Talk:Battle of Leipzig

message: Shouldn't there be a note that the Battle of Breitenfeld (1642) is sometimes called the 'First Battle of Leipzig'?
:I would think so, sir.--Anglius 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Battle of Leipzig

message: :I would also think that General-in-Chief Barclay de Tolly, the Russian commander, would be mentioned.--Anglius 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coalition forces and their commanders

message: As people enjoyed more liberties and rights under Napoleon than they did under the Prussian, Austrian or Russian aristocracies, how can anyone consider Europe east of the Rhine as being 'liberated'??
:Says who? In which cases? - The people in "Matrix" have also been happy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.56.0.113 (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was political liberation. Napoleon's administration had been milking the Germanic nations for some time. Most, but certainly not all, the German armies that marched into Russia got out. The Austrian Army was a good bit of it and was never in serious danger. The Prussian Corps joined the Russians. I'm pretty certain that the Saxon contingent got mauled.Tirronan (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberation???

message: Given that in many ways this battle was at least as important as Waterloo I have decided to start expanding it.  I would sure like some help its a fairly massive job. Tirronan 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: Even thourh there is lack of historical documents, especially battle maps, on the Battle maps it shows Marshals Ney, MacDonald, and Murat as being important commanders during the Battle. Kommisar Yan
16:39, 3 March 2007
I believe the article does as well Tirronan 23:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really gets silly when you consider that the Prussians and Russians got on wonderfully at this time.  Looking at the order of battle you will often notice that Prussian and Russian formations were paired together to make an army and together they accomplished much.  As a footnote you might notice that Blucher seemed to prefer his Russian formations for urban fighting as they were more disciplined at it than his own troops.  Both the the countries backed each other up at the congress of Vienna as well.--Tirronan (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: French Generals

message: Instead of the white-blue-red Russian flag, shouldn't either the Russian imperial flag (horizontal black-gold-white) or the green Russian army flag be used in the overview box? Uly 03:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian flag 

message: ...while many russian soldiers reached the battlefield when the battle was already decided. The numbers don't say anything about the influence in it. 
As it is now it suggest the reader that it was a battle fought mainly between french and russians. But this is just not true.
Forget the website stated below, (with the numbers of soldiers each nation provided for the battle). It is just wrong. This page does not say anything about the 36.000 Poles in the ranks of the russian contingent but declares them as "russians".--88.74.45.127 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  order of allies in the box 

message: many weblinks not working and please remove of these weblinks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.222.90.150 (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  please delete of dead links 

message: This is a formal request that all parties cease reordering the flag box.  Please bring your issues here for discussion and resolution. Please to not revert on reorder the flag box before coming to a resolution here.  Any more of this and I will be talking to the admins about losing editing rights Tirronan 18:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag Box Reverts

message: According to Henri Troyat, Alexander I took a certain amount of personal control over battle command, disagreeing with Schwarzenberg at certain points and redirecting the troops under his command (to good effect, as it turned out). Should this be reflected somewhere? Is it not significant enough, or is Troyat not a good source? - 24.193.251.27 (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather a side note but Alexander provided good direction at times and proved he had grown up as a commander.Tirronan (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander I 

message: Why is the UK in the infobox of this battle? To my knowledge, they had nothing to do whatsoever in terms of military contribution.  --Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They actually provided a rocket battery for the battle.Tirronan (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So, a battery, that's what? 50-100 men and 8-15 guns? That's really marginal for a battle involving some 600,000 men and 1500-2000 cannon, isn't it? I mean, there were dozens of staff officer of different nationalities in the various armies during the Napoleonic Wars, does that mean that we have to put the country's flag each time?--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, Alex if you want it out take it out, I reversed an anon IP because I don't trust anything they do.Tirronan (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok ;-) Best, Alex --Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK in the infobox 

message: There was actually a brigade of British rocket troops at Leipzig, however their contribution to the battle was fairly small as the rockets had basically no effect at all on enemy troops. However they did well in lighting the village of Paunsdorf on fire. The British rocket troops were commanded by Bernadotte as they were with Bernadottes Swedish army.Also Perhaps the only British contribution in the main  theatre of the war.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.242.162 (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK at Leipzig 

message: The caption of the painting: "Richard Caton Woodville - Charge of Polish uhlans at Leipzig 1912", which is included in this article indicates that it is from an event that took place in 1812. However, the Battle of Leipzig took place in October of 1813. Something is amiss here... --Saukkomies talk  14:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Date discrepancy

message: I mean, I can't understand why in Bülow's case, the umlaut is omitted, while it is (correctly) used for Blücher.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is entirely my fault. I am an American and don't have that character on my keyboard. Please feel free to edit the article to change it.Tirronan (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is "von Bulow" used throughout the article, rather than "von Bülow"? 

message: That is a common myth but wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War#Occupation_of_Saarbr.C3.BCcken  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.242.87 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  French forces did not enter Germany again until World War I. 

message: Could anyone fix the infobox please? It's currently very confusing. In strength, one could mix up that the 25,000 Swedes (which are real Swedish soldiers) is how big the "Army of the North" was, when it was actually a lot bigger. However, on the casualties, it says 4,000 dead and wounded Swedes which is obviously the casualties of the "Army of the North" and not the 'real Swedish soldiers' which was only 170 or so. Same goes for Russian casualties where it says 4,000 when they were, obviously a lot more. I only have limited information about the battle, so I hope anyone with better knowledge could fix this. Imonoz (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing infobox 

message: Hello. I think in the infobox in section unit involved shouldn't be write Army of Poland but: Army of Russia. Poland fought on the Napoleon side against the Coalition. -89.228.232.64 (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some errors in the infobox unfortunately, however, the "Army of Poland" is the accurate name for it (doesn't mean the army was made up of Poles but that it was operating from there), just like the "Army of the North" had over or around 100,000 soldiers if I'm not mistaken, but there was only 25,000 Swedes in there. However, the strength reports, indicates there was 25,000 Swedes in the battle, which is correct, but then it says there was 4,000 Swedish losses which is incorrect, these were the losses of the "Army of the North" and not the Swedes (which was, in reality only 170 or so). The infobox is very confusing. Imonoz (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok sorry that was my mistake, I just thought that if there's flag of Russia,and next to it the signature of: Army of Poland, there must be something wrong. 89.228.203.35 (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coaliton Army 

message: There are a lot of paragraphs that are completely lacking citations, as well as long paragraphs that need more citations than they currently do. —howcheng  {chat} 15:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More references 

message: The article states "The Swedish prince was the ex-French Marshal Jean Baptiste Jules Bernadotte. He had been one of Napoleon's most trusted field marshals, but Napoleon had stripped him of command in 1810, which led to his defection to the Coalition cause."
This is too simplified and not 100% accurate. The Bernadotte-Napoleon relationship was strained and had been for a long time. In fact for the most part Napoleon seemed to have actually mistrusted Bernadottes loyalty as he thought Bernadotte was too ambitious and even suspected him of planning a coup against him at one point. (this was proven false however) Obviously Bernadotte was trusted enough to be made Field marshal, but to say he was "..one of Napoleon's most trusted field marshals" does not resonate with the facts. Also: Bernadotte was stripped of command yes, but this was just the last straw in a series of events that made him accept the offer of the Swedish Crown. He was already disillusioned by his experiences under Napoleon. The article excludes this part of the facts and makes it sound like everything was peachy (or at least nominal) until his removal from command afterwhich he went to the Swedes as a sort of revenge. 81.227.190.9 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bernadotte and Napoleon. 

message: In the info box, it shows that Russia had troops in every field army, but, in sourced sections, all army's are all one nations. Is this true? Kai2004 (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Army of Bohemia is not so shown in the infobox. The Army of Poland was a Russian army. It is well cited that the Prussian Army of Silesia included Russian troops under Blucher's command - see the action of October the 16th. On October the 19th the Army of the North is reinforced from the Army of Silesia, the reinforcements including Langeron's Russian Corps. The only thing I'm not quite clear on is whether a significant number of Prussians end up under Bernadotte. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There were Prussian Corps under Russian Command, Russian Corps under Prussian Command. This was in fact a measure of just how close the two countries had become. At the Battle of Deniwitz Bulow was serving under Bernadotte. I believe that in this battle he was just leading the Swedish Army. Blucher had overall control of the Northern armies.Tirronan (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian contingents in every field army? 

message: What was the scale of the Saxon and Württemberg defections on 18 October? German Wikipedia notes:
"Dagegen griff erst am Nachmittag der rechte Flügel der Böhmischen Armee unter Bennigsen ein. Er eroberte Zuckelhausen, Holzhausen und Paunsdorf, woraufhin 3.000 bis 4.000 Sachsen und 500 württembergische Reiter unter General Karl von Normann-Ehrenfels auf die alliierte Seite wechselten. Dieser Verrat sorgte dafür, dass in Frankreich noch Jahrzehnte später Abtrünnige mit dem Ausspruch „C'est un Saxon“ – „Das ist ein Sachse“ – beschrieben wurden."
Soon after, however, the Saxon King was taken prisoner by his own troops. It seems they acted on their own accord, and were not following orders. This presumes some Saxons and Würtenbergers remained loyal to Napoleon until the end of the battle. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saxon and Württemberg defections 18 October 

message: We should expand the article about Mecklenburg-Schwerin...Its role in Various wars, like its war with Denmark, its involvement in the Napoleonic wars, and wars of German unification. Mecklenburg98 (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help finding more information/history on Mecklenburg-Schwerin 

message: There is really no basis for excluding UK from infobox, their troops participated in battle and suffered casualties. General standard in battle infoboxes is to include all participants, regardless if their participation was limited to only some small unit(s) operating as part of some larger formation of another country, just some examples: Battle of Borodino (GA), Battle of Waterloo (GA), Normandy landings (GA), Guadalcanal campaign (FA), Battle of Musa Qala (FA). Weight complaint is a nonsense, by putting UK at bottom below smaller German states, and including their strength figure, we make it very clear for readers that their participation was minor. Also we don't have any issues with infobox getting overly large here currently, so there is really no practical reason to start inventing some arbitrary cutoff point to exclude some countries.--Staberinde (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You need a source which clearly states that the UK was a belligerent in the battle (this is absolutely not made clear in the article), the one which merely mentions a British company under Swedish command, as part of the Swedish force, is not going to cut it; it was not an independent British unit with its own command structure, the company was more or less leased to the Swedes (and there's really no reason to have every nationality displayed in the infobox). One problem this is causing is that their number [150] is counted twice, since they're already accounted for in the number the sources are giving for the Swedish strength [18000-25,000], thus creating inaccuracies which should be avoided, even if it's minor. Also, what do we know about the 6,000 troops from Mecklenburg-Schwerin? They're not mentioned anywhere in the article, which makes me suspicious that they too might be counted twice. This infobox needs an overlook.. 81.224.71.102 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: British Army unit participating in battle is very much sufficient to establish UK as combatant. This leasing argument is nonsense, as by that logic most French client states should be removed from Napoleonic wars battle infoboxes, as all those contributions were basically such "leased units". Only reasonable reason to exclude some nationality from infobox would be if infobox was getting excessively long, that's actually a valid issue in some articles but clearly not a problem here. This inaccuracies complaint about strength figures would be a relevant concern if Swedish figure was given with 100 soldier accuracy, but as it has only vague range of rounded estimates this is quite silly issue, although I guess there is always option to add a short clarifying footnote. Btw, regarding Mecklenburg-Schwerin, there is a source but with no page number it is hard to check, quick google also gives some indication that it may be confused with Mecklenburg-Strelitz, although I didn't dig much deeper at the moment.--Staberinde (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom in infobox 

message: I've noticed that the French counterpart of this article has an entire order of battle page dedicated to the battle, going into greater detail the orginisation of both the French and Coalition armies. Should this article have something similar? 86.128.65.111 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of battle