Talk:War of the Third Coalition

message: Why is Portugal's role in this was always so blatantly obliterated?
Portugal was an ally of the UK. I don't think it should be neglected.
:What role did Portugal play in this war? Drutt (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Portugal was not in a war against France and therefore did not participate in the third coalition. In 1805 (see Royal Almanac for that year, the Portuguese ambassador in France was M. de Lima, while Napoleon's ambassador to Portugal was Marshal Jean Lannes, then replaced by General Junot. Moreover, Junot commanded the French army attacked Portugal in November 1807. This war, which lasted until 1814, is not generally attached to a coalition: it belongs to the Peninsular War. We can still consider an attachment of Portugal to the fifth and sixth coalition, as many French troops occupied on that front at the expense of the edges of central and eastern Europe in 1809 and then from 1812 to 1814.--Jipécé34 (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Portugal

message: I'm planning to expand this article in the following few days with some original material, but mostly with material from other articles. Any help is appreciated.UberCryxic 02:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good plan.  Gomm 03:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major "rewrite"

message: I have to question this call:
*The empire and allies lost their navy
*Most of the coalition was untouched and formed a 4th coalition
Victory?  Yes.  Decisive?  I don't think so. -Gomm 03:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case we don't usually write that a war is a decisive victory for side x, we only use that for battles. For example World War II has Allied vicotry as result, not decisive allied victory. Carl Logan 09:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  decisive victory?? 

message: Why nothing about Masséna and Archduke Charles in Italy during the main war?  The article mentions that they were facing each other, then says nothing about what happened in Italy until it gets to events after Austria left the war.  There was even a significant battle fought in this campaign; it surely deserves a section, doesn't it? Probably the section should follow the discussion of the Ulm campaign.  john k (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Northern Italian campaign

message: In commanders and leaders section, the then monarch of the United Kingdom should be mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.223.0 (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Commanders and Leaders

message: Wasn't the Third Coalition start in 1805? Before that was a simple war between France and UK.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARX, Julius (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on War of the Third Coalition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000408223833/http://www.napoleon-online.de/ to http://www.napoleon-online.de/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article doesn't even ADDRESS this, at all. As far as can be told by a reader, the French had decided to throw out the numbers one and two from their numeral system (maybe at the same time they were adding days to their weeks, i don't know). But seriously, the article's not addressing this point is flaky. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A18A:3CD:299A:9B40 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the First and Second coalitions? 

message: Why does the article list the Holy Roman Empire as part of the third coalition, shouldn't it just state the Austrian Empire? most of the other HRE states were either neutral or pro-French.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preußenistgross (talk • contribs) 14:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austria vs HRE? 

message: The sentence "At the Battle of Schöngrabern (also known as the Battle of Hollabrunn) occurred a week after the battle at Duerenstein" doesn't seem right, seems to me the sentence should start with 'The' instead of 'At'.  Can someone look into it?  Dionyseus (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar issue in The Battle Of Austerlitz section 

message: The Battle of Blaauwberg, resulting in the British capture of the Cape Colony for the first time, really should be mentioned somewhere in this article. I am not so sure where it should go however. It seems like quite the oversight to neglect this important, although relatively small, battle that resulted in a British presence in the Sub-Saharan part of Africa for the first time. -- Discott (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Blaauwberg