Talk:War of the First Coalition

Old talk page post
"This is like a United Nations peacekeeping effort to stop a civil war." what the hell???


 * yeah, this look a lot to me like vandalism ;-) I removed it ...--Galahaad 15:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

UK vs. GB
Isn't United Kingdom here an anachronism? The First Coalition predates the 1801 Act of Union. -- Jmabel 06:59, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * It was the United Kingdom of Great Britain at that time, Mr. Mabel. (anon 22 May 2005)
 * Wow, a response 15 months after I asked. But I believe that's wrong. According to our article United Kingdom, the term United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland dates from 1798, before the 1801 Act of Union, but still too late for the First Coalition. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:32, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * - here's another response, nearly 11 years later! It was the Kingdom of Great Britain at the time. The Kingdom of Ireland was a separate country, but both ruled by the same King. This begs the question, was the Kingdom of Ireland involved in the war, and should it be mentioned in the infobox? Mjroots (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on that, just that United Kingdom was an anachronism. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 00:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Starting date
We say 1792, but e also say afer the execution of Louis XVI (1793). Someone care to sort this out? - Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the war started in 1792 when France declared war, but the coalition did not form until 1793. By consistancy with the other 'war of the Xth coalition' pages, we have a bit of a problem either saying that the war began before the coalition formed, or that there were a bunch of battle in the same campaigns but not part of the same war.  Perhaps we need to rename the page to be the same as the other coalition pages?  -Gomm 02:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did France make war?
According to the article, Dumouriez presented "a long list of grievances". I'd like to know what those grievances are. According to my 1993 Collier's Encyclopedia article on the French Revolution, The dominant ministers, Comte Louis de Narbonne (an illegitimate son of Louis XV), and after him Charles Dumouriez (formerly a diplomat under Louis XV), held to anti-Austrian policies and favored war as a means of checking revolution and restoring order and the monarchy by means of the army. Their diplomacy was as feeble and unsuccessful as their policy was futile -- for war was more likely to bring the extremists to power than to save the crown. -- Collier's puts much of the blame on Jacques Pierre Brissot. Initially, however, [the Girondins] were known as the "Brissotins", since they adopted the war policy advocated by their leader in the Legislative Assembly, J. P. Brissot. In the spring of 1792 several Girondins in the Legislative Assembly were successful in obtaining ministerial positions in place of the more moderate Feuillant ministers -- Charles Dumouriez as foreign minister, &Eacute;tienne Clavi&egrave;re as finance minister, and J.M. Roland as minister of the interior. It was this administration which, by declaring war on Austria on Apr. 20, 1792, helped to produce the national emergency that resulted in the overthrow of the French monarchy the following August. -- and [ Brissot ] favored the declaration of war against Austria and Prussia in 1792 as a means of securing the downfall of the monarchy. --

However, there seems to be a contradiction here. The first quote indicates that war was seen -- by Dumouriez -- as a way of checking revolution and preserving the monarchy. The second quote indicates that war was seen -- by Brissot and the Girondins -- as a way of forcing the overthrow of the monarchy. Is this a case of a right-left alliance, both parties seeking war, but for exactly opposite reasons?

This view is supported by Paul Halsall, editor of the 'Internet History Sourcebooks Project': In retaliation to Dec. of Pillnitz the French Deputies (in Assembly) declare war on Austria - 20th Apr 1792 -- Halsall, Paul, "Class 11 : The Liberal Revolution", Fordham Rose Hill/ HSRU 1000, Jan 1998 NonZionist (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There was pressure from democratic exiles from other countries
 * Radicals thought a successful War would bring them support.
 * Louis XVI supported the war - he hoped a loss would restore his position - as did many monarchist members of the Leg Assembly.
 * (Robespierre opposed the war as he saw danger of defeat)

Neutral Serbian Observers?
On the map of the war situation in 1796, someone added both the location of Mainz and "Neutral Serbian observers" with a large circle and in an obnoxious colour. I don't think these observers are of a great enough importance to the war to add them to the map, and would suggest that the old version of the map without these editions be used. Bahamut Star (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC).


 * Thanks for pointing it out. On further inspection of the map, the choice of markings and accompanying text does seem strange in places, and since the commons description only links to a dead file as source, it does not seem to be a reliable depiction for Wikipeda. I have been bold and removed the map. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did one better and reverted to the original untampered version on Commons. I have reinserted the image in the article on account of this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This Week's Article for Improvement: French Revolutionary Wars
French Revolutionary Wars has been nominated by WP:TAFI. All contributions improving this article welcome! Cheers, walk victor falktalk 04:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire as a belligerent
I never saw anything related about the turks in the first coalition. I think someone confused this with the second coalition. Ruddah (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No Pyrenees to reach San Sebastian from France
I'd suggest to alter this sentence:

... an invasion of Spain across the Pyrenees took San Sebastián...

Because you don't cross the Pyrenees or any mountains at all (the lower Basque Mountains are South of San Sebastian), only the Bidasoa river marks the border in that area. Also San Sebastian is barely a few kilometers away from the border, so talking of "invasion of Spain" sounds a bit exaggerated, rather an "expedition" maybe?

A possible revision could read:

... an expedition against Spain captured San Sebastián...

--85.84.224.120 (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Great catch! I made the change for you, although I dropped San Sebastián because there were actually two prongs of attack. Thank you, SteveStrummer (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Title change or sourcing/corroboration needed
The descriptions of those wars between France and other powers seem - at first glance - quite all right. But I can't find any reference or indication in the article of those other countries/forces being allied. We don't want to have misleading titles on our articles, do we? So: a correct title for the article would seem to me, for example: 'French Revolutionary Wars|French Revolutionary Wars (1792–1797)'. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The title "War of the First Coalition" (and Second Coalition, etc.) is entirely conventional. It's standard terminology in all histories of the Revolution, while "French Revolutionary Wars" is a broad, collective title. You may not find the word allied used in abundance in source materials, but that's simply because the unity of anti-French forces was fragile at best – particularly in the First Coalition. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry Steve: I think, (central) statements in Wikipedia need to be sourced. It's not enough that SteveStrummer believes the countries fighting France in 1792-1797 were allied, we need sources saying so. Presently the article contains not even one statement(!) (with or without source) saying so. Whether titles like "War of the First Coalition" are conventional - they may or may not be - is not the point; the point is: were those countries allied? 'Convention' is: what a lot of people are used to do (or say). First of all, 'conventions' are always hard to prove or disprove. Secondly: its not our job to present any--supposed--convention uncritically as truth. In every field of human activity--including the science of history--'conventions' can sometimes live for quite a while and then for whatever reason become obsolete. It is acceptable to write in Wikipedia that this or that convention (seems to) exist, but basically we try to present sourced facts, truths. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"the Low Countries"
"After seizing the Low Countries in a surprise winter attack"

This statement is erroneous since, as the 'Low Countries' link makes clear, that term indicates a region comprising the modern states of the Netherlands, Belgium & Luxembourg.

In addition,'seizing' is probably not the correct word as there was at least the fiction of fraternal assistance in setting up a republic.

This sentence would better amended to: "After occupying the Netherlands.... " or "After occupying the United Provinces.... "

JF42 (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)