Talk:French Revolutionary Wars

message: wouldn't the duke of wellington count as one of the commanders in the french revolutionary wars?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.228.120 (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: commanders

message: Look guys, this really isn't the place for an extended discussion of the Battle of Waterloo, of all things.  I've archived the discussion, which at this point has absolutely nothing to do with the content of this article. john k 04:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: Could someone put some casualties figures? Even if they're rough estimates. Pretty please?
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.66 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: Ye gods there are a lot of François Mignet excerpts in the context section. Can someone write some original content there? Not that there's anything wrong with quotations, obviously, but it seems a bit unbalanced. Shinyplasticbag 02:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New territory for me this.. but I've created a WikiQuote link and maybe, you never know, I'll eventually shift some of the quoted material across there. Watch this space... Scoop100 20:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  François Mignet 

message: ::Austrian bi-color incorrect for Holy  Roman Empire period when Imperial Standard is used.Tttom1 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag icons

message: Why not include the Jacobins on the tab "Other important figures and factions"? Where are Marat, Robespierre and others?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.10.29 (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed bizarre.  That whole template is weird - "Opposition military leaders" doesn't include Nelson, for instance. john k (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figures and Factions 

message: The section of the beginning of wars is misleading on one count and wrong on another. It is wrong because it states that the war started 'as a consequence' of the Brunswick Manifesto. But the Brunswick manifesto, as the dates make clear, was written several months after the start of the war (in fact, it was written after a series of French defeats). It is misleading because it portrays the other countries of Europe as leading an aggressive policy of war against France for ideological reasons. This ignores the influence of the Girondins in France, who spent most of the previous two years advocating war with Austria for political reasons. In order to create a balanced account, I'd suggest cutting down the bit on ideology amongst other states and inserting stuff on the Girondins? Mfsxfba2 (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of the wars 

message: A  discussion on a major conflict infobox is taking place at Template talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies.. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 07:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on major conflict infobox

message: The figures of 1.5–3 million total casualties seem to be drawn from the Napoleonic Wars, and not the Republic/Directory years to which this article is addressed. See Cummins, The War Chronicles and this survey at Necrometics. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We could use the Cummins numbers if there's consensus. Ruddah (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "Total casualties"

message: The infobox had said  "Haitian rebels (1791-1804)"  on the side of forces against France.  This is incorrect on two points: first, the colony was called Saint-Domingue at this time.  Second, the rebels only fought against France from 1791-94.  When slavery was abolished in 1794, Toussaint switched sides and allied himself with France.  I'm correcting this. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint-Domingue (Haiti) 

message: Why are we including 1798 in the 1st Coalition, when the lead tells us 1st was 1792-97 while 2nd was 1798-1802 and that this began with Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, which is seemingly given as part of the See also articles at the start of 1798 under 1st Coalition? As a reader, I expect I am not the only reader to find this deeply confusing (and the confusion extends to other related articles, such as the 2nd Coalition article, whose Years sections also start with 1799)? However as an editor, I am currently not sufficiently interested or informed to be likely do anything more about it than bring the confusion to the attention of other editors (thru this section) for them to fix it, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BOLDNOTOBLIGATORY. But I suspect that all that is needed is a single well-informed clarifying footnote accessed from both the lead and the 1798 section, which I would probably try to write myself if I knew and cared enough about it (but I currently don't). It is also possible that the explanation is already there somewhere, and simply needs to be made more visible or accessible (again possibly with suitably placed footnotes). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is 1798 in 1st Coalition? 

message: A dispute resolution is underway at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, at section, French Revolution discussion, over whether there should be a statement in the lede about an American Revolutionary War influence leading up to the French Revolution.  Outside opinions are needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[American Revolutionary War]] influence on the [[French Revolution]]

message: I'm a bit confused about the sentence "and was ceded the Louisiana Territory in North America." in the introduction. This reads to me as if someone gave the Louisiana Territory to France, but as far as I understand, the Louisiana Purchase took place at the end of the Revolutionary Wars. --Jadephx (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Spain ceded the territory to France in 1801. Rjensen (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. But shouldn't the link then point to Louisiana (New France), instead of the US territory? --Jadephx (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: yews I agree. Rjensen (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it. --Jadephx (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceding of Louisana Territory 

message: Tipi Sultan being a Muslim, not a Christian, is there any indicator that he was killed in action better than the cross pattée that comes after his name?
Eteb3 (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tipu Sultan KIA 

message: The introduction says this:
“After Austria refused to recall its troops from the French border and to back down on the perceived threat of using force, France declared war on Austria and Prussia in the spring of 1792.”
This blames Austria for the war. But a historian like Blanning, in The origins of the French revolutionary wars, doesn’t blame Austria but France for the war. So does Michon, who wrote, in Essai sur l'histoire du parti feuillant :
« Il n'était nullement question d'un danger extérieur, d'une agression des puissances étrangères... » (« There was no question of an external danger, of aggression by foreign powers... »)
And this is right. Wordyhs (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes of the wars 

message: Purchase of the Louisiana Territory by the U.S. occurred after the wars were over, and was a result of the wars only in the sense that French policy on Louisiana was influenced by events preceding the changed policy. Napoleon did not resolve to negotiate the sale until 1803. What was a result of the War of the Second Coalition was that France regained Louisiana from Spain by the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso (1800), as noted in the article on that war. I have edited the infobox here to reflect this. There was a mention of France regaining Louisiana in an earlier version of the text of this article, but it disappeared, and perhaps should be restored. MayerG (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purchase of the Louisiana Territory by the U.S. occurred after the wars