Talk:War of the Austrian Succession
|War of the Austrian Succession has been listed as a level-4 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Merge section from War of Jenkins' Ear
- 2 Comments
- 3 ITALIAN STATES INVOLVED IN THE WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION.
- 4 Featured
- 5 Very first World War
- 6 Omissions in the article.
- 7 Hapsburgs allies of France?
- 8 Who was her father?
- 9 Casualties?
- 10 In line citations
- 11 Are the colors on the map of the participants wrong?
- 12 Long, detailed article about this war, but...
- 13 Wrong flags
- 14 Replace Strategies section with Goals section
- 15 Discussion on major conflict infobox
- 16 Use of "blitzkrieg" in this article
Merge section from War of Jenkins' Ear
Part of this section duplicates material in the War of the Austrian Succession article, but it does also bring in the impact on the British American colonies.Lisamh 18:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps as it focuses on the King Georges War it should be tranferred there with strong links from both Jenkin's and Austrian War to and from it. Provocateur 07:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The War of Jenkins Ear and the War of Austrian Succession are one and the same. Britain referred to it with the former, Prussia referred to it as the "Three Silesian Wars", the American's referred to it as "King George's War" or "The French and Indian War" and it is historically noted as "The War of Austrian Succession" for ease. Actually, much of the continent called it the "War of the Pragmatic Sanction". That's my contribution, from "A History of the Modern World" (R.R. Palmer, Joel Colton, Lloyd Kramer)Saint_Yondo 1:29 23 October 2006
- The War of Jenkins Ear is not one and the same with the War of the Austrian Succession. The War of Jenkins Ear was a war between Britain and Spain that began in 1739, while the War of the Austrian Succession was a broader war that broke out on the death of Emperor Charles VI in 1740. When the British intervened to support Charles's daughter in the larger continental struggle, and the Spanish involved themselves in trying to conquer her Italian lands, the War of Jenkins Ear merged into the larger conflict, and became a part of it, but they were not one and the same war. The relationship is more like that between the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II. It was ongoing before the War of the Austrian Succession began, and took some time after it began before the two became fully entangled. The Third Silesian War, by the way, was the Seven Years War, not part of this war. the other two silesian wars do not refer to this war as a whole, but to the two periods of Prussian involvement from 1740-1742 and again from 1744-1745. john k 19:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not to forget that the the war, and more particularly Jenkins’ ear itself, are iconic in British political history. (Say what you like about eighteenth-century parliamentarians, they knew how to do a dodgy dossier better than our contemporaries.) —Ian Spackman 21:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Don´t merge! This wars are different. I suggest to check the article: ""Guerra de la oreja de Jenkins"" in Wikipedia in Spanish.
These are two separate wars, even though they are related. They should both have full separate articles. --Ineffable3000 23:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is too long for me to edit without truncating it, but it badly needs editing.
The first paragraph: "When Maria Theresa of Austria succeded her father Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor in the Holy Roman Empire in 1740 in accordance with the pragmaticae sanctiones" is simply wrong.
- Maria Theresa did NOT succeed her father in the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. She succeeded her father in his Habsburg lands, which is not the same thing.
- The Emperor of the HRE was ELECTED: it was not a hereditary title, and Maria Theresa was an empress by MARRIAGE (when her husband was elected emperor in 1745), not by INHERITANCE (at her father's death in 1740) or by her own ELECTION. She was not an Empress in her own right.
- The war OF AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION was about the AUSTRIAN lands, not the Imperial title.
- The Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 governed the succession to the Hapsburg dominions (but not to the imperial dignity, which was elective).
Something along the lines of: "When Maria Theresa of Austria succeEded her father Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor in his Hapsburg dominions in 1740 in accordance with the Pragmatic Sanction..." would be more correct. -- Someone else 23:40 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)
- I made som minor changes to adress formatting concerns, but I agree that the article is in need of editing and it is probably unavoidable to break it up in to smaller parts. -- Mic 10:07 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
Well actually at this point the HRE was not elected, it was already controled permanently by the Habsburg family, and Maria Teresa was the Habsburg heir. Mac Domhnaill 23:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- The HRE was elected, which is why the crown passed to the Bavarian prince for a couple years during this war until the Habsburgs could coerce the electors to return it to them.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland did not exist till 1801. It should read Great Britain and the Netherlands. N.B.: The Kingdom of the Netherlands was at one time part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.
- Reading through this article, I noticed that it lacked a good deal of statistical details, and I was unable to picture the size of the forces moving to and fro during the various campaigns. If anyone has more information pertaining to the numbers involved, I think it would benifit the article. Only two numbers were given in the entire article, for one of the battles of 1745. It could also use some more descriptions of time (when and how long did it take the Hungarian levies to "pour into Upper Silesia by the Jablůnka Pass"?) The sentence prior to that was talking about maneuvers that probably took place over the course of a couple days, so a curious reader has no way of knowing if the Upper Silesian invasion by Hungarian levies happened over a few days or over several months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The article is a data dump of details with little conceptual structure. The only way to find a specific fact is to slowly read the entire article, and maybe the fact won't be there. Main facts are buried amongst trivia. This needs a re-write. Any article on a major war should have an opening with this structure: "This war was between the group of countries A, B, C, and the group X,Y,Z. It ran from 1752 to 1759 (e.g.), with A,B,C victorious." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
ITALIAN STATES INVOLVED IN THE WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION.
The Italian States involved in the war for the Austrian Succession were:
THE DUKEDOM OF MODENA - Its troops fought very well in the fortress of Modena until June 29, 1742 and in Mirandola until July 28, 1742 against the "Italian brothers" of the Kingdom of Sardinia. THE KINGDOM OF NAPLES - Its troops defeated (with the Spanish Army) the Austrians in the battle of Velletri (1744). The Neapolitan troops were under the Duke of Castropignano (1688-1758). THE REPUBLIC OF GENOA - Its troops fought in the battle of Piacenza (1746). THE KINGDOM OF SARDINIA - Its troops, under the Count of Bricherasio (1706-1782), defeated the French in the battle of Assietta (1747).
- the Modenese, then, were fighting on the Franco-Spanish side? What side were the Genoese on (I seem to recall that they were on the French side, as well)? It should be added that the Duchess of Milan, Mantua, Parma and Piacenza fought in numerous battles, while her husband, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, remained neutral. Were the Pope, the Venetians, and the Luccans all neutral as well? The Piedmontese and Neapolitans, by the way, were involved fairly heavily, well beyond the individual battles that you mention. john k 19:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This is fantastic informative article. Can it be featured one?--Vojvodaen 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Very first World War
Omissions in the article.
An article on a war needs a good section on the causes of the war, which is sadly lacking here. Maria Therese wanted to defend her succession, but please explain why the other belligerents cared enough about this to join a war either with or against MT. By implication, Prussia really wanted Silesia, please explain this better. What were England, France, Russia etc fighting for? Also, give a better explanation of the outcome. MT got to keep her titles, Prussia got Silesia, what about the others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking at this article, it seems to largely consist of fairly discreet accounts of military campaigns, and to neglect the politics and diplomacy which gives the military campaigns meaning. For instance, neither Fleury, Carteret, nor Argenson are mentioned in the article. The diplomacy of all three was pretty crucial in the way the war came about. There is no particular explanation, in particular, of the shifts in French diplomacy - from initial neutrality, to Belle-Isle's ambitious effort to secure the Habsburg inheritance for France's German clients, to the retreat to a traditional conflict in the Low Countries, Italy, and at sea after 1744. There is no discussion of early British policy - in particular of George II's policy in 1741, which led to him actually supporting Charles Albert's election as emperor in 1742, or how this changed, after Carteret came into power, to a more pro-Austrian position. The family ambitions of Philip V in Italy are only mentioned in context of naval warfare, and the Sardinian participation in the war is not explained. It is mentioned that Saxony changed sides in 1743, but it is not actually stated before this that it had been fighting on the French side. Changes in Spanish policy following the accession of Ferdinand VI are also not mentioned.
On the whole, the article could use a great deal of improvement. I'd suggest anyone interested in doing so should look at Reed Browning's book, already cited on the page, which is an excellent account of the war. john k (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Also: I would suggest, on this basis, that the article be returned to Start Class. An article on a war should not be simply a laundry list of battles and campaigns. As Clausewitz said, war is the continuation of politics by other means, and the vast majority of the politics of the war is left unexplained here. john k (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hapsburgs allies of France?
The introduction states: "The habitual and constant allies of France and Prussia were the same Hapsburg relations in Spain and the Kingdom of Bavaria as had been teaming up for many issues and conflicts since the Thirty Years' War and to an extent, long before." It seems difficult to pack so many mistakes in a single sentence. First of all, the only Hapsburgs during the war were in Austria and fought AGAINST France; Spain was ruled by the new Bourboun dynasty and Bavaria by its own ducal house. Also, Spain had traditionally been Austrias´s (or the Holy Roman Empire's) ally and France's enemy (and often biggest rival) before, during and after the Thirty Year´s War; only the dynastic change after the War of Spanish Succession brought France and Spain toghether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Who was her father?
"In 1740, Maria Theresa attempted to succeed her father (WHO!?!?) as Queen of Hungary and Bohemia" as this is the only piece of information that i need, i feel like it should be in a fairly obvious place, and that i shouldn't have to look through the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Charles VI. It's near the beginning of the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
In line citations
Are the colors on the map of the participants wrong?
Long, detailed article about this war, but...
Dear friends, please be aware that the Austrian flags from 1743-1745 should not show the Imperial Eagle but a an royal Hungarian flag. Please consult : http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Austrian_Line_Infantry_Colours . Respectively the Bavarian flag became imperial 1743-1745 - see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kaiserlich_bayerische_Fahne_%C3%96sterreichischer_Erbfolgekrieg.jpg Grand Tour (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Replace Strategies section with Goals section
The "Strategies" section appears to deal only with the struggle between Britain and France over the course of the century generally, and leaves out the many other nations involved. I don't think it adds greatly to the understanding of this war in particular. I suggest replacing the entire section with a "Goals" section outlining the war aims of each of the belligerents. This would help give context to the military chronology of the war. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC) J. Conti
Discussion on major conflict infobox
Use of "blitzkrieg" in this article
I just corrected a minor typo (blitzfrieg -> blitzkrieg) and came to thinking on the use of blitzkrieg in this context.