Talk:War of the Fifth Coalition

message: I'm beginning a major rewrite of this article, with aspirations of taking it to featured status. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!UberCryxic 00:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major rewrite

message: The article could use more references.  Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I just now  a request for citation for the Poniatowski caption's claim that he was the most famous Polish military figure during the Napoleonic wars. While I think the claim is true, it is challengeable and needs a source. Eubulides (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation request for Poniatowski caption 

message: Two of the leaders mentioned under 'commanders' never held a field command. Both Bavaria's king Max-Joseph and Saxony's king Frederick August were not commanders. Wurttemberg's King Frederick however, did command Cooalition troops during the anti-insurgent battles around Lake Konstanz. (ref. see Gill - With Eagles to Glory)
--ansbachdragoner (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanders? 

message: This appeared at the beginning of the "Fourth Coalition" section when I opened the article from the front page:
How Reliable a source is Wikipedia? by the time they alter this information, a college student has already mistaken his work. and has false information.
It's not in the article history anywhere (at least recently), didn't show up in the wiki text, and although it stayed there while going back and forth to the history page a few times, it disappeared after a full reload a few minutes later.  What the hell is this??  KarlM (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly template vandalism? A template in the page was altered, the text was added there and it appeared here but was absent from the history since this page itself wasn't changed. Ironholds (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did this come from? 

message: In the first paragraph of the Aftermath section, it says "The Austrian army would never field more than 150,000 men at a time for the duration of the Napoleonic Wars", but it's unclear how that relates to the war's aftermath. If it means that Austria never again fielded such a large force (because if I'm reading "Austrian preparations" right, the armies fielded in this war were larger than 150,000), then it should say so, and ideally explain why. Was it due to population losses, to lack of funds or political will, to recognition that bludgeoning the enemy with enormous armies was not the best strategy, or to some combination thereof, and how was it caused by this war? A. Parrot (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: Where is Joachim Murat in all of this? He is supposed to be the head of the reserve cavalry but instead we find Bessiers taking this role.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joachim Murat 

message: This article makes no mention of the fact that Russia was technically obligated to assist France in the event of an Austrian breech of the peace, by way of the Treaties of Tilsit, and that a corps under the command of Sergey Fyodorovich Golitsyn entered Austrian territory in Galicia and occupied it at the expense of their former allies the Austrians, while also blocking the ambitions of their one-time Polish allies in the Duchy of Warsaw. The article does mention that a piece of the frontier was ceded to Russia at the end of the war, but does not explain why: this offensive of Golitsyn's is why.
http://www.cairn.info/revue-napoleonica-la-revue-2011-1-page-4.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Boland (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian quasi-participation on the Austro-Polish front 

message: Currently this article promotes a dismissive point of view about the Peninsular War. Apart from barely mentioning the conflict, in the lead it states that:
:"Although fighting in the Iberian Peninsula continued, the War of the Fifth Coalition was the last major conflict on the European continent until the French invasion of Russia in 1812 sparked the Sixth Coalition."
Yet the number of French of soldiers and casualties in the Peninsular War indicates that for the French it was a major conflict.
*"Already by 1809 France had suffered more losses in the peninsula than in all the battles since Napoleon became first consul a decade before, and this total increased in the desperate fighting which followed. By 1812 the French were maintaining as many as 300,000 troops south of the Pyrenees. ... The 'Spanish ulcer' eventually cost Napoleon around 250,000 casualties and perhaps four billion francs"
*"1813... Napoleon ordered Joseph to establish his headquarters at Valladolid, pacing his force of some 250,000 troops between Wellington and the French border. ... The Peninsular War had cost France in the region of 300,000 casualties and untold sums of money and material."
*"Culamative French losses in the Peninsular War 1807–1813, 'the Spanish ulcer' as Napoleon once called it may have totalled 300,000."
*"The Russian losses seem more dramatic to us because they occurred over a short period of time, whereas the Spanish ulcer bled for six years. Tranie and Carmigniani say that there were 200,000 Imperial casualties in Spain, half of them half of them accounted for by the guerrillas. Owen Connelly estimates 260,000 French killed and wounded, plus another 40,000 allied casualties. The French general Bigarre wrote that guerrillas had killed 180,000 Imperial troops not counting wounded and missing. [cited sources removed]"
And it continued as a major war into 1814. In the last year of the Sixth Coalition there were as many or more French troops facing Wellington in south west France as there were in north and east France to face the combined Coalition armies.
So I think that there should be an alteration to the lead, so that it does not dismiss the Peninsular war, and a section in the article summary style of the events that occurred on the Iberian peninsula during the years of the Fifth Coalition. 
-- PBS (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peninsular War 

message: I think the flag shown is incorrect. Shouldn't it be  Sicily, rather than , which is the flag of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. That country did not exist until 1816. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sicily flag

message: Whose side was Spain on ?   Currently it says the side opposed to the French.  I am very dubious.Lathamibird (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So,  Napoleon's brother Joseph became King of Spain in June 1808,   and remained so until after he was decisively defeated at Vittoria in 1813.   In 1809, after their defeat at Corunna,  the British were at their weakest position during the entire Peninsula War.  I think it is ridiculous to claim that Spain was part of the 5th coalition.  In 1809, it was a French client state.Lathamibird (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Appauling distortion of history here. Can't believe that an edit changing Spain from an enemy to ally of France has stood for 9 months, unchallenged, on a Featured Article. Spain declared war on France in May 1808 after uprisings which started in Madrid and spread across the nation. Doesn't matter that it was a "French Client State". It was an occupied nation, France invaded it and ousted the royals, it wasn't a willing ally it was taken under false pretenses – the invasion of Portugal was an excuse for Napoleon to flood Spain with over 100,000 men, cause civil unrest and userp the throne. The Spanish juntas sent for British aid, along with Portugal. They fought the French in pitched battles, they had guerrila forces. They hated the French invaders, the Continental System, and having Joseph as king. The French executed and massacred thousands of Spaniards in retatiation for riots and its rebellion. After getting chased back out of Madrid by Napoleon the rag-tag Spanish armies joined up with Wellington and fought alongside the Anglo-Portuguese Army from 1808 until 1814 and helped reclaim their country. That doesn't make them allies of the French in any shape or form. Please do some backgrouond reading, there are plenty of books available on the Peninsular War. Not one of them support Spain being a French ally after 1808. — Marcus(talk) 14:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on War of the Fifth 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/20160303205119/http://www.napoleonicwars.org/campaign_5coalit.htm to http://www.napoleonicwars.org/campaign_5coalit.htm
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) 09:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: … except for Britain, Portugal and Spain! This is a very Austro-centric view of things, isn't it? The war in the peninsula was already over a year old when Austria rejoined the fight, and it continued there after she threw in the towel (again!) And I’m not convinced about this "nth coalition" division of events, either: As far as I was taught, there was only one Napoleonic War between 1804 and 1814, which various European states dropped in and out of over time. I would also dispute that these coalitions only lasted as long as Austria was involved (which seems to be the position here); I've come across different periodizations in different sources. Moonraker12 (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austria stands alone... 

message: I am concerned that this article does not meet the featured article criteria anymore. I have outlined some concerns below:
*Many paragraphs and sections do not have citations.
*The lede needs to be reformatted to remove the short paragraphs and ensure it summarizes the major parts of the article. 
*There are concerns above about the POV being Austro-centric. Has this been resolved?
*There jargon in this image caption: "to throw off the yoke of Napoleon's Bavarian allies"
*The article could use a copy-edit. I recommend this happens after all the information has been verified (as this process might cause the prose to change or new information be added)
*Ref 15 cites 23 pages. Is there a way to narrow this down?
Is anyone interested in improving this article? Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: FA concerns

message: Further questions are posted below:
*"Spain and Portugal was occupying a significant portion of the French Army." Were Spain and Portugal distracting the French army, or were they part of the French army? Reword to clarify
::Reordered to hopefully make this clearer, but open to other suggestions - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded to mention Antwerp - Dumelow (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me - Dumelow (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Nothing more than "French agents", but I've elaborated on this a little - Dumelow (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Those who favoured war with France.  I've changed to "pro-war faction" and removed the quotes - Dumelow (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Clarified, hopedfully - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To leave sufficient troops there to ensure the enemy can't break out.  It didn't add much and we don't have a relevant article to link so I've removed it - Dumelow (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

text: It was a district of Bavaria.  Not important to go into depth here, I think, so I've just said it was transferred to Bavaria - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks again Z1720, I've made changes per above - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Doh, I didn't realise you were the nominator!  Do you reckon we can close the FAR as retained? - Dumelow (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , the FAR co-ordinators decide if the FAR is closed. I'll post a note there that I have finished reviewing the article. For the Further Reading section, some editors have opposed promotion because of this section as WP:FA? C1.3 says an article should be well researched, and some don't consider the research complete if there's a further reading section. I'll ask about it at the FAR. Z1720 (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit 2 by Z1720

message: This article is POV and biased towards Napoleon's dictatorship. Austrians would call it the French invasion of Austria-Hungary. By calling it the War of the 5th Coalition, you deny that it was a war of aggression and thus support the French dictator and war criminal Napoleon Bonaparte. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:44D0:3C52:B1B8:B212 (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The article is full of euphemisms and disrespectful wordings, among others concerning civilians, the people that fought, were wounded, killed, captured, their friends and families. The article mainly is written from the point of view of the rulers and in boysbook terms. Unfortunately many editors might not be aware and maybe even not understand this comment. This is not the only article written this way. Hundreds of them.
The use of country names is anachronistic. The countries did not (yet) exist as such, it mainly were bundles of territories, connected to one owner or ruler by all kind of (partly ages old) feudal agreements, (peace) treaties and other legal arrangements. Each territory with it's own sub-ruler, (common) law, tradition etc. Not comparable with what we now know as "country". By using the name of a modern country, the facts are being distorted. Also distorted is the fact, that there was one ruler, one person that in the end did decide. We now could say dictator. No government, no parliament etc. Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euphemisms, anachronic use of country names