Talk:War of the Polish Succession

message: Strangely set out in "Polish-Russian war" category, as in fact the war was "Free-for-all in Poland", and the belligerents note explicitely states that poles were on both sides of the conflict. Poland itself was not an actor in this war, more a scene of action. (193.125.96.215 (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really a Polish-Russian war? 

message: The Austrian garrison of Milan did surrender to Charles Emmannuel III of Savoy , king of Piedmont-Sardinia, on January 2, 1734. A famous painting shows the event.
:Can you provide a source beyond a painting? john k 13:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austrian surrender at Milan (1734) 

message: At first the article says
...the war was formally ended with the 1738 Treaty of Vienna... Francis Stephen, who lost Lorraine, was given Parma and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany
However, later we find that
Charles of Parma gave up Parma, which came under direct Austrian rule...
"Direct Austrian rule" and "Francis Stephen" is definitely not the same thing since Francis only became Archduke of Austria in 1740 (see Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor)
Top.Squark (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering it's not cited, a reliable source that differentiates them in explaining the treaty terms in suitable detail will probably indicate which it's supposed to be (I'd presume Francis Stephen, not an Austrian or Habsburg crown possession). Magic♪piano 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Parma and Piacenza went to Charles VI directly; Francis Stephen only got Tuscany.  Parma and Piacenza remained under direct Austrian control until the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, when they were ceded to Charles's younger brother Philip. I wish I had a good source available to cite.  Here's George Martin's The Red Shirt and the Cross of Savoy, p. 15 (sorry not to have a more academic source, but it's all that's at hand), after discussing Charles of Parma's (called Carlo's) conquest of Naples: Carlo's success, however, distressed the Florentines, particularly Gian Gastone over whose exhausted body the great powers began again to thrash out the fate of Tuscany.  This time, however, Elisabetta [Farnese] lost; for France, to gain the Duchy of Lorraine on its border, made a separate treaty with Austria, which Spain, in the end was forced to accept...Francis, Duke of Lorraine, was to have Tuscany on Gian Gastone's death.  As Francis was married to Charles [VI]'s daughter, Maria Theresa, the Habsburgs had, in effect, added Tuscany to their holdings in Italy...Besides gaining Tuscany, Charles, in return for acknowledging Carlo's rights to Naples and Sicily, received Parma, which he absorbed into the Duchy of Milan.  Martin makes some errors, but that is all correct. john k (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the article. I leave it to others to place the appropriate citation. Top.Squark (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction: Who got Parma? 

message: Polish Sucession war was not a "Bourbon vs Hapsburg" War -as opposite to the War of Spanish Succession-. So, the adding of "Bourbon" in the belligerents box adds nothing but confusion, since it can lead to think there were anti-bourbon Spanish and French forces fighting with Russia & Austria. In my not so humble opinion. --Voj 2005 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was very much a Bourbon vs. Habsburg war; it is currently explicitly characterized as such.  Why would labelling one side lead to the implication that others with that label were fighting on the other side?  If there were significant Bourbon or Habsburg forces on "the other side" of the conflict from the crowns so labelled, they should be identified specifically as belligerents. If you want to claim that it was not a Bourbon vs. Habsburg conflict (at least as far as the Italian and Rhineland campaigns are concerned), please provide some reliable sources saying as much. Magic♪piano 21:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can I provide a source about something's not existence? France & Spain kings were Bourbons, as Austria were Hapsburg. But, where were the Bourbons in Poland or the Hapsburgs in Russia? --Voj 2005 (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Where were the Habsburgs in England and the Bourbons in Bavaria during the War of the Spanish Succession? john k (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

text: You could find a historian who claims "it wasn't a habsburg vs. bourbon conflict" and cite him/her, or you could find a source that describes the conflict in different terms. (I also don't understand your question about Bourbons in Poland and Habsburgs in Russia -- Poland and Russia are not depicted as being Bourbon and Habsburg, either in the infobox, or in the article text.) Magic♪piano 14:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bourbons & Hapsburgs... not 

message: This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review

message: I call upon a historian, amateur or otherwise, adept in knowledge of the War of the Polish Succession and, namely, the Italian campaigns of this war to provide for the general and necessary renovation of this article, and this for a key and historic reason:
This article is one of the most important historical articles on Wikipedia as concerning world affairs and how they relate to the Bible. Chapter 11 of the Book of Daniel (Daniel 11), verse 40, mentions a "king of the south" which "at the time of the end" "pushes at him" (the "him" here is understood to be either the "king who exalts himself" or the "king of the north": I believe the former to be this "him"). While all Biblical translations lose something from the original, there is still enough understanding to determine that the "king of the south" is in reference to Spain during this War of the Polish Succession, and that none other than Charles III of Spain led the assault into Italy, against the Papal Fiefs, essentially challenging the Papal States and the power of the Papacy, itself, as well as challenging the power of military protectors of the Papal States, such as Austria.
As such, the section of this article concerning the Italian Campaigns deserves a renovation for the ages. The paragraph concerning military incursions of Spain into Sicily, Naples, and throughout central Italy should be factual, well-written, and concise. Historical information such as the status of the Kingdom of Naples as an ancient fief of the Papal States should not be downplayed. This also goes for the status of other Papal fiefs, such as Sicily.
The title of this war, "War of the Polish Succession", does no justice towards the popular understanding of the significance of this war: and that is of Spain, a southern kingdom of the European political landscape, militarily engaging fiefs of the Papal States and the military protectors of said fiefs and Papal States, thus signifying the beginning of the "time of the end", the last span of time in which the Gentiles tread the Holy City, a span of time which is altogether "three and a half years", "forty-two months", and "one thousand two hundred and sixty days", such span having begun long before this final time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.26.18 (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this relate anything to the bible in anyway. Redyr iksachli (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the article  Redyr iksachli (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Disrepair of this Article Does No Justice to its Historical Significance

message: Wouldn't the dates of this war be given more accurately as 1733-1735? I realize that the final peace treaty was only signed in 1738, but there had been a preliminary peace agreement and no fighting for three years by that point. To go to a possibly similar case, World War I is universally acknowledged to have ended in November 1918, even though the final peace treaty for the war (the Treaty of Lausanne) was not signed until 1923. john k (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates for the war 

message: Why is Leopold of Anhalt-Dessau in the infobox as in the articles about the war and even himself it doesn’t state that he did really anything during that time in the upmost related to the war. Shouldn’t Frederick William be put in as he is directly stated to be at least some what apart of the war involving Prussia. Redyr iksachli (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leopold of Anhalt Dessau in the info box