Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force

New template

Per some discussion on the Canadian task force, I've created an auxiliary notice, {{WPMILHIST Napoleonic Era task force}}, that can be inserted after the regular project notice; this might help with recruitment somewhat. Comments? —Kirill Lokshin 04:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The grand maestro strikes again:> I'm going to try it out now. Encore, bein fait! Vive L'Empereur!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to around 150 articles (mostly battles/wars). The multiple categories of Napoleonic commanders still need it added (probably together with the main project notice, since that hasn't gotten to many biographies yet). —Kirill Lokshin 03:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Need some help with this project? I'm willing to lend a hand and share my knowledge if necessary... -- fdewaele 13:40 15 February 2006 (CET)

We're always grateful for any help we can get :-) —Kirill Lokshin 14:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a slot # 6 under participants where it says Add your name here!, please do so and welcome.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any stuff to do for someone not well-versed in the actual facts of this particular segment of history? I'd love to copy-edit something and learn some facts in the process. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 23:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the larger articles (Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon I of France, etc.) are in need of copyediting; some of them should be listed on the worklist (anything A- or B-Class is probably more in need of cleanup than content addition). Other than that, I'm not quite sure what we have that's in good enough shape to require copyediting (rather than wholescale rewriting); you may want to look around in the related categories. —Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on French Revolutionary Army, which will hopefully become a companion article to La Grande Armée, covering the period 1792-1804.--ansbachdragoner 02:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Another article is up. I've just completed the 13 Vendémiaire. I hadn't meant to create this article, but when attempting to link to something on this 'battle' to the French Revolutionary Army page and failing fo find anything but the short paragraph in Nappy's bio, I created this. I'm now going back to working on the French Revolutionary Army, going to add in a bit about the reforms and influence of Carnot, early/late tactics etc.--ansbachdragoner 23:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently building up userbox templates conforming to the the style found on the Military history WikiProject. I'll be building one for this task force if its members dont mind. What would be a defining image representing the Napoleonic Era? Your help is appreacited.Dryzen 13:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't bother replying on all the pages, but my suggestion about the images in the task force notice applies project-wide ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As you'll see on the other pages I've taken that to heart for consistency.Dryzen 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This user is a member of the
Napoleonic era task force
of WikiProject Military history.

I've just made a major edit of ansbachdragoner's article on the Battle of Eckmuhl. The leading sources on this period, such as Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon and Rottenberg's Napoleon's Great Adversary and Emperor's Last Victory, treat the fighting from April 19 - 24, 1809, as a single, continuous series of engagements, all of which comprise the "Battle of Eckmuhl". Given the existing structure of the "War of the Fifth Coalition" articles, adopting that position is perhaps too radical a change, but at a minimum the article on Eckmuhl needs to be expanded to incorporate the 21st.

I also completely revised ansbachdragoner's "Strategic Situation." The original article summary focused solely on the fact that the battle led to the evacuation of Bavaria by the Austrians. Though a positive outcome from the French perspective, it was of purely secondary importance. The Austrians had caught the French with their pants down around their ankles when they began the war on April 9. Moreover, the initially weak French position was further eroded by significant misteps on both the German and Italian fronts. The net effect was that for the first time in his career Napoleon was placed on the defensive, reacting to his opponent's initiatives. The crucial importance of Eck was that, thereafter, Napoleon regained the strategic initiative. The war was far from over, but after Eckmuhl the battles occurred where and when Napoleon chose, on grounds of HIS choosing.

--Paco Palomo 22:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon FAC

No one has been attending the comments that have accumulated at this FAC. I think the article could succeed if the objections were addressed. Regards, Durova 07:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who put that nomination up there (it's not properly formatted, in any case), but the article is in a rather poor state at the moment, and probably isn't ready for a real FAC run. —Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing myself

Hey guys, I've removed myself from the list. I've been so busy in real life lately (finishing up my MA thesis), I noticed there is a great chasm between what I would like to do here on the pedia, and what I actually have the time for! Nonetheless, I'll be more than happy to help with direct requests or reviews of any kind. I'd love to stay involved, but working on a project is just too much of a commitment right now. Hell, I hardly have the time to do any of the MILHIST stuff i've been planning for ages!

Though I have to say, wasnt sure what I could contribute anyway with all these knowledgeable people around! Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 13:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Image of infantry determination request

Infantry

What type of infantry is it and what type of firearm is it? Is it possible to determine such infantry according to uniforms? Note that the years 1787-1825 maybe (I do not know) show something according to the history of the building, because there is similar relief with years when there there was an hospital founded in 14th century and I found on page in Czech language that there was an bridewell founded in 1843. I found nothing about the infantry. Thank you for your help. --Snek01 19:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to this tourism site, the two reliefs on the museum symbolize its roles as a hospital and as a prison. Since the other one is clearly the hospital, I would assume that the troops here are Austrian prison guards, given the period in question. I have no idea what unit they may have belonged to, though. Kirill Lokshin 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably yes! It looks like plastic figures of Austrian infantry. Maybe from Seven Years War (1756–1763) or later? Is the gun musket? --Snek01 22:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Going by the dates, it would probably have been from sometime between 1787 and 1825; they're wearing bicornes, which (as far as I recall) didn't come into widespread use until the Napoleonic Wars, so it would probably be from the second half of that period. And yes, that would suggest that the guns are smoothbore muskets (I doubt prison guards would have been issued rifles at this time). Kirill Lokshin 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added the information to the desription of image at commons. --Snek01 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The infantry depicted are wearing 18th Century bicornes and jackets of the type used 1740- 1780's. In the 1790's the Austrian infantry began to be issued shorter jackets and a variety of different headgear. Beyond that, it's hard to be more precise since regimental markings depended on the color of the uniform "facings", e.g., the color of the coat lapels, sleeves, etc. Similarly, the differences between the flintlocks introduced in the 1750's vs. those used during the Napoleonic Wars could not be distinguished from the details of the relief. --Paco Palomo16:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. I didn't know that Austrian infantry had bicornes that early; I had assumed that they wore tricornes at least through the Seven Years' War. Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I overgeneralized! I can speak to what the Austrian army used from 1792 onwards, the point at which they shortened the jackets and introduced new headgear for the infantry. Hence I am certain that the soldiers depicted are using pre-1792 equipment. I am NOT conversant with the uniforms/equipment used prior to that. --Paco Palomo 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the building was only used as a prison from 1787 onwards, my guess would be that these are uniforms from some point in the 1787 to 1792 period. (Or perhaps the sculptor took some liberties with his depictions of the uniforms, in which case we may not be able to find anything that matches.) Kirill Lokshin 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nivelle

The Nivelle page is now finished and I have removed it from the To Do list.

Ethers ^[talk]

Advert

The Napoloenic Fiction WikiProject is looking for contributors. If you are interested, click on the link and sign up. Thanks.

Suggestions

Two things...

Firstly, are there any pages on weapons, types of unit and tactics and if there arn't then should we add that to the To Do list.

Secondly, on the War of the 6th Coalition, there is a long article featuring that and a stub. However, the long article is not the main page for that topic - it says that it the stub is the main page. Surely it would be better to delete the stub and make the article the main topic page.

Thanks Ethers ^[talk]

Not really sure about the first one. A general Warfare in the Napoleonic Wars article might be worthwhile here, if we're to discuss units and tactics.

For the second point, which is the long article? Kirill Lokshin 15:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

On the main Napoleonic Wars page, there is quite a long set of information about the Sixth Coalition but the main page is the stub. If we were just to copy paste the info. on the main page to the stub or delete the stub and redirect it to the main page then we might have a solution. Any ideas?

Ethers ^[talk]

We should definitely try to make the stub loger than the corresponding section in the main article (which is only supposed to be a summary!); copying the info over might be a good approach for the time being, but it will still need more work after that. Kirill Lokshin 15:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will copy the info. on the main page and then see if I can add more information.

Ethers ^[talk]

1812 Russian campaign

Who has been contributing articles on Napoleon's 1812 Invasion of Russia? I would like to collaborate with you. I'm Kenmore, and you can contact me here at Wikipedia or my home email: kenmore3233@verizon.net. Thanks.unsigned comment by User:Kenmore

Image determination request

Austrian command from 19 century (historical reenactment)

Could you determine these military uniforms or dress uniforms of Austrian command from 19 century (Military history of Austria), please? --Snek01 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Nivelle

Are there any sutible images which we can use to liven up this article - I am not sure about uploading one due to copyright. Your thoughts would be appriciated.
Ethers ^[talk]

Why?

I have created the page on the Second Battle of Stockach. However, I do not understand why it is listed as the Second Battle of Stockach. The Battle of Stockash (1800) happend after the second. --Ineffable3000 04:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to change the naming around here. It is too confusing. We might also need a disamb. page. --Ineffable3000 04:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added a disamb. page: Battle of Stockach. We still however need to fix the Campaignbox. --Ineffable3000 04:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it up a little more. Can someone please look at the Template:Campaignbox Second Coalition in general. I think it still has errors in it. (sorting, links, etc..) Thanks. --Ineffable3000 05:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Suriname

Can you please help me find a good campaignbox for the Battle of Suriname article? --Ineffable3000 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how it ties into the overall Napoleonic Wars; 1804 is between the Second and Third Coalitions, and France is at peace. Presumably there was some ongoing Anglo-Dutch conflict, but I have no idea what it might be.

In any case, there's no requirement to have a campaignbox listing the battle; and, if it was an isolated engagement, it's generally better not to try and force it to appear in one. Kirill Lokshin 07:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all the references to the Napoleonic wars. But I also do not know which Commander Hood commanded the British forces. There were many Commander Hoods. Can someone please determine which one participated in the battle? --Ineffable3000 14:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Golymin

There's a new peer review request for Battle of Golymin that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I just recommend adding tables for organization. --Ineffable3000 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at this

This is a good page summarazing Napoleonic battles. [1] --Ineffable3000 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Montevideo

I am a bit confused on the Battle of Montevideo (1807). Is it officially considered to be part of the War of the Fourth Coalition or is it unrelated? If it is unrelated, what war is it part of? --Ineffable3000 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I ran into the same problem some time ago and created, pro tempore, Template:Campaignbox French Revolutionary Wars: Anglo-Spanish War (1796) (actually intended to represent two Anglo-Spanish wars, San Ildefonso to Amiens (1797-1802) and 1803-1808). I'm not sure if this is an effective way to group these battles, but I could think of nothing better. Albrecht 23:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Whose Victory?

Most battle won by the coalitions against France is labelled "Allied victory", I want to change that to "Coalition victory", like on the Battle of Waterloo article. Any thoughts? Carl Logan 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, at least for the battles that took place while a coalition was active. Kirill Lokshin 18:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I see myself two areas where it shouldn't be used: when there was only one or two nation against the French (for example: Battle of Aspern-Essling) or in the Peninsular War. Carl Logan 18:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Waterloo

There's a new peer review request for Battle of Waterloo that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Names and links

Something I've noticed reading Napoleonic War articles is that frequently names of generals aren't linked and full names aren't given. It might just say General Davout or what have you, with no link. I've been adding links, but this is something people need to be on the lookout for, especially for less well known generals. --AW 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Combatants

I would like to get a central decision on standardizing the combatants in Napoleonic infoboxes to avoide edits like MGRILLO's on War of the Sixth Coalition a while back. Any thoughts? Carl Logan

As no one is taking the bait, I will have to do it myself. I feel that we could solve a lot of problems if we decided which names to use in the infobox and where they should link. There by stopping all changing back and forth, here are a suggestion for most combatants in the Napoleonic Wars.

Primary Players

• French First Republic, shorten to French Republic
• First French Empire, shorten to French Empire
• Holy Roman Empire before 1806.
• Austrian Empire after 1804, shorten to Austria
• Kingdom of Prussia, shorten to Prussia
• Kingdom of Great Britain before 1801, shorten to Great Britain
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland after 1801, shorten to United Kingdom.
• Russian Empire, shorten to Russia

Smaller Players

• Dutch Republic before 1795.
• Batavian Republic (1795-1806).
• Kingdom of Holland (1806-1810), shorten to Holland.
• United Kingdom of the Netherlands after 1814, shorten to Netherlands.
• Kingdom of Italy (Napoleonic) 1805-1814, shorten to Kingdom of Italy.
• Bavaria for both Electorate and Kingdom of Bavaria.
• Kingdom of Etruria (1801-1807), shorten Etruria
• Helvetic Republic (1798-1803)
• Switzerland (1803-1814)
• Electorate of Saxony before 1806, shorten to Saxony.
• Kingdom of Saxony after 1806, shorten to Saxony.
• Sweden, not Kingdom of Sweden as that is just a redirect.
• Spain, not Kingdom of Spain, same reason as Sweden and Kingdom of Sweden.
• Kingdom of Portugal, shorten do Portugal.
• Denmark–Norway, shorten to just Denmark.

Any thoughts? Carl Logan 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Beyond that, I would suggest that what you term "Smaller Players" be used sparingly & only where appropriate. A thorough round of reverting on every article touched by User:The Anonymous One is also in order. Albrecht 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks generally good. One minor quibble, though: while the HRE was technically still in existence at the time, I haven't really seen the term used for this period; most historians, in my experience, seem to use "Austrian" as the preferred shorthand even before 1804. I don't think it's a particularly good idea to use the HRE as a label in that sense; the forces comitted were clearly not the truly Imperial armies of the type seen in the Thirty Years War, and while the term is technically accurate, it'll likely impair the reader's understanding rather than improving it. Kirill Lokshin 17:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well some prefer the to write Austria and link to the Habsburg Monarchy, in any case Austria is a tricky country before 1804. I added the Holy Roman Empire to the list because I thought that it as a whole took part in the first coalition? Carl Logan 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

I see that the task force has decided to use 'Napoleonic era' for the entire Great French War, as is a relatively common shorthand convention. Is that considered to be an adequate definition for the purpose of naming articles? I wish to create an article dedicated to Luxembourg under French occupation, but don't quite know what to call it. 'French occupation of Luxembourg during [something]' follows the rule of the World War I and World War II articles, but what [something] is is open to debate. Any advice? Bastin 16:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see a couple of decent ideas:

• French occupation of Luxembourg during [the Great French War|the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars|the Napoleonic era] - follows the existing pattern, but produces a long and convoluted title
• French occupation of Luxembourg (dates) - shorter, and perhaps more precise

Which one to use is entirely up to you, though. Kirill Lokshin 19:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely unrelatedly, stub categories Category:Napoleonic-stubs and Category:French Revolutionary Wars-stubs have been created recently, effectively duplicating the existing the Category:Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) stubs. Can we work out the preferred terminology, so that these can be smooshed together to make one good one? Alai 03:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo up for Good Article status

I've nominated the Battle of Waterloo article for GA status. It was very rapidly reviewed, and a long and fine-grained list of concerns was left on the talk page. The GA review is currently on hold while these concerns are addressed, until the 5 September, when it will be re-assessed. Anyone interested in helping with this drive for GA status is welcome to pitch in. This could be a stepping stone on the way to it being a Featured Article. -Kieran 12:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hundred Days v. War of the Seventh Coalition

Have we misnamed this article? Although the overlap is significant, these terms surely refer to fundamentally distinct topics. We seem to be equating Bonaparte's Imperial restoration with the military effort he pursued against the Coalition powers. An article on the Hundred Days should describe in more detail the Empire's diplomacy, ministries (Carnot, Bigonnet, Fouché) constitution (l'acte additionel), etc., instead of treating social and political themes as preludes to the Waterloo campaign. The War of the Seventh Coalition article, in turn, could take a broader look at military operations. Albrecht 17:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Barrosa

There's a new peer review request for Battle of Barrosa that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Barrosa now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Barrosa is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Albuera

There's a new peer review request for Battle of Albuera that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 12:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of the Gebora now open

The peer review for Battle of the Gebora is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of the Gebora now open

The A-Class review for Battle of the Gebora is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)