Talk:War of the Third Coalition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

How does the "third coalition" get to be "the first of five coalitions".

Should that line read "the third of five coalitions" ???????


Contents

[edit] Portugal

Why is Portugal's role in this was always so baltantly obliterated? Portugal was an ally of the UK. I don't think it should be neglected.


[edit] Major "rewrite"

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)

Good plan. Gomm 03:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've completed the Ulm/Austerlitz sections. Anyone interested in write one for Trafalgar?UberCryxic 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] decisive victory??

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)

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)

I agree with you guys. I wanted to revert it myself, but I just didn't have the chance until now, when I discovered that it had already been changed.UberCryxic 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Question: I looked at the map given about the battle of Austerlitz and the number of troop given on the map is different from the one given in text... which one is right?

[edit] Troop Number

Question: I looked at the map given about the battle of Austerlitz and the number of troop given on the map is different from the one given in text... which one is right?

[edit] 3rd vs 4th coalition pages?

Why is France's 1806 campaign against prussia/russia part of the 4th coalition, but France's 1806 campaign against sicily/britain part of the 3rd coalition? Shouldn't both campaigns be part of the same war? -Gomm 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Because Ferdinand of Naples and Sicily sided originally with the Third Coalition. Napoleon first intended to knock Russia and Austria out of the war before turning his attention on Sicily. Once the Treaty and Pressburg was signed, Masséna's corps were free from engaging Archduke Charles and could be sent south to invade Naples.
If you read into the campaign, Naples fell in mid February with the decisive knockout blow against the Neapo-Sicilian army coming at Campo Tenese on 10 March, just 3 months after Austerlitz. By 11 March, when Joseph became King of Naples, the was against Naples 'officially' ended which means it's far more sensible to group the Neapolitan campaign with the Third Coalition. The fact that Masséna bungled the siege of Gaeta, the Calabrians then later revolted and there was a small British expeditionary force extended this campaign but it still happened before the start of the campaign against Prussia. All in all, I would definitely argue the Neapo-Sicilian campaign was a sideshow of the Third Coalition but the Battle of Schleiz started the Fourth coalition not Maida. Centy – reply• contribs – 14:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps like the Egyptian Campaign, it belongs neither with the coalition that preceded it, nor with the coalition that it overlaps. Perhaps it should have its own page. -Gomm 16:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomm (talk • contribs)