Talk:Battle of Aspern-Essling

message: I would suggest that more sources be found for the material on this page; as any post-school or HE academic would tell you, sources are vital not only for verisimilitude, but for readers to reference themselves. 
If anyone could or would, please consider it, as this it is a goldmine of info without links elsewhere. 
Thanks, John. 
91.125.97.4 (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources, Sources and Sources 

message: Why is it a Pyrrhic Victory, Austrian casualties were not greatly higher than the French, and the French lost Marshal Lannes.--Bryson 03:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it was a Austrian Victory and most historians would agree on that. Carl Logan 11:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I know it was an Austrian victory, my question is on the Pyrrhic part.--Bryson 14:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was Pyrrhic at all. The Austrians weren't that weakened and were more capable of defeating the French at Wagram had things gone there way. I think the point is that the Austrians has lost to the French so many times before that this victory was not as meaningful as if it happened earlier. Centy 00:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Austrian Pyrrhic Victory? 

message: This battle was an Austrian victory, no question about it. Napoleon was driven back over the river and can not be considered a draw. If you want to know what a draw is, see Battle of Eylau. Just because Charles failed to capitalise does not mean Napoleon was not defeated. He was. Centy</font> – [reply]• contribs – 13:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The French were forced to withdraw at Aspern-Essling, while at Eylau the Russians chose to withdraw, it is really very different. --Bryson 23:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ha! Anglo-Saxon bias?! So by claiming the Russians caused an inconclusive result at Eylau and the that the Austrians won at Aspern-Essling, I'm showing Anglo-Saxon bias rather than Russian or Austrian bias? Talk about close minded. Just because I'm trying to stop a wave of revisionists turning even Napoleon's defeats into minor victories, I'm an Anglophile. What's even more ironic is that the reason I'm trying to stress the fact that Napoleon lost at Aspern is to change the old anglocentric view of the invincible French armies except of course when facing the British in Spain or Egypt. Centy</font> – [reply]• contribs – 08:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result 

message: The article claims that the countercharge by the Austrians on day 2 ( ...the Archduke brought up his last reserve, leading his soldiers with a colour in his hand. ) was the decisive turn of the battle, however, Patrick Rambaud in the The Battle indicates that Napoleon stopped his army and ordered it to fall back into defensive positions when the Austrians succeeded in breaking the bridge; they had floated a burning watermill down the Danube that crashed into the bridge and destroyed it. Thus reinforcements and supplies could not be brought to the battle line anymore. Later, Napoleon conceeded to have been beaten by "General Danube". Ekem (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The arguments over whether it was an Austrian or French victory, or a draw are beside the point. If, for example, you can find a published author who claims an Austrian victory, put down that it's an Austrian victory and cite the source. If some other author thinks it's a draw, then put that down also and cite the author's work. Erasing a cited reference is, of course, a big no-no. Instead do it like this. "Author A thinks the French won. (reference 1) However, Author B thinks the Austrians won. (reference 2)" Those of us who write articles are not supposed to be injecting our opinion (OK, I admit I sometimes made comments in footnotes like, "the casualties seem unrealistically high or low"), but rather presenting a researched article from established sources. Djmaschek (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turn of the battle on day 2 

message: "...but it was no more than a tactical victory for the Austrians, who failed to capitalise on their superior numbers and merely repulsed Napoleon, without defeating him."
This statement seems dubious and reeks of biased POV. 
The addition of "strategic draw" in the info box is also rather questionable.
I'm going to go through some sources and try to find if there's any evidence to support these claims/statements.
--Junedragon3 (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Claims/Information 

message: From what I've seen in sources, I believe the result of the battle should simply be stated as "Austrian Victory" (as opposed to Tactical victory, strategic draw)
While acknowledging that Archduke Charles may have done more to capitalize on the victory (ie. pursue the French and turn the victory into a rout), it is clearly expressed that the result was an Austrian victory. For example, Crisholm (see sources section of article) goes as far as referring to the battle as "the first great defeat of Napoleon".
The addition of Strategic Draw seems unwarranted and unnecessary, especially considering Napoleon's plans were greatly set back by his failure to secure a bridgehead over the Danube in addition to the loss of Lannes and St. Hilaire among others. 
--Junedragon3 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result