Talk:War of the Polish Succession

Really a Polish-Russian war?
Strangely set out in "Polish-Russian war" category, as in fact the war was "Free-for-all in Poland", and the belligerents note explicitely states that poles were on both sides of the conflict. Poland itself was not an actor in this war, more a scene of action. (193.125.96.215 (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC))

Austrian surrender at Milan (1734)
The Austrian garrison of Milan did surrender to Charles Emmannuel III of Savoy, king of Piedmont-Sardinia, on January 2, 1734. A famous painting shows the event.


 * Can you provide a source beyond a painting? john k 13:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You can find the peinture in "Storia d`Italia" - Fratelli Fabbri Ed. - Volume VIII - Page 2054. The source: "Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani" - La guerra di successione polacca.

Contradiction: Who got Parma?
At first the article says

"...the war was formally ended with the 1738 Treaty of Vienna... Francis Stephen, who lost Lorraine, was given Parma and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany"

However, later we find that

"Charles of Parma gave up Parma, which came under direct Austrian rule..."

"Direct Austrian rule" and "Francis Stephen" is definitely not the same thing since Francis only became Archduke of Austria in 1740 (see Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor)

Top.Squark (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering it's not cited, a reliable source that differentiates them in explaining the treaty terms in suitable detail will probably indicate which it's supposed to be (I'd presume Francis Stephen, not an Austrian or Habsburg crown possession).  Magic ♪piano 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Parma and Piacenza went to Charles VI directly; Francis Stephen only got Tuscany. Parma and Piacenza remained under direct Austrian control until the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, when they were ceded to Charles's younger brother Philip. I wish I had a good source available to cite.  Here's George Martin's The Red Shirt and the Cross of Savoy, p. 15 (sorry not to have a more academic source, but it's all that's at hand), after discussing Charles of Parma's (called Carlo's) conquest of Naples: "Carlo's success, however, distressed the Florentines, particularly Gian Gastone over whose exhausted body the great powers began again to thrash out the fate of Tuscany. This time, however, Elisabetta [Farnese] lost; for France, to gain the Duchy of Lorraine on its border, made a separate treaty with Austria, which Spain, in the end was forced to accept...Francis, Duke of Lorraine, was to have Tuscany on Gian Gastone's death.  As Francis was married to Charles [VI]'s daughter, Maria Theresa, the Habsburgs had, in effect, added Tuscany to their holdings in Italy...Besides gaining Tuscany, Charles, in return for acknowledging Carlo's rights to Naples and Sicily, received Parma, which he absorbed into the Duchy of Milan."  Martin makes some errors, but that is all correct. john k (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the article. I leave it to others to place the appropriate citation. Top.Squark (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)



Contradiction: Was Prussia a belligerent?

 * Six weeks later, CLOSING DISCUSSION: Fra nkB closing this stale debate, agreeing in main, witn conclusions of user   Magic ♪piano,
 * that Top.Squark (talk) should have acted a bit more mature on this and should have just fixed the damn minor issue after taking a professional tact, and researching the issue of fact. BTW, Prussia was a belligerent, which is oh-so-easy to believe given their history.
 * removing tagging on articles after this post. // Fra nkB 06:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Prussia is not list as a belligerent in the battlebox. The references to Prussia in the text are
 * The discussion :of the perceived problem began...

"The Austrians were thus left largely without effective external allies on their southern and western frontiers. Their Russian and Saxon allies were occupied with the Polish campaign, and the Emperor distrusted Frederick William I of Prussia, who was willing to provide some aid"

and

"This cleared the way for the French army under the Duke of Berwick to besiege the imperial fort at Philippsburg, which fell after a siege of two months in July 1734. Eugene, who was accompanied by Crown Prince Frederick of Prussia, made some attempts to relieve the siege..."

The 1st passage suggests that Frederick William I offered aid but Charles VI didn't accept it. The 2nd passage mentions the future Frederick II accompanying Eugene in person, but not as a part of a Prussian army. Nevertheless, the article is placed under the "History of Prussia" category. The War of Polish Succession is also unmentioned in the article about Frederick William I of Prussia.

However, according to War of the Austrian Succession:

"Prussia in 1740 was a small and thoroughly organized emerging international power. While the only recent war experience of its army had been in the desultory War of the Polish Succession (Rhine campaign of 1733–1735)..."

And according to Frederick II of Prussia:

"When Prussia provided a contingent of troops to aid Austria during the War of the Polish Succession, Frederick studied under Prince Eugene of Savoy during the campaign against France on the Rhine."

Top.Squark (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If the Holy Roman Empire itself (that is to say, the Imperial Diet) declared war on France, which I'm not sure it did, then Frederick William, as elector of Brandenburg, would have been expected to provide a contingent of troops, but wouldn't necessarily have mobilized most of his army, or declared war himself. Maybe that's what happened? I'm not really sure, though.  I'm not sure if there's any good recent books on the War of the Polish Succession. john k (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the Holy Roman Empire is also not in the battlebox: "Habsburg Monrachy" is. Top.Squark (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So a "suggestion" that something can be read one way versus another becomes a contradiction? Perhaps you need to learn to use the less strident clarify and/or vague tags?  If you knew how much material is missing from this article (especially on diplomatic and political matters), you'd realize arguing this turn of phrase is like straining at gnats, and that expand would be a more appropriate banner.  (BTW, the article on Frederick William I of Prussia appears to be a fairly unvarnished EB1911 summary, so any detail it lacks is hardly surprising.  It has had minimal substantive content change since at least 2007.)
 * As far as I know, the only English-language work dedicated to this war is Sutton (1980, see source list), which is not likely to be found outside academic libraries. The German Feldzüge des Prinzen Eugen covers some of the internal HRE politics, and will probably mention the Prussian military contribution, even if it does not go into whether Prussia actually formally declared war (it's been a while since I looked at it).  Prince Frederick's appearance in the campaign appears to be quite well documented.  Magic ♪piano 17:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The absence of Prussia from the battlebox is a statement of its non-participation in the war. However, the other articles clearly indicate it did participate. Hence I see a contradiction. In any case there is a problem here which must be fixed. Top.Squark (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see: you spent how much time yourself (1) drafting the above complaint, and (2) bannering three different articles, instead of (3) simply adding Prussia as a belligerent here. Do you consider this discussion a productive use of your time, or mine?  (It's not like many of us are unaware that WP contains legitimate contradictions, incomplete, unreferenced, and biased articles.  Pointing specific issues out is not particularly helpful; fixing them is.  You've already done half the work; now do the rest.)  Magic ♪piano 21:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot add Prussia as a belligerent since it might be that the other articles are wrong and this one is right. It also might be that the truth is half way. For example, it is possible that the Holy Roman Empire should be a belligerent and Branderburg participated as part of the empire as opposed to Saxony which participated "personally": I simply don't know. Regarding pointing specific issues out being unhelpful, I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. As a matter of fact I got many issues fixed by pointing them out (including errors which have been around since 2002!) Actually, I recently fixed a factual error in this very article, with the help of john k. Top.Squark (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A consistent reading indicates that all these articles state (without citation) that Prussia participated in the war. The fact that this article's language is vague does not mean it is necessarily inconsistent with the others.  This means the only error of significance is in the infobox.  (News flash: an infobox has incorrect content; in other news, dog bites man, and the Pope is Catholic.)  It's certainly possible that everyone else is wrong; I'm sure you could spend 10 minutes in Google Books and get a citable determination, rather than spending that time plastering banners everywhere and drafting the statement. (It took me 4 minutes to find what I would consider an acceptable source that contains a suitable description of Prussia's participation or lack thereof: now it's your turn.)  Magic ♪piano 14:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it's not big news the infobox is wrong, is it? Who cares about the facts anyway, right? The important thing is not having ugly templates in the pretty article! Top.Squark (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When I find broken infoboxes, I fix them rather than flagging the issue; I suggest you adopt the same tack. Have you spent the 4 minutes yet?  Magic ♪piano 11:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And by the way, if I really objected to the ugly template, I would have fixed the "contradiction" after doing my 4 minutes of research. I object to pointless templates, which this is a fine instance of, for reasons cited above.  Magic ♪piano 13:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The only pointless thing is this argument Top.Squark (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Six weeks later, CLOSING DISCUSSION: Fra nkB closing this stale debate, agreeing in main, witn conclusions of user   Magic ♪piano,
 * that Top.Squark (talk) should have acted a bit more mature on this and should have just fixed the damn minor issue after taking a professional tact, and researching the issue of fact. BTW, Prussia was a belligerent, which is oh-so-easy to believe given their history.
 * removing tagging on articles after this post. // Fra nkB 06:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Bourbons & Hapsburgs... not
Polish Sucession war was not a "Bourbon vs Hapsburg" War -as opposite to the War of Spanish Succession-. So, the adding of "Bourbon" in the belligerents box adds nothing but confusion, since it can lead to think there were anti-bourbon Spanish and French forces fighting with Russia & Austria. In my not so humble opinion. --Voj 2005 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it was very much a Bourbon vs. Habsburg war; it is currently explicitly characterized as such. Why would labelling one side lead to the implication that others with that label were fighting on the other side?  If there were significant Bourbon or Habsburg forces on "the other side" of the conflict from the crowns so labelled, they should be identified specifically as belligerents. If you want to claim that it was not a Bourbon vs. Habsburg conflict (at least as far as the Italian and Rhineland campaigns are concerned), please provide some reliable sources saying as much.  Magic ♪piano 21:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How can I provide a source about something's not existence? France & Spain kings were Bourbons, as Austria were Hapsburg. But, where were the Bourbons in Poland or the Hapsburgs in Russia? --Voj 2005 (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Where were the Habsburgs in England and the Bourbons in Bavaria during the War of the Spanish Succession? john k (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You could find a historian who claims "it wasn't a habsburg vs. bourbon conflict" and cite him/her, or you could find a source that describes the conflict in different terms. (I also don't understand your question about Bourbons in Poland and Habsburgs in Russia -- Poland and Russia are not depicted as being Bourbon and Habsburg, either in the infobox, or in the article text.)  Magic ♪piano 14:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

B-class review
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Disrepair of this Article Does No Justice to its Historical Significance
I call upon a historian, amateur or otherwise, adept in knowledge of the War of the Polish Succession and, namely, the Italian campaigns of this war to provide for the general and necessary renovation of this article, and this for a key and historic reason: This article is one of the most important historical articles on Wikipedia as concerning world affairs and how they relate to the Bible. Chapter 11 of the Book of Daniel (Daniel 11), verse 40, mentions a "king of the south" which "at the time of the end" "pushes at him" (the "him" here is understood to be either the "king who exalts himself" or the "king of the north": I believe the former to be this "him"). While all Biblical translations lose something from the original, there is still enough understanding to determine that the "king of the south" is in reference to Spain during this War of the Polish Succession, and that none other than Charles III of Spain led the assault into Italy, against the Papal Fiefs, essentially challenging the Papal States and the power of the Papacy, itself, as well as challenging the power of military protectors of the Papal States, such as Austria. As such, the section of this article concerning the Italian Campaigns deserves a renovation for the ages. The paragraph concerning military incursions of Spain into Sicily, Naples, and throughout central Italy should be factual, well-written, and concise. Historical information such as the status of the Kingdom of Naples as an ancient fief of the Papal States should not be downplayed. This also goes for the status of other Papal fiefs, such as Sicily. The title of this war, "War of the Polish Succession", does no justice towards the popular understanding of the significance of this war: and that is of Spain, a southern kingdom of the European political landscape, militarily engaging fiefs of the Papal States and the military protectors of said fiefs and Papal States, thus signifying the beginning of the "time of the end", the last span of time in which the Gentiles tread the Holy City, a span of time which is altogether "three and a half years", "forty-two months", and "one thousand two hundred and sixty days", such span having begun long before this final time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.26.18 (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * How does this relate anything to the bible in anyway. Redyr iksachli (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Or the article Redyr iksachli (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Dates for the war
Wouldn't the dates of this war be given more accurately as 1733-1735? I realize that the final peace treaty was only signed in 1738, but there had been a preliminary peace agreement and no fighting for three years by that point. To go to a possibly similar case, World War I is universally acknowledged to have ended in November 1918, even though the final peace treaty for the war (the Treaty of Lausanne) was not signed until 1923. john k (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Leopold of Anhalt Dessau in the info box
Why is Leopold of Anhalt-Dessau in the infobox as in the articles about the war and even himself it doesn’t state that he did really anything during that time in the upmost related to the war. Shouldn’t Frederick William be put in as he is directly stated to be at least some what apart of the war involving Prussia. Redyr iksachli (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)