Talk:War of the Third Coalition

Untitled
How does the "third coalition" get to be "the first of five coalitions". Should that line read "the third of five coalitions" ???????

Portugal
Why is Portugal's role in this was always so blatantly obliterated? Portugal was an ally of the UK. I don't think it should be neglected.
 * What role did Portugal play in this war? Drutt (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Portugal was not in a war against France and therefore did not participate in the third coalition. In 1805 (see Royal Almanac for that year, the Portuguese ambassador in France was M. de Lima, while Napoleon's ambassador to Portugal was Marshal Jean Lannes, then replaced by General Junot. Moreover, Junot commanded the French army attacked Portugal in November 1807. This war, which lasted until 1814, is not generally attached to a coalition: it belongs to the Peninsular War. We can still consider an attachment of Portugal to the fifth and sixth coalition, as many French troops occupied on that front at the expense of the edges of central and eastern Europe in 1809 and then from 1812 to 1814.--Jipécé34 (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Major "rewrite"
I'm planning to expand this article in the following few days with some original material, but mostly with material from other articles. Any help is appreciated.UberCryxic 02:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good plan. Gomm 03:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've completed the Ulm/Austerlitz sections. Anyone interested in writing one for Trafalgar?UberCryxic 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

decisive victory??
I have to question this call: Victory? Yes. Decisive? I don't think so. -Gomm 03:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The empire and allies lost their navy
 * Most of the coalition was untouched and formed a 4th coalition
 * In any case we don't usually write that a war is a decisive victory for side x, we only use that for battles. For example World War II has Allied vicotry as result, not decisive allied victory. Carl Logan 09:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you guys. I wanted to revert it myself, but I just didn't have the chance until now, when I discovered that it had already been changed.UberCryxic 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Troop Number
Question: I looked at the map given about the battle of Austerlitz and the number of troop given on the map is different from the one given in text... which one is right?

3rd vs 4th coalition pages?
Why is France's 1806 campaign against prussia/russia part of the 4th coalition, but France's 1806 campaign against sicily/britain part of the 3rd coalition? Shouldn't both campaigns be part of the same war? -Gomm 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Ferdinand of Naples and Sicily sided originally with the Third Coalition. Napoleon first intended to knock Russia and Austria out of the war before turning his attention on Sicily. Once the Treaty and Pressburg was signed, Masséna's corps were free from engaging Archduke Charles and could be sent south to invade Naples.


 * If you read into the campaign, Naples fell in mid February with the decisive knockout blow against the Neapo-Sicilian army coming at Campo Tenese on 10 March, just 3 months after Austerlitz. By 11 March, when Joseph became King of Naples, the was against Naples 'officially' ended which means it's far more sensible to group the Neapolitan campaign with the Third Coalition. The fact that Masséna bungled the siege of Gaeta, the Calabrians then later revolted and there was a small British expeditionary force extended this campaign but it still happened before the start of the campaign against Prussia. All in all, I would definitely argue the Neapo-Sicilian campaign was a sideshow of the Third Coalition but the Battle of Schleiz started the Fourth coalition not Maida.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 14:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps like the Egyptian Campaign, it belongs neither with the coalition that preceded it, nor with the coalition that it overlaps.  Perhaps it should have its own page.  -Gomm 16:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomm (talk • contribs)


 * Not enough content to warrant a separate article like the Egyptian Campaign. That went on for three years with pitch battles happening all the way from 1798 (Pyramids) to 1801 (Alexandria). The Italian Campaign had one major battle and it was effectively over. Moreover, everything up to the Battle of Campo Tenese should definitely be covered as part of the Third Coalition. The only bit of that might not belong with the Third Coalition and have its own page is the Calabrian insurrection, but again I don't see enough material to warrant making a separate article just yet.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 10:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Northern Italian campaign
Why nothing about Masséna and Archduke Charles in Italy during the main war? The article mentions that they were facing each other, then says nothing about what happened in Italy until it gets to events after Austria left the war. There was even a significant battle fought in this campaign; it surely deserves a section, doesn't it? Probably the section should follow the discussion of the Ulm campaign. john k (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Commanders and Leaders
In commanders and leaders section, the then monarch of the United Kingdom should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.223.0 (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Timeline
Wasn't the Third Coalition start in 1805? Before that was a simple war between France and UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARX, Julius (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War of the Third Coalition. 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/20000408223833/http://www.napoleon-online.de/ to http://www.napoleon-online.de/

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) 23:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

What about the First and Second coalitions?
The article doesn't even ADDRESS this, at all. As far as can be told by a reader, the French had decided to throw out the numbers one and two from their numeral system (maybe at the same time they were adding days to their weeks, i don't know). But seriously, the article's not addressing this point is flaky. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A18A:3CD:299A:9B40 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Austria vs HRE?
Why does the article list the Holy Roman Empire as part of the third coalition, shouldn't it just state the Austrian Empire? most of the other HRE states were either neutral or pro-French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preußenistgross (talk • contribs) 14:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Grammar issue in The Battle Of Austerlitz section
The sentence "At the Battle of Schöngrabern (also known as the Battle of Hollabrunn) occurred a week after the battle at Duerenstein" doesn't seem right, seems to me the sentence should start with 'The' instead of 'At'. Can someone look into it? Dionyseus (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

numerous edits
Since has a history of edit warring, I will leave it up to others to decide if their recent revision is good for this article. Most of the edits are fine and I don't care if you think historiographers are historians, but making so many unrelated edits in one fell swoop is not a good idea. Better to make a consistent edit, with an edit summary to explain what you did, rather than make 10 of them, going through the whole article and adding anything to your fancy, so that when other editors come by they can see what you did and why.

There is a genuine question about the cohesion of the Holy Roman Empire at this time, and there are others, in this talk page even, who question the validity of using HRE instead of Austrian Empire. The article itself still states that a direct consequence of the War of the 3rd Coalition was the dissolution of HRE. Obviously this is a historiographical debate, and maybe the article itself could use a treatment of offering viewpoints from both sides somewhere. There is room for editors to leave this to a community vote, if there are enough people in contention over what to call the political entity opposed to France.

To leave the HRE out of the Belligerents section is a mistake; most of the sources listed on the page involve the HRE as an opponent of France, and whether the core driver of HRE was Austria or not is besides the point.

The Madness of Joanna (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand your point here. First you say 'better to make a consistent edit', then, 'rather than make 10 of them'. Making one big consistent edit is what I've done and it's all there on record for other editors to see.


 * Separately to address the HRE vs Austrian Empire issue: There is no valid reason for the Holy Roman Empire to be listed as a combatant on the article page. For the HRE to be at war there needed to be a vote in the Imperial Diet (Holy Roman Empire) for a Reichskrieg which would activate the Circle troops and the Army of the Holy Roman Empire, obliging all states of the empire to participate. This happened in 1792, which is why the HRE is listed as a combatant in the War of the First Coalition and War of the Second Coalition. There was no vote in 1805 and the wider HRE did not participate, the war being between the Austrian Empire and allies against France. Ecrm87 (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I will leave it to other editors who come across your inability to acknowledge other historical sources that we have in this article that list the HRE as a belligerent of France. Your repeated defensiveness, rather than coming from a place of conciliation, will speak clearly enough as to your aim.
 * The Madness of Joanna (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Blaauwberg
The Battle of Blaauwberg, resulting in the British capture of the Cape Colony for the first time, really should be mentioned somewhere in this article. I am not so sure where it should go however. It seems like quite the oversight to neglect this important, although relatively small, battle that resulted in a British presence in the Sub-Saharan part of Africa for the first time. -- Discott (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)