Talk:Napoleonic Wars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Treaty of Ghent

I put the Treaty of Ghent down as one of the results. (I dont believe the War of 1812 should be considered part of the Napoleonic Wars.) Either way, the Coalition Victory and Congress of Vienna makes it seem as though the US lost the war. Adding the Treaty of Ghent to the results list is important and surely relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ13090 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Combatants

Surely the USA was not an allied power as it fought against the British Empire in the war of 1812 in SUPPORT of the First French Empire?

For all you guys, The US was not a French ally nor were we supporting France. The War of 1812 was a war in which the US was supporting itself. No French and American troops ever fought side by side in this period. By the way, America was just as likely to go to war with France as it was Britian. Both the French and British were trying to stop American trade (which the US deemed as a violation of international law) because the US traded with both Britain and France as a neutral state. So if the US truly did support anybody, it would be both France and Britain. We fought against France from 1798-1800 and the British from 1812-1815. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ13090 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Location Atlantic Ocean ?

True, there were naval battles in the Napoleonic Wars, but were these not confined to waters close to shore? Is Atlantic Ocean really accurate?

---Bryson 01:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars – Total war?

Could the Napoleonic Wars be considered a Total War? There was wide spread conscription. Mobilization of civilians as combatants (i.e. Guerrilla warfare in Spain). Countries willing to go to extremes, such as Russian scorched earth tactics, and the series of coalitions against France.

---Bryson 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Misc.

NAPOLEON WAS CROWNED BY THE POPE. THE PICTURE OF NAPOLEON GRABBING A CROWN WAS OF HIM CROWNING HIS WIFE -- LOOK AT THE PAINTING, NAPOLEON ALREADY HAS A CROWN ON HIS HEAD. THE CROWN ON HIS HEAD WAS PUT THERE BY THE POPE.

Quote from article: although he was never really accepted by the hereditary monarchs. Question? If this were so, why did the Emperor of Austria welcome the marriage of Napoleon to his daughter?

From memory, because he thought it would restrain Napoleon from his usual habit of beating up the Austrian army and occupying Vienna every year or two.

This response creates the impression that Francis I approached Napoleon with the prospect of marriage. He begrudgingly accepted Napoleon's overture because it was a term of the peace that concluded the Wagram campaign. Napoleon believed that the marriage to Marie Louise would serve as the basis for an implacable Franco-Austrian alliance. His Corsican concepts of family affected his perception more than his thorough knowledge of history. The Hapsburgs preferred marriage to the bayonet as a means of diplomacy. Marie Louise was raised with the understanding that she would be wedded purely for political expediency. What's more, Metternich made a statement to the effect that politics had made that bond, (between the two empires, as well as the matrimonial one) and could thus undo it with equal ease. The extent to which the Hapsburgs saw children, particularly women, as a tool of diplomacy, is the most important factor in accounting for Francis I's acquiescence.

Do we need to banch off a separate article on the invasion of Egypt? Quite a few articles refer to it, eg Rosetta stone, Etienne-Louis Malus. What should its title be? Napoleonic invasion of Egypt? -- Tarquin 10:15 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

Also Battle of Alexandria in 1801, given its own entry after excision from Alexandria -- I have not added it to List of battles yet because I didn't know how to classify it. Catherine 00:25 4 March 2003 (UTC)

Why isn't Denmark mentioned in this article? I think they were an ally of Napoleon after the British assult on Copenhagen harbour. Moravice 10:30 May 21, 2003

neutrality of this article is disputed

NVOP Problem, "French perfidy" and other stuff about the hopefully finally defeated French army are totally nonsenses in most part of the world outside british borders. "en bref" this article is not only not neutral but even offensive for continental public, and last but not least, about the levée en masse: in reality Napoléon won almost any battle in numerical inferiority compared to the enemy. Surcouf (Talk) 20:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UCT) (moved from article to talk page by Philip Baird Shearer)

"Perfidy" is from an old French saying "Perifidious Albion", most of the Britons don't know what it means (without going to the dictionary), but assume that as Napoleon said it, it must be an insult [1] :-) So I agree the word should go.

To resolve your issues please bullet point and highlight the phrases you disagree with and suggest an alternative. eg

Currently

• The Treaty of Amiens (1802) made peace between Britain and France, marked the final collapse of the Second Coalition. The French "perfidy" led to Britain refusing to honour the treaty and the renewal of hostilities from May 18, 1803. The conflict changed over its course from a general desire to restore the French monarchy into an almost manichean struggle against Bonaparte.

Suggest it is replaced with

• The Treaty of Amiens (1802) made peace between Britain and France, marked the final collapse of the Second Coalition. When the time came for the implementation of the treaty, Britain refused to implement certain terms, such as evacuating their military presence from Malta, and the French refused to respect other terms of the treaty. Hostilities renewed on May 18, 1803. The conflict changed over its course from a general desire to restore the French monarchy into an almost manichean struggle against Bonaparte.

I am not sure what you are complaining about with levée en masse I would have thought the section "Military legacy of the wars" describes what it was and why it was such an advantage in the early part of the wars. But as you can bullet point them no doubt you can show me. But I do want to make one comment don't assume that the views of Frenchmen are the same as "most parts of the world outside British borders". In the final campaign Britain, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria and a number of German States all united against Napoleon in person. These states had a lot of the "continental public" in them. Philip Baird Shearer 14:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of NPOV nearly so much as it is a matter of simply being a very poor article. It's dreadful! I was going to copyedit it into shape just now, but I got discouraged when I realised just how big a task it will be. I don't have all day! Tannin 14:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The choice of images lacks neutrality too:

- the only map provided is that of the campaign of Waterloo;

- 1st-2nd coalitions: I had forgotten that Russian troops had been crossing the Alps at that time, not that Napoleon's troops arrived at Marengo that way too, when and where they were not expected;

- Maybe it's my own French POV, but I did remember the Third coalition as well for Austerlitz as from Trafalgar;

- All right, a French victory is pictured, the charge of Somosierra, won by 200 Poles...

I won't say I am perfectly neutral, but loking only at the pictures, it's a wonder that these wars could last so long with the allies winning so many battles and so much glory, and hardly a French soldier in sight. 81.57.232.80 22:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

From a descendant of a victim of Napoleon's Genocides

File:Partida Defuncion Manuel Joseph López de Prado.jpg

Transcript of the death certificate of Don Manuel Joseph Martin López de Prado, preserved at the Archives of the Bishop of Lugo.

Please respect the memory of the dead. My ancestor was executed by Michel Ney's 6th Corps on April 20th 1809, in Monforte de Lemos. He had 6 small children, all younger than 10 years old, one to be born less than 3 weeks later. He was assassinated in the most cruel and grotesque manner, in front of his entire family. His wife pleaded he could be administered the Catholic Ritual of extreme unction, but the French prevented it and killed him like an animal. She gave birth prematurely his posthumous son less than 3 weeks later. We know all this because the priest who buried him wrote it down in the book of defuncts of the parish. I have enclosed a transcript here. That very same day, 1,100 innocent civilians of the same village were assassinated in a similar manner. Napoleon murdered millions of innocent civilians all over Europe, and France should be ashamed of this as much as Germany is of the Jewish Holocaust. I do not ask anything from France or the descendants of Napoleon, or those building monuments and celebrating the memory of that genocide. Just respect for the dead and historical truth. (167.206.29.162 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

You seem to imply that Napoleon was personally responsible for the atrocities committed in the Peninsular War, which wasn't the case. He left that conflict up to his marshals. I understand why you hate him, but I can say to respect those murdered by the British and their Continental allies, and that Britain was personally responsible for those atrocities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.208.71 (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As much as we sympathise with you you must understand that this is a talk page for improvements on the article. You have posted this same message on the article about the Peninsular War and that of Napoleon (and possibly more). What your relative went through was terrible, but im afraid Wikipedia is not the place for individual cases. If atrocities are not mentioned in the article then perphaps the fact that they occurred could be mentioned?Willski72 (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Willski72, I apologize for the inconvenience of having to repeat myself on several discussion pages. The reason is, all of these pages are showing a bised view of Napoleon, citing his many military glories, ignoring the 6.5 million victims of his tyrannic rule. I would have preferred the articles were more neutral, but that's not the case. Sorry again, and I hope you understand (Niaps (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)).

Willski72, following your advice, let's continue this discussion on Napoleon I page. Thanks! (Qqtacpn (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

What's with the Poles?

The Poles seem to get more attention in this article than a small nation (that didn't even exist at this time as a nation) such as itself deserves. I will edit out the straight fallacies (that Poles constituted 30% of Napoleon's army in 1812 - this would mean Poland supplied more than 200,000 troops, which is almost as many as France supplied for the invasion force). I have edited out the excessive references to Poland in the past, but they seem to come back repeatedly.

Poland did supply 200,000 men to napoleans army. Two major reasons firstly given napolean was more likely to help maintan an independant poland many poles particularly of the nobility proved sympathetic to his cause. secondly the imperial policy was to recruit huge numbers of troops from allied states too help france face the overall superior manpower of the various coalitions. Kurtk60 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

The Napoleonic Wars lasted from 1799 until 1815 .... Sometimes the wars are given as lasting from 1799 (the year Napoleon seized power) until 1815.

These two sentences form the first paragraph sounds repetitive to me. Is there a mistake in the years? Hayabusa future 04:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it to be more clear. May I suggest that we take out the material about the War of the First Coalition, at least, and probably most of the material on the Second Coalition, as well? Most accounts generally start the Napoleonic Wars proper in 1803. john k 04:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Spanish translation

Hi mates!

I've translated your superb article about Napoleonic Wars to Spanish. You can find it at: Guerras Napoleónicas. I hope I did only few mistakes, but I'll be happy if somebody with Spanish skills go in and take a look... just to preserve the original sense of the entire thing. I'll also thank any comment you give me. Thanks a lot. - Hispa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.47.192.179 (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2005‎ (UTC)

Suggestions

I'm thinking the two legacy sections should be moved up and the sections on the individual wars should be more condensed. Also it could be good to have a timeline or more of a summary and a picture of Napoleon and an overall map of Europe at the time. Maurreen (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Great French War

We say that "Collectively, the nearly continuous period of warfare from 20 April 1792, until 20 November, 1815, is sometimes refered to as the Great French War."

Does anyone have any idea who refers to it as this as it is certainly not a widely used term, at least in the UK. I've done a quick google search and all it finds is [www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Great-French-War] which is a straight copy from the wikipedia article on Great French War. If there is no substantiation for the use of this term (which I'd never heard before) then it should be removed (or at least modified to say who refers to it as this). AllanHainey 14:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the term Great French War was more common in the early twentieth century when the First World War was referred to as the Great War. Previously the Napoleonic Wars and Revolutionary Wars had been together referred to as the Great War. To distinguish between the too the term Great French War was used. I believe, and I'm not sure, that some in the years following the end of the First World War referred to it as the Great German War, but this didn't last long. The term Great French War is only used sporadically today and is mainly found in early to mid twentieth century history books.

minor errors?

The Second Coalition (1798-1801) of Russia, consisted of the United Kingdom, Austria, The Ottoman Empire, Portugal, Naples and the Papal States.

(no russia in list!) shouldn't it be

The Second Coalition (1798-1801) consisted of Russia, the United Kingdom, Austria, the Ottoman Empire, Portugal, Naples and the Papal States.

yes, I'm sure it should be consisted of Russia etc.--Fenice 19:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

In the Fifth Coalition Section:

Austria, previously an ally of the French, took the opportunity to attempt to restore its German empire held prior to Austerlitz. Austria achieved a number of initial victories against the thinly spread army of Marshal Davout. Napoleon had left Davout with only 170,000 troops to defend France's entire Western frontier. The same task had been carried out in the 1790s by 800,000 troops and at that time those forces were required to hold a much shorter front.

I'm certain this should be Eastern (France doesn't have a Western frontier). .--Greeny 24 August 2005

Perhaps Eastern refers to France's border with Spain User:ShadowLands

Alan Schom reference

The Alan Schom reference is a very dubious source. On Amazon.com it has been discredited as a non-neutral anti-Napoleon work and has received low reviews in spite of its depth. If that book is used for any sources I recommended double-checking them. Thanks. Aaрон Кинни (t) 14:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision of "War of Fifth Coalition"

The current "War of Fifth Coalition" section of this article needs to be revised because:

• It incorporates events, such as the Battle of Copenhagen in September 1807, which pre-date the formation of the 5th Coalition.
• The coverage of the start of the Peninsular War, and how it led to the creation of the 5th Coalition, is inadequate.
• Moreover, the start of the Peninsular War, "The Spanish Ulcer," was a key development in its own right and merits a separate section.

I'm willing to initiate the necessary revisions, but I hesitate to edit such a prominent article without first soliciting other views. --Paco Palomo 17:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

THE ITALIAN ROLE IN THE NAPOLEONIC WARS

This article about the Napoleonic Wars don`t consider important FACTS. The battles of Mondovì between France and the Kingdom of Sardinia (April 21, 1796) or the battle of Lodi between France and the Kingdom of Naples (May 10, 1796)were FACTS. The battle of Campotenese (March 9, 1806) between France and the Kingdom of Naples was a FACT. The advance of 18,000 soldiers of the Kingdom of Sardinia in 1815 until Grenoble and Lyon was a FACT. If the article about the Napoleonic Wars want to ignore FACTS, well this is against the historical truth and the democratic right of readers to improve Wikipedia!

If you have something important to add to this discussion, I suggest you stop doing it by adding weird material by going through several IP addresses. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon's 1796 Italian campaign is, so far as I am aware, generally considered to be part of the French Revolutionary Wars. And at the Battle of Lodi, Bonaparte was facing an Austrian army under, I believe, General Beaulieu. john k 02:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Per john, the Napoleonic Wars are traditionally defined from 1805 to 1815. The user is somewhat right in the sense that Italians played an important role in the Grand Army, but I'm not quite sure what he or she wants us to emphasize or include in the article. Any specific suggestions dude?UberCryxic 05:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

THE ITALIAN ROLE IN THE NAPOLEONIC WARS (II)

What I add its`n "weird" material. I am a serious researcher. All the informations I add are in several Italian books but nobody knows that abroad. I don`t know why. The attack against Grenoble (taken on July 9, 1815) and Lyon (taken on July 15, 1815) was led by General Vittorio Sallier della Torre (1774-1858).Who knows him today? So be grateful I told you something you didn`t know. Let`s add those informations to the article. Don`t you like the name "Napoleonic Wars" for the Campaign of 1796? Let`s say War of the 1. Coalition. This isn`t important. Yet I am fed up to watch movies about Napoleon where the French Army faced in Italy the Austrians only. This is against the historical truth! I consider the troops of the legal Italian States only. I don`t consider the Napoleonic "Kingdom of Italy" a legal Italian State. Sorry.

I was talking mostly about the problem that you had three consecutive entries, all of which had capital titles, and whose content seemed to do nothing to add to the discussion, and two of whom said exactly the same thing (from different IP addresses). I didn't mean to offend, and I'm sorry if I did. But I couldn't make heads or tails of your first three entries, and I'm not sure anyone else would have been able to either. Hope this helps, good luck. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that in Italy the French were mostly fighting Austrians, although certainly they fought the Piedmontese and Neapolitans as well. I don't think that the Venetian, Genoese, Modenese, Parmese, Papal, or Tuscan armies ever fought the French. I would also note that only mentioning times when Italians were fighting against Napoleon, while not mentioning the Italian states Napoleon created and the Italian soldiers who fought in the Grand Army, is highly one-sided. john k 13:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah your last point is a very good one john. The Italians were probably Napoleon's best troops after the French (either them or the Poles), so their contributions to the Grand Army over so many years are way more notable than what they did during the 1796-1797 campaign. With all respect to the user, the actions that you mention are really not that significant in the larger strategic picture. The French had already lost at Waterloo by July 1815 and Napoleon abdicated in June. The assaults you are talking about were part of the follow-up occupation of France, which was fait accompli anyway. It doesn't make them worthy of inclusion into the article at all.UberCryxic 15:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I respect the Italians who fought in the Napoleonic Army. For example they fought very well (October 24, 1812) at Malojaroslavec but I consider them more as "victims". Our legitimate kings were (1810) the Savoy in Sicily and the Bourbon in Sardinia. Just like the legitimate Kings of Britain were in London! Yes, Modenese, Parmese, and Papal troops fought against the French in 1796. I never said the Italians armies were stronger than the Austrian Army I only say that they are always ignored and thisn`t fair (remember the last movie about Napoleon, made by the french). In 1815 Napoleon was taken prisoner by the British on July 15, just the day of the arrival of the Piedmontese troops to Lyon. So the fall of the dictator and the offensive overlap each other.

Surely you mean the Savoy in Sardinia and the Bourbons in Sicily. And Napoleon abdicated on June 22, and Louis XVIII was restored on July 7, so this is really very late. The campaigns against Naples should probably be mentioned in the article, if they are not now. The material on the various Italian states during the French Revolutionary wars should go in that article. That Piedmont-Sardinia was involved in the Hundred Days Campaign seems of minor importance - even the Austrians and Russians did very little in that campaign. I also notice that you don't include the Habsburgs in Vienna and Würzburg, or the Pope in Savona as among your legitimate rulers... john k 18:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course I include pope Pius VII, for the Papal States, but he was kidnapped. However I enjoy you share my idea to include the campaignes against Naples. The fierce resistance of the Neapolitan people in January 1799, the battle of Campotenese (1806), the resistance of Amantea (until 1807)are important and full forgotten. Just like the resistance of our partisans in the North and especially in the South (Michele Pezza or "Brother Devil" = Fra`Diavolo). Today people in the world believe only Spaniards had a resistance against the French. Wikipedia should help to change this situation. The campaign of Piedmont-Sardinia of 1815 is more politically important. More important (military) is the British-Neapolitan liberation of Genoa in 1814.

The events of 1799 belong to the French Revolutionary Wars, but events of 1806 should be detailed here, and perhaps some attention to the continuing simmering conflict between the Bourbons and Sicily, assisted by the English, and the French in Naples, should be mentioned. The British-Sicilian capture of Genoa should certainly be discussed, as well, but only briefly - it is a relatively minor front compared to the major struggles of the period. john k 22:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of your thoughts that they were "victims," they still fought honorably and bravely and should be remembered for it. Since this is pretty much the only relevant information for inclusion in the article - certainly not your other points - it should take precedence.UberCryxic 01:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the Napoleonic conquest of Naples be mentioned here, or the Anglo-Sicilian capture of Genoa in 1814? john k 01:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the sense of Wikipedia is just this. readers proposes changes and you decide what you want to choise. I full agree that Italians in the Napoleonic Army have to be mentioned, though they didn`t represent the "legal" country. If you`ll accept at least one of my suggestions, it will be a success for me.

Perhaps you could write a brief summary of the 1806 campaign against Naples, and the continuing Neapolitan/Sicilian conflicts down to 1814, for inclusion in the article? I'd be happy to copyedit. john k 14:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course I can. I am here to help. Wait a moment.

Note that I was speaking about what should take precedence, not what should and should not be included. The events that we are speaking about were not relevant or decisive to the larger campaigns.UberCryxic

There was a whole front of the war involving Naples and Sicily between 1805 and 1814. It was not as intense or as important as the fighting in the peninsula, but it seems to me it's well worth a brief paragraph. We mention Walcheren and Copenhagen, which were not particularly relevant or decisive to the larger campaigns. We mention the Russo-Finnish War of 1808-1809, which similarly was not particularly relevant or decisive to the larger campaigns. We mention the indecisive fighting in northern Italy in 1805. An overview article should provide an overview of all significant fronts of the conflict, so that people can get links to more detailed articles. john k 17:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please also give us sources if it's something very specific.UberCryxic 16:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

THE WAR AGAINST NAPLES

• November 20, 1805: Naples declares war on France
• December 27, 1805: Napoleon declares decayed the Bourbon Dynasty.
• January 23, 1806: king Ferdinand IV moves from Naples to Palermo by the vessel "Archimede" (the most powerful Italian war ship of that time)
• February 14, 1806: the French (gen. Paronmeaux) take Naples.
• March 9, 1806: battle of Campotenese - 10,000 French (Gen. Reynier) defeat 15,000 Neapolitans (Gen. Damas).
• July: 3,200 French attack Amantea, defended by Colonel Rodolfo Mirabelli with a few of houndreds men, but supported by the people. Amantea resists until February 7, 1807.
• 1806 and 1807: British-Neapolitan attacks against Calabria.
• 1808 Troops of the usurper (Murat) take Capri, defended by the British.
• Oct. 8, 1808: sea battle between 2 frigates of the usurper ("Cerere","Fama") against 2 frigates of the legitimate government ("Minerva","Sirena"). Typical Italian destiny to end into a civil war! - 1809 and 1810: attack of the usurper (Murat) against Sicily.
• 1810-1811: the Italian guerrilla against Napoleon (in North and in South Italy) ends.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.144.149.104 (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2006‎ (UTC)

Combatants Listed

Perhaps we should consider dropping all the individual German states/kingdoms/duchies listed in the combatants block, and just simply list Confederation of the Rhine?

Ummm, yaah... I don't know how to create my own article so I'm going to use this since it sort of connects to what I'm going to write about... Shouldn't America be listed as a combatant because they fought against the British who were in the war the whole entire time, thus hindering their effort in the war... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.186.241 (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Commanders and vandals

please, this is not a venue for folks with an agenda, except the agenda of fairness - Napoleon did not command everything for pete's sake! whoever deleted the commanders added to France's side - why not consider the merits of the commanders instead of just deleting what is inconvenient to your view -Sean

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.39.15.2 (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2006‎ (UTC)

Why is Alexander Suvorov in Commanders list?

The Napoleonic Wars were from 1803/05(authorities differ) to 1815, Alexander Suvorov, died in 1800, why is he in commanders list? --Bryson 00:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Louis Charles Antoine Desaix is now also on the commanders list, he also died in 1800, why is he in commanders list?--Bryson 15:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Should not be. If we're strictly talking about the Napoleonic Wars (1805-1815), Suvorov and Desaix do not belong.UberCryxic 19:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I removed Suvorov and Desaix from commanders list. --Bryson 23:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are we setting 1805 as the "official" beginning? I've always seen the resumption of Anglo-French naval war in 1803 as the beginning of the "Napoleonic Wars," which are decidedly plural. john k 05:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The commanders list, btw, is utterly odd. Bernadotte is on it on both sides, but without any indication that "Jean Baptiste Bernadotte" is the same man as "Karl XIV Johan of Sweden", while others who fought on different sides at different points of the conflict - the King of Saxony, for instance, or Schwarzenberg, who participated in the invasion of Russia - are only listed once. What are the criteria here? I'd suggest that we not have commanders listings for something as complicated as the Napoleonic Wars. Similarly, I'd suggest that the participants listing is also problematic. Bavaria, Saxony, Spain, Russia, Austria, and Naples fought on both sides. Denmark was certainly not a "client state" of France in the same way that the states under Napoleon's relations or the Confederation of the Rhine were. The Ottoman Empire was never on the allied side in any real way. It went to war with Russia in 1806 at Napoleon's urging. It participated in the War of the Second Coalition on the allied side, but that was earlier. I think it might be best to list "France and allies" as one side, and "Britain and an ever-changing coalition of continental powers, often including at least one of Prussia, Austria, or Russia" on the other. john k 05:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Denmark-Norway- Denmark-Norway or as it should be called Kingdom of Denmark, which IIRC during the Napoleonic Wars, included Norway, Schleswig, and Holstein. Should be removed from combatants list, since her Alliance with France was defensive, and never sent any troops to France not even in 1812.--Bryson 17:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I think Denmark-Norway should still be in the combatants list. Denmark-Norway threw itself completely behind the cause of Napoleon in 1807. Considering its dearth of military resources, Denmark-Norway did what it could to support Napoleon. In 1813, the Danish Auxiliary Corps participated in campaigns, both offensive and defensive, in northern Germany alongside the French Army Corps under the command of Marshal Davout. Boreanesia 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

First and second coalition?

Why are first and second coalition wars in article? They were French Revolutionary Wars, napoleonic wars started with 3rd coalition.--Staberinde 19:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Both the first and second coalition should be removed from article. Perhaps replaced with brief background text on the context of the French Revolutionary Wars in the Napoleonic Wars. --Bryson 20:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There have been sufficient time but no counter-arguments raised. Go ahead. The Gomm 23:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since we are in agreement. I replaced both the first and second coalition articles with a ‘background’ section. Which includes text from both former sections, which I put together into a summary. If anyone can make it more brief and concise, please go ahead and edit it.--Bryson 00:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle Box Location : Río de la Plata?

The Napoleonic Wars were also fought in South America?--Bryson 00:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. – Albrecht 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(By the way, I noticed you re-inserted Joey and Louey Bonaparte in the list of commanders. Normally I'd be all for inclusion, but I'm forced to wonder: do these two princelings really belong in this list? I think a lot of Napoleon's marshals should be listed only because they were giants in their talent and accomplishments, easily rivalling the best Allied commanders and fighting some of the most important battles in modern history. But when the list is this long, I think we can afford to spare two mediocrities who barely even set foot on a battlefield, don't you? Albrecht 04:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

• They were rulers, Joseph, King of Naples later Spain and Louis King of Holland. Louis was with Napoleon in Egypt. Joseph did command forces in Spain. I think the battle box should have at least a two relatives (there are more I could have added) to show Napoleon’s ‘dynasty’. There were 26 Marshals of France we can’t list them all, maybe just the 'key' ones and a link to the complete list in the main article on Marshals of France? --Bryson 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Joseph commanded forces in Spain. It seems to me that only those in independent command should be listed. Louis Bonaparte never had any significant independent command. Joseph sort of did, so I've left him on. The obvious relation other than Joseph to list is Eugene, who did have independent command in Italy, and who commanded a wing of the grand army in 1812. Jerome, who also commanded an independent wing, would be a better choice than Louis, as also Murat, who was, of course, a military commander before he was a relative. (Bernadotte, already listed on the allied side, might also be considered an extended Bonaparte relation, through his marriage to Joseph's wife's sister). john k 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Answering your question: Yes, Nap Wars were also fought in America (naval campaign previous to Trafalgar, Río de la Plata, Martinica, Santo Domingo, etc, etc) and even in India, were de french disputed english rule of the Indian Ocean in some naval (and small ones) battles

greetins from Javier Muñoz (spain) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.57.189.236 (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Commanders Box

I looked over the article about 2-3 weeks ago and noticed that the only French commmander listed was Napoleon and a French admiral of low worth; that was ridiculous so I added some commanders on the French side. I toyed here and there with commanders and flags etc., but it got out of control! Forgive me.

But my mission was accomplished (getting French and other Napoleonic state's commanders listed)!

I like the changes that were made recently. However, ironically now, I think there are too many French commanders listed. I think we should keep Joseph and Louis Bonaparte (as discussed above) and aside from Napoleon and his brothers, only list 3-4 trully noteworthy French commanders (Davout, Massena, Moreau, and Ney have my vote); drop the other names - that road has no end as we can't list the 20-something marshals of France under Bonaparte. Just add that handy "and others' for link to an article list of Bonaparte's Marshals. What are your thoughts folks? -Sean, 11/29/06

• Sounds good to me; however, I think we should keep one more Marshal, Marshal Murat. Murat was King of Naples, Napoleon’s brother in-law and had fought with Napoleon since the ‘Whiff of Grapeshot.’--Bryson 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If Nelson is in infobox then french leader at trafalgar Pierre-Charles Villeneuve should be also added(and if he doesnt fit then we should also remove nelson). Also why is Louis Bonaparte in commanders list, as far as i know he wasn't importnant commander(Joseph Bonaparte's importnance could be also disputed)?--Staberinde 17:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think Louis and Joseph should stay for reasons stated above. Yes, Villeneuve should be added.--Bryson 17:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Commanders box is about military commanders not about rulers. Otherwise we would have russian, prussian and austrian monarchs also in the list. Louis clearly doesnt belong to infobox and probably Joseph is also not very importnant leader. Probably they both should be replaced with some more importnant commanders(Soult and Lannes for example)--Staberinde 17:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the tendency to list politicians and statesmen sprung up with 20th-century wars, in which many heads of government had ceremonial (Roosevelt, Commander-in-Chief) or actual (Churchill, Minister of Defence; Stalin, Generalisimo) military functions. Frankly, I think the trend is absurd and I hold my sides laughing whenever I see George Bush and Tony Blair listed as "Military Commanders." Like I said, when you look at the collection of geniuses and heroes dominating Europe during this period, it seems kind of silly to see Joey Bonaparte crowding the list. The Bonaparte dynasty can be explained in the article text.

(By the way, I like the changes you've made, Bryson, but the guideline is to use simply names, not ranks, in the Infobox) Albrecht 17:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Heads of state have always had ceremonial military functions. Note how monarchs have normally dress since the Napoleonic period. I agree that this is silly. john k 18:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

First -Alexander I should be listed on the Russian side, he did indeed command the Russian forces at Austerlitz! Secondly, can we please list the British names as Arthur Wellesley and Horatio Nelson - not the pretentious sounding Duke of Wellington and Lord Nelson. If you are going to list titles for names then you could do this on the French side as well where many of the Marshals were given the title of Duke - I just want consistency please, you're going to note that Wellesley was given the title Duke but omit that Napoleon was an Emperor??!!-CONSISTENCY! And actually can we establish some criteria of what gets a commander listed?????? If they fought in a decisive battle of the Napoleonic Wars? If they acheived multiple decisive victories????? what is the criteria??? Sean 12/01/06

Napoleon's title in commanders box. Do we really need to add the title 'King of Italy', this might be confusing to have two titles. Maybe just keep it at one title, 'Emperor of the French'? --Bryson 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we could leave out that he was King of Italy, if you think it's good to omit facts in an Encyclopedic article, but that was a title that he was very often refered by - perhaps much to do with his Genovese extraction. (He was also Protector of the Rhine and Mediator of the Swiss). Sean 12/02/06

The commanders box is a mess, we don't need more than one title per person. Also do people really know who these people were? For example Suvorov and Desaix died in 1800, before the Napoleonic Wars even started.--Bryson 13:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What the Christ? I'm restoring my last version, now, and will mercilessly revert any edits leading us back to this mess. Albrecht 15:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved infobox back to john k version which was there before that massive editing started.--Staberinde 21:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Back to Politicians: By limiting commanders of war boxes to military commanders, are we saying that wars are purely military events? Does taxation and production play a part also? If so, then shouldn't the political masters be the key commanders listed in WAR boxes, as military commanders are listed in BATTLE boxes? The Gomm 23:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, we're saying that a summary field titled "Commanders" should list, you guessed it, commanders. If any given politicians introduced measures important to the conduct of military operations, then not to worry, they will be discussed in the article text. I think these problems keep cropping up because we forget that the boxes are there to feature as much key information as is practical, not as much information as we can. Albrecht 00:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a box for political leaders, and a separate one for military commanders? As it stands, the box says "commanders," not "leaders." BTW, in terms of titles, bonapartist titles are almost never used to refer to their holders. It is incredibly pretentious to call Davout the Duke of Auerstadt, or Masséna the Duke of Rivoli. British peerage titles, or German titles, on the other hand, are in standard usage, and how these people are normally referred. john k 23:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, all the three northern monarchs commanded troops, theoretically. None of them was in practical command. Kutuzov was the real commander at Austerlitz, and Schwarzenberg really led the army the three kings marched with in 1813, notably. john k 23:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I take exception with your assertion that Kutuzov was primarily in command at Austerlitz. From what I have gathered Alexander had command until he relinquished it himself after the bumbling - can you give me a source on your assertion? Secondly, why is it prefereable to use the title for British and German commanders, but not for Napoleon as Emperor of the French??- if your argument is - what they are most often refered by then wouldn't it then be correct to say the Napoleon should be listed as Napoleon I instead of Napoleon Bonaparte - titles are pretentious when used by Frenchmen, but not when used by Englishmen?? wow, that's quite another assertion you have - how about some consistency please - either Napoleon I and Duke of Wellington or Napoleon Bonaparte and Arthur Wellesley. Titles are pretentious, no matter how you would like to spin it. Maybe that's the American in me. Sean —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.181.217.123 (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Napoleon I is fine with me. But "Joachim Napoleon" instead of "Joachim Murat" would be ridiculous. So would "The Duke of Auerstadt" rather than "Louis Noclas Davout". It is not pretentious to call people the way they are known. Wellington is called "Wellington," not "Wellesley" - this is how he is known. It is not pretentious to call him this, it's just his name (after 1809). john k 18:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is João Francisco de Saldanha Oliveira e Daun, 1st Duke of Saldanha listed in the Commander's box? The very brief article on him states that he served against the British in 1810 and was captured. Note that in 1807 French and Spanish forces invaded Portugal and the Portugese King and most of the goverment went into exile in Brazil. In 1808 British forces forced out the French and a Portugese junta re-established the Portugese Army which fought alongside the British for until Napoleon's defeat in 1814. If he was fighting against Britain in 1810, he must have been one of a very small number of French sympathizers who remained loyal to Napoleon. He was only 20 at the time and certainly held no significant command. He was released and went into exile in Brazil. He was a very important person in Portugese politics after 1815 but that is certainly beyond the scope of this article. He certainly should be removed. I am afraid that I cannot suggest another Portugese commander to replace him. The Junta close integrated their army with the British. It operated under Wellington's command or under Marshall Beresford of Great Britain who was appointedas commander of the Army.99.241.103.0 (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the template talk page about commanders for large, complicated wars. Because it would likely be same problem for other large conflicts (ie. World War I, World War II), we should probably try to find a standard to agree on. Oberiko 13:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Whitby Incident

Does anyone know whether The Whitby Incident is true or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.231.61.249 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I highly doubt it is true.--Bryson 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a garbled version of the "Hartlepool Monkey Hangers" myth. Brickie 13:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Combatants

Might it not be simpler to just list combatants based on the signatories of the Treaty of Paris? That would mean just France on the one side (we could have an "and satellites" in addition to this, to indicate the changing line-ups of Napoleonic satellites), and Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sweden, Spain, and Portugal on the other. There were obviously more states involved, but most of them fought on both sides (as did Spain, Austria, Russia, and Prussia), and to try to do a full list of states on both sides would be counter-productive. john k 23:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added Denmark-Norway on the list of combatants on Napoleon's side. I was surprised not to see it on the list since it was steadfastly loyal towards Napoleon throughout the entire conflict. Boreanesia 17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Except when it was neutral until the British attacked it in 1807. Did it declare war on Austria in 1809? I still think the Treaty of Paris list makes the most sense. john k 15:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it was neutral until 1807, and thereafter it threw itself completely behind the cause of Napoleon. (I will add a note of this on the page itself). Considering its dearth of military resources, Denmark-Norway did what it could to support Napoleon. In 1813, the Danish Auxiliary Corps participated in campaigns, both offensive and defensive, in northern Germany alongside the French Army Corps under the command of Marshal Davout. Boreanesia 21:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hang on not all of France's allies were mere satellites - it suggests tha they were not fighting of their own will. The Poles and the Italians were not happy to see their lands occupied by the Austrians and Russians respectively speaking. So we should list them all by name.Tourskin 07:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Individual Poles and Italians, perhaps. But there were no Polish and Italian states which were not Napoleonic satellites. The Duchy of Warsaw was run by the French army, Napoleon himself was "King of Italy" and his brother-in-law was King of Naples. john k 13:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Caption on Arcole Pic

"Napoleon often led his troops from the front, inspiring great morale. This earned him the nickname 'Little Corporal'"

Napoleon did not get this nickname at Arcole, rather from the Battle of Lodi, for sighting cannons, usually a corporal’s task. --Bryson 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

and? the caption doesn't say that he earned this nickname at Arcole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.181.231.243 (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

The picure has been removed, but was misleading and implied he did. --Bryson 13:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

well that's awful speculative, I apologize for trying to add info to this piece, apparently you are an expert - why not just write and rewrite this thing through your own prism. I have a job and earn a living - have at it pal, because you have a degree in Napoleonic Era history from??? (I'm still floored that you completely believe that Czar Alexander never held field command - that's not what history says, maybe you should brush up on the Battle of Austerlitz). Naah, just rewrite the whole kitten-kaboodle. We'll call the new article "Napoleonic Wars (According to Bryson)" The captoin did not imply that, and who the **** cares where he earned the nickname. but you sure took care of it didn't you - the article has lost so much when you guys removed the first and second coalition, yeah, yeah 'it's not technically part of the Napoleonic Wars, yeah, and Vietnam wasn't a war etc.

"you completely believe that Czar Alexander never held field command" What, I never said anything like that, some else removed him from the commanders box. --Bryson 16:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Napoleonic War

British involvement as a land based army needs to be distanced, but the running Naval battles with French forces is loosely applicable under this heading.

Article demonstrates that a state of war existed between Britain and France, but the term Napoleonic War is similar to 'Hitler's War' a book by the largely shunned historian David Irving.

Napoleonic War is considered a rather vague term by the Historical community, and one that is deeply questioned by Academics and Military historians alike Londo06 18:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Date - Location ? INFOBOX?

What went on in Egypt and the Levant in the period from 1805–1815? Can they be removed? -Gomm 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Napolean's expedition to Egypt and his siege of Acre. It more or less ended in a French defeat, and had numerous consequences:

• beginning of British influence in Egypt and end of Ottoman influence
• destruction of part of French fleet (not all, Trafalgar saw the decisive destruction)
• Napolean's return saw him increase in power.Tourskin 07:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Contental System and Blockades

I am thinking we need to merge the various scattered discussions of the British/French economic warfare and all the peripheral wars they spawned into their own section (probably somewhere in the middle), so they tell a more integrated story and don't keep making asides from the military story. -Gomm 22:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Start Date?

We have two periods of war (1793-1802 and 1803-1814) and two names (French revolutionary wars and Napoleonic Wars). Can we just attach the first name to the first period, and the second name to the second period, even if Napoleon was ruler of france during part of the first, and didn't declare himself emperor until after the second had started? -Gomm 23:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

American Involvement

I’ve been wondering if America’s stance on Napoleon and the War of 1812 are good enough to have America be involved in the Napoleonic Wars. Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican Party did support Napoleon and the French Revolution. It was a though I wanted to put out and see what people think – RedNeckIQ55 8:52pm, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And the War of 1812 is just about as Napoleonic as the Gunboat war, i.e. both went to war with the UK over their naval practices, not out of any love or alliance with Napoleon. -Gomm 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

True but in Forign Policy sense America was a supported Napoleon and his goverment. - RedNeckIQ55 9:33pm, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, some Democratic-Republicans like Jefferson and future president Jackson had sympathies with Bonaparte, but for much of the Napoleonic Wars the Federalists, like John Adams, whose majority held the reigns, sought favor with Britain (many in the French government felt betrayed by America's chumming up to Britain so soon after the Revolutionary War, remember French military support in the independence effort). The Jay Treaty is a manifestation of this. Perhaps trade with America during the Napoleonic era helped keep England's economy on track and mitigated the affects of Napoleon's continental embargo against Britain. The War of 1812 was largely unconnected to the affairs of Napoleonic Europe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spatrick1 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I think there are many good examples of how America the War of 1812 is relevant to the war of 1812 including how it affected Britain's deployment of naval force. I also think the article should at least have a mention of the Louisiana Purchase and how that money affected Napoleon's war chest. - FrankSanMiguel 15:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The United States was peripherally involved in the Napoleonic Wars, but was never an active participant on either side. In fact, the USA was in a Quasi-War with France at the time Napoleon took over, and only later began to sympathize with him in any way. Even after the outbreak of the War of 1812, the U.S. never had a treaty of alliance with any participating power. You might as well list Sweden as a participant in the War of the Spanish Succession because Charles XII sent troops into the belligerent Holy Roman Empire while pursuing his separate war with Russia. Jsc1973 (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact was that the US came very close to declaring war on France for the same reasons it declared war on the UK. Tirronan (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But the French ceased to raid US shipping and there was some love Bonaparte in the US. And in a way, the US was an ally of the French Empire(unofficialy) because thay did countinue trade with Emperor Napoleon and a state of peace with him while trade was discontinued with the English and war was declared(in poor fashion, I might add, they were hardly anything in the way of ready to fight a war with a superower). So I do support the idea that the US was an ally, though partheses should be added to explain why.--Philippe Auguste (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to the above statement, "there was some love for Bonaparte in the US" means nothing. There were many people in the US who supported Hitler but of course the US was not one of the Axis! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.2 (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Friendly relationships between France and the United States facilitated the sale, by France, in 1803 of that large tract of land known as the Louisiana Purchase, the proceeds of which Napoleon used to buy armaments and ammunition to fight the British.

Additionally the War of 1812 is a North American version of the Napoleonic Wars. The American flag should be indicated as one of the combatants on the French side. Use "partheses" or brackets or whatever you like, but the current absence of the American flag is conspicuous, especially when the article contains a section describing the American involvement in opposition to the British.

Rammer (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not they meant to the American government certainly assisted Napoleon by forcing Britain to send more troops and money to North America that would of been much more useful in fighting France. ([User:Willski72])Willski72 (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

--Was there a formal alliance between France and the US? Did Napoleon ask for US involvement and the US agree to it? I'm sorry, but I don't even know why the War of 1812 is even mentioned here because it barely had anything to do with what was going on in Europe. To claim the US was on the French side would be akin to saying that North Korea was allied with Iraq during the second Gulf War because it started making noises and drew US attention to it during that time. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes but North Korea did not invade American controlled territory and force them to send valuable troops and ships to stem a North Korean invasion. Also to compare the British position in 1812 to the American position in 1991 is plain silly. Iraq did not control virtually the whole of the Middle East nor was it poised to invade America if it had enough ships! Its as i pointed out above, the Americans were not allied with France and so they should not be in the same side as France, however the fact that they (maybe not intentionally) helped France by seriously compromising its most stubborn enemy should be mentioned.Willski72 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The only link between the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars is the fact that they happened at the same time, and that Britain had to divert some men to America. There was no alliance between America and France, no concerted plan. Frankly, claiming that the War of 1812 was the same as the Napoleonic Wars based on this is as daft as claiming that the Second Anglo-Maratha War was the same as the Napoleonic Wars -- after all, it took place at the same time, and Britain sent some soldiers there. Just a final point: are there any major published sources which treat the Napoleonic Wars and War of 1812 as the same conflict? I haven't been able to find any.90.240.171.45 (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the fact that they are somewhat connected does not mean they were part of the same event. In order for this information to be included in a Wikipedia article, there needs to be a reliable source that says they were part of the same conflict, not an interpretation that they were based only on sources that cover the events individually. (wp:synth) The war of 1812 should not even be covered in this article.--Abusing (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Persia?

I just read the articles on the Russo-Persian War (1804-1813), the Gulistan Treaty of 1813, and of Abbas Mirza. It seems to me that Napoleon had an ally engaging Russia in the Near East. Shouldn't Persia be listed under combatants siding with France? Boreanesia 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire???

Okay so it was just a fancy name by 1803 but it still existed until 1805 so why is it not in the combatants section? Tourskin 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Romans have waited long enough. I'm including them in as an enemy of Napolean. No onjection for four days Tourskin 01:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also added in a little note. Wow, is that how references are done? That was easy, time to turn my stubs into featured articles. Lol, only kidding.Tourskin 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It existed until 1806, actually. As far as I know, the Diet of the Empire never declared war on France after the conclusion of the French Revolutionary Wars. It did not participate in the war of the third coalition, the only one of the Napoleonic Wars it might've been involved in. I'm removing it. john k 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? Why was it disbanded then? Furthermoore the Empire may not have declared war officially but because Habsburg Austria was at war, that would have placd Imperial realms of teh Empire in a de facto status of war - it is hard to believe otherwise.Tourskin 06:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it would not. Princes of the Empire had the right to make war independently of the Empire itself, which could only go to war as the result of the action of the diet. This included the emperor himself, in his capacity as a hereditary ruler of various lands within the empire. (As King of Hungary and Galicia, and ruler of Venice, the Emperor also possessed lands outside the Empire, which, again, could make war independently of the Empire.) For the Holy Roman Empire itself to go to war, it was required that the Diet declare war. This had specific results - each prince, free city, etc., had a particular quota of troops or money it had to supply for the imperial war effort. Please read up on this subject before changing articles. john k 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hyperpower"

I am removing the reference, under the political fallout after the wars section, to Britain being the world's first "hyperpower". I don't think this is accurate at all. The term was coined to describe post-1991 America, which for the first time in the modern era achieved dominance in ALL areas of power - economic, cultural, military (incl sea, air, AND land). Britain was a great power after 1815, arguably the strongest among them, but never achieved the degree of all-encompassing superiority to warrant the label 'hyperpower'. (Besides, one might add, the term carries definite negative connotations!). Dmhaglund 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It did go on to cover 1/4 of the worlds surface and 1/3rd of the worlds population while maintaining an army smaller than 200,000 though. I you use the term Hyperpower to mean unopposed in dominance then that would apply to Britain until the Naval arms race with Germany. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: delisted

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of September 10, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R. The article currently has very few inline citations, even after the notice nearly a year ago from Agne (see Talk:Napoleonic_Wars#GA_Re-Review_and_In-line_citations). The current ones need to be better formatted with more description, consider using the templates at WP:CITET. Since inline citations are a requirement of the GA criteria, I have delisted the article at this time. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. The article is an interesting read and broad in coverage, but just needs improvement in sourcing. I have updated the article's history to reflect this review. Regards, Nehrams2020 06:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Navies

How come there isn't a article regarding the navies of the coalition and Frances allies? They are certainly a important part of Napoleonic Wars history.Philippe Auguste 18:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian flag

The Russian flag in the Combatants section is the flag of the modern Russian Federation, it should be the old imperial flag, with the 2-headed eagle. DaveyCakes 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The tricolour which is the flag of the Russian Federation was also used during the Napoleonic Wars. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Russia 99.241.103.0 (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanover

Hanover was up to 1803 an independent state under the rule of the British monarch. After the occupation it became alternately a part of Prussia or the Kingdom of Westphalia, but became soon enough independent to be an important participant in the 7th coalition and the Battle of Waterloo. Also there is to be taken into consideration the King's German Legion, which was a part of the British army, but also the exiled army of Hanover. Therefore I believe, that Hanover should be included in the list of participants (when you include such states as Sicily or Sardinia in which the KGL was stationed). Anne-theater (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Westphalia

I just noticed, that you listen Westphalia as having fought alongside the anti-French allies. But Westphalia was an artifical state created by Napoleon and ruled by his brother! Therefore it was never against France! Until perhaps, when the French were defeated and it was dissolved again Anne-theater (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On the Positioning of the different nations under 'Belligerents'

Surely this is impossible to do, due to the fact that many countries changed their allegiances a few times. Prussia for example refused to trade with Britain when Napoleon had defeated her. It was only when the 'Grand Armee' was defeated in Russia that she once again joined the British side. The only countries i can think of the that can be reliably put on the side of the allies throughout the war are Britain and Sweden.--Willski72 25 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to say thanks for listening to my suggestion (should of said that sooner but forgot). Definately a good article! ([User:Willski72]) 17:56 3 March 2009Willski72 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

UK's title

It's true that "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is not currently used, but the title was used from 1707 to 1800. See the text of the treaty that created it, for one example, and Kingdom of Great Britain for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Borodino and oops

This is just not right: Russia maintained a scorched-earth policy of retreat, broken only by the Borodino on September 7, 1812. This bloody confrontation ended in a tactical draw, but Napoleon eventually forced the Russians to back down, thus opening the road to Moscow.

I rewrote most of the Battle of Borodino and unless overwhelming proof is present I am going to change this tonight... Tirronan (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Military legacy

We seem to have forgotten the driving down of the formation of decision being the Corps in the French army further evolving to the Division/Brigade in the Prussian Army and the start of the developement of the General Staff system in Prussia as a direct result of study on the French system of warfare. Tirronan (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Old and sad but endlessly repeated

Ok folks this article is due for some attention and a reaffrimation of Wiki policy aka WP:Cite. I have been around this post enough that I know what happens and doesn't happen but from this point on... If you can not cite to a reputable source, don't bother I'll be reverting it. I don't know why it is that everyone thinks they know everything about everything on the Napoleonic war period but by God they sure do... or more to the point think they do and proceed to write it down here. So we get gems like the "Draw" at Borodino...(you know the one where the Russian army was in tatters at the end) The mass losses caused by the Russian winter retreat...(regardless of the fact that 2/3 of all the dead and dying were already dead for months durning the summer and fall). All this has brought us to some horrible level of history by fiction. Now how about from this point on we start cracking real history books and cite what we write or go back to the novels we all so love and forget adding anything additional and dragging this article down further. This isn't an opinion poll, write it-cite it. Tirronan (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Category for deletion comments would be appreciated

There is a category which is requested for deletion here that is relevant to the period, so interested editors may wish to contribute to it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

USA?

Should the USA be listed as it was fighintg the UK at this time?76.15.56.93 (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

See arguments above in Talk:Napoleonic_Wars#American_Involvement. Rammer (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary

Why is the Kingdom of Hungary listed as one of the Coallition forces member states? Wasn't it part of the Austrian Empire?--Andronicus92 07:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It was--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no! Hungary was up 1849 in a sort independence. In the Battle of Győr (Raab), and Battle of Leipzig few thousand hungarian soldier to battle againts the Frenchs. Hungary alike belligerent in the Napoleonic Wars. Doncsecz (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we sort of see your sources?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Few history-book write of the hungarian forces in the Napoleonic wars. Besides cannot a painting, whereat be seen, immediately hungarian troops battle to againts the frenchs in the Battle of Leipzig. I think so was also several command. Doncsecz (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is not true. Rothenberg, a respected Austrian historian, had published much on the subject of the Austro-Hungarian forces during the Napoleonic Wars, and has been translated into English. We know that conscription was not possible in Hungary, and was resisted by the Diet, and in 1808 for example there were no reserve battalions in Hungarian regiments, and only 20,000 volunteers were authorised. Threatened with war in 1809, the Diet still resisted the formation of Hungarian landwehr, but promised 60,000troops as part of the insurrectio, on which Charles was unable to rely. I direct you to p.130 of Rothenberg's Napoleon's great adversaries where he quotes Palatine Archduke Joseph in saying that any attempt to deliver into the army the promised extra recruits was bound to create a revolt in the Hungarian provinces, adding an internal security problem to the external one. Further, on page 157 he adds that during the was Hungarians were hostile to the Hapsburgs, and only 3,800 cavalry and 8,000 infantry arrived at Raab, a far cry even from the 20,000 agreed on.

This being a main article for the wars, it seems inappropriate to highlight presence of Hungarian cavalry at any specific battle. Politically and economically Hungary remained a part of the Empire, and although it had a significant freedom of how much it contributed to the field armies, it did not do so independently, and no Hungarian unit took to the field with any flag other than that issued by the Emperor. The use of flag templates in the infobox is primarily to inform the reader using graphics who participated in the war, and the Kingdom of Hungary, as a constituent part fo the Hapsburg Empire was not such a participant--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I lived in Hungary and the every hungarian wikipedians support to for this right. Doncsecz (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, I guess you learn something--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The hungarian soldiers in the Napoleonic Wars: The Hungarian army was kept separate in its uniform and organization...It should be noted that the "German" regiments included all Waloon, Bohemian, Moravian, Galician, Croatian and Italian units too.the Hungarian cavalry included only the national hussars with their distinctive dress, and even Hungarian general officers had a uniform based on the hussar costume. The source 1 and source 2. Doncsecz (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Doncsecz, you can help and improve this article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still part of the Austrian Empire at the time. Same reason we don't distinguish the areas of Croatia and Romania that provided the Austrian Grenzers. 131.111.213.37 (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Napoleonic Wars NOT a "world war"?

Heres another opinion, the Napoleonic Wars was not a world war. The Napoleonic wars was a series of wars all obviously occurring at different times. As to where WW1 and WW2 were just one war like the Seven Years War. Because the Napaoleonic wars are split up, technically the whole world wasnt fighting eachother at the same time as in WW1 and WW2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ13090 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Beyond some minor naval actions against British imperial interests, the Napoleonic Wars were much less global in scope than preceding conflicts such as Seven Years' War which historians would term a "world war"."

Without a citation, this remark seems to indicate the Napoleonic Wars were NOT a world war. While its fair to say there were certainly other conflicts that took place on a global level before the Napoleonic Wars, this statement implies the Napoleonic Wars were not a world war. I'm not going to remove it just yet, since I'd like some other opinions. ---HuronKing October 12 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.115.78 (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to do historical analysis in a non-biased way on Wikipedia, but this is completely accurate. The Seven Years' War involved engagements in almost every area of the world, the Napoleonic wars were almost completely centered in Europe. The lack of hold that European powers held on their colonial possessions during this period is really what makes the conflict non-global. --MeatJustice (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that, as an extension of the Peninsular War, Portuguese troops based in Brazil seized French Guiana (1809 ?) and Uruguay (1811 ?). Therefore, the war in Europe also spread to South America. Assuming also the War of 1812 between the U.S and Britain as part of the broader Napoleonic Wars, I'd say it comes very close to a world war. 200.168.20.68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

It was as close to a world war as you were going to get with the military technology available at the time. At what point does the death count become high enough for a war fought in many parts of the world to become a world war? ([User:Willski72])Willski72 (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there in fact an agreed definition of a world war? Would it be a war on more than one continent (the Napoleonic Wars were fought on at least four, Europe, Africa, North America and South America). That would also include the War of the Spanish Succession a century earlier, and even the Dutch-Portuguese War. Is it one affecting the majority of the world's most populous nations? One affecting the world's most powerful nations? One affecting more than half the global population? On top of this, does 'affecting' mean direct involvement? China was not a belligerent, but Chinese trade was affected by the British blockade of France. Under some definitions, the Great War of 1914-1918 did not become a world war until 1917, when Japan and the USA became involved, despite some fighting in Africa. The term 'world war' was not coined until 1904 (in German) and not applied to the Great War until after 1939. Since then 'World War 1' stuck to the Great War. It may in fact have been 'World War 2, 3, 4 or 5' depending on definition.86.168.115.89 (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC) L E Greys

It should also be pointed out that populations in Europe would grow in size by large amounts between the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War. In Britain for example the population tripled under the effects of the Industrial Revolution. So therefore perphaps the number of deaths should be taken as a proportion of a countries population rather than actual dead on the field. Though this is of course important we can get a better understanding of the effects on the world at the time by proportion and we can work out whether, by this score, it matches the two later wars.Willski72 (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

USA French Ally?!

The USA should not be listed as a French ally. I'm not going to waste my time explaining. Jersey John (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, but you also gotta remember Russia wasnt an ally of the United Kingdom or Sweden either.--Fomerom (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

He's right, the United States was declaredly neutral during the Napoleonic Wars, which was the direct cause of both the Quasi-War and the War of 1812, in which the British and French attempted to profit from American shipping. I'll check if it's still listed that way. --MeatJustice (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The USA wasnt an ally of France but they ended up being very helpful to France by diverting many British troops and forcing Britain to waste money that would of been much better spent defeating Napoleon. They shouldnt be listed as a French ally but that point should be made. ([User:Willski72])Willski72 (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See arguments in Talk:Napoleonic_Wars#American_Involvement. Rammer (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents

IMO under "French Empire and allies:" in the infobox it should be listed like this to make more clear that these states were only short-lived puppet states created by the conquering French rather than independent nations. These states did only exist during the wars and were mostly artificial creations with no real power similar to states set up by the Axis powers during World War II. The states were more like subdivisions of the French empire.

French Empire and allies:
French Empire

• Holland^[f]
  
• Italy
  
• Etruria^[g]
  
• Naples^[h]
  
• Duchy of Warsaw^[i]
  
• Confederation of the Rhine^[j]:
  • Bavaria
  • Saxony
  • Westphalia
  • Württemberg

Denmark–Norway^[k]
Ottoman Empire

Gabagool (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem that you have here is that many of these states still exist in the FGR and are still functioning political entities, the Duchy of Warsaw is in fact the direct liner anticedent of Poland, last time I checked the Netherlands is still a state. This is in my opinion is a can of worms best left alone. --Tirronan (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's wrong anyways as it is just redicolous to list Etruria, Napoleonic Italy etc. up as independent cuntries in the same fashion as Denmark-Norway and the Ottoman Empire. Isn't it better to just make this clear rather than trying to make it look like something it isn't? Gabagool (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

several issues, most of the German states lived on after the 1815 capitulation and as did some of the Italian states, is it true in every case no, but the majority would fail that test. Tirronan (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

USA a French ally

The US and Napoleon were not allies, has everybody here forgot about the Quasi war, 1798-1800. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ13090 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Time to consolidate and reconsider the various arguments and recurring interests in the role of the United States in the Napoleonic Wars. See Talk:Napoleonic_Wars#American_Involvement, Talk:Napoleonic_Wars#USA.3F, and Talk:Napoleonic_Wars#USA_French_Ally.3F.21. If the War of 1812 was not one of the Napoleonic Wars and consequently the U.S. flag is not displayed among the combatants supporting France, then why does the article contain a section on the War of 1812? Rather than to try to have it both ways, as at present, why not just put the American flag up there on the French side? The USA was at war against the British and in support of the French. Leaving the American flag totally out of the Napoleonic Wars would be like not including the Japanese flag on the Axis side in World War II. The continent or ocean in which the combatants fought is not the issue. The issue is who supported whom. Rammer (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Is there a citation that claims the US was a French ally? Just delete the misplaced section on the War of 1812. It doesn't belong in this article anyway. --Jojhutton (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Could it be more correct to put the United States on the side against the British, though separated from France with a line in the same manner as for instance the Iraq War-article? This would show that they were in fact in war against the British, but at the same time that they also weren't allied with France. -GabaG (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. To suggest that the US invasion of Canada in 1812 had no impact on the Napoleonic Wars is nonsense. Its perfectly true that the USA was not allied to France but it is also true that they aided them, whether intentionally or not, by diverting British soldiers, sailors and money. Therefore the US should be put on the side of France, while a line would show that this was either not intentional or that they were not officially allied to France.Willski72 (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Rammer, bad comparison, the reason why the Japanese flag is listed in the Axis combatants section of the WW2 article is simply because the German's and Japanese were officially allied to eachother. The French and the United States were not officially allies or unofficially in any type of way. Obviously the War of 1812 benefited France by forcing a British campaign in North America subsequently diverting British troops and supplies. This was unintentional, the War of 1812 was not launched by the United States to aid France in their wars of conquest. It began as result of British aggression on the seas. This is also why I stress the importance of having the Treaty of Ghent in the results section. I placed it before but someone tryed to distort history and remove it, making the results misleading. I dont think the War of 1812 should be listed as part of the Napoleonic Wars but if it is going to, there should be a bar in between the French flag and her real and true allies and a section below for combatants who by coincidence fought the British at the same time. It's like that old saying, An empire is always at war. Which means an empire of great scale, occupying land in far seperated regions, can very easily come in hostile conflict with two seperate cultures, thus resulting in two seperate wars. Do we consider the Irish Revolution as a campaign of World War One, obviously we do not. We don't consider the Mahdist War as part of the Boer War. There are two examples of the British Empire fighting wars at the same time yet these two wars are considerd to be seperate. What is the difference.--Az81964444 (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have changed my mind, I have decided to not list the War of 1812 results, most Americans do not consider the War of 1812 part of the Napoleonic Wars so wiki commons should come into play. I will however delete the the Napoleonic Wars from the "part of" section of the War of 1812 campaign box. This article does not feature the American flag or the the Americans commanders who fought the british during the War of 1812. Obviously someone else agrees with me, the American flag and commanders have not been re-added for some while I believe. Therefore the issue seems to have been resolved.--Az81964444 (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The correct term for the United States during the French Revolutionary wars and the Napoleanic Wars is as a Co-Belligerant, first of Britan during the Quasi-war, and then of France during the War of 1812. XavierGreen (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In Commanders

I like whats been done it makes everything much simpler. But in the Commanders list there are many and i was wondering if there was room for one more. General Sir John Moore fought in Spain the peninsular were he was killed in 1808. He commanded, at one point, 35000 men which was big for a British force, and was commander of the British at Corrunna (which they lost although it was distinguished for the harsh conditions of the retreat to Corrunna and brave rear guard action.) Not the most important General but i think he deserves a mention as he was at least as important as some others on the Commanders list.Willski72 (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In Combatants list

Austria, Prussia and Spain were key allies in the war against Napoleon. However all 3 of them swapped sides at least once during the war (Spain was a French ally until it got invaded) and Prussia and Austria were forced into allying with France. So just having them on the side (with Britain and Portugal etc) but not on the other side with France is technically wrong. Although it is less confusing!Willski72 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

war of 1812..... again

Someones removed the war of 1812 from the article without consensus again saying that it had no relevance. This argument can easily be disputed, discussion is necessary!Willski72 (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

USA as participant?

I know of no historian or history book that claims USA fought Britain on the side of France. The War of 1812, though against Britain was certainly not for France either. The War of 1812 has always been considered a separate conflict from the Napoleonic Wars. As a matter of fact, the USA also fought France in the Quasi War just a few years earlier but was anything but Britain's ally at the time. Wikipedia is the only place in all the years I have studied military history that claims the War of 1812 is part of the Napoleonic Wars, which is why I will never consider wikipedia a site for serious research into any subject. If they can make major mistakes like this I am sure there are many minor mistakes as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.1 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We have been through the argument here and (i think) came to the conclusion that the US was not an ally of France but obviously helped France's war effort. This was not done intentionally but, nevertheless, by forcing Britain to divert, men, money, supplies, ships etc to fight the US, the amount Britain could field in Europe was substantially reduced. So mentioning the War of 1812 helps to put across the whole situation but it should not be mentioned in any detail (other than to say that it was a second war for Britain that consumed valuable resources needed in Europe etc.)Willski72 (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

USA as a participant

Although I think it is true that the USA did not openly pledge their support to Napoleon, I agree with the above the Americans probably would have no love for the British at this time and I think it is possible that American soldeirs fought in the Napoleonic Wars on the side of France, although possibly not under their own banner, even if they helped France unintentially. Considering the Lousiana purchase, where the U.S brought Lousiana off France and Napoleon, they might have sent troops as part of their payment. Napoleon did use the money from the Lousiana purchase to fund his war in Europe after all.

France provided ports for American privateers, however the American Congress came very close to declaring war on France as well. Any help that America gave France was in unintentional benefit not a cooperative decision. Tirronan (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

'Unintentional benefit' does not really convey the sheer benefit it was for France. Though i do not think that the US should be classed as an ally of France the war itself must be mentioned, because whether you like it or not it had a large effect on the capacity of France's major enemy to field an army in Europe, pay for a new coalition, and provide a blockade of France itself as troops, ships and money were diverted to North America. It would have been the equivalent of Mexico invading Texas in early 1944 if it wasnt allied with Germany or Japan. It would still be mentioned in a World War two article.Willski72 (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this is left to a paragraph in the text. Including it in the info box is just asking for problems, confusion and misunderstanding. Infoboxes are tools for simple facts, the USA's role was anything but simple and is ill suited to that medium. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think thats fair enough and that course of action has my support.Willski72 (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the War of 1812 being mentioned as perhaps handcuffing Britain's war effort in Europe a bit....that is obvious. What is wrong is the fact that this article has USA's flag on the French side on the campaign box and that on the map the USA is colored (green I think it was) as being a being a beligerent on the side of France when it should be colored neutral gray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.1 (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The caption underneath the map explains that the US was not Allied with the French and to be fair there is no other place to put the US than on the French side, it most certainly wasnt on the coalition side. I think the line dividing it from the rest with a little star describing that it wasnt allied with France underneath sorts out that problem. If what is proposed in the next discussion down is done then the US will be off most of the maps and could perphaps be made light green instead of the full green when its put in.--Willski72 (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly USA should probably be kept out of the infobox. It just adds another layer of unnecessary confusion (just look at the footnotes already!). Mentioning in the text is fine but I'd rather only major parties in the wars be in the infobox. Centy – reply• contribs – 13:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd keep the USA out of the info box myself, yes the 1812 war did impact the war effort incidental or not. Convoy's had to be arranged and escorted all over the Atlantic trade routes and supply lines due to American privateers (often carrying American corn for Wellington's troops interestingly enough) but America didn't see itself as a French ally nor did France consider her as such. The lack of troops available for the 100 days campaign was affected as well as some 20,000 British troops where in the North American theater of operations (where they would accomplish surprisingly little) when they were much needed on the continent.Tirronan (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents map

The map purporting to show the participants in the wars on one or other side is deeply problematic, considering how many states fought both with and against France at different times, besides periods of neutrality. The most extreme instance of this is Spain, which was an ally of France for about as long (1797-1808) as it was an enemy (1793-7, 1808-15), but appears here as a 'coalition' power. A series of wars with so many changes of alignment cannot be accurately summarised by such a representation. I suggest that there should be one or more maps showing alignments at an explicitly specified point or points in time. Otherwise it should be removed. Oh, and if the USA is included (with the qualification stated in the caption), what about the Marathas? Zburh (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish monarchy was an opponent of Napoleon; their "alliance" only came after France conquered them and turned them into a satellite state. So yes, multiple maps -- one for each coalition, I suppose -- would work. -- LightSpectra (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its the same with Russia and Prussia and Austria etc. I think different coalition maps is the only way you could get round it. Anyone want to do that?--Willski72 (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now created separate maps for the combatants of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh coalition. If someone want to, it would be useful to check the maps for errors or other possible corrections before eventually putting them into use. If required I may possibly also make maps for more stages of the war too. Regards, -GabaG (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done! Now all thats left to do is to put them on.--Willski72 (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1812 again....and again!

I have taken the liberty of adding two relatively short sentences onto the war of 1812 section. I do not believe that this significantly increases the length and i am merely including it to show what effects the war had (and thus why it is mentioned in the article at all!). I have tried to keep it as neutral as possible and as truthful as possible however I expect corrections/deletions etc (though i hope this will not be necessary!) My addition does not have any effect on the nations allegiances at the top right of the article.--Willski72 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I invite criticism etc, i should have mentioned that!--Willski72 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

last veterans !

Zaro aga is the last veteran of napoleonic wars. He fought in Turkish army against France in Egypt. Died in 1930s. Also he is the one of longest liver in mankind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.194.162 (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Ghent

I have added the Treaty of Ghent to the results section of the campaign box. The Treaty of Ghent must be listed as a result because the Congress of Vienna did not decide the War of 1812. To leave the Treaty of Ghent out of the results section is very misleading. Personally, the War of 1812 had nothing to do with Napoleon so it should not be included as a conflict of the Napoleonic Wars. Do we consider the Irish Revolution as part of World War One, no. Do we include the Boer War as part of the Mahdist War, no. Why is there a double standard for these type of issues on wiki? Because the War of 1812 is listed in this article, I stress the need to include the Treaty of Ghent as one of the results. If one deletes the Treaty of Ghent from the results section, I will simply add it again, as I did the first time.--Az81964444 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have changed my mind, I have decided to not list the War of 1812 results, most Americans do not consider the War of 1812 part of the Napoleonic Wars so wiki commons should come into play. I will however delete the the Napoleonic Wars from the "part of" section of the War of 1812 campaign box. This article does not feature the American flag or the the Americans commanders who fought the british during the War of 1812. Obviously someone else agrees with me, the American flag and commanders have not been re-added for some while I believe. Therefore the issue seems to have been resolved.--Az81964444 (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of America OR?

Are there any actual major published sources which consider the War of 1812 to be part of the Napoleonic Wars? I haven't seen any. I think therefore that including the Americans in the battlebox counts as an example of original research. I'll remove it, unless someone can find a source for the inclusion in the next few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.171.45 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've just removed America from the battlebox. Anyone with a source which considers the two wars to be the same can feel free to revert the edit.90.240.171.45 (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Seventh Coalition

Apparently we don't believe in citation so we get IP addresses feeling free to put anything anywhere as they see fit.

here is what you have for this section in part:

Napoleon took about 124,000 men of the Army of the North on a pre-emptive strike against the Allies in Belgium. He intended to attack the Coalition armies before they combined, in hope of driving the British into the sea and the Prussians out of the war. His march to the frontier achieved the surprise he had planned. He forced Prussia to fight at Ligny on 16 June 1815, and the defeated Prussians retreated in some disorder. On the same day, the left wing of the Army of the North, under the command of Marshal Michel Ney, succeeded in stopping any of Wellington's forces going to aid Blücher's Prussians by fighting a blocking action at Quatre Bras. Ney failed to clear the cross-roads and Wellington reinforced the position. But with the Prussian retreat, Wellington too had to retreat. He fell back to a previously reconnoitred position on an escarpment at Mont St Jean, a few miles south of the village of Waterloo.

Napoleon took the reserve of the Army of the North, and reunited his forces with those of Ney to pursue Wellington's army, after he ordered Marshal Grouchy to take the right wing of the Army of the North and stop the Prussians re-grouping. Grouchy failed, and although he engaged and defeated the Prussian rearguard under the command of Lt-Gen von Thielmann in the Battle of Wavre (18–19 June), the rest of the Prussian army "marched towards the sound of the guns" in the direction of Waterloo. Napoleon delayed the start of fighting at the Battle of Waterloo on the morning of 18 June for several hours while he waited for the ground to dry after the previous night's rain. By late afternoon, the French army had not succeeded in driving Wellington's forces from the escarpment on which they stood. When the Prussians arrived and attacked the French right flank in ever-increasing numbers, Napoleon's strategy of keeping the Coalition armies divided had failed and a combined Coalition general advance drove his army from the field in confusion.

Grouchy partially redeemed himself by organizing a successful and well-ordered retreat towards Paris, where Marshal Davout had 117,000 men ready to turn back the 116,000 men of Blücher and Wellington. Militarily, it appeared quite possible (even probable) that the French could defeat Wellington and Blücher, but politics proved the source of the Emperor's downfall. And, even if Davout had succeeded in defeating the two northern Coalition armies, around 400,000 Russian and Austrian troops continued to advance from the east.

Ok where to start, 1st off Napoleon didn't stop Wellington from going to Blucher's aid, he was too scattered to have effected concentration in time to have helped in the 1st place, check the Battle of Ligny and Battle of Waterloo articles for information. Napoleon went after the Prussians as a primary Target because they were concentrated (provided you forget about the 4th corps) and were therefore much more dangerous. Hence the Prussian now German charges of leaving them out to hang with false promises. None-the-less we need to stick to the fact that Wellington was out of position as he himself admitted to.

2nd assumes that Marshal Grouchy actually made a mistake which I disagree with. He met with Napoleon and had directives to insert his forces between the Prussians and British armies if he could (which in fact is what he thought he was doing) and mostly to keep the disorganized Prussians from reassembling and hurry them back along their lines of communications with Prussia. In fact the scope of the entire operation was wrong and neither Napoleon nor Grouchy realized it. Prussian deserters were running back along the lines of communication (gathered up and sent back to the front a few days later) and this confused the issue for awhile. Grouchy realized that was not the case when his troops gathered information and staff orders to where formations were to assemble. He sent Napoleon this information and his intention to assault Wavre and he got not one but two messages urging him to do exactly what he was doing. It took 4 to 6 hours for a message from Waterloo to reach Wavre. This section also makes it sound like Grouchy could have in fact changed anything however this was just not the case, he was badly out of position and had Thielmann between himself and Napoleon and no way to get around them. Check Chesney on that one. Napoleon did much to seal his fate when he left Grouchy at Ligny.

3rd Defeating Theilman on the 19th 12 hours after the issue was decided on the field of Waterloo with a force half the size of Grouchy is called a delaying action which was pulled off rather nicely using the terrain to their advantage, this was tactically good generalship by the Prussian's and not a defeat.

4th Davout was defeated as Issy if memory serves and French moral was about at rock bottom.

Finally where exactly did we think we have permission to write anything without a citation one? When did we start allowing IP addresses to add anything they desire? This is the article that at one time had the comment that "Napoleon and his henchmen" by some prog inserted in what should be a history article. Gentlemen this is not where we put what we think happened but rather what we can prove happened backed up with reputable citation... looks to me like we are back to the opinion express again.Tirronan (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

More POV

The United Kingdom emerged as the most powerful country in the world, coined by some as a hyperpower. Britain's Royal Navy gained unquestioned naval superiority throughout the world and her industrial economy made it the most powerful commercial country as well.

I'd support that the UK was the predominant Naval power in the world but when you have about zero power across the channel let alone across the world this gets rather disputable.Tirronan (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See the British Empire article for dominance of Britain after the Napoleonic Wars. It was undoubtedly the dominant economic power by a long way, and the most powerful commercially. This is a fact. Its nearest competitor had been France, but the war had knocked France back decades whereas Britain had captured many new markets using naval dominance. Britain also became the most powerful country. This is agreed upon by virtually every historian. Note that Britain kept a small, professional army by choice, safe in the knowledge that it had a navy that massively outnumbered anyone elses. But if necessary Britain could also have built up a huge army, using its economic advancement and might to win a war. But Britain found that diplomacy was cheaper and a large war could only damage the economy in the long-run.--Willski72 (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Britain had much influence across the channel and around the world after the Napoleonic Wars. Not just amongst the territories it conquered or "protected" but also in blocking the Holy Alliance in Spain's rebelling American colonies, in numerous alliances to keep European peace such as the Quintuple Alliance, in the opening up of new markets (to the benefit of all Europe, example Opium Wars), not to mention the unofficial Empire where the British virtually owned many countries economies though the country itself was independant, thus Argentina, Siam etc.--Willski72 (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That sure sounds good but the problem is that it wasn't even the dominant land power on the continent it remained in the top 6 economically depending on whose figures you want to use. However if you check your econ outputs for the UK, France, Germany, Austrio-Hungarian empire, Russia, and the US, it doesn't hold up well. You might have an issue with Virtually every historian, there are lots of them writing books about the balance of power from the Congress of Vienna to WW1 and that theme didn't seem to be showing up. You would have a case for dominant naval power as she had a navy twice the size of anyone else through 1918. Tirronan (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I did quite a bit of research, to find that the British Empire as a whole was 21% of the gross GDP as of 1870 losing perhaps 4% points of that due to the rise of the USA, Germany, and Russia, by 1914. This didn't seem to give her much of an advantage in the WWI as I would have expected to see a roll over and this didn't take place. None the less... I was wrong and I withdraw my objection. Tirronan (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The term "hyperpower" is ridiculous, I will say that. john k (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox commanders

Template:Infobox military conflict suggests that for "wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended." The infobox on this page currently lists 28 commanders on the Coalition side and 20 on the French side - clearly too many, or what? Not only is this much above the recommended maximum, it's also so many it makes the lists unhelpful. The Coalition list, for example, includes figureheads (Maria of Portugal), redlinks (Bernardim Freire de Andrade, whoever that is), leaders of nations that aren't listed as combatants (Jean-Jacques Dessalines), leaders of countries that existed for only a few months of the Napoleonic era (William of the Netherlands), and leaders with little military strength or involvement (Pope Pius). Such a random list, with so many leaders with little notability in the big picture, has little purpose. Both lists should be trimmed to something resembling the recommended seven. I suggest removing everyone except the leaders of the Great Powers (Britain, Austria, Russia, Prussia) and the most notable military commanders (Wellington, others? Kutuzov? Charles John of Sweden?) on the Coalition side and everyone except Napoleon, perhaps a few of his marshals, and the leaders of his most important allies and satellites (Bavaria and Saxony, maybe Warsaw?). 96T (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)