Talk:Battle of Wagram

Paintings

I have a 1902 history book with a b/w reproduction of a painting in it of Napoleon at Wagram, by Horace Vernet. If this article gets longer, and could use another painting, please give me a holler on my talk page, and I'll scan it and post it.--Bcrowell 00:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, in David Chandlers book on Napoleon, which I lent out and I therefore don't have on hand, it says that the picture of Napoleon that is featured in this article is him on the second day examining Davout's III corp during the decisive action which would lead to an Imperial French victory. This little tid bit might be worthy of mention, if its correct. Does anyone have their Chandler book to verify this fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.215.185 (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Largest battle in history?

I cut this claim:

(indeed it was the largest battle in world history up until that time)

since it's very hard to substantiate this sort of claim. There are a lot of older battles that are claimed to be larger (cf. Battle of Red Cliffs). Of course, the older claims are likely to be exaggerated, but it would take a lot of effort to sort through the many claims and adjust them; so this kind of debate is best moved to its own article. In the case of naval battles, where there were similar claims, a separate page was created to handle the issue; see Largest naval battle in history. Gdr 12:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd stay away from that claim like the plague, Leipzig happened 5 years later and was larger by a fair bit. Tirronan 22:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Article needs a rewrite

This article is too brief for such a significant battle and also doesn't cite enough sources. I propose to rewrite it over the next few months using, as well as Chandler, Rothenburg and Hollins as sources. Contributions and critique welcome, and when we have it stable, I will put it up for GA review. Tirailleur 11:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll add to this as soon as I get a couple of decent books on the subject. The inline citation is totally lacking though I think its a good article. You are right this deserves a far more detailed article but there will be difficulties as with Battle of Waterloo in getting decent sources, from what I remember in my readings on this in the past I half expected Napoleon to walk on water parting the river with a wave of his hand. The truth is often far uglier and much more human. Tirronan 22:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not try the two books on the 1809 campaign by James R. Arnold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If I can find them. For now I am using Chandler, Hollins and Rothenberg. Tirailleur 12:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"First"?

Wagram was the first battle in which Napoleon failed to score an uncontested victory with relatively few casualties.

This is untrue, isn't it? He had been defeated before, as at Battle of Aspern-Essling. Tempshill (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course. There is also Eylau. 149.142.201.254 (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Major rewriting

Hello, I am meaning to rewrite this article, by translating (and enhancing) the extensive article I've co-written in Romanian about the battle. Its main sources are G.E. Rothenberg, A. Pigeard, F.G. Hourtoulle and F. Naulet (for the battle per se), as well as J. Tulard, A. Fierro and A. Palluel-Guillard for the introductory description of the War of the Fifth Coalition and European political context between 1805-1809.

I've carefully read the article in its present form and intend to cover virtually all the info that is available at the moment, in an extensive 140-150k bytes article, that will fully replace the current one. As I see it, the article in its final form could be nominated for FA. Should anyone wish to add further contributions (e.g. Chandler's views), please add them and also add appropriate references. Your suggestions are also welcome and much appreciated. Any images that you might be able to upload about the battle are also invaluable.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free. I am re-looking at Rothenberg on this battle too. 83.244.221.116 (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Length

Obviously, a great deal of effort went into this article. However, 20,000 words is too long for an encyclopedia entry about any battle of the Napoleonic Wars, which occurred two centuries ago. This length equates to roughly 80 typescript pages (or approximately 6,000 column-inches of newsprint). An encyclopedia should present a quick, concise ready-reference summary of the main developments, not an exhaustive account of myriad commanders and forces in close combat. IMHO. Sca (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)