Talk:Napoleonic Wars/Archive 3

Challenge to new 'prelude' section
User:CJK has added the following prelude section, with citations to primary sources from 1803. The Wikipedia rules require it be based on reliable secondary sources, of which there are many for this important development. The proposed text itself is flawed, because it does not explain the decision-making process of the British leadership In the start of the war. It focuses on 1803 and the breakdown of the Treaty of Amiens But does not say why Britain wanted to go to war in the first place. Indeed you seem to suggest that it war was primarily designed to cover the embarrassment of the Addington administration about a incorrect announcement. A much better explanation is available in Schroeder, The transformation of European politics 1763-1848 pp 231ff, which blames Napoleon primarily for the breakdown of Amiens. Rjensen (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

prelude
Britain was irritated by a number of French actions following the Treaty of Amiens. Bonaparte had annexed Piedmont and Elba, made himself President of the Italian Republic, a state in northern Italy that France had set up, and failed to evacuate Holland. France continued to interfere with British trade despite peace having been made and complained about Britain harboring certain individuals and not cracking down on their anti-French press.

Malta had been occupied by Britain during the war and had been subject to a complex arrangement in the 10th article of the Treaty of Amiens where it was to be restored to the Knights of St. John with a Neapolitan garrison and placed under the guarantee of third powers. However, the weakening of the Knights of St. John by the confiscation of their assets in France and Spain along with delays in obtaining guarantees prevented the British from evacuating it after three months as stipulated in the treaty.

The Helvetian Republic had been set up by France when they invaded Switzerland in 1798. France had withdrawn its troops, but violent strife subsequently broke out against the government, which many Swiss saw as overly centralized. Alarmed, Bonaparte reoccupied the country in October 1802 and imposed a compromise settlement. This action caused widespread outrage in Britain, who protested this as violation of the Treaty of Luneville. Although continental powers were unprepared to act, the British decided to send an agent who would help the Swiss obtain supplies, and also sent orders for their military not to return Cape Colony to Holland as they had committed to do so in the Treaty of Amiens.

Swiss resistance collapsed, however, before anything could be accomplished and after a month Britain countermanded the orders not to restore Cape Colony. At the same time Russia finally joined the guarantee with regards to Malta. Concerned that there would be hostilities when Bonaparte found out that Cape Colony had been retained, the British began to deliberately procrastinate on the evacuation of Malta. In January 1803 an official government paper in France published a report from a commercial agent which noted the ease that Egypt could be conquered. The British seized on this to demand some sort of satisfaction and security before evacuating Malta. France disclaimed any desire to seize Egypt and asked what sort of satisfaction was required but the British were unable to give a response. There was still no thought of going to war, Prime Minister Addington publicly affirmed Britain was in a state of profound peace.

In early March 1803 the Addington ministry received word that Cape Colony had been re-occupied by the British army in accordance with the orders which had subsequently been countermanded. On 8 March they ordered military preparations to guard against possible French retaliation, but publicly justified them by falsely claiming that France was making military preparations and that they were engaged in negotiations with France that had taken a turn for the worse. In a few days it was known that Cape Colony had been surrendered in accordance with the counter-orders, but it was too late. Bonaparte berated the British ambassador in front of 200 spectators over its unjustified military preparations.

The Addington ministry realized they would face an inquiry over their false reasons for the military preparations, and during the month of April unsuccessfully attempted to secure the support of William Pitt the Younger to shield them from inquiry. That same month the ministry issued an ultimatum to France demanding the retention of Malta for at least ten years and the evacuation of Holland and Switzerland. France offered to place Malta in the hands of Russia to satisfy any British concerns and to evacuate Holland when Malta was evacuated. The British falsely claimed that Russia had not made such an offer and declared war on France when their demands were rejected. The Addington ministry was intent on retaining Malta or going to war because it would give them enough popularity to get them through an inquiry into their misconduct.

Commentary

 * The Wikipedia rules require it be based on reliable secondary sources


 * The Annual Register is not a primary source.


 * The proposed text itself is flawed, because it does not explain the decision-making process of the British leadership In the start of the war.


 * I believe it clearly explains that.


 * Indeed you seem to suggest that it war was primarily designed to cover the embarrassment of the Addington administration about a incorrect announcement.


 * Not me, its the annual register, which if you read it is actually ludicrously pro-British.


 * A much better explanation is available


 * If you have an alternative account to these event, you are free to present them at any time. Its absurd that all this time there hasn't been any statements as to the concrete events which caused the war.


 * CJK (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Two centuries of historiography has displaced the Annual register as a major secondary source. The Annual Register had no access to critical records from France and other countries, nor to the private papers of British statesman.  And of course it was totally unaware of what happened after 1803, and of hundreds of scholarly articles and books that deal with the topic.  I did add a new section that explains the British motivation in ending the Amiens agreement, based on recent scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There are no time limits that I am aware of on sources. The annual register is certainly reliably for detailing the specific events which preceded the war, which you have failed to cover. Nobody doubts that Britain was upset by French actions, I in fact noted that in my edit. But that was not an immediate cause of the war. Before March 1803 Britain had made no demands on France, it was only after the Capes fiasco that they did so. And even then they explicitly said they were willing to recognize French influence in Italy on certain conditions, so that certainly cannot be said to have caused the war. The only real issue was the retention of Malta, this is acknowledged by the extremely pro-British Annual Register.

CJK (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Annual Register is no longer used for this.-- It is unknown even who the author was, but he certainly had an overwhelming predisposition for exaggerations and British flag-waving. [E.g. on page 240 Ann Reg tells of a petition from residents in Malta, calling it  “This manly and spirited remonstrance, with which every British heart must beat in unison”] we agree "it is actually ludicrously pro-British." That certainly weakens the case for using it as the exclusive source! The anonymous author was no scholar, and did not use the critical sources, such as private letters by the British, French, Russian, and other diplomats and politicians.  His speculations about Addington's motivations are not accepted by Addington specialists like biographer Philip Ziegler (The anonymous author never read any of Addington's or Pitt's letters). Yet no access to any French materials, such as Napoleon's correspondence. No modern historian cites him, So why should we Pretend he is"reliable."   Rjensen (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone looking for good scholarly sources should try these: 1) John D. Grainger, Amiens Truce: Britain & Bonaparte, 1801-1803 (2004) has a well-balanced analysis of both sides; 2) Arthur Bryant, Years of victory: 1802-1812 (1944), pp 1-52, although older, is a well-regarded interpretation from the British perspective 3) Frederick Kagan, The End of the Old Order: Napoleon and Europe, 1801-1805 (2007) pp 1-50 stresses Napoleon's initiatives. 4) Paul Schroeder, The Transformation of European politics 1763-1848 (1994) pp 231-45 is highly analytical and hostile to Napoleon. Rjensen (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I again reiterate that the Annual Register is still suitable for narrating the specific events that immediately preceded the war as opposed to any possible long-term or structural causes. They had access to the diplomatic correspondence at the time. The fact that it is extremely pro-British makes it equally extremely unlikely they would falsely accuse the Addington administration of causing the war. The fact is that Britain suddenly demanded the retention of Malta, and discarded viable counter-proposals from France. It only appears reasonable to assume that some ulterior motive was going on, and considering they had not made this demand before the logical explanation is that it was done for political reasons. The Annual Register gives abundant details to sustain their point of view.

CJK (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As a compromise, I'm willing to state that part is merely the Register's opinion.

CJK (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Anti-French bias
The statement that historians agree that Napoleon "did not know when to stop" is simply too biased to be used in an encyclopedia article. We don't even say that about Hitler. I also removed the statement about the continental powers being willing to give him all his gains, because it is untrue. I inserted evidence of the peace negotiations of 1806 (the only serious negotiations conducted), where it appears that the British wanted Hanover back without conditions. So it isn't true that they were willing to grant him all his conquests.

CJK (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The revised text says "most" of his conquests. I think Hanover is a pretty small piece of land that Britain wanted because of the dignity of its sovereign King. Rjensen (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not that it's too biased, it's that it's so crass and childish it's beneath the dignity of even Wikipedia. I've actually read the work that Rjensen is citing; I can safely regard it as one of the most intellectually dishonest works ever done on Napoleon or the Napoleonic Wars, and public reviews of the book back me up. I oppose using both the source and the author, who obviously has a vitriolic hatred for Napoleon. UBER  ( talk ) 03:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "crass and childish" -- I suppose you are referring to Napoleon. The citations are two leading scholars of Napoleon and of strategy; you should read what they say a little more carefully.  I can safely say that you seem to be unaware that many scholars are quite hostile to Napoleon. -- But that is beside the point: the point is Wikipedia requires serious scholarly views to be presented, whether some editor personally dislikes them or not. If you think the analysis is incorrect, it should be easy to cite a couple recent scholars who reject the notion that Napoleon did not know when to stop. Rjensen (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The exact phrase that Napoleon "did not know when to stop" has been endorsed by many historians. Here is clear evidence: 1) Charles Esdaile, Napoleon's Wars: An International History 1803-1815 (Penduin, 2008), p 39; 2) ; 3) ; 4) ; 5) ; 6)   Now let's see your sources please. Rjensen (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To call Charles Esdaile a "serious scholar" of Napoleon is to implicitly admit ignorance on actually serious Napoleonic scholars. I hate to cite Andrew Roberts, since he has turned into the guardian angel of all the rainbows and roses about Napoleon, but one of the first things he clarifies in his recent biography is that Napoleon's foreign policy was frequently responsive. Very rarely was he aggressive. Whether you agree with this or not is irrelevant; the point is that this biography by Roberts has rapidly become one of the most popular, best-reviewed works on the subject ever written. Historical scholarship changes; right now this is the biography on Napoleon that has set the tone.


 * Jean Tulard, Alistair Horne, John Elting, Robert Asprey, Martyn Lyons...just a few examples of reputable scholars on Napoleon and his era. UBER  ( talk ) 04:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The solution is to quote them rather than erase scholars you disagree with. Roberts indeed says that Napoleon was rarely aggressive, but that is not the point.  The point is he could have stopped in 1808 and kept most of his gains. Robert says he invaded Russia in 1812 to protect his own "honour" or prestige. (p 567) to "Compromise his empire" (p 563) but Roberts says, "He obviously did not realize that he would be risking honour, prestige, and his throne itself over two Polish districts and the so far non-existent integrity of the Grant Duchy of Warsaw." (p 567) In other words, Napoleon did not know when to stop. Rjensen (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Tulard agrees that Napoleon did not know when to stop. "What war had its limits: the natural frontiers of France. By his endless conquest of Italy and Germany, Napoleon must have been building up resentments and Europe.  France must finally succumb to a general coalition of her enemies." [Tulard, Napoleon: the myth of the Savior p 351.  Rjensen (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * UberCryxic recommends Tulard and Alistair Horne as eminent scholars he respects. Ok, Tulard says Napoleon should have stopped and so does Alistair Horne. He says that Napoleon could and should have stopped  at Tilsit, He asks, “could Napoleon now stop?  Aboard the raft on the Nieman he had the option.  It was his best chance to halt and consolidate his achievements.  Perhaps he could have been satisfied merely with being king of Italy and uniting its disunited states…. Talleyrand….  saw Tilsit, which left France no real friends in Europe,  as perpetuating that war.  He was right." citation to Horne Rjensen (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Uber Recommends John Elting, but he seems to concern himself almost entirely with military affairs. Uber also recommends Robert Asprey. He takes up the question of why after Tilsit Napoleon did not turn his attention to rebuilding France.  He answers: "One was lack of money, another Napoleon's ego and ambitions greatly enlarged by the last campaign and the treaty of Tilsit....Napoleon failed to realize that he had guaranteed himself perpetual conflict by his insistence on expanding the blockade to neutral countries." -- that is Napoleon's ego and ambitions did him in & guaranteed him perpetual conflict.   Is that close enough to not knowing when to stop? Rjensen (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Simply saying "he didn't know when to stop" with no context is a simplistic way to deal with a complex issue. The fact of the matter is he couldn't "stop" the war unless the British made peace, which they only attempted to do once in 1806. The British wanted both to retain their overseas conquests and get Hanover back, which Napoleon thought was unfair. Hence it is misleading to simply assert they were willing to give him most of his gains.

CJK (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * the text says "The Continental powers as late as 1808 were willing to give him most of his remarkable gains and titles". Britain was the odd man out in that regard; Austria, Prussia, Russia, Denmark, Sweden, etc are the Continental powers. Rjensen (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

But its silly to say "he should have stopped" while ignoring that he needed to bring the British to terms.

CJK (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Things keep changing so fast around here I hardly remember what we're even arguing about. I should note that Rjensen's current version of the material is substantially different from his original version, to the point where I'm more or less ok with it. I have several complaints over the way he selectively interprets a lot of the works and biographies he's citing, but these are more methodological gripes rather than differences over Wikipedia content. UBER  ( talk ) 21:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * CJK says "But its silly to say 'he should have stopped' while ignoring that he needed to bring the British to terms." It is not silly. He should have stopped expanding and focused on consolidated his successes; I think every historian agrees that he made a major mistake by invading Spain and Russia. The historians I cited all believe he should have tried diplomacy after 1808. If he had done so, perhaps a few Bonapartes might still be on  thrones in Europe. (For example, the current King of Sweden is a descendent of one of Napoleon's top marshals).  Rjensen (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders
This box really is way too crowded, perhaps we would be better served to just include the political leaders. For example, George III, William Pitt the Younger, Napoleon etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnisome (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Napoleonic Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081228083617/http://boards.historychannel.com:80/thread.jspa?threadID=520002112 to http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=520002112

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Russian subsidy ?
"By the terms of the Anglo-Russian agreement of 1803, Britain paid a subsidy of ₤1.5 million for every 100,000 Russian soldiers in the field". meaningless without a timeframe. One-off, per year ? Rcbutcher (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Engvar question
At an earlier stage this article was written in British English spelling. It now seems to be in American English, yet I cannot see where a discussion took place here in talk about it. Any idea what happened? --John (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I took care of it. --John (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Space between lede pictures
Can we please keep the separation between the two lede pictures? It just looks dumb and confusing to have them run together. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Persia's role and in the article and on the map
Persia was firmly allied to France for several years following the Finkenstein treaty, and France was allied to Russia in the other years of the Napoleonic wars. Military diplomacy as part of the Napoleonic Wars subsequently commenced during the Russo-Persian War (1804-1813) It would be nice if Qajar Persia's role, albeit minor, could be covered somewhere in the article as well as they largely led the front in the North and South Caucasus.

Also this map needs to be adjusted. If someone could do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars#mediaviewer/File:NapoleonicWars.png

Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Despite the Treaty of Finckenstein, France failed to win a diplomatic war around Persia and none of the terms of the treaty were realized. On 12 March 1809, the United Kingdom signed a treaty with Persia forcing the French out of that country."


 * Sounds like minor is overstating it.


 * 205.175.240.242 (talk), 21:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Revised Result infobox
Normally something like this would not be an issue if it were reinforced with sources, but due to the complexity of this topic, I felt it best to garner a broad consensus first. I think the result box in the infobox is both too cluttered, and giving too little information on the actual result of the war, when compared to others, such as the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years War and the American Revolutionary War. I realise the Napoleonic Wars was "technically" an agglomeration of separate conflicts, but most historians, scholars, and the public, refer to the Napoleonic Wars as one conflict. The more comprehensive results of each individual conflict can, after all, be read up on by navigating to each coalition war, whereas I believe the result of the Napoleonic Wars infobox overall, should give a more comprehensive summary of the results of the wars overall, rather than listing the result of each individual coalition. Therefore, I propose the result box to read the following, as derived from the "political effects" section of the Napoleonic Wars page:

(RockDrummerQ (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC))

The lead
Reason for proposal: I feel that the lead on this article is a little clunky and disjointed. Here's my proposal: Re-written lead:

The Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) were a series of major conflicts pitting the French Empire and its allies, led by Napoleon I, against a fluctuating array of European powers formed into various coalitions, primarily led and financed by the United Kingdom. The wars stemmed from the unresolved disputes associated with the French Revolution and its resultant conflict. The wars are often categorised into five conflicts, each termed after the coalition that fought Napoleon; the Third Coalition (1805), the Fourth (1806–7), Fifth (1809), Sixth (1813), and the Seventh and final (1815).

Napoleon, upon ascending to First Consul of France in 1799, had inherited a chaotic republic; he subsequently created a state with stable finances, a strong bureaucracy, and a well-trained army. In 1805, Austria and Russia waged war against France. In response, Napoleon defeated the Austrians at Austerlitz. At sea, the British inflicted a severe defeat upon the joint Franco-Spanish navy, securing British control of the seas. Prussian concerns about increasing French power led to a resumption of war in 1806. Napoleon quickly defeated the Prussians, and defeated Russia in June 1807, bringing an uneasy peace to the continent. The peace failed; war broke out two years later in 1809, and this coalition was soon defeated.

Hoping to isolate Britain economically, Napoleon invaded Iberia, declaring his brother Joseph king of Spain in 1808. The Spanish and Portuguese revolted with British support, and, after six years of fighting, expelled the French from Iberia in 1814. Concurrently, Russia, unwilling to bear economic consequences of reduced trade, routinely violated the Continental System, enticing Napoleon to launch a massive invasion of Russia in 1812. The resulting campaign ended with the collapse and retreat of the Grande Armée. Encouraged by the defeat, Prussia, Austria, and Russia launched a new campaign against France, defeating Napoleon at Leipzig in late 1813. The Allies then invaded France, capturing Paris in the spring of 1814, forcing Napoleon to abdicate in April. He was exiled to the island of Elba, and the Bourbons were restored to power. However, Napoleon escaped in February 1815, and assumed control of France. The Allies responded with the Seventh Coalition, defeating Napoleon for good at Waterloo, exiling him to St Helena.

The Congress of Vienna redrew the borders of Europe, and brought a lasting peace to the continent. The wars had profound consequences on global history; it fostered the spread of nationalism and liberalism, saw the rise of the British Empire as the world's foremost power, independence movements in Latin America and the concurrent collapse of the Spanish Empire, the fundamental reorganisation of German and Italian territories into larger states, and the establishment of radically new methods of conducting warfare. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC))

War of 1812 part of the Napoleonic Wars ?
Following this revert, I have edited the War of 1812 accordingly. Blaue Max (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed in detail before. The result was the decision that the War of 1812 was related to but not directly of the Napoleonic Wars and therefor not included in this article in as much as the info box is concerned.Tirronan (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no definite opinion as to the relation of the War of 1812 with the Napoleonic Wars, but I found it strange that they ~were related in teh Napoleonic Wars article, but not in the War of 1812 article.Blaue Max (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in about the same boat, don't really care one way or the other but if you go back far enough I'm sure the arguments will be there.Tirronan (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The napoleonic wars and war of 1812 are complete different and separate war theaters. Period! (N0n3up (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Period???? better find a reliable source for your personal belief. 1) try The War of 1812 in the Age of Napoleon (2012) by Jeremy Black.  2) " It may be said that the War of 1812 was the North American phase of the Napoleonic Wars."  Wesley B. Turner - 2000 3) "the European and Napoleonic wars from 1793 to 1812 provided the context that pushed Republicans toward a formal declared war." Reginald C. Stuart - 2009; 4) Kaplan, Lawrence S. Jefferson, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Balance of Power (1957); 5) "The United States had come through its final encounter with the Napoleonic Wars in one piece. Political figures...saw the outcome of the War of 1812 as proof the republic could fight and win a war with a European power" Robert W. Smith - 2012 - ‎etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, It's generally accepted that the War of 1812 is a separate war from the Napoleonic Wars. One reason the War of 1812 wasn't put much effort by the British was that they concentrated more with the War in Europe with Napoleon. Black's statement is a mere personal opinion, not shared with all historians. Turner's claim is defunct by the fact that they were influenced by a different war in Europe, not that of 1812. And the statement that the "US had come through its final encounter with the Napoleonic Wars" doesn't mean that the War of 1812 was part of the Napoleonic Wars but that the US had a taste of a fight with a European power involved in the Napoleonic war. Not to mention that the end result of the War of 1812 actually showed the US' bitter weakness because they didn't achieve their original planned goals and got the capital burned. So I've seen many of your edits, so please stop with these pro-American exceptionalist biased edits. (N0n3up (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC))
 * I cited five scholars who demonstrate that your interpretation is not "generally accepted". You have not  cited anyone.   Instead you argue with the RS based on your personal views --you deny the status of a leading scholar (Jeremy Black) and misread explicit statements by Turner and Smith. Fact is the British needed to prevent US  neutral trade with France and end US resistance to impressment if it was to win the war--that's a decisive linkage. Furthermore when Napoleon quit the first time the British realized there was no need to continue a war with the US and began peace talks.  Rjensen (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

OK so this isn't a cause I have much passion for obviously, that being said N0n3up you do not get to deny claims and start name calling to get your way period. Five sources is more than enough to call the question back into order. The Danish Gunboat War was fought for much of the same reasons that the War of 1812 was. Was that war also part of the Napoleonic Wars? If one is true then why not the other? Also another personal attack and you will be talking to the Admins next. Keep your arguments to the facts and if you have competing authors arguing the other way lets see them.Tirronan (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop with the threats Tirronan, just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you can wrongly accuse them of personal attacks. And apparently seems to be a biased pro-American POV in your part, simply pointing out that possibility. I didn't really have time to gather my sources to this topic, but apart to the need of consensus to put the US as a belligerent in the infobox, this really needs to be given a closer look rather than jumping into quick historical conclusions. (N0n3up (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC))

Not interested in threats but this is the 2nd time you've accused another editor of pro-US bias and I haven't even taken a side here. Let's get the rest of the folks involved but 5 sources is a serious challenge. Change your language I don't like the tone period.Tirronan (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Danish Gunboat War, unlike the war of 1812, was fought in Europe and related to continental matters that were taking place, the Napoleonic wars. (N0n3up (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Napoleonic Wars. 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/20100526163947/http://www.musee-marine.fr/cartel2.php?id=55 to http://www.musee-marine.fr/cartel2.php?id=55
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080401054136/http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/napoleonic_wars/6361907.html to http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/napoleonic_wars/6361907.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

the edition done by Sr L
I know that this discussion should be held earlier, but it is not that late. Let's talk about his edition. What do you think about adding other countries such as Arabia and Ottoman's vassal countries? He said that he did it because "Barbary Wars" are part of Napoleonic Wars, but is there any reliable source about that? 아이린스카 (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Disentangling War of the Fifth Coaltion / Peninsular War
The chapter on the War of the Fifth Coaltion contains a narrative of the Peninsular War (the only one in this article). Obviously, the Peninsular War was amongst the causes of the Fifth Coalition, but it started earlier and ended only with the end of the War of the Sixth Coalition. Thus, both wars should have seperate chapters. The one on the Peninsular war should state that it started in 1807/08 and then ran on continuously until 1814, sometimes merging with the Coalition Wars. The chapter on the Fifth Coalition should just state that it formed against the backdrop of the Peninsular War. Coca-Coela (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

where is Persia?
I'd like to know why this empire was not involved in this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.128.90 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Citation style
Let's discuss citation style since it has been tagged.

"inline citations need to have citation templates applied" could mean several things so please explain what exactly is it that you want. Do you want full citations inline using e.g. Cite book? Or do you want short footnotes inline using e.g. Sfn? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I would personally prefer full citations inline (using Citation Style 1, e.g. Cite book), but short footnotes with centralized full citations would be fine. (My general opinions are on references are here.)  I would also like the title of the "Sources" subsection changed to something not perfectly synonymous with "References", e.g. "General sources".  (The "Citations" subsection's title is peachy.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I had add the template in March 2019 because the references in footnotes, sources or general reading are not fully formated: Some have CS* templates (CS1/CS2), other are non-formated references with extra-links. As it's easier to apply maintenance to references with CS* templates, i've placed the maintenance template in the needed section. --Anas1712 (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * all unique inline citations now use CS1. But as you can see, the citation style still appears pretty chaotic. What should be harmonized next? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The easy answer is to integrate "[Intel 1]" citation into the rest of the inline citations. Also, fix the errors in Note [k] ("Cite error: The named reference Napoleon's Desert Storm was invoked but never defined") and Citation [42] ("Explicit use of et al. in: |editor2="), and fill out the details of the references in the "Sources" section.  Move any works in the "Further reading" section that are used as references to the "References" section (e.g., McLynn).  The journal articles that don't have links to the originals could use them (DOI, JSTOR, etc.), and the Internet Archive and Google Books could be checked for copies of the longer works.  Lastly (and probably the most work), filling out the missing details of edition/location/publisher/ISBN/WorldCat ID, and bring the "Further reading" section into compliance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocWatson42 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done the obvious fixes ("[Intel 1]" and "Explicit use of et al").
 * who added the undefined reference "Napoleon's Desert Storm". What is this source?
 * Everything else is, frankly, a mess and we should make some decisions before we waste time on it. For example: "fill out the details of the references in the 'Sources' section". These incomplete references are all sources cited by another source. Should we even be doing this?
 * I'll try to go through "Further reading", but even with your first example ("McLynn") we run into a problem: are "McLynn (199 8 ) Napoleon" and "McLynn (199 7 ) Napoleon: A Biography" even the same book, are they different editions of the same book, or are they the same edition but one of the years is a typo? As much as I love fixing references I also hate it because resolving these small inconsistencies is sometimes a lot of effort. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that it's a lot to ask, and I feel guilty for doing so, when that's my only contribution. Please consider my last reply to merely be advice and preferences, not requirements. —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed Further reading entries that unambiguously duplicate works (regardless of which edition) that are already used as references. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments? —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello everybody. Good work have been already done, so thanks for all of your efforts to improve this article. For the missing full citations in the footnotes, you can try searching the history of contributions via word search (if you haven't already done so with this method).


 * As I already said above, the purpose of my pose of the banner "Citation style" was to alert the contributors that there's a work of reformatting to be done at the level of the references at the bottom of the page, work that I couldn't realize when I put that banner on for lack of time. The goal isn't to do it all at once, if the need to do this work is demonstrated.
 * But, for my part, seeing areas of citations including bare-writed references, sometimes copy-pasted from the web pages of the articles, without citation templates, pushes me to modify them, or if not, to ask to indicate them as articles to be modified via the maintenance templates. Indeed, given that we have presentation models specially designed for this and that the use of these models facilitate the use of various tools to seek free access, we might as well take their advantage to use them. In addition, by improving the presentation and accessibility of the documents cited, the work is made easier for readers who will not have to Google the reference each time to find the link to the reference, if it exists (or search with another search engine, of course).Thanks for reading my answer and Sorry for the language and syntax errors. --Anas1712 (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

inviting you to this discussion since we're dealing with Further reading as well. Any suggestions? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite. Whoever compiled this list is likely passionate about the topic and meant well. But I think the essay on Further reading sections is probably a great place to start. Of course it's not policy, but it's been working for years for a reason, and seems to match what I've seen over the years. "Topical" is the first criteria: some of these sources are more directly related to the wars than others. Tangential ones should be cut. Next is reliability: that requires more investigation, but I'm sure some sources are by more essential historians than others. As far as "balance," there multiple books listed here by the same author. Perhaps one source per author would be sufficient, his/her most comprehensive work. And the limited part seems the most relevant: When the list needs to be trimmed, preference in retention should normally be given to notable works over non-notable works. (Depending on the medium of the work, see a specific notability guideline.). The current list is exhaustive to the point of being useless. I would say, at the very least, to preserve the works of authors with Wikipedia pages or who are obvious giants in the field (like a google search of their name would bring up, say, a few thousand hits, or hits from other notable sources). It's a bit subjective, but I'd rather err on the side of cutting too many. The point of Wikipedia is to have an article with comprehensive coverage of the topic. If people really want outside sources, they can use Google. Also, all those links to Amazon seem problematic. And the formatting, obviously, is wrong. The list should be formatted like the reference section, though some "captions" are permitted and may even be helpful.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

End date of the Napoleonic Wars?
Just curious, is November 20, the commonly accepted date for the end of the Napoleonic Wars (due to the Treaty of Paris officially ending the war), or is it the end date of the Seventh Coalition, the date people are more familiar with? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

United States in infobox
Shouldn't the United States be listed as a (non-client) French ally, since the War of 1812 is often interpreted to be an arm of the Napoleonic Wars? p b  p  15:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

- I am not sure exactly why this isn't counted. At one point, I remember clearly seeing US marked as co-belligerent in the war due to the War of 1812 however I am willing to argue this was removed because the US was drawn in a war that had nothing to do with French interest other than having a same enemy. However I agree that US should be counted as the US is drawn into a war with the same enemy as a belligerent involved in this war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9300:FC0:C8C8:63CB:3D50:A0FE (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I made the same observation. Why isn’t the US listed as a belligerent? I think Napoleon was happy to have the US taking some of the heat off him. The US was an ally on the basis of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, so it can’t be considered in isolation from the rest of the world. Could we put the US in a category entitled “fellow travellers“? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Americans are taught an isolationist view of the war of 1812
My edit is intended to include all Commonwealth countries and make clear the global perspective of most of the world, other than the US.

The British Empire was at war with Napoleonic France. The United States entered the global conflict by declaring war on the United Kingdom (not Canada, which didn’t exist at the time). Military action took place along the borders between the United States and the various British colonies, on the coasts of the United States, and also throughout the Atlantic Ocean. After the surrender of Napoleon, British forces raided the American coast. As in the war of independence, they captured the American capital and burned some public buildings in retaliation for the American destruction of York. The war ended with the Treaty of Ghent between the United Kingdom and the United States.

If you’re still having trouble with this, please tell me what you don’t understand and what evidence you would like for what I thought was a fairly straightforward improvement. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , I don't need a broad summary of the War of 1812. My factual competency is not an issue.


 * The sentence already differentiates between two different perspectives: one held by Canada and the United States and another held by Europe. What evidence do you have that the European perspective on the war is the one held by "most of the world," including all Commonwealth countries? India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, several countries in Africa, and quite a few other nations are all part of the Commonwealth. None of them existed as nations, and most of them played no role in the War of 1812 and little if any role in the Napoleonic Wars. What perspective do they have that they adopt the European perspective on the War of 1812 by viewing it as part of the Napoleonic Wars? I'd imagine that they would not have any major view on the War of 1812 at all. It's poorly remembered even by the countries who fought in it. So how do you know what Pakistan and Nigeria think about the war? Is this in the source? I don't think so.


 * True, Canada was not a country at the time of the War of 1812. But that does not mean that it did not have its own identity, before or certainly after it became independence. To say that Canada viewed the War of 1812 as simply another theater of the Napoleonic Wars is false. Canadians were immensely proud of repulsing several attempted American invasions, and many viewed the War of 1812 as a second war of independence. In Canada, the war is remembered as a great victory. (Wesley B. Turner, The War of 1812: The War that Both Sides Won, p. 131) It enhanced Canadian nationalism (Turner p. 130) and was remembered by Canadians as something of a war for independence, because people had attempted to conquer them and they defeated them. (O'Grady, Jean, ed. (2008). "Canadian and American Values". Interviews with Northrop Frye. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 887–903. doi:10.3138/9781442688377. ISBN 978-1-4426-8837-7. JSTOR 10.3138/9781442688377, p. 892) "French Canadians appreciated Britain's role, but above all they glorified their own part in the war..." (Turner p. 130). That means that they viewed the conflict as separate from the war raging across the ocean in Europe. They felt that they had won the war by defeating the Americans and that they deserved the credit. It was their victory, not just an extension of larger British conflicts. Therefore, saying that Commonwealth nations viewed the War of 1812 as a mere extension of the Napoleonic Wars, when Canada is part of the Commonwealth, is in an inaccurate reflection of Canadian memory of the War of 1812.


 * Canada and the United States heavily differ in their memory of the War of 1812. Both prefer to see it as a victory for themselves. But as my sources amply demonstrate, Canada is united with the United States in seeing it more as its own war and less as a minor side-affair to the European conflict.


 * Your change is not helpful and the article should be restored to its previous version. Display name 99 (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will add that this is a place to discuss improvements to the article, not, as you have done in your section title, to give your personal opinion on the way that the War of 1812 is taught in the United States. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The original statement is in any case problematic: "Historians in the United States see it as a war in its own right, while people of European and Commonwealth countries often see it as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars." Why are we contrasting historians with people? Can someone find the source text that supports this statement? It is true that histories of Great Britain/UK are more likely to include it in a chapter about the Napoleonic Wars, while histories of the U.S. or Canada are more likely to give it its own chapter. But that's because it has more significance to to the U.S. and Canadian history. TFD (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , would you object if I restored the version to before the revert? Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No. TFD (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Original version restored. Display name 99 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)