Talk:Ulm campaign

message: The side box lists the French casualties for the entire campaign as 2000. There is no way this can be correct, as during the Battle of Ulm the French casualties as over 5000. This is supposed to be a featured article after all, the facts should be straight.DiRoccodoodeleedoo (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the 2,000 is only killed and captured, not including wounded. Re: the Battle of Ulm, casualties were 1,500, not 5,000. Of that 1,500, only 500 were killed and captured. The Austrian number of 60,000 is also only captured, not including killed. Source is the Ulm chapter from Chandler's book---which doesn't list total killed Austrians, only total prisoners. Lilyyuuta (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Only 2000 casualties?

message: I don't get it - Isn't the so-called "Ulm Campaign" just the background before the "Battle of Ulm" (with two minor battles before that - in a book on the Third Coalition that I read, the Battle of Ulm is the main focus of the campaign). There's a lot of new information, yes, but we should probably just add a "background" section in the Battle of Ulm article. Moreover, the casualties in the whole campaign and in the Battle of Ulm should be similar - but I see a big difference here. In this article it says 60000 casualties for the Austrian side, while in the Battle of Ulm article its just 12000 (30000 captured). Neither of the previous three battles had much casualties, so this doesn't make sense. There's also a problem with the box "War of the Third Coalition", which includes "Wertingen – Haslach-Jungingen – Elchingen – Ulm", the last linking to this article - however, this article also covers the previous three battles, so we can either: Remove the previous three battles from the list, or change the last to link into the Battle of Ulm. Aran|heru|nar 11:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The campaign and the battle are quite different events. The campaign was a large wheeling maneuver over the course of an entire month. The battle refers to the actions around the city of Ulm in mid-October. They are also analyzed separately in the historical literature. You bring up the point about the casualties: here is why they are different. At the actions around Ulm in mid-October, only 23,000 Austrian troops (or 27,000 depending on whom you read) surrendered. This was the core army under Mack. However, there were several other Austrian detachments that surrendered in other sectors. The total of this comes to around 60,000. The battles were not minor at all; they were very important to the progression of the campaign.UberCryxic 12:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I thought "casualties" means "wounded or dead" - shouldn't "surrendered" (or "captured") troops be separately noted? (e.g. in Battle of France, "360,000 dead or wounded, 1,900,000 captured"). Aran|heru|nar 14:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference between the "Ulm Campaign" and "[[Battle of Ulm]]"?

message: This article is too short for featured article so I dont know why it was awarded? Please, explain me. --Vojvodaen 13:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think this one's short, see Hurricane Irene (2005). In any case, FAs are judged on comprehensiveness rather than length. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too short

message: Although the "Grand Armee" did indeed number ~230,000 - is it accurate to state that they all took part in this action? Surely some were kept as garrisons along the route - 230,000 is a huge army to keep suppplied by any stretch of the imagination. I would have put the number at 2/3 corp present - numbering perhaps 60-90.000, possibly slightly higher. Any other references?
Audigex (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is accurate---the 235,000 were not one mass but divided into separate corps of 20,000-30,000 men, that marched and traveled by different roads and occupied different areas (thereby solving the supply problem), but which all converged around Ulm. Not every man was engaged in battle, but their purpose would have been to block the roads through which the encircled Austrians could escape. Napoleon's strategy and the scale of the Austrian defeat relied on these men being present to block the roads around Ulm.Lilyyuuta (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  French strength 

message: Battle of Ulm says that Mack surrendered on 19 October, whereas this one says some forces surrendered on 20 October and more on 21 October. Please reconcile the difference. —howcheng  {chat} 16:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Ulm surrender dates 

message: It doesn't really make sense that the Holy Roman Empire is listed as the combatant, the HRE at this stage was practically a non-entity, it was the Austrians the French were fighting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.114.79 (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Roman Empire? 

message: I have some concerns about this featured article and the featured article criteria.  There is uncited text mixed throughout, and an outstanding contradiction maintenance tag for contradiction with another article - the main contradiction seems to be if the surrender happened on the 19th or 20th.  The uncited material needs addressed, and the validity of the cleanup tag needs determined, or this article may require a featured article review. Hog Farm  Talk 15:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As passed at FAC, used mdy dates, now has dmy.  Some of the (still unaddressed) uncited test looks like it needs to be checked for original research.  Listing at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article concerns