Talk:Battle of Aspern-Essling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	French military history task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792–1815)

[edit] With a colour in his hand

" ...the Archduke brought up his last reserve, himself leading on his soldiers with a colour in his hand. "

I believe Archduke Karl himself said in later years that this was a myth ("Do you know how heavy regimental colors are?") and that the statue on the Heldenplatz showing him holding the colour along in a single hand is a part of the exaggeration. --StanZegel (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Connelly (p.141) says that he seized the standard of the Zach Regiment of his reserve Grenadiers and led them forward to the French. --Bryson 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[Connelly, O. Blundering to Glory: Napoleon’s Military Campaigns. Rowman & Littlefield Pub., 2006. 3rd ed.]

[edit] Why Austrian Pyrrhic Victory?

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)

No it was a Austrian Victory and most historians would agree on that. Carl Logan 11:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it was an Austrian victory, my question is on the Pyrrhic part.--Bryson 14:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Result

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 – reply• contribs – 13:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So when both sides suffer similar casualties and the Austrians claim the field without pursuing, it's an Austrian victory. But when both sides suffer similar casualties and the French take the field but don't pursue like at Eylau, it's indecisive?? Give me a break. Talk about anglo-saxon bias ha. Axel 23:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AxelW (talk • contribs).

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)

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 – reply• contribs – 08:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)