Talk:War of the First Coalition
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Old talk page post
"This is like a United Nations peacekeeping effort to stop a civil war." what the hell???
- yeah, this look a lot to me like vandalism ;-) I removed it ...--Galahaad 15:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
UK vs. GB
- It was the United Kingdom of Great Britain at that time, Mr. Mabel. (anon 22 May 2005)
- The problem is that the war started in 1792 when France declared war, but the coalition did not form until 1793. By consistancy with the other 'war of the Xth coalition' pages, we have a bit of a problem either saying that the war began before the coalition formed, or that there were a bunch of battle in the same campaigns but not part of the same war. Perhaps we need to rename the page to be the same as the other coalition pages? -Gomm 02:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Why did France make war?
According to the article, Dumouriez presented "a long list of grievances". I'd like to know what those grievances are. According to my 1993 Collier's Encyclopedia article on the French Revolution,
The dominant ministers, Comte Louis de Narbonne (an illegitimate son of Louis XV), and after him Charles Dumouriez (formerly a diplomat under Louis XV), held to anti-Austrian policies and favored war as a means of checking revolution and restoring order and the monarchy by means of the army. Their diplomacy was as feeble and unsuccessful as their policy was futile -- for war was more likely to bring the extremists to power than to save the crown. -- "French Revolution". Collier's_Encyclopedia. P.F. Collier. 1993.
Collier's puts much of the blame on Jacques Pierre Brissot.
Initially, however, [the Girondins] were known as the "Brissotins", since they adopted the war policy advocated by their leader in the Legislative Assembly, J. P. Brissot. In the spring of 1792 several Girondins in the Legislative Assembly were successful in obtaining ministerial positions in place of the more moderate Feuillant ministers -- Charles Dumouriez as foreign minister, Étienne Clavière as finance minister, and J.M. Roland as minister of the interior. It was this administration which, by declaring war on Austria on Apr. 20, 1792, helped to produce the national emergency that resulted in the overthrow of the French monarchy the following August. -- "Girondins". Collier's_Encyclopedia. P.F. Collier. 1993.
[ Brissot ] favored the declaration of war against Austria and Prussia in 1792 as a means of securing the downfall of the monarchy. -- "Brissot, Jacques Pierre". Collier's_Encyclopedia. P.F. Collier. 1993.
However, there seems to be a contradiction here. The first quote indicates that war was seen -- by Dumouriez -- as a way of checking revolution and preserving the monarchy. The second quote indicates that war was seen -- by Brissot and the Girondins -- as a way of forcing the overthrow of the monarchy. Is this a case of a right-left alliance, both parties seeking war, but for exactly opposite reasons?
This view is supported by Paul Halsall, editor of the 'Internet History Sourcebooks Project':
In retaliation to Dec. of Pillnitz the French Deputies (in Assembly) declare war on Austria - 20th Apr 1792
- There was pressure from democratic exiles from other countries
- Radicals thought a successful War would bring them support.
- Louis XVI supported the war - he hoped a loss would restore his position - as did many monarchist members of the Leg Assembly.
- (Robespierre opposed the war as he saw danger of defeat)
-- Halsall, Paul, "Class 11 : The Liberal Revolution", Fordham Rose Hill/ HSRU 1000, Jan 1998
Neutral Serbian Observers?
On the map of the war situation in 1796, someone added both the location of Mainz and "Neutral Serbian observers" with a large circle and in an obnoxious colour. I don't think these observers are of a great enough importance to the war to add them to the map, and would suggest that the old version of the map without these editions be used. Bahamut Star (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC).
- Thanks for pointing it out. On further inspection of the map, the choice of markings and accompanying text does seem strange in places, and since the commons description only links to a dead file as source, it does not seem to be a reliable depiction for Wikipeda. I have been bold and removed the map. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)