Talk:Military career of Napoleon

link to Napoleon's memoirs of his life and career
Can anybody? Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I found this on the first page of google after just typing in link to 'Napoleon's memoirs of his life and caree' let me know how you would like to move forward. I am going to keep an eye on this article, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbakadog (talk • contribs) 10:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

needs to be more objective define battle 13 Vendémiaire ? do not think this qualifies as a battle/ define in control Teugn-Hausen (1809) dont think he was present. define victory Berezina how is this a victory just have some troops retreat? (by this measure the Austrians won Austerlitz)

adjusted battle of Berezina as a defeat. adjusted figures for that. this article simply does not have a consistent definition of defeat. if napoleon wins berezina by the same measure he will lose other victories listed, ] Davewintzingerode (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. It was a defeat Chelentano (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Reverting to earlier version
I am reverting to an earlier version of the article. The current version was copy/pasted by a mass sock-puppeteer without my permission. This was done in breach of Wikipedia licencing WP:CWW since I receive no attribution and can also be undone under WP:REVERTBAN. The sock-puppet stole the content from my Sandbox without permission. Technically, this was "illegal" since it violated by copyright. Since I was blocked at the time they could not contact me, but they made no attempt to accounce their intentions either, probably because of their socking habit. See: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vinukin.

I can only apologise to editors who have made minor changes in the past year, though there are not too many of you. I will not be reviewing edits or addressing them as I notice most were made without contributing fresh references to challenge the content I drafted, which would fail any peer-review. I have no interest in having the history merged or attribution added until I have complted by draft, as I do not want this live until I am ready -- no clone or copy may exist in livespace without my submitting it officially. This relates to Wiki policy because it is the law. I make no legal threats here, simply be aware that it is what it is and Wikipedia and its editors are legally bound to respect it. You are not at fault, the sock violated my work and I exercise my legal right to remove it until it is ready to publicise.

Please do not revert back to my draft or any edited version of it, as this could create a copyright issue that could be raised with ANI or ArbCom to resolve. I will resume working on the draft in the near-future and will submit a completed article which can be peer-reviewed and assessed properly in my time, rather than a half-finished smash-and-grab by some socking thief.

Please don't contact me to offer to help with the draft article, I prefer to work alone on this, however long it may take. Contributions can be made once the article is live. Note that if I had not been blocked, many of the edits made would have been reverted because they did not provide fresh citations to contradict my own references. Such low standards cannot be tolerated either.

Note: This matter was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history beforehand and Copyright issues were raised there.

Thanks, — Marcus(talk) 16:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

"Military career of Napoleon the Great" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Military career of Napoleon the Great. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 20:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

"Military career of Napoléon the Great" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Military career of Napoléon the Great. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 23 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Battles that Napoleon fought
Can anyone provide proof he fought in 70+ battles? Everything I can find says he fought in 60 exactly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aromantic Frogge (talk • contribs) 19:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Battles that Napoleon fought
Can anyone provide proof he fought in 70+ battles? Everything I can find says he fought in 60 exactly Aromantic Frogge (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Ammendments to article
Similar to other military career Wikipedia pages, the table should include additional columns which specify what type of action it was (e.g. battle, siege, skirmish etc.), whether the battle was decisive, and in which conflict the action took place in.

This would help clear up any confusion which has arisen from the number of battles Napoleon fought in - usually being quoted as 60 battles. The reason this list contains 83 is because it includes other actions, like sieges, which is why there should be additional columns/labels.

This would also justify keeping 13 Vendémiaire and the Revolt of Cairo in the list, since although they were not proper set piece battles, they were still significant actions during the French Revolution and Campaign in Egypt and Syria respectively, so deserve to remain in the list, albeit under new label (perhaps 'uprising' ?) JL393 (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Article accuracy
In the interest of accuracy I think some revisions need to be made:

- Greater Poland Uprising should be removed from the list. It was not really a battle, nor was Napoleon in direct command of the Polish troops involved

- Battle of Teugen-Hausen should also be removed from the list. In a similar way to the battle of Auerstedt, Marshal Davout defeated the enemy independently, and Napoleon was not in direct command of the troops involved in the battle

- Siege of Vienna (1809) should be added to the list. Despite it being only a short siege, Napoleon did have to overcome significant Austrian defenders of the city, and eventually won the siege

- Siege of Madrid (1808) should be added to the list. Similar to the action above, it was a short siege, but Napoleon did had to overcome troops defending Madrid, and eventually won the siege

- Battle of Znaim should have its outcome changed to "inconclusive". The battle ended in a cease-fire due to an armistice between Austria and France.

- Battle of Berezina should have its outcome also changed to "inconclusive". The battle can be described as a Russian tactical victory (inflicted heavy losses on the French and retained control of the battlefield), but a French strategic victory (they escaped with some of the army still intact). It would be generous to the French to say they won the battle

Despite the fact that some of Napoleon's victories would be removed from the list with these revisions, it is better to have an accurate article. What is the consensus on these revisions? JL393 (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Prevent an edit war
– I'm pinging you because of your prior contributions to this article (having been active this year), and your help might be of great value. Although, anyone is welcome to give their opinion. There's currently somewhat of an edit war going on here, with me (15 August 2023) and Nuevousuario1011 (16 August 2023) involved. I'd like for neutral opinions to settle this dispute, if possible. The main issues are:


 * 1. Is this article about Napoleon's military career as a whole, with all military events in which he participated listed in Battle record summary (my opinion), or only those where he was the supreme commander (Nuevousuario1011's opinion)? The dispute regards to the Expedition to La Maddalena in 1793, where Napoleon was third in command. If it's, in fact, only about Napoleon's battles as supreme commander, what's to be done with the battles prior to Montenotte?


 * 2. Apart from La Maddalena, Nuevousuario1011 also removed the battles of Heilsberg, Znaim, Maloyaroslavets and the Second Battle of Kulm, despite Napoleon being listed as commander in each of their respective main articles. He also removed the Siege of Vienna (1809), and added the Battle of Teugen-Hausen. I removed Teugen-Hausen from this list a few days ago, simply because Napoleon wasn't listed as commander in the main article at the time; Nuevousuario1011 added him recently (12 August 2023) with the motivation that he "comanded the entire strategic onset of the battle" – this suggests to me, that he wasn't present. What are your thoughts on these battles? Which ones deserve to be included and not?


 * 3. A few days ago, I changed the results of certain battles to better match their respective main articles; e.g., Maloyaroslavets and Berezina were changed from 'victory' to 'inconclusive' (as well as Heilsberg and Znaim which Nuevousuario1011 removed). Nuevousuario1011 reverted them back to victories. In my opinion, it doesn't make any sense to have different outcomes stated here, conflicting with their respective main articles (a consensus for a different result should first be reached in the main article). Nuevousuario1011 seems to be of a different opinion.

I think these were all of the issues. you're welcome to give any corrections or additional thoughts I might've missed. I hope this can be resolved to stop this edit war, and prevent future ones. I'm far from an expert on this field, and I'm inclined to agree to any result as long as there's a consensus for it. Imonoz (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The "edit war" is only because since i created the battle list some changes have been made, but here the problem that is all about is about including every battle in Napoleon's carer, while it's only about the battles were he was in command,like at Wellington page, Znaim was an armistice (in favor of france) rather than an inconclusive battle, Heilsberg as far as the majority of the sources go it was never a battle with Napoleon in command, Berezina is not inconclusive but since the new regulation is the "see aftermath section", it prevent the discussion on the infobox, nevertheless, and as far as it concern was a strategic victory for the French, Maloyaroslavets is practically the same, altought Napoleon was not even there. about his early commander career, Napoleon was the commander against the royalist revolt, and Barras was a political head only, while at Toulon, it was Napoleon plan, and Napoleon assault who won the battle, cases like La Maddalena were he was only an officer exceed any logical reason to consider, especially since it was (in the now eliminated context, explained as part of his early life). There is no reason to change something who was already established a long time ago, in fact there are some battles like Primolano who are not even included here, but the main objective of the page is the focus on Napoleon as a commander. the second battle of Kulm is a recently edited from an old version where there is no actual evidence of Napoleon being in command rather he ordered his subordinates to carry a battle and then to cease the fire. Teugen-Hausen was always listed as commanded by Napoleon until some edits recently but the movements of Lefebvre corp to save Davout were leaded by Napoleon. The siege of Vienna lacked any source or even article to put it there on the first place. I also recommend you to see the coordination with @Ruedi33a info graphics. In other words we must stop given Napoleon battles who weren't his while maintaining the already universally accepted to be his. Hope that it helps to make clear my point, and show you the criteria rather than arbitrary of the decision to remove some content. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The discussion of the correct outcome of a battle will become extremely complicated if the tactical victor is different from the strategic victor. The infobox of the article about the Battle of Berezina shows the result of the battle as a link to the section "Aftermath" (only "inconclusive", "xxx victory" and a link are allowed as a result, see infobox template). In this article about the military career I suggest to do the same for the Battle of Berezina: insert a link to the aftermath section of the article about the Battle of Berezina. In addition, you have synced the two articles.Ruedi33a (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. I agree with this! I think that it's important that the results are synced. Also, do you have an opinion regarding which battles to include? Imonoz (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What are battles of Napoleon? The main decisions of the battle itself must be done by him. Borodino and Berezina are clearly Napoleon's battles. Maloyaroslavets is fought by Beauharnais according to the article. Riehn says: "The rest of Eugene's troops did not go far beyond Borovsk, where Napoleon arrived on the same day." This is 24 km away from Maloyaroslavets. "There, he was to leave ... and place himself between Malo-Jaroslavets and Borovsk. This plan lasted only until 5 p.m. on the 25th..." On the 24th, the day of the battle, Napoleon had not arrived at Maloyaroslavets itself, the main decisions were done by Beauharnais. Maloyaroslavets is not a battle fought by Napoleon himself. Ruedi33a (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. Do you have an opinion on La Maddalena; Heilsberg; Znaim; Second Battle of Kulm; Vienna (siege 1809); Teugen-Hausen? Which ones should be included and not? Imonoz (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The section's title is "Battle record summary" within the article "Military career of Napoleon Bonaparte". I suggest to add a definition into the section like "This is a listing of all known battles where the main decisions of the battle itself were done by Napoleon". La Maddalena: no, Heilsberg: yes, Zaim:no, Kulm II:yes, Vienna siege 1809: no as no dedicated article exists, Teugen-Hausen: no Ruedi33a (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I'm just curious, by the definition that "main decisions of the battle itself must be done by him", do you think the battles of Saorgio and First Dego should also be removed? What's the reason for exclusively listing battles with him as first in command, but not the other ones? I'm asking, because the "Battle record" summary of similar articles, such as Military career of Arthur Wellesley, includes battles where he was present but not necessarily the commander—why isn't the same done here? Should I add a new column with his rank, similar to the Wellington page? Would that justify adding non-commander battles? Imonoz (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "This is a listing of all known battles where the main decisions of the battle itself were done by Napoleon" is one possible definition. Another one would be "This is a listing of all known battles where Napoleon personally participated in". The first definition shows the quality of Napoleon as a military commander in the percentage of victories. The second one shows also the defeats when he was not in command. For me the main point is to define the listing precisely to avoid discussions about a battle being listed or not. Ruedi33a (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right; regardless of what, a definition of exactly what should be included in the list is needed to avoid future conflict. Let's wait a week or so and see if more people will share their opinion of what that should be. Imonoz (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ruedi33a Although you study more the Russian campaign, it would be appreciated a review on the second Kulm article, especially it's inclusion here. considering the following points.
 * some external links are a board game site, and another that made no mention at all of Napoleon, while the majority of the article is written using only a source from a Prussian noble of 1820 and another British with lukewarm affirmations from 1850.
 * The Second battle of Kulm, lacks of respectable sources, it is important to also remember, the article that you had been cited at this talk page called Dolnitz, is also ambiguous in both sources, and about Napoleon being present, in fact it talk about Napoleon being at Peterswalde, 17 km away, in wich by the ways according to the site Napoleon had won two battles before the "combat" one at Peterswalde the day early and, before that at Berggiesshübel, both also pretty ambiguous about him being present.
 * Also the only source to properly explain it is ambiguous and contemporary to it, there is a lack of academic sources and that is against Wikipedia policy. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ruedi33a
 * Could you explain a bit more broadly why the battles should or should not be included, considering the pretty dubious information about the second battle of Kulm.And why to exclude Teugen-Haussen considering what i said below. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think me and Nuevousuario1011 are about ready to wrap this up. Is your standing regarding the battles still relevant, or has anything changed: La Maddalena NO; Heilsberg YES; Teugen-Hausen NO; Vienna NO; Znaim NO; Maloyaroslavets NO; 2nd Kulm YES? The article he's referring to is Combat of Dolnitz which I provided to him, not to be used as a source but merely to show a description of 2nd Kulm outside of Wikipedia. Anyway, as Nuevousuario1011 mentioned, he finds the sources in Second Battle of Kulm poor; the wargaming article in external links is of course not ideal but can easily be removed since it's not used whatsoever. A quick Google search led me to other sources mentioning Napoleon's involvement, such as Napoleon: a History of the Art of War with a quoted letter by him, and History of Europe from the Fall of Napoleon which also mentions 1,200 captured French soldiers and as many killed or wounded. In any case, if you can, please review Second Battle of Kulm as per Nuevousuario1011's request and then come back to us with your final standing regarding the battles (or anything else you'd like to add/mention). Thank you. Imonoz (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying your point. If I can only ask you a few questions to make things clearer:
 * "it's only about the battles were he was in command" — Says who? When and where was this decided? Can you show me?
 * "like at Wellington page" — Wellington's similar page has less notable battles included in his early career, where he wasn't the supreme commander (which I think you're referring to?).
 * "Znaim was an armistice ... rather than an inconclusive battle" — Why did you remove Znaim? Wasn't there a battle before the armistice? The main article seem to suggest Napoleon arrived and took command at one point. Is this false?
 * "Heilsberg ... was never a battle with Napoleon in command" — The main article disagrees; he allegedly took joint command once having arrived. If this is a factual error, he should perhaps be removed from the 'Commanders and leaders' in the infobox. In any case, is this battle really less notable than Second Saorgio and First Dego, which you haven't removed?
 * "Berezina is not inconclusive" — As far as Berezina goes, I think we should go with Ruedi33a's suggestion of inserting a link to its aftermath, rather than putting a victory/defeat which isn't clearly supported in the infobox of the main article.
 * "Maloyaroslavets ... Napoleon was not even there" — If he wasn't there, I agree it shouldn't be included in the list.
 * "while at Toulon, it was Napoleon plan" — So here we're breaking your rule of first in command only? Again, for the sake of consistency, where and when was all this decided?
 * "Maddalena were he was only an officer exceed any logical reason to consider" — He was third in command at Maddalena. Also, this depends on whether we should only include his battles as supreme commander, or also include battles in which he was present as part of his military career but not necessarily the supreme commander.
 * "in fact there are some battles like Primolano" — If he was present, I personally don't see how that would make this article worse, quite the contrary actually. It's what I'd expect from an article with this title.
 * "second battle of Kulm ... no actual evidence of Napoleon being in command" — If so, I agree.
 * "Teugen-Hausen was always listed as commanded by Napoleon" — Was he present at the battle? Or was it like at Maloyaroslavets, where "Napoleon was not even there"?
 * "The siege of Vienna ..." — Do you know if he was present and in command of the siege or not? If not, I agree it shouldn't be included. Imonoz (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Toulon, must remain because he was one of many commanders but he was the one who was essential to the outcome, a long established fact. He was also the planner and executor of the plan, only nominal command was held by Duggomier, and he was placed there because Napoleon wanted it.
 * It is not about being the supreme commander but being the heavyweight on it, Saorgio and Dego i also have my doubts, but considering who the plan was made by Napoleon, it would be like excluding Von Weyrother from Austerlitz.
 * At Teugen Haussen Napoleon was present on the western side of the maneuver battle with Lefevbre's corp, remember it was a dual battle.
 * La Maddalena should not be included because Napoleon participated as a subordinate only, he wasn't a "leader" it would be the same as mention the taking of Avignon or actions against the royalist in early 1793.
 * Znaim is an exceptional case because it was an armistice but a french victory, but it was more a skirmish between Marmont's advance guard, as when Napoleon arrived they surrendered, rather than ending inconclusive, that would be if we only count the first day with Marmont.
 * Berezina should probably have a note at the bottom explaining the outcome.
 * At the beginning of the battle record table making, there were his battles first listed victories, defeats, inconclusive, then it was eliminated but the table that i made remained, that is why the focus always have been his own battles, and there was also a text explaining in chronological order what did he do from the school until Toulon, who was then removed.
 * Primolano and others, of course should be here but we need reliable sources first, not superficial data only.
 * Vienna did not have information about it, at Maloyaroslavetz and 2nd Kulm we seem to agree already.
 * Heilsberg, as far as the sources go, was a strategic offensive in which Napoleon hold no direct tactical command, Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * "Toulon, must remain because he ... was essential to the outcome." — I agree, but just to be clear, I want all battles to be listed in which he was present (similar to Wellington's page). The issue, as I see it, is the inconsistency arising from a policy of excluding some of them.
 * "Saorgio and Dego ... the plan was made by Napoleon." — Sure. But you earlier said "it's only about the battles were he was in command". Also, was he present at these battles or did he send the plans from elsewhere?
 * "At Teugen Haussen Napoleon was present on the western side of the maneuver battle with Lefevbre's corp." — What do you mean by "maneuver battle"? Are you referring to operational command in the campaign? According to the Battle of Teugen-Hausen page, Napoleon isn't mentioned as being present at Teugen-Hausen (or even the skirmish at Arnhofen with Lefebvre), thus making it near impossible for him to have been its tactical commander. I'm of the same opinion as Ruedi33a here, that it shouldn't be included.
 * "La Maddalena should not be included ... he wasn't a leader" — That is to say, if we only include battles in which he was, de facto, leading the army. But again, he was third, or even second in command, and, contrary to Teugen-Hausen, he was actually present. I note that Ruedi33a agrees with you, however, thinking it shouldn't be included.
 * "it would be the same as mention the taking of Avignon or actions against the royalist in early 1793" — I'm not familiar with these actions, and that's quite frankly part of the problem as I see it. I'd expect, from a page called "Military career of Napoleon Bonaparte", to be informed of them (if he was present and if there's an article that is).
 * "Znaim is an exceptional case because it was an armistice but a french victory" — While a few sources have it as inconclusive (World History Encyclopedia & Clash of Steel) I do see how it can be just as easily seen as a French victory because of the favorable armistice (The Napoleon Series).
 * "Berezina should probably have a note at the bottom explaining the outcome." — To prevent future conflicts, and have the result synced with the main article, I think Ruedi33a's suggestion of having "See aftermath" is the best one here. What do you think?
 * "Maloyaroslavetz and 2nd Kulm we seem to agree already." — Yes. If Napoleon arrived after the main battle at Maloyaroslavetz, and thus wasn't present, it shouldn't be included (even if he directed the operational prelude to the battle, similar to Teugen-Haussen). However, I'm reluctant to agree with 2nd Kulm, mainly because Ruedi33a thinks it should be included, and because I essentially want to include every battle in which he was present. With that said, I don't know much about this action.
 * "Heilsberg ... was a strategic offensive in which Napoleon hold no direct tactical command" — What do you mean by that? Napoleon seemingly held no tactical command at Teugen-Hausen, yet you want that battle to be included? In the linked main article, Battle of Heilsberg, Napoleon is mentioned as having tactical command. Shouldn't the battles of this article reflect their respective main articles, with changes to factual errors, if any, initially be made there?
 * "At the beginning of the battle record table making ... there was also a text explaining in chronological order" — I have a proposal. How about I add two more columns to the table, similar to Wellington's page: One of which states whether he was in command or not (or his rank), and another made for notes, explaining cases such as Berezina? If so, all battles in which he fought (with an existing Wikipedia page) can be added, without misunderstandings as to his role. I think this page would benefit long term, with less disputes over which battles to include, if the only requirement to add them is him being present. What do you think? Imonoz (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * he problem whit La Maddalena is that Napoleon didn't held command at any moment, different from Toulon.
 * Teugen-Haussen had long time ago been established as a Napoleon battle, dating from it's conclusion in the early 19th century. That is the reason of why La Maddalena shouldn't be in his battle record, maybe an early chronology of his formation in Brienne to his appointment at Toulon should be redacted, but as a prologue. And also why Toulon and Teugen-Haussen must remain. About Dego and Saorgio, he was present as chief of staff, and drew the plans for both battles there.
 * Znaim is problematic as i said, it is more a political act.
 * Berezina probably should have an explanatory note on the outcome,
 * 2nd Kulm as i said is inconsistent, the article was modified with an Infobox, but if we read source after another no one mention Napoleon being present or in command there.
 * Heilsberg was according to many sources not fought under his orders, i am reticent thus.
 * add two more columns may not be the solution, as Napoleon was from Toulon onward a General and thus in charge of the operations, then Emperor with the brief exception of Dego and Saorgio being with him one of many commanders, but an explanatory column would be pretty interesting, but only for few cases.
 * In any case i believe that an "early career" section must be add as a prologue and begun the battle record only when he was in command at Toulon
 * La Maddalena Napoleon was deputy commander of a battalion of Corsican volunteers there not of the French fleet or the French landing forces, he was far from a decision making level. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not of the opinion that this list should exclusively include battles in which he commanded; so whether or not he commanded at La Maddalena is unimportant to me, similar to the article about Wellington's military career—he was present, which I think is enough to be included as part of his military career. Also, an explanatory column would be sufficient in itself, both for cases such as Berezina (to provide a note for its aftermath), but also those of La Maddalena, Dego, and Saorgio (informing the reader that he wasn't the commander).
 * The revision history of this article is awful, with tons of reverts. How could it possibly suffer if it took inspiration from Wellington's page which has nowhere near the same amount of reverts, and included all battles in which he was present? In any case, in its present state with no explanatory column and as far as battles goes, it looks like this:
 * Expedition of La Maddalena: Support (imonoz); against (Nuevousuario1011 & Ruedi33a)
 * Battle of Heilsberg: Support (Ruedi33a & imonoz); against (Nuevousuario1011)
 * Siege of Vienna: Against (Nuevousuario1011 & Ruedi33a)
 * Battle of Teugen-Hausen: Support (Nuevousuario1011); against (Ruedi33a & imonoz)
 * Battle of Znaim: Against (Nuevousuario1011 & Ruedi33a)
 * Battle of Maloyaroslavets: Against (Nuevousuario1011, Ruedi33a & imonoz)
 * Second Battle of Kulm: Support (Ruedi33a & imonoz); against (Nuevousuario1011)
 * A potential change, apart from the the explanatory column, is the "See aftermath" (instead of victory/defeat), as suggested by . Let's wait and see a few days if more people will share their opinion. Imonoz (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you show me were @Ruedi33a is talking in the first place? i want to be part of the conversation. Wellingon article may have faults that are not yet reverted but should be, but the thing is how solid it must be the article.
 * Again before Toulon a prologue should be made, and Dego and Saorgio are different from La Maddalena because Napoleon have a play in the outcome, in fact he was key to it, while La Maddalena is only a early service before being in charge of anything Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also about the second battle of Kulm there are many issues, some external links are a board game site, and another that made no mention at all of Napoleon, while the majority of the article is written using only a source from a Prussian noble of 1820 and another British with lukewarm affirmations from 1850.
 * About Znaim Maloyaroslavets and Vienna (in the latter unless someone prove that a siege with Napoleon giving the orders happen) we agree not to add them again, (all were supposedly Napoleon victories)
 * As i made clear i oppose La Maddalena inclusion under any terms, but an "Early carer" independent of the result and grid should be written back.
 * If we keep Heilsberg we must also keep Teugen-Haussen as if wasn't for Napoleon the battle (and maybe the outcome) would had been very different.
 * Remember that one of the main reasons people come here is to read about his military record, so his weight in should be considered. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * "Could you show me were @Ruedi33a is talking in the first place?" — He replied to your first comment, replying to me.
 * "Dego and Saorgio are different from La Maddalena" — Every battle is different. To me, it doesn't make sense to exclude any in which he was present; whether he was the commander, third in command, the one who drew the plan, or just a common soldier. But there's no consensus for that (yet), so what can I do.
 * "Also about the second battle of Kulm there are many issues" — If there are issues with Second Kulm, they should be fixed there first. But as long as the article is there, with its battle description showing Napoleon in command, I'm inclined to support its inclusion.
 * "As i made clear i oppose La Maddalena inclusion under any terms" — Since both you and Ruedi33a are against it, with only me supporting, it shouldn't be included. I accept that.
 * "If we keep Heilsberg we must also keep Teugen-Haussen" — We mustn't do anything. If you are the only one supporting Teugen-Haussen, you're the minority (as I am in La Maddalena's case), and should accept that.
 * "Remember that one of the main reasons people come here is to read about his military record" — I actually came here with expectations that all battles in which he fought would be included (similar to Wellington's page). Imonoz (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "He replied to your first comment, replying to me." Well, okay i wasn't tagged and i didn't see it.
 * "Every battle is different. To me, it doesn't make sense to exclude any in which he was present; whether he was the commander, third in command, the one who drew the plan, or just a common soldier. But there's no consensus for that (yet), so what can I do." You can do exactly what i told you, write about his early career, before being a commander but outside of the battle record because it exceeded him on the first place, and there is a lot of historiography arguing that Napoleon carer as an officer in command started at Toulon.
 * "Also about the second battle of Kulm there are many issues" — If there are issues with Second Kulm, they should be fixed there first. But as long as the article is there, with its battle description showing Napoleon in command, I'm inclined to support its inclusion." The existence or modification of the article of low quality shouldn't condition the record when we have sources who openly excluded it, Chandler, Roberts, etc. and the article did little to support itself.
 * "We mustn't do anything. If you are the only one supporting Teugen-Haussen, you're the minority (as I am in La Maddalena's case), and should accept that." While your rebuke tone and parallelism that you draw could be an issue to consider, the issue with Teugen-Haussen is not from me but from an historical view, if the claims and the analysis made, both by historians and here show Napoleon being decisive for the play if not the outcome of the battle, then it must be included as a logical criteria issue, if we limit the battles were his actions mattered on the tactical level, we lost seriousness but also we will be too arbitrary to include the battle of Heilsberg were his presence was mere, and indifferent to the outcome and the majority of the fighting, while we ignore Teugen-Haussen. This is not three editors talking only it is following a criteria, at La Maddalena you are in a minority because not a single historian or researcher ever suggested it to be, and by ranks it also show the selection being poor. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * "You can do exactly what i told you" — Why would I write about La Maddalena as part of his early career, excluded from the list of battles, when I came here wanting La Maddalena to be included in the list of battles? Earlier, you said "i believe that an early career section must be add[ed]" so I suggest you do it yourself.
 * "The existence ... of the article of low quality shouldn't condition the record" — It's near undeniable that there was an engagement in that area, with Napoleon in command. HistoryOfWar also has an article about it: Combat of Dolnitz. So, as far as I can tell, the engagement occurred and I don't see any reason to exclude it (even if the sources are not of your liking).
 * "the issue with Teugen-Haussen is not from me but from an historical view" — There's an issue with Teugen-Haussen because our criteria differs in what should be included in the list of battles:
 * You want battles in which Napoleon was the commander or had an otherwise big impact to its outcome (but you don't require his presence on the field); Ruedi33a's criteria is battles in which Napoleon fought, where "The main decisions of the battle itself must be done by him"; my criteria is battles in which Napoleon fought, as per the lede of the article "fought more than 80 battles", meaning him being present on the field. That's why I, and I'm guessing also, is against Teugen-Haussen: Because he wasn't on the field or in command on a tactical level.
 * "at La Maddalena you are in a minority because not a single historian or researcher ever suggested it to be" — My criteria (for battles to be included) is him being present, something I think most historians agrees with in regards to La Maddalena.
 * "we will be too arbitrary to include the battle of Heilsberg were his presence was mere" — As far as Heilsberg goes, Napoleon's presence is mentioned several times in the Battle section, while it's not even mentioned once in Teugen-Hausen's Battle section. Imonoz (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I offered you solutions to your problem, if you want to speak about the early career of Napoleon, then you should do it freely, but remembering that is the early career. Why should i either focus on keeping a battle that do not translate into his battle record?
 * The Second battle of Kulm, is not a not liking of sources, but a lacking of respectable sources, it is important to also remember, the article that you cite call it Dolnitz, and is also ambiguous in both sources, and about Napoleon being present, in fact it talk about Napoleon being at Peterswalde, 17 km away, in wich by the ways according to the site Napoleon had won two battles before the "combat" one at Peterswalde the day early and, before that at Berggiesshübel, both also pretty ambiguous about him being present, like at Dolnitz, so following your criteria or my criteria it simply doesn't add to it.
 * The article "says more than 80 battles" in reality it said more than 60 battles with the source claiming it, but it was expanded people begun to add more battles, the question now is what is a battle?
 * Early military career articles exist and you can do it, but do not simply insert battles where he wasn't the commander in his battle record.
 * We probably should limit ourselves to what the books say rather than any random article around on wikipedia. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * "I offered you solutions to your problem" — Again, my problem coming here was that La Maddalena was excluded from the list of battles. A problem you've offered zero solutions to (and no willingness to cooparate). However, as I've already told you, since I'm the only one supporting it, I accept its exclusion from the list.
 * "the article that you cite call it Dolnitz" — In the Wikipedia lede, it's also referred to as Teplitz (to my understanding, a name inspired by the old river 'Dolnitz' in that area). What's important is that it's the same engagement, which it is.
 * "in fact it talk about Napoleon being at Peterswalde" — What it says is that Napoleon was at Peterswalde on 16 September, one day prior to the engagement. He then fought it the next day and, following his withdrawal, once again remained in Peterswalde during the night of 17-18 September. In other words, he was present (which is my criteria).
 * "in reality it said more than 60 battles with the source claiming it" — My point here, which you removed, was the "fought", in response to Teugen-Haussen where he wasn't even present (and thus didn't fight). Whatever definition or battle an historian chooses to include is less relevant on Wikipedia, where, if there's an article written about a less notable engagement with Napoleon in it (such as Combat of Turbigo or Siege of Fort Bard), I don't see much reason not to include it.
 * "Early military career articles exist and you can do it" — Again, it is YOU who wanted an early career section. Instead of asking others to do the work you want, do it yourself.
 * "We probably should limit ourselves to what the books say rather than any random article around on wikipedia." — Which book tells us what we have to include on Wikipedia? Imonoz (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What i meant is that i do not care if la Maddalena is mentioned, as far as it is on the right place. I do not thus care if an early career article is made, but do not make interference in this particular one.
 * Now after saying that more than 80 battles should be included because the lead of the article says it, i answer with the source and the history of this article, and now you pretend that what an historian says is not relevant to Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is not a Forum, you must present at least some academic sources, and should match the text.
 * If there is an article written about a less notable engagement you say it must be included, yes, but because those have sources, both Turbigo and Fort Bard have renown sources.
 * At Teugen-Haussen he wasn't present you said, thus he did not fought, but the coordination of the battle in the western sector was done by him, it wasn't a battle with only the IIIrd Corp and the Austrians.
 * But most important 2nd Kulm, the article you give do not ever mention Napoleon there or in command, it mention him winning Peterswalde and watching the battle from away but not being present there. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * "more than 80 battles" — The 80 battles was never my concern. That's not why I began this discussion. This is you wandering off topic.
 * "and now you pretend that what an historian says is not relevant to Wikipedia." — You have quite the habit of twisting my words around. I'm saying, just because an historian recalls 60 battles, obviously excluding smaller engagements in which Napoleon fought, doesn't mean we can't list those engagements on Wikipedia. If they have articles, even better.
 * "but because those have sources, both Turbigo and Fort Bard have renown sources" — If this is still about the Second Battle of Kulm article and its allegedly bad sources, you should raise your concern there.
 * "2nd Kulm, the article ... mention him winning Peterswalde" — Have you even read the article? It clearly mentions him advancing from Peterswalde towards Kulm on 17 September, and firing upon the allied position with the artillery. And later how he recalled his troops from the plains.
 * "and watching the battle from away" — Watching battles from away is usually what commanders did.
 * I'm not changing my opinion regarding Second Kulm; you can always ping Ruedi33a and try to persuade him to change his opinion regarding the battles, but I won't. I'm fairly convinced there was fighting taking place there, with Napoleon involved. Imonoz (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not twisting your words, you are just changing the focus of the discussion since it begun.
 * The source that you claim for 2nd Kulm is ambiguous in it's description, so there it is, and about the bad quality sources, a board game is seriously a bad one. Also the only source to properly explain it is ambiguous and contemporary to it, there is a lack of academic sources and that is against Wikipedia policy. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I responded above. Let's see if we can get Ruedi33a in here and wrap this up. Imonoz (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

OSM COORDINATION MAP
Someone tried to build a map on this and on Bonaparte’s main page. It contained pin points of all of his military career battles. The information wasn’t entered correctly and it was causing both pages to error. I removed them, as the person who made them just abandoned them once they couldn’t figure it out. I’m sharing so we can all be aware. Clarawolfe (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)