Talk:War of the Sixth Coalition

Bavaria
It says in the top box that Bavaria changed sides after the Battle of Leipzig. However, Bavaria switched sides a few days before with the treaty of Ried on 8th Oct and declared war on France on the 14th Oct, two days before the Battle of Leipzig. Changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.118.123 (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Russia
Should the invasion of Russia really be considered part of this war? The coalition was established, I thought, by Prussia's defection from France in January 1813. john k 13:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it was a continuous war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admikkelsen (talk • contribs) 15:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

War of Liberation
Is "War of Liberation" one of the names of this war? The page War of Liberation says so and so does Britannica 1911, but this article here doesn't mention it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. From the reading I've done, it's known as the War or Wars of Liberation, which is exactly what it's German name — die Befreiungskriege (plural) — means. I've never heard of the "War of the Sixth Coalition."


 * Also, this article says "191,000 French fought more than 450,000 Allies" at the Battle of Leipzig (Battle of Nations, or Völkerschlacht), but the article on the Battle of Leipzig says "the French had around 190,000 soldiers and the Allies almost 330,000."


 * Sca (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say "War of Liberation" is in more common use. As far as coalitions go, nobody ever seems really sure how to count them - notably, is the 1806-1807 war part of the War of the Third Coalition, or a separate war? My sense about War of Liberation is that it mostly refers to the 1813 war in Germany, and not so much to the campaigns in 1814. But also neither term really covers the invasion of Russia, which certainly did not involve a coalition - I don't think Britain and Russia were reconciled until 1813, so there was certainly no coalition in 1812. john k (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

War in Germany
Just a small note: I'm not sure how to do this, but a small part of the War in Germany section with the phrase "east from 30,000 ..." is unreadable, and I have no idea how to fix it. anyone know how to do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.17.216 (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Map
Why should the map include all of the colonies? Looking at it alone one would think that Australians and Peruvians hopped aboard a boat and went off to fight France!

A map showing just the primary countries involved would serve the article far better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.251.34 (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The colonies were tangential to this conflict. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC).
 * The map is still wrong though. The two Mecklenburgs (Schwerin and Strelitz) left the Rhine confederation already in March 1813 and joined the coalition.--Ickerbocker (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

USA
I think the infobox stating that the United States was a "co-belligerent" of France is extremely misleading. The American war with 1812 was only indirectly related to the Napoleonic wars, and the Wikipedia article on co-belligerence states that the term means " waging [a] war in cooperation against a common enemy without the formal treaty of military alliance." [sic] If the US is included then the infobox would logically have to include anyone at war with any of the Napoleonic belligerents anywhere between 1812 and 1814. Better to remove it.209.235.2.8 (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe if you study the issue, you will find that the United States did cooperate with France between 1812 and 1814 to the extent that the two nations could assist one another against their common enemy, Britain. The United States also cooperated with Britain against Revolutionary France during the period of the Quasi-War, so the U.S. could actually be regarded as having been a co-belligerent on both sides during different periods of the Napoleonic era. The U.S. was never an actual participant in these alliances, but was certainly willing to cooperate with whichever side furthered its own national interest at the time. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Iceland on Napoleon's side?
In the map of Napoleon vs Allies, Iceland is in blue, as in Napoleon's side. Is this a mistake? Nothing in the article mentions Iceland, and it'd be interesting if it had any connection to the Napoleonic Wars at all. 104.172.125.252 (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Iceland was a part of the Kingdom of Norway prior to the Congress of Vienna. At the time Norway was also united with Denmark. Denmark was Napoleon's ally until the end.


 * The Treaties of Kiel and Vienna separated Norway from Denmark, and as a consequence of the invasion of Norway by Sweden, as a condition of peace Norway then joined in a personal union with the Crown of Sweden, though with its own constitution. Denmark, through diplomatic cunning, managed to convince the Swedish diplomats that Norwegian colonies had really belonged to Denmark as a consequence of the Kalmar Union, that included Iceland, and for reasons unknown the Swedes inexplicably bought it as they had not researched the matter. So at the final settlement of the Napoleonic Wars, Denmark received Iceland and Greenland. SJCreecy (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"despite having almost lost the war by Western European standards" What does it mean? Napolean never captured the Russian capital - St. Petersburg. So he was never even close to winning the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.9.148 (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Short citations to Chandler that do not include a year
@user:SJCreecy I have been cleaning up the short citations on this page. However I come across a problem, which it will be easier and quicker for you to solve than for me. You made this edit Revision as of 07:35, 10 May 2020 during a series of edits to the page. You included a citation to support the text "Chandler, Pp. 908-913." Unfortunately there were (and are) two long citations in the references section that could support this short citation: Please could you add the year of publication to this and the other short citations to Chandler that you include and do not contain a year? -- PBS (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem! Done.! SJCreecy (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)