third Coalition, or a separate war? My sense about War of Liberation is that it mostly refers to the 1813 war in Germany, and not so much to the campaigns in 1814. But also neither term really covers the invasion of Russia, which certainly did not involve a coalition - I don't think Britain and Russia were reconciled until 1813, so there was certainly no coalition in 1812. john k (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

War in Germany

Just a small note: I'm not sure how to do this, but a small part of the War in Germany section with the phrase "east from 30,000 ..." is unreadable, and I have no idea how to fix it. anyone know how to do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.17.216 (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Map

Why should the map include all of the colonies? Looking at it alone one would think that Australians and Peruvians hopped aboard a boat and went off to fight France!

A map showing just the primary countries involved would serve the article far better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.251.34 (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The colonies were tangential to this conflict. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC).

The map is still wrong though. The two Mecklenburgs (Schwerin and Strelitz) left the Rhine confederation already in March 1813 and joined the coalition.--Ickerbocker (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

USA

I think the infobox stating that the United States was a "co-belligerent" of France is extremely misleading. The American war with 1812 was only indirectly related to the Napoleonic wars, and the Misplaced Pages article on co-belligerence states that the term means " waging war in cooperation against a common enemy without the formal treaty of military alliance." If the US is included then the infobox would logically have to include anyone at war with any of the Napoleonic belligerents anywhere between 1812 and 1814. Better to remove it.209.235.2.8 (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe if you study the issue, you will find that the United States did cooperate with France between 1812 and 1814 to the extent that the two nations could assist one another against their common enemy, Britain. The United States also cooperated with Britain against Revolutionary France during the period of the Quasi-War, so the U.S. could actually be regarded as having been a co-belligerent on both sides during different periods of the Napoleonic era. The U.S. was never an actual participant in these alliances, but was certainly willing to cooperate with whichever side furthered its own national interest at the time. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Iceland on Napoleon's side?

In the map of Napoleon vs Allies, Iceland is in blue, as in Napoleon's side. Is this a mistake? Nothing in the article mentions Iceland, and it'd be interesting if it had any connection to the Napoleonic Wars at all. 104.172.125.252 (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Iceland was a part of the Kingdom of Norway prior to the Congress of Vienna. At the time Norway was also united with Denmark. Denmark was Napoleon's ally until the end.

The Treaties of Kiel and Vienna separated Norway from Denmark, and as a consequence of the invasion of Norway by Sweden, as a condition of peace Norway then joined in a personal union with the Crown of Sweden, though with its own constitution. Denmark, through diplomatic cunning, managed to convince the Swedish diplomats that Norwegian colonies had really belonged to Denmark as a consequence of the Kalmar Union, that included Iceland, and for reasons unknown the Swedes inexplicably bought it as they had not researched the matter. So at the final settlement of the Napoleonic Wars, Denmark received Iceland and Greenland. SJCreecy (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"despite having almost lost the war by Western European standards" What does it mean? Napolean never captured the Russian capital - St. Petersburg. So he was never even close to winning the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.9.148 (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Short citations to Chandler that do not include a year

@user:SJCreecy I have been cleaning up the short citations on this page. However I come across a problem, which it will be easier and quicker for you to solve than for me. You made this edit Revision as of 07:35, 10 May 2020 during a series of edits to the page. You included a citation to support the text "Chandler, Pp. 908-913." Unfortunately there were (and are) two long citations in the references section that could support this short citation:

Chandler, David G. (1966). The Campaigns of Napoleon Vol. II. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0297748304.
Chandler, David G. (1991). The Campaigns of Napoleon Vol. I and II. Easton Press.

Please could you add the year of publication to this and the other short citations to Chandler that you include and do not contain a year? -- PBS (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem! Done.! SJCreecy (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting USA as Co-Belligerent due to recent editor disagreements

Prior to Sep 10th, the status quo seemed to be to list the United States as a Co-belligerent in the War of the Sixth Coalition, due to the ongoing War of 1812. However recently, some Misplaced Pages contributors seem to have taken issue with this. This section is for coming to an understanding on this point, as it seems to have not been discussed since 2010, and then only two users (with opposing views) seem to have contributed to the discussion.

I for one support the inclusion of the United States as a co-belligerent in the infobox due to the considerable fact that during the War of 1812 (which the War of the Sixth Coalition entirely overlapped). The United States was at war with the United Kingdom, providing a distraction for the British navy and war effort, and the fact that, as User:Jsc1973 previously said, France and the United States did cooperate to the extent they could be adequately considered as co-belligerents. China and the USSR were both unquestionably on the side of the Allies in WW2, but China was only fighting Japan, not the Germans who were a continent away, and the Soviets had a non-agression pact with the Japanese that held until 1945. These states were further apart in wartime than France and the US in the 1810s, who had a common enemy, yet we regard them both as still easily being on the same side (even with complications like soviet support for the communists in china). They were both in the Allies. France and the USA collaborated even closer than this, and against a common enemy, so they easily meet the standard of being co-belligerents during the War of the Sixth Coalition, and the USA should be included in the infobox as a Co-Belligerent (with that distinction made they were not a full ally) AvRand (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In addition to my parallel points on Talk:War of 1812—we need sources that say this etc.—another point is that per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox is fundamentally a summary of key facts stated in the article. The US's co-belligerent status is not presently mentioned in this article, and so tacking it on in the infobox is a hanging summary pointing to nothing, in addition to it being unsourced. Remsense ‥ 论 10:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Your source failed verification, as it does not describe the United States as a cobelligerent in the War of the Sixth Coalition. It's fairly clear you presently are not aware of a source that says what you want the infobox to say, so you need to stop.Remsense ‥ 论 11:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Avrand6 this is in addition to the WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE point I've already made. Self-revert or I'm reporting you for edit warring. Remsense ‥ 论 12:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Just because you are a seasoned editor does not mean you can bully other users into conforming to your opinion. Articles are supposed to remain at status quo while a consensus is reached, and in this case a reliable source was added to support that status quo in the interim. I hoped to begin civil discussions on the talk pages of both articles, and understand your point of view, and reach a consensus to go one way or the other. Instead, you have started a childish edit war (including violating the three revert rule), reverting articles to suit your position, not leaving at the status quo in the weeks a consensus is reached. I'm unsure what your vendetta against me is, as I have done nothing but act in good faith and follow proper procedure for when a dispute arises. If you wish to to request administrator attention, that is your prerogative, though I may also feel the need to pursue a similar course of action. Civil and respectful discourse is an important cornerstone of consensus-building on wikipedia. AvRand (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You fabricated a citation to get your own way. You do not seem to care about what sources say—which is non-negotiable and overrides whatever you feel is the "consensus", which really doesn't seem to actually exist outside your own head. I haven't violated 3RR, and though I wish I could cause zero disruption in removing unsourced drivel from the article, that isn't always feasible. Remsense ‥ 论 12:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: