![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How does the "third coalition" get to be "the first of five coalitions". Should that line read "the third of five coalitions" ???????
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.
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)
I've completed the Ulm/Austerlitz sections. Anyone interested in writing one for Trafalgar? UberCryxic 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to question this call:
Victory? Yes. Decisive? I don't think so. -Gomm 03:17, 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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Since Ecrm87 ( talk · contribs) 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)
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)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How does the "third coalition" get to be "the first of five coalitions". Should that line read "the third of five coalitions" ???????
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.
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)
I've completed the Ulm/Austerlitz sections. Anyone interested in writing one for Trafalgar? UberCryxic 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to question this call:
Victory? Yes. Decisive? I don't think so. -Gomm 03:17, 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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Since Ecrm87 ( talk · contribs) 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)
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)