Talk:Austro-Hungarian Army

Flag
That war flag is wrong. That was just the austro-hungarian navy jack. The common army as well as the k.k. Landwehr always used the yellow flag with the imperial coat of arms (Eagle with two heads and the coat of arms of the house habsburg-lorraine). In the middle of WWI they started to create a new war flag that showed the Coat-of-arms of both parts of the monarchy together, yet it was never in use practically since the war was over. Eromae (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Landwehr was k.k. kaiserlich-königlich, in english imperial-royal. Different to k.u.k royal (könglich) don't mean royal hungerian, it meant royal bohemian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.78.166.65 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 1 September 2006

Eh? The definitions of k.u.k., k.k. and k.u. given in the article are correct. Troops conscripted from Bohemia would either have been inducted into the Common Army (i.e. k.u.k.) or the k.k. Landwehr. Sir Andrew de Harcla 15:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

k.k. meant kaiserlich / königlich - and königlich stands for the Kingdom of Bohemia!!
 * Greetings from South Tyrol (former part of Austria!)--84.63.14.24 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

k.u.k. stand for kaiserlich und königlich. Imperial and royal. Imperial for Austria, royal for Hungary. In case of the Austrian Landwehr the royal stood for Bohemia.--Tresckow 12:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The US equivalents for the Austro-Hungarian ranks are correct. The english or Great Britain equivalents could be addet if requestet

('til 1913 the Feldwebel was the highest NCO rank and sowith not a simple sergeant)
 * --Sardines en huile (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an error in the displayed medal collection. Number two medals from the right has the wrong ribbon. The ribbon belongs to the medal of Emperor Franz Joseph's jubilee in 1898. Just one small detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyxpyxen (talk • contribs) 18:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Austro-Hungarian Army. 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/20090207205743/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk:80/FWWinAustria.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWinAustria.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Why are German-speakers described as "Germans" and not "Austrians"?
Article states: "The ethnic make-up of the enlisted ranks reflected the diversity of the empire the army served; in 1906, out of every 1000 enlisted men, there were 267 Germans, 223 Hungarians, 135 Czechs, 85 Poles, 81 Ukrainians, 67 Croats and Serbs, 64 Romanians, 38 Slovaks, 26 Slovenes, and 14 Italians."

Don't they mean German-speakers i.e. Austrians? Historian932 (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * criteria here is ethnicity: e. g., an Austrian may be a of Czech ethnicity, or German, or Italian etc. A Hungarian of Magyar, Croat etc. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * None of you caught the real point, that Austrian ethnicity did not exist that time, the Austrian national conscience and identity started to develop only after 1945. (Anyway, the IP's recent comment is fallacious from the start of the earlier mentioned false premise, since Czechs are listed separately from Germans, ethnicities are listed, not (state) nationalities (= citizenships). Hungarian as well never ever meant by any means Croat and anyway they are as well sited separately).(KIENGIR (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC))
 * no one had claimed that Austrian was an ethnicity, KIENGIR. Where you read this ? But there was an austrian state well before 1945, or 1918. - you are bit of a distorting-specialist, KIENGIR: Has anyone claimed that Czechs are NOT an ethnicity ? Czechs were an ethnicity, Germans, Italians, Croats, would you argue that or what's your point at all ? What are you meaning with (state) nationalities of the AH Empire, seems, you're missing any point of an argument, don't you ? --129.187.244.19 (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite, I summarized the confusing things above and made clear the conditions, since the one who opened the thread obviously did not realize this, along with the list is meant for the common Austro-Hungarian Army...I did not say there was not an Austrian state...no, on the contrary I am better a precisity-specialist. I've never made any allusions anyone would deny being Czechs or the others listed an ethnicity, please read back it it's not clear, the root cause was as it was earlier mentioned. No, it seems you misunderstood me and my point alltogether. So take my explanation meant to primarily for Historian932, your part is only the Hungarian-Croatian relation, so don't take it personal, I just pointed out you did not make totally clear for the user what he did not understand, despite your were mostly right (I meant only with state nationalities that are equal with citizenship...Austrian or Hungarian).(KIENGIR (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC))

Which languages were spoken officially?
In the k.u.k. army, most of the officers spoke German but did units have official translators, etc.? Were many officers bilingual (or more)? Historian932 (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Naval Ensign of Austria-Hungary (1918).svg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Austro-Hungarian army footage HD.webm

Equipment of the Common Army
How well equipped was the Common Army relative to the other two? In the lead we say:

"The joint 'Imperial and Royal Army' (kaiserlich und königliche Armee or k.u.k.) units were generally poorly trained and had very limited access to new equipment because the governments of the Austrian and Hungarian parts of the empire often preferred to generously fund their own units instead of outfitting all three army branches equally."

But in the Command Structure section we say

"The Common Army was the premier land force. It was the best equipped and had the main role to secure the borders of the Monarchy."

So, was it the worst equipped branch or the best? Chuntuk (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a important point which needs to be addressed. Gobanian (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect dienstgradgruppen
Zugsführer,	Korporal, Gefreiter made up one group called Chargen, translated as Junior NCO. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian_Army section
In your, much of your edit comment doesn't make sense to me.

 This edit leads to self-referential links such as non-Austrian soldiers, being appeared in bold, and has double hyperlinks that was fixed, you are re-adding broken formatting.

I'd like to address your points as best I understand them, and lay out a few additional points.


 * self-referential links such as non-Austrian soldiers
 * The link is not self-referential.
 * Granted, it is also not correct. I introduced that via a reversion to an earlier version of this specific text that you had authored.  I am happy to have the link removed, and leave just the plain text non-Austrian soldiers.


 * being appeared in bold
 * Neither my reversion, nor your reversion of my revert, affect bolding anywhere in the text -- as is confirmable in the diff.
 * What are you referring to?


 * has double hyperlinks that was fixed
 * Neither my reversion, nor your reversion of my revert, affect any hyperlinks at all -- as is confirmable in the diff.
 * What are you referring to?


 * you are re-adding broken formatting
 * With the exception of the link mentioned above, none of the formatting I introduced in my reversion or earlier copyediting introduces broken formatting. Meanwhile, your  re-introduces numerous meaning, grammar, and terminology errors.
 * Reverting military interpreters to military translators
 * Your reversion introduces an error here: this section is about speech (interpretation), not text (translation).
 * Thank you for later that.  :)
 * Reverting  between speakers of Hungarian and German  to  between Hungarians and Austrians 
 * Your reversion introduces an error here.
 * The issue described in the text had much less to do with ethnicity or nationality (Hungarians versus Austrians) and much more to do with language (intelligibility between the groups). It is more appropriate in this context to talk about speakers of languages, rather than members of particular ethnic or national groups.
 * Reverting The delivery of orders was particularly ineffective and the bureaucratic and dysfunctional system led to individual ethnic units becoming isolated... to The delivery of orders was particularly ineffective and the bureaucratic, and dysfunctional system led to a individual ethnic units becoming isolated...
 * Your reversion introduces errors here, indicated in the second text with highlighting.
 * The comma is incorrect, as there should not be a break here -- this is one thought, where "bureaucratic" and "dysfunctional" are both adjectives applying to the noun "system". When there are only two adjectives applying to the same following noun, it is incorrect to separate these using a comma.
 * The indefinite article "a" is incorrect in two ways: 1) before a following word beginning with a vowel, the correct form is a n ; 2) the indefinite article indicates singular, but the following noun "units" is plural.
 * Reverting  This in turn led ethnic tensions and political violence in the empire, as such mixed-language battalions began instigating mutinies and revolts against the Austrian commanders, whom they saw as out of touch.  to This in turn led &#91;&#91;ethnic tensions]], and &#91;&#91;political violence|political strife]] in the empire . A s such language battalions began instigating &#91;&#91;mutinies]] and &#91;&#91;revolts]] against the Austrian commanders who they saw as out of touch. 
 * Errors and issues highlighted again.
 * The phrasing "political violence" is equivalent to "political strife". The article gains nothing by changing the link to read "political strife", and the change is bad UX, as it misleads the reader to think that the targeted article is called "political strife".  Per Manual_of_Style/Linking and the principle of least astonishment, we should use the plain article title here, as "political violence".
 * Your second sentence is grammatically incorrect and not a sentence.
 * If the initial "as such" is intended as an interjection, it must be followed by a comma. Without the comma, it reads instead that "as such (that kind of) language battalions...", and the initial "as" turns this into a prepositional phrase, rendering the whole thing a non-sentence.
 * When used as a direct or indirect object, "who" must be "whom" (same as subject "he" becomes direct or indirect object "him").
 * Reverting Desertion and revolts were most common amongst Slavic battalions, particularly the Czech-Slovakian battalions,... to Desertion and revolts was most common amongst Slavic battalions particularly the Czech-Slovakian battalions,...
 * Errors and issues highlighted again.
 * "Desertion and revolts" is a plural subject here. A plural subject demands the plural form of the verb, "were".  Changing that to "was" is a grammar mistake.
 * The phrase "particularly the Czech-Slovakian battalions," is a qualifying phrase, further defining the specific kind of "Slavic battalions". As a qualifying phrase, it must be set of with commas (or, optionally, parentheses).  Removing the comma before "particularly" is a grammar and punctuation mistake.
 * Reverting The battalions' use of a languages that were not understood by the Austrian commanders also led to it being extremely difficult to impossible to discover attempts at desertion or revolt. to The battalions use of a languages not understood via Austrian commanders also led to it being extremely difficult and impossible to discover attempts at dissertations or revolts .
 * Errors and issues highlighted again.
 * Removing the apostrophe in "the battalion ' s use" is incorrect.
 * The word "use" here is clearly a noun. This noun is possessed by (belongs to) the preceding noun “battalions”, which must therefore be in the possessive form “battalions ' ” (with the apostrophe).
 * I missed one myself in my earlier copyediting -- "languages" is plural, so I should have removed the preceding "a".
 * Removing "that were" from "languages that were not understood" makes the text less clear.
 * While not a grammar error, the additional "that were" clarifies the semantic relationship of the nouns here. Removing this introduces greater room for ambiguity and misunderstanding.
 * Reverting "by" to "via" is a grammatical and terminology error.
 * The word "via" indicates "by means of", which is incorrect here. The languages are not understood by means of  the commanders, but rather by the commanders.
 * Changing "difficult to impossible" to "difficult and impossible" is a grammatical and meaning error.
 * Something is either difficult, or impossible, not both at once. When describing a range of possibilities, the correct phrasing is "A to B".
 * Changing "attempts at dissertations or revolts" is grammatically and terminologically incorrect.
 * A dissertation is a written argument, most commonly in legal or academic contexts (such as a "PhD dissertation"). From context, this word should clearly be desertion instead.
 * Grammatically, "attempts at" should be followed by nouns in the singular. The word "attempts" is already a plural noun, and "attempts at  " comes across as redundant and clunky.

I will edit the page to address these meaning and grammar errors as best I can. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Under the old revision, there was a hyperlink leading to the Austro-Hungarian Army page, (a self-referential hyperlink, like adding a hyperlink to food on the page food) because of this it appeared bold and was an error. There were also many double hyperlinks, like twice hyperlinking central command of the Austrian army, as well as this during the first revision I believe I used some awkward phrasing, like "the Austrian commanders" which makes Austrian commanders seem like some sort of central group, like "The Big 5" which could be helped with readability, the revert was simply an older revert towards a revision of the page. If there are other improvements that is well, but the revert was simply re-introducing these errors. One could also state that I was WP:OVERLINKING, I am generally a maximalist on linking but certain hyperlinks were removed as they potentially excess, I do think that the hyperlinks Austrian German, on the hyperlink on German was a necessary inclusion and Hungarian also can be stated to be adequate. Des Vallee (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the recent edit is generally well-done, it removes the sections on self-referral links, does not keep the older hyperlinks, and fixes some sections on grammar, while keeping the general changes to the links. Des Vallee (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)