Talk:Convention of Alessandria

Signed by the Habsburg Empire, not the Archduchy of Austria
The article is written (as at 28 January 2019) in such a way to say that the treaty was signed by France and the Archduchy of Austria. Treaties in those days were signed by sovereigns. So, it would have been signed on behalf of Emperor Francis II, in his capacity as the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire rather than as the Archduke of Austria. His realm was known as Austria for short, but as can be seen in Marengo Order of Battle article, all lands ruled by the Habsburgs were present at the battle of Marengo. For this reason, I have changed the reference from Archduchy of Austria to Austria, to be consistent with the article Battle of Marengo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zixt2010 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Break

 * I've been flipping through a bunch of sources for this, none of which have been completely incorporated... Likely I will not get back to working on this in-depth until next weekend maybe? Potential for much expansion exists in the Convention and Aftermath sections. Let me know if you have any questions about what I've done. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Eddie891. It looks like you are doing excellent work on this, with a wide range of sources and images.  Unfortunately I haven't had much time on here recently, I'll perhaps try to drop in and do some copyediting or something but don't think I can contribute much more than that.  Keep up the good work! - Dumelow (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * might be ready to move out to mainspace soon... not sure what else to add. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Eddie891. Looks good to me.  I did a little bit of copyediting, but feel free to revert any of my changes.  Happy for you to move it into the mainspace whenever you like - Dumelow (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * created. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Eddie891, sorry for my lack of input to this, I have been away over the Christmas period. Thanks for your excellent work on this article and for moving it to mainspace.  I've watchlisted the GA nomination so should be able to help out when that gets going - Dumelow (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Unused sources
https://books.google.com/books?id=qW4OAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA594&dq=%22Convention+of+Alessandria%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVzdiVzaTfAhWCy4MKHdFxAN8Q6AEIWTAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Convention%20of%20Alessandria%22&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=tdIkI_xrqi4C&pg=PA23&dq=Convention+of+Alessandria&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKjpSS2qXfAhUH7IMKHSvrBCYQ6AEIPzAD#v=onepage&q=Convention%20of%20Alessandria&f=false

B class review comment
Thanks for a much-needed addition to the Napoleonic Wars history. I assessed this as B class. However, it really needs an Infobox Treaty. Please see Template:Infobox treaty. Djmaschek (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"Most disgraceful capitulation in history"
Sorry to be the no-fun brigade, but... is the quote by Dyer really that relevant, or worthy of being highlighted so much? (The Dyer quote was highlighted on the Facebook Wikipedia feed recently, which was presumably mining from DYK... cool that they're even covering "old" history at least, and no shame in some magazine-style spicy quotes, in moderation.)

According to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica... which most people would consider nowadays a very Anglophilic and old-fashioned source...  Dyer was considered by the standards of the 1800s an uninspired and "conservative" historian who basically just regurgitated the official line. If that's what the 1911 Britannica thought, Dyer would likely be considered positively archaic by modern standards. Dyer was also a British historian in an era where people were not shy about nationalistic coloring of their history writing about a military defeat by an ally, so it's not shocking he considers the Convention a disgraceful betrayal, nor that Mitchell or Prussian von Bülow would think the same. I guess the closest modern comparison might be an American historian of the "America was totally winning but got stabbed in the back by weak allies and politicians" school writing about a South Vietnamese defeat in the Vietnam War and calling it "disgraceful". Well... maybe, but I'd want to hear it from different and more sources. It seems very possible to me that the Austrians knew more about the state of their forces than the British or French, and that they were in no condition to fight. Are there modern historians with spicy, magaziney quotes who can be cited instead? And/or Austrian historians? Dyer, von Bulow, and Mitchell were all writing ages ago. SnowFire (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, historians just aren't as spicy these days as they used to be! I have looked, but nobody really wants to say anything conclusive about anything. I am fine with removing the quotes if you want... If it means anything, von Bulow was espoused as recently as 2013. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Nah, it's better to have some sort of response rather than nothing. The fact that 2013 Dwyer (who is different from Dyer...  sheesh) seems to agree that the Austrians weren't that badly off helps; I was more worried it was a case of not merely the slant being wrong, but the facts as well, wherein the Austrians had simply been beaten badly and there was no cowardice or "throwing victory away" here.
 * In the realm of productive suggestions, it might be worth calling out the dates of the writing a little more as a soft disclaimer about the vintage of the comment. Yeah, it's in the reference already, but nobody reads that.
 * "British historian Thomas Henry Dyer wrote in 1877 that it was "one of the most disgraceful capitulations in history."
 * perhaps? SnowFire (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Added the date. I'm in the process of tracking down a source through the resource exchange that might have more too say from 2007, so I will let you know if I find anything else. Thanks for the suggestion! Eddie891 Talk Work 13:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I added another source. Let me know what you think Eddie891 Talk Work 14:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Those changes look fine to me. Thanks!  SnowFire (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm in the process of (hopefully) getting access to another source... Eddie891 Talk Work 13:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to chip in here. I like what Eddie has done with adding the dates/nationalities and moving the quotes to a "historical opinion" section. I agree that the writers probably have something of an agenda, but think the reader will need to make their own inferences unless there is a modern source that discusses their comments (unlikely).  I think it is preferable to have some commentary from historians, even if it is old, rather than none.  Though I would be interested to hear a more modern take - fingers crossed for the new source Eddie mentions above - Dumelow (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)