Talk:War of the Third Coalition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.


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.

What role did Portugal play in this war? Drutt (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Portugal was not in a war against France and therefore did not participate in the third coalition. In 1805 (see Royal Almanac for that year, the Portuguese ambassador in France was M. de Lima, while Napoleon's ambassador to Portugal was Marshal Jean Lannes, then replaced by General Junot. Moreover, Junot commanded the French army attacked Portugal in November 1807. This war, which lasted until 1814, is not generally attached to a coalition: it belongs to the Peninsular War. We can still consider an attachment of Portugal to the fifth and sixth coalition, as many French troops occupied on that front at the expense of the edges of central and eastern Europe in 1809 and then from 1812 to 1814.--Jipécé34 (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Major "rewrite"[edit]

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)

Good plan. Gomm 03:13, 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)

decisive victory??[edit]

I have to question this call:

  • The empire and allies lost their navy
  • Most of the coalition was untouched and formed a 4th coalition

Victory? Yes. Decisive? I don't think so. -Gomm 03:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In any case we don't usually write that a war is a decisive victory for side x, we only use that for battles. For example World War II has Allied vicotry as result, not decisive allied victory. Carl Logan 09:29, 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)

Troop Number[edit]

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?

3rd vs 4th coalition pages?[edit]

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)

Because Ferdinand of Naples and Sicily sided originally with the Third Coalition. Napoleon first intended to knock Russia and Austria out of the war before turning his attention on Sicily. Once the Treaty and Pressburg was signed, Masséna's corps were free from engaging Archduke Charles and could be sent south to invade Naples.
If you read into the campaign, Naples fell in mid February with the decisive knockout blow against the Neapo-Sicilian army coming at Campo Tenese on 10 March, just 3 months after Austerlitz. By 11 March, when Joseph became King of Naples, the was against Naples 'officially' ended which means it's far more sensible to group the Neapolitan campaign with the Third Coalition. The fact that Masséna bungled the siege of Gaeta, the Calabrians then later revolted and there was a small British expeditionary force extended this campaign but it still happened before the start of the campaign against Prussia. All in all, I would definitely argue the Neapo-Sicilian campaign was a sideshow of the Third Coalition but the Battle of Schleiz started the Fourth coalition not Maida. Centyreplycontribs – 14:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps like the Egyptian Campaign, it belongs neither with the coalition that preceded it, nor with the coalition that it overlaps. Perhaps it should have its own page. -Gomm 16:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomm (talkcontribs)
Not enough content to warrant a separate article like the Egyptian Campaign. That went on for three years with pitch battles happening all the way from 1798 (Pyramids) to 1801 (Alexandria). The Italian Campaign had one major battle and it was effectively over. Moreover, everything up to the Battle of Campo Tenese should definitely be covered as part of the Third Coalition. The only bit of that might not belong with the Third Coalition and have its own page is the Calabrian insurrection, but again I don't see enough material to warrant making a separate article just yet. Centyreplycontribs – 10:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Northern Italian campaign[edit]

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)

Commanders and Leaders[edit]

In commanders and leaders section, the then monarch of the United Kingdom should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (talkcontribs) 23:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)