Talk:Battle of Aspern-Essling

Sources, Sources and Sources
I would suggest that more sources be found for the material on this page; as any post-school or HE academic would tell you, sources are vital not only for verisimilitude, but for readers to reference themselves.

If anyone could or would, please consider it, as this it is a goldmine of info without links elsewhere.

Thanks, John. 91.125.97.4 (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

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.]

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.  C e n t y   00:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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.  C e n t y  – [ 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.  C e n t y  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 08:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Turn of the battle on day 2
The article claims that the countercharge by the Austrians on day 2 ( ...the Archduke brought up his last reserve, leading his soldiers with a colour in his hand. ) was the decisive turn of the battle, however, Patrick Rambaud in the The Battle indicates that Napoleon stopped his army and ordered it to fall back into defensive positions when the Austrians succeeded in breaking the bridge; they had floated a burning watermill down the Danube that crashed into the bridge and destroyed it. Thus reinforcements and supplies could not be brought to the battle line anymore. Later, Napoleon conceeded to have been beaten by "General Danube". Ekem (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The arguments over whether it was an Austrian or French victory, or a draw are beside the point. If, for example, you can find a published author who claims an Austrian victory, put down that it's an Austrian victory and cite the source. If some other author thinks it's a draw, then put that down also and cite the author's work. Erasing a cited reference is, of course, a big no-no. Instead do it like this. "Author A thinks the French won. (reference 1) However, Author B thinks the Austrians won. (reference 2)" Those of us who write articles are not supposed to be injecting our opinion (OK, I admit I sometimes made comments in footnotes like, "the casualties seem unrealistically high or low"), but rather presenting a researched article from established sources. Djmaschek (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dubious Claims/Information
"...but it was no more than a tactical victory for the Austrians, who failed to capitalise on their superior numbers and merely repulsed Napoleon, without defeating him."

This statement seems dubious and reeks of biased POV.

The addition of "strategic draw" in the info box is also rather questionable.

I'm going to go through some sources and try to find if there's any evidence to support these claims/statements.

--Junedragon3 (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources, I have edited the sentence in question. It still reflects that the Austrian Victory was not decisive by any means, but eliminates the implication in the original sentence that it was not an Austrian victory at all.

--Junedragon3 (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Result
From what I've seen in sources, I believe the result of the battle should simply be stated as "Austrian Victory" (as opposed to Tactical victory, strategic draw)

While acknowledging that Archduke Charles may have done more to capitalize on the victory (ie. pursue the French and turn the victory into a rout), it is clearly expressed that the result was an Austrian victory. For example, Crisholm (see sources section of article) goes as far as referring to the battle as "the first great defeat of Napoleon".

The addition of Strategic Draw seems unwarranted and unnecessary, especially considering Napoleon's plans were greatly set back by his failure to secure a bridgehead over the Danube in addition to the loss of Lannes and St. Hilaire among others.

--Junedragon3 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Having seen multiple unsourced and undiscussed changes I am chiming in here again. By simple logic and reinforced by the (although limited) article sources, the result should simply remain "Austrian Victory". The Austrian inability to pursue and "turn the battle into a rout" as per sources does not negate the fact that the French attempted a crossing and were driven back. It certainly does not make the battle a "French Strategic Victory" as per the last audacious edit (by such logic the Battle of Gettysburg was a "Strategic Confederate Victory"). Most importantly, the sources unequivically support this assessment, calling it a defeat for the French in no uncertain terms (and again going as far as to call it "the first great defeat of Napoleon"). The French attempted to force a crossing and failed at a large cost, simple as that. The subsequent regroup and maneuvers leading up to the battle of Wagram are outside the scope of this battle. With all this in mind simply "Austrian Victory" is the most accurate assessment.

Junedragon3 (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)