Talk:War of the Austrian Succession

message: Part of this section duplicates material in the War of the Austrian Succession article, but it  does also bring in the impact on the British American colonies.Lisamh 18:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The War of Jenkins Ear is not one and the same with the War of the Austrian Succession.  The War of Jenkins Ear was a war between Britain and Spain that began in 1739, while the War of the Austrian Succession was a broader war that broke out on the death of Emperor Charles VI in 1740.  When the British intervened to support Charles's daughter in the larger continental struggle, and the Spanish involved themselves in trying to conquer her Italian lands, the War of Jenkins Ear merged into the larger conflict, and became a part of it, but they were not one and the same war.  The relationship is more like that between the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II.  It was ongoing before the War of the Austrian Succession began, and took some time after it began before the two became fully entangled.  The Third Silesian War, by the way, was the Seven Years War, not part of this war.  the other two silesian wars do not refer to this war as a whole, but to the two periods of Prussian involvement from 1740-1742 and again from 1744-1745.  john k 19:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to forget that the the war, and more particularly Jenkins’ ear itself, are iconic in British political history. (Say what you like about eighteenth-century parliamentarians, they knew how to do a dodgy dossier better than our contemporaries.) —Ian Spackman 21:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Don´t merge!  This wars are different.  I suggest to check the article: ""Guerra de la oreja de Jenkins"" in Wikipedia in Spanish.
These are two separate wars, even though they are related. They should both have full separate articles. --Ineffable3000 23:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge section from War of Jenkins' Ear

message: The Italian States involved in the war for the Austrian Succession were:
THE  DUKEDOM  OF  MODENA - Its troops fought very well in the fortress of Modena until June 29, 1742 and in Mirandola until July 28, 1742 against the "Italian brothers" of the Kingdom of Sardinia.
THE  KINGDOM  OF  NAPLES - Its troops defeated (with the Spanish Army) the Austrians in the battle of Velletri (1744). The Neapolitan troops were under the Duke of Castropignano (1688-1758).
THE  REPUBLIC  OF  GENOA - Its troops fought in the battle of Piacenza (1746).
THE  KINGDOM  OF  SARDINIA - Its troops, under the Count of Bricherasio (1706-1782), defeated the French in the battle of Assietta (1747).
:the Modenese, then, were fighting on the Franco-Spanish side?  What side were the Genoese on (I seem to recall that they were on the French side, as well)?  It should be added that the Duchess of Milan, Mantua, Parma and Piacenza fought in numerous battles, while her husband, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, remained neutral.  Were the Pope, the Venetians, and the Luccans all neutral as well?  The Piedmontese and Neapolitans, by the way, were involved fairly heavily, well beyond the individual battles that you mention.  john k 19:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITALIAN  STATES  INVOLVED IN  THE  WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN  SUCCESSION. 

message: This is fantastic informative article. Can it be featured one?--Vojvodaen 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured 

message: I believe this war has also been dubbed as "the very first world-wide War", or similar names. -- Matthead  DisOuß   12:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a misnomer.  Asia was not involved in this war, except via the European colonial powers there. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very first World War 

message: An article on a war needs a good section on the causes of the war, which is sadly lacking here.  Maria Therese wanted to defend her succession, but please explain why the other belligerents cared enough about this to join a war either with or against MT.  By implication, Prussia really wanted Silesia, please explain this better.  What were England, France, Russia etc fighting for?  Also, give a better explanation of the outcome.  MT got to keep her titles, Prussia got Silesia, what about the others?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.154.188 (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omissions in the article. 

message: The introduction states: "The habitual and constant allies of France and Prussia were the same Hapsburg relations in Spain and the Kingdom of Bavaria as had been teaming up for many issues and conflicts since the Thirty Years' War and to an extent, long before."  It seems difficult to pack so many mistakes in a single sentence. First of all, the only Hapsburgs during the war were in Austria and fought AGAINST France; Spain was ruled by the new Bourboun dynasty and Bavaria by its own ducal house.
Also, Spain had traditionally been Austrias´s (or the Holy Roman Empire's) ally and France's enemy (and often biggest rival) before, during and after the Thirty Year´s War; only the dynastic change after the War of Spanish Succession brought France and Spain toghether.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hapsburgs allies of France? 

message: "In 1740, Maria Theresa attempted to succeed her father (WHO!?!?) as Queen of Hungary and Bohemia"
as this is the only piece of information that i need, i feel like it should be in a fairly obvious place, and that i shouldn't have to look through the entire article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.13.82 (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles VI. It's near the beginning of the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was her father? 

message: Are there any usable estimates on the numbers of people killed and/or wounded in this war? Please add. -- 92.229.142.182 (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties? 

message: I added a bibliography, most of them accessible thru google but the article is in serious need of references, notes, in line citations.Tttom1 (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In line citations 

message: Shouldn't the sides identified by green and blue be reversed?  
Tashiro (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:   hmmm... No. France and Spain at the time owned much of South and North America. 95.115.39.202 (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the colors on the map of the participants wrong? 

message: ... who won?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.123.113 (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long, detailed article about this war, but... 

message: Dear friends, please be aware that the Austrian flags from 1743-1745 should not show the Imperial Eagle but a an royal Hungarian flag. Please consult : http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Austrian_Line_Infantry_Colours . Respectively the Bavarian flag became imperial 1743-1745 - see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kaiserlich_bayerische_Fahne_%C3%96sterreichischer_Erbfolgekrieg.jpg Grand Tour (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong flags

message: The "Strategies" section appears to deal only with the struggle between Britain and France over the course of the century generally, and leaves out the many other nations involved. I don't think it adds greatly to the understanding of this war in particular. I suggest replacing the entire section with a "Goals" section outlining the war aims of each of the belligerents. This would help give context to the military chronology of the war. 108.20.74.4 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Replace Strategies section with Goals section 

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 07:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on major conflict infobox

message: I just corrected a minor typo (blitzfrieg -> blitzkrieg) and came to thinking on the use of blitzkrieg in this context.
Isn't blitzkrieg a 20th century concept, which didn't exist in the 18th? --ThSpeck (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely a terrible anachronism. Ruddah (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "blitzkrieg" in this article 

message: Maybe it's biased because most of the accounts are from Prussian perspective, but whoever wrote large parts of this has a massive hard-on for Prussia and its military.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.235.249 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  That certainly motivated the Electors of Saxony and Bavaria to war with Austria:  it would give their wives (thus them) the Habsburg inheritance.  164.51.226.98 (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prussia 

message: The article states that: "The war began under the pretext that Maria Theresa was ineligible to succeed to the Habsburg thrones of her father, Charles VI, because Salic law precluded royal inheritance by a woman". I'm not sure that's entirely right. The point of the matter was, as far as I remember, that the opposing powers supported the doctrine that the daughters of Charles VI's older brother, Joseph I had precedence over her. I'm going to look into that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pretext 

message: There is a difference between the hereditary state of the Hapsburger monarchy (bohemia, hungary and Netherlands), these countries have no application of these kind of law, the german empire is elected by the german states and  the choice of France in these wars(Bayern house) was not exempted by the succession of a women...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.112.31.13 (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the execution of the Salic law 

message: Worth expanding on why Silesia, the Hapsburgs' richest single province, was so defenceless in 1740; it's capture wasn't due to the wonderful new Prussian Army but Austrian weakness, which doesn't really come out in the current phrasing. This is an expansion, not replacement.
Robinvp11 (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of Austrian Defences in Silesia 1740 

message: "The Capetian dynasty (aka the House of France) and House of Capet are not synonymous. The Dynasty encompasses the latter and all its cadet branches. The House of Capet, House of Valois, House of Bourbon and House of Orléans are one big family. You're the one confused here. The French-Habsburg rivalry began in the Italian Wars with the Valois, a century before Henri IV, first Bourbon king of France, hence the traditional "Capetian-Habsburg rivalry" being appropriate."
You're right - I am confused, but apparently I'm in good company. Can you please provide an historical reference that describes the War of the Austrian Succession as part of the "traditional Capetian-Habsburg rivalry?" I know that's what you think, but unfortunately that doesn't count as 3rd party confirmation. 
This seems a great opportunity for you to improve Wikipedia by going through any number of articles and replacing "Bourbon", "Valois", "Orleanist" etc with "Capetian" - since as you say, they're all "one big family". 
Your name's not Chris Cameron by any chance? You remind me of a former colleague.
Robinvp11 (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for detailed information - recent anonymous edits 

message: In the info box it shows Sweden as being apart of the alliance between France, prussia, Bavaria, and spain. Sweden took part in the war buy the Russo-Swedish war of 1741-1743. So why is the battle of villmanstrand not shown in the battle column though being apart of the war. Redyr iksachli (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we add the battle of villmanstrand to the battle column 

message: It was not between "The War of the Austrian Succession was a European conflict fought between 1740 and 1748, primarily in Central Europe, the Austrian Netherlands, Italy, the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea." Maybe fought in the Atlantic and Mediterranean but they certainly were not combatants.  Phecht7 (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything listed after "primarily in" is the locations of the fighting, not a single combatant is mentioned. Dimadick (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I misread.  Sorry Phecht7 (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea