Talk:French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars

Requested move 9 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 05:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Coalition Wars → French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars – This name may be longer and more clunky, but according to NGRAMS the current name is only rarely used in English-language sources to discuss this series of wars [1] meaning it is unlikely to be sufficiently recognizable to English-speakers. The proposed name is used in the titles of works discussing the wars collectively:

• Forrest, Alan (2004). "The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars". Early Modern Military History, 1450–1815. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 196–211. ISBN 978-1-4039-0697-7.
• "Prussia during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, 1786–1815". The Rise of Prussia 1700–1830. Routledge. 2000. ISBN 978-1-315-84182-3.
• O’Rourke, Kevin H (2006). "The worldwide economic impact of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, 1793–1815". Journal of Global History. 1 (1): 123–149. doi:10.1017/S1740022806000076.
• Stirk, Peter M.R. (2015). "The concept of military occupation in the era of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars". Comparative Legal History. 3 (1): 60–84. doi:10.1080/2049677X.2015.1041726.
• Dwyer, Philip G. (2013). "Violence and the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars: massacre, conquest and the imperial enterprise". Journal of Genocide Research. 15 (2): 117–131. doi:10.1080/14623528.2013.789180.
• Marzagalli, Silvia; Müller, Leos (2016). "'In apparent disagreement with all law of nations in the world': Negotiating neutrality for shipping and trade during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars". International Journal of Maritime History. 28 (1): 108–117. doi:10.1177/0843871415624167.

... all from the first page of Google Scholar results. Oxford Reference has several entries on "Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars"[2] but no mention of "Coalition Wars".
In contrast, searching "Coalition Wars" on Google Scholar leads to the majority of results discussing the general concept of wars fought between coalitions[3] not this specific series of wars, meaning that it's insufficiently WP:PRECISE. (t · c) buidhe 10:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support moving per nomination. First of all, there are good sources provided. Secondly, the name is more meaningful, comprehensive, and exclusive to other potential meanings. —GoldRingChip 12:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. "French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars" is a huge subject that isn't getting a serious treatment here. This article is mostly hectoring the reader about terminology. The wars themselves are better covered at French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars. 99to99 (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Echoing 99to99’s comments, we already have articles on the French Revolutionary and the Napoleonic wars; we don’t need another one covering the same ground. OTOH Those conflicts are also seen (particularly, I think, in continental Europe) as divided into a series of wars against coalitions of France’s enemies, and we have articles on those individually. So this page serves as an overview of that analysis. The alternative isn’t a new article on the FR&N Wars, it’d be to merge this and all the various 'War of the Nth Coalition' articles into the two we already have at the above titles. If the title here is too imprecise, how about "Coalition Wars (1792-1815)"? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. It is irrelevant that the "French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars" are not getting a full treatment here, because neither are the "Coalition Wars", since these are the same thing. The difference is that people will know what the FR&N Wars are from the title. Srnec (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: The Age of Revolution and Historical Memory

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mallorybrennan (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lexi Armstrong.

Coalition parties table

I've spent the last fifteen minutes trying to edit the table to grey out the Holy Roman Empire section for War of the Third Coalition and have been completely unable to do so. The HRE did not itself participate in the Third Coalition, although its princes did on both sides. The table needs to reflect that. Ecrm87 (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's right. I've reverted your change of "yes" to "no" regarding HRE being part of the coalition. There may have been members of the HRE on both sides but the institution itself was a signatory. Per WP:ONUS do you have a source that explicitly says otherwise? DeCausa (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to cite a source for something that didn't happen. For the HRE to formally be at war the Reichstag had to vote to declare a Reichskrieg, which activated the Army of the Holy Roman Empire and the Circle troops. This happened in 1793 and because the empire did not sign a treaty to end the War of the First Coalition, Emperor Francis was able to continue the empire's participation in the War of the Second Coalition. The Treaty of Lunéville ended the Reichskrieg and another was not declared in 1805. Yes, the Emperor participated on behalf of his Austrian dominions as did various princes, but not the HRE as a whole therefore it should not be listed as a coalition member. I think based on the interpretations of the above articles the onus is to prove that the HRE did participate in the war as opposed to did not? Ecrm87 (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The United States should be added

I think the US should be mentioned at least once. In both the Quasi-War and War of 1812 it says part of the “Napoleonic wars” or related to the “Napoleonic war” with the Quasi-war having the US supported by the British. I think the US should be in on the table at least of the second or fifth coalition. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Eh, it's kind of like a situation between the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Second World War. However, unlike those wars I just mentioned there was never an agreement like the Tripartite Pact for anyone in relation to the U.S, at least as far as my knowledge knows. I think it should be seen like the Second Sino-Japanese War before Pearl Harbour: Two wars fought by tangentially connected but not a part of the same whole. I do feel that the U.S. could be mentioned somewhere though, although in a more weak sense than how you suggest. AsyarSaronen (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)