Talk:War of the Sixth Coalition

Bavaria

It says in the top box that Bavaria changed sides after the Battle of Leipzig. However, Bavaria switched sides a few days before with the treaty of Ried on 8th Oct and declared war on France on the 14th Oct, two days before the Battle of Leipzig. Changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.118.123 (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Russia

Should the invasion of Russia really be considered part of this war? The coalition was established, I thought, by Prussia's defection from France in January 1813. john k 13:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it was a continuous war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admikkelsen (talk • contribs) 15:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

War of Liberation

Is "War of Liberation" one of the names of this war? The page War of Liberation says so and so does Britannica 1911, but this article here doesn't mention it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. From the reading I've done, it's known as the War or Wars of Liberation, which is exactly what it's German name — die Befreiungskriege (plural) — means. I've never heard of the "War of the Sixth Coalition."

Also, this article says "191,000 French fought more than 450,000 Allies" at the Battle of Leipzig (Battle of Nations, or Völkerschlacht), but the article on the Battle of Leipzig says "the French had around 190,000 soldiers and the Allies almost 330,000."

Sca (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say "War of Liberation" is in more common use. As far as coalitions go, nobody ever seems really sure how to count them - notably, is the 1806-1807 war part of the War of the Third Coalition, or a separate war? My sense about War of Liberation is that it mostly refers to the 1813 war in Germany, and not so much to the campaigns in 1814. But also neither term really covers the invasion of Russia, which certainly did not involve a coalition - I don't think Britain and Russia were reconciled until 1813, so there was certainly no coalition in 1812. john k (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

War in Germany

Just a small note: I'm not sure how to do this, but a small part of the War in Germany section with the phrase "east from 30,000 ..." is unreadable, and I have no idea how to fix it. anyone know how to do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.17.216 (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Map

Why should the map include all of the colonies? Looking at it alone one would think that Australians and Peruvians hopped aboard a boat and went off to fight France!

A map showing just the primary countries involved would serve the article far better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.251.34 (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The colonies were tangential to this conflict. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC).

The map is still wrong though. The two Mecklenburgs (Schwerin and Strelitz) left the Rhine confederation already in March 1813 and joined the coalition.--Ickerbocker (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

USA

I think the infobox stating that the United States was a "co-belligerent" of France is extremely misleading. The American war with 1812 was only indirectly related to the Napoleonic wars, and the Wikipedia article on co-belligerence states that the term means " waging [a] war in cooperation against a common enemy without the formal treaty of military alliance." [sic] If the US is included then the infobox would logically have to include anyone at war with any of the Napoleonic belligerents anywhere between 1812 and 1814. Better to remove it.209.235.2.8 (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe if you study the issue, you will find that the United States did cooperate with France between 1812 and 1814 to the extent that the two nations could assist one another against their common enemy, Britain. The United States also cooperated with Britain against Revolutionary France during the period of the Quasi-War, so the U.S. could actually be regarded as having been a co-belligerent on both sides during different periods of the Napoleonic era. The U.S. was never an actual participant in these alliances, but was certainly willing to cooperate with whichever side furthered its own national interest at the time. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the article doesn't mention the War of 1812 (as far as I can see), then the USA shouldn't be listed in the infobox. Alansplodge (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Iceland on Napoleon's side?

In the map of Napoleon vs Allies, Iceland is in blue, as in Napoleon's side. Is this a mistake? Nothing in the article mentions Iceland, and it'd be interesting if it had any connection to the Napoleonic Wars at all. 104.172.125.252 (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Iceland was a part of the Kingdom of Norway prior to the Congress of Vienna. At the time Norway was also united with Denmark. Denmark was Napoleon's ally until the end.

The Treaties of Kiel and Vienna separated Norway from Denmark, and as a consequence of the invasion of Norway by Sweden, as a condition of peace Norway then joined in a personal union with the Crown of Sweden, though with its own constitution. Denmark, through diplomatic cunning, managed to convince the Swedish diplomats that Norwegian colonies had really belonged to Denmark as a consequence of the Kalmar Union, that included Iceland, and for reasons unknown the Swedes inexplicably bought it as they had not researched the matter. So at the final settlement of the Napoleonic Wars, Denmark received Iceland and Greenland. SJCreecy (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"despite having almost lost the war by Western European standards" What does it mean? Napolean never captured the Russian capital - St. Petersburg. So he was never even close to winning the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.9.148 (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Short citations to Chandler that do not include a year

@user:SJCreecy I have been cleaning up the short citations on this page. However I come across a problem, which it will be easier and quicker for you to solve than for me. You made this edit Revision as of 07:35, 10 May 2020 during a series of edits to the page. You included a citation to support the text "Chandler, Pp. 908-913." Unfortunately there were (and are) two long citations in the references section that could support this short citation:

• Chandler, David G. (1966). The Campaigns of Napoleon Vol. II. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0297748304.
• Chandler, David G. (1991). The Campaigns of Napoleon Vol. I and II. Easton Press.

Please could you add the year of publication to this and the other short citations to Chandler that you include and do not contain a year? -- PBS (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem! Done.! SJCreecy (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting USA as Co-Belligerent due to recent editor disagreements

Prior to Sep 10th, the status quo seemed to be to list the United States as a Co-belligerent in the War of the Sixth Coalition, due to the ongoing War of 1812. However recently, some Wikipedia contributors seem to have taken issue with this. This section is for coming to an understanding on this point, as it seems to have not been discussed since 2010, and then only two users (with opposing views) seem to have contributed to the discussion.

I for one support the inclusion of the United States as a co-belligerent in the infobox due to the considerable fact that during the War of 1812 (which the War of the Sixth Coalition entirely overlapped). The United States was at war with the United Kingdom, providing a distraction for the British navy and war effort, and the fact that, as User:Jsc1973 previously said, France and the United States did cooperate to the extent they could be adequately considered as co-belligerents. China and the USSR were both unquestionably on the side of the Allies in WW2, but China was only fighting Japan, not the Germans who were a continent away, and the Soviets had a non-agression pact with the Japanese that held until 1945. These states were further apart in wartime than France and the US in the 1810s, who had a common enemy, yet we regard them both as still easily being on the same side (even with complications like soviet support for the communists in china). They were both in the Allies. France and the USA collaborated even closer than this, and against a common enemy, so they easily meet the standard of being co-belligerents during the War of the Sixth Coalition, and the USA should be included in the infobox as a Co-Belligerent (with that distinction made they were not a full ally) AvRand (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In addition to my parallel points on Talk:War of 1812—we need sources that say this etc.—another point is that per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox is fundamentally a summary of key facts stated in the article. The US's co-belligerent status is not presently mentioned in this article, and so tacking it on in the infobox is a hanging summary pointing to nothing, in addition to it being unsourced. Remsense ‥ 论 10:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Your source failed verification, as it does not describe the United States as a cobelligerent in the War of the Sixth Coalition. It's fairly clear you presently are not aware of a source that says what you want the infobox to say, so you need to stop.Remsense ‥ 论 11:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Avrand6 this is in addition to the WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE point I've already made. Self-revert or I'm reporting you for edit warring. Remsense ‥ 论 12:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Just because you are a seasoned editor does not mean you can bully other users into conforming to your opinion. Articles are supposed to remain at status quo while a consensus is reached, and in this case a reliable source was added to support that status quo in the interim. I hoped to begin civil discussions on the talk pages of both articles, and understand your point of view, and reach a consensus to go one way or the other. Instead, you have started a childish edit war (including violating the three revert rule), reverting articles to suit your position, not leaving at the status quo in the weeks a consensus is reached. I'm unsure what your vendetta against me is, as I have done nothing but act in good faith and follow proper procedure for when a dispute arises. If you wish to to request administrator attention, that is your prerogative, though I may also feel the need to pursue a similar course of action. Civil and respectful discourse is an important cornerstone of consensus-building on wikipedia. AvRand (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You fabricated a citation to get your own way. You do not seem to care about what sources say—which is non-negotiable and overrides whatever you feel is the "consensus", which really doesn't seem to actually exist outside your own head. I haven't violated 3RR, and though I wish I could cause zero disruption in removing unsourced drivel from the article, that isn't always feasible. Remsense ‥ 论 12:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not fabricate a citation, nor would I ever, look it up, it's a real book, currently being used to support the same points in a different article on Wikipedia. Two or three people also do not constitute a consensus. AvRand (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You did not read the source to verify that it supported your claim, because it does not verify your claim, I checked. That is completely unacceptable. Remsense ‥ 论 12:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you please provide the quote and citation from this book to justify this claim? That would certainly help. Nemov (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

They admitted before they did not check—rather, their reading of the book "several years ago" was deemed sufficient to justify citing it for each of the specific claims it was attached to. I wouldn't bother further down this path of argumentation, but if you have questions about what the source does say, I suppose I could answer those. Remsense ‥ 论 19:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Avrand6 this needs stronger sourcing to include in the article. Is there anything beside this book to support inclusion in the infobox? I'm afraid the current sourcing isn't enough and restoring based on WP:STATUSQUO isn't strong enough to justify keeping it. Nemov (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  This was the very first thing I said to them upon their first revert, and I doubt they will listen the twelfth time more than they did the first time, unfortunately. Remsense ‥ 论 18:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding 3 more strong sources that support the infobox in the interim, please refrain from edit wars until a broad consensus is reached one way or the other as per WP:StatusQuo. AvRand (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No, you will post them here first, so we can properly discuss them in order to achieve consensus, as is required by WP:BURDEN. You have exhausted any reason for me to assume good faith in your conduct or trust you are doing what you claim to be doing.Remsense ‥ 论 20:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please present the sources in this discussion. Given the swing in miss on your claim about the book you're going to have to show your work and get others to agree before adding it to the article. Nemov (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Break

Here are their newly added sources for the claim that the United States was a co-belligerent in the War of the Sixth Coalition:

1. Black, Jeremy (2009). The War of 1812 in the age of Napoleon. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0-8061-4078-0.
2. "Napoleonic Wars and the United States, 1803–1815". Office of the Historian. United States State Department.
3. Kaplan, Lawrence S. (June 1970). "France and the War of 1812". The Journal of American History. 57 (1): 36–47.
4. The Battle of New Orleans in history and memory. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. 2016. pp. 71–76. ISBN 9780807164662.

Remsense ‥ 论 23:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone have access to how these are being used? Nemov (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't normally do this, but I want to make clear what a co-belligerent is: Wiktionary gives us a country that wages war against a common enemy, without the countries on the same side having a formal treaty of military alliance. In short, an unofficial ally. As such, the War of 1812 would be considered a theater of the War of the Sixth Coalition, something we've already rejected over on Talk:War of 1812. But maybe these sources will change our mind. Here is my review:

• The previously provided source. I'm not sure why it was added again, since it's already been established to contain nothing that supports this notion.
• The intended quote, and to my eye the only pertinent passage: The United States attempted to remain neutral during the Napoleonic period, but eventually became embroiled in the European conflicts, leading to the War of 1812 against Great Britain. This does not characterize the United States as a co-belligerent. Getting embroiled in something is not equivalent to joining a side.
• I am not sure why specific quotes or page numbers were not provided here. Here's the most pertinent section in the article, on pp. 37–41, quoted at length to make abundantly clear this one's a no:

Kaplan 1970, pp. 37–41

Although the administration's caution in publicizing its relations with France is understandable, was caution carried to the point where the administration failed to consider, let alone to utilize, the benefits the French might have conferred on the American war effort? [...] But what was the administration's view of France after the defeat of William Hull, after Britain's dallying over peace negotiations, or after the defeat of Napoleon's armies in 1814? Certainly, France's impact on the struggle with Britain had a place in American calculations about the conduct of the war. In fact, on the eve of war, this place is clearly evident in Madison's thinking. He consciously linked Napoleon's impending invasion of Russia with the assumption that Britain would be unable to supply its meager forces in Canada. He thought that French cobelligerence [!!!] would permit the United States to exploit French bases for maritime warfare against Britain. Moreover, he believed that Americans had every reason to expect that many of the problems which had bedevilled Franco-American relations—depredations on commerce, imprisonment of sailors, settlement of indemnities, and the final arrangement of a mutually beneficial commercial treaty—would automatically be resolved. The foreshadowing evident in the passage should tell us what's next, though: In 1776 as in 1812 American policymakers, even partisan newspaper editors who supported the war, held few illusions about France. America's policy was independent of Europe. Europeans, it was assumed, provided assistance to the United States for reasons of self-interest and without expectation of reciprocal commitments. [...] Expressions of anger over France's continuing disregard for American property in Europe and of annoyance over French unwillingness to recognize the existence of a contribution against the common enemy were far more customary. Even so staunch a friend of France as Barlow distrusted French intentions toward the United States which, given the opportunity, might be as hostile as England's. So late as September 1812, the American minister warned the President that he should not discount the danger of an Anglo-French plot to make peace and carve the United States into dependent territories of the two superpowers. [...] The government's posture toward France was both genuine and guileful. It was also unsuccessful, since France failed to perform even the minimal functions assigned to it. The seizure and destruction of American ships bound for Lisbon continued, American sailors remained in French prisons, indemnities for past depredations went undiscussed, and new damages were committed under color of the repealed Berlin and Milan Decrees. [...] Considering France's long campaign to bring the United States into the Continental System if not into the war itself, an attempt to redress grievances would have been the appropriate token of Napoleon's recognition of services the United States might supply to France. In fact, Sérurier urged the emperor to concede commercial advantages to the Americans in order to detach their commerce from England as well as to reward them for sharing a "common enemy." Or, Sérurier warned, at the first opportunity Americans would seek an accommodation with England. Throughout 1812 and most of 1813 French policy remained unchanged; and the only hopes for concessions were those raised through Barlow's optimism about a prospective commercial treaty. After the death of the American minister, Sérurier gloomily foresaw an American backlash in the form of increased receptivity to Russian mediation and the repeal of the nonintercourse act.. [...] The French responded to the long and heated American demands for indemnities and a commercial treaty only at the very end of the Napoleonic regime, and the response contained more elements of charade than of reality. As France's fortune declined, Crawford's importunities assumed a more querulous note and focused increasingly on the issue of neutral rights—the very issue that would lose practical meaning as the European war ended.

Bummer!

• This largely discusses potential French or Russian mediation in 1812, and does not imply at any point that France and the US became allies during this period, quite the contrary of mutually alternating distrust, apathy, and milquetoast flattery, just as above.

Hopefully this will help. Remsense ‥ 论 23:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary literally defines cobelligerent as "Country that wages war against a common enemy, without the countries on the same side having a formal treaty of military alliance." Of course the sources don't say the US and France are allies, that's not what cobelligerent means. All that is needed is evidence of any collaboration against a common enemy {the British}. That makes them Co-Belligerents. All four sources support that the US and France were fighting against a common enemy, and that there was some low-level collaboration between them, proving co-belligerency, Remsense's bad faith reactionism notwithstanding. Also, the quote they used "The United States attempted to remain neutral during the Napoleonic period, but eventually became embroiled in the European conflicts, leading to the War of 1812 against Great Britain." literally supports my position. AvRand (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems like you're attempting to WP:SYNTH Wikitionary and these sources that do not call the United States a co-belligerent. If you have a reliable source calling the United States a co-belligerent in this conflict please present it. Otherwise, it seems like this discussion is nearly at an end. Nemov (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is what I said citing policy at the very beginning, is that you need a source that makes this specific characterization. I have been repeatedly ignored. Remsense ‥ 论 23:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What's more, verifiability is not the sole criteria for inclusion. The infobox is a summary of key facts in the article, so like I also said above but was ignored, we would have to describe co-belligerence in the article before we summarize it in the infobox. And given WP:DUEWEIGHT, I don't see this being worth mentioning if there is one source out of dozens that make this characterization, with others not mentioning it. It would not be a key fact if it is a minority historiographical position. Remsense ‥ 论 23:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Co-belligerence already means that "no formal treaty of alliance exists" between the informally allied factions. Any more additions will have to be based on what the available sources state. Dimadick (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that definition is quite enough. Let's swap out a few countries. Let's say the United States is co-belligerent with Israel in a conflict against Iran and proxy organisations in the Middle East. Iran is also in a conflict with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in the same region. The US is also in conflict with ISIL in the same region. Does that make the US and Iran 'co-belligerents' whilst at the same time being belligerents? (deliberately simplified) The definition needs to include an element of collaboration for it to be meaningful or else it becomes absurdly broad. If the majority of sources - not just a random selection - state that the US was a cobelligerent in the War of the Sixth Coalition and support that with examples of collaboration then we could perhaps include. Otherwise fails WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear: none of the sources cited describe the US and France as being allies, either formally or informally. What's more, there is barely any discussion of cooperation on any level, let alone on military matters. They couldn't even hash out a commercial treaty! Remsense ‥ 论 23:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Just because the US and Britain were engaged in a war at the same time does not mean that the US was engaged in this war - and the sources are not supporting that it was either. Then we have the issue of adding info to the infobox that is not supported by the article (per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Once again, becoming embroiled in a conflict means that you become more directly involved in it, and nothing more. The US became embroiled in the conflict because its trade with Europe was getting sabotaged and messed with constantly by both Britain and France. Your smoking gun sentence doesn't even mention France directly. To try being exceedingly clear again: Of course the sources don't say the US and France are allies [...] All that is needed is evidence of any collaboration against a common enemy {the British}. That makes them Co-Belligerents. is completely wrong. The source needs to state directly that there was a co-belligerent status or some other direct, synonymous statement of that claim; you can't draw that conclusion that yourself based on your own analysis of sources that are not directly saying that themselves. That would be a clear example of original synthesis, which is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. That's why I have been repeating the specific claim you need to have a direct citation for over and over since the beginning. Remsense ‥ 论 03:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:Remsense, Cinderella157 and User:Wiki-Ed, as well as the calls for more conclusive verification by Nemov and Dimadick. Such reasoning as to co-belligerent status just by fighting a common enemy (being original research or opinion) would lead to absurd inclusions in infoboxes. That is even more obvious in this case. The United States had grievances against France as well as Britain during the War of the Sixth Coalition. One of the sources cited in supposed confirmation of the opinion that the U.S. was a co-belligerent with France, “Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations,” even states that Madison considered declaring war on France. As Walter Borneman stated at page 41 of Borneman, Walter R. 1812: The War That Forged a Nation. New York: Harper Perennial, 2005. ISBN 978-0-06-053113-3 “Thus, the British continued to seize American ships that attempted to trade with France, and Napoleon continued to seize American ships and their cargoes wherever it suited him.” Remsense has also shown that Kaplan, another source cited in support of U.S. co-belligerence status, although he uses the word co-belligerence in the sense of fighting a common enemy, gives a long list of reasons why the U.S. and France were not collaborating or fighting for the same objective. By the same reasoning that is used to support co-belligerence in a separate war being fought for totally separate reasons against a common enemy: were the Zulus and Afghans co-belligerents in the Second Anglo-Afghan War and the Zulu War respectively because they were fighting against the British at the same time? Obviously not. This is in fact my short analysis and answer. I have some other sources and examples so I may post more on this topic. On the other hand, if I don't post more, this post should be enough to show how I have researched and analyzed this and what the conclusion should be. Donner60 (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2024

I should point out that I understood Kaplan to be saying that Madison wanted something like co-belligerent status with France, but he never got anything of he had previously conceived, demonstrated in the events that followed. Remsense ‥ 论 03:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Kaplan does differ from "Milestones" to some extent. However, since Madison never got anything from France, and France continued to seize American merchant ships and cargoes, the conclusion is the same - no co-belligerent status. The lack of participation by the U.S. in the war in Europe or of France in the War of 1812, the hostile acts of France itself against the U.S. during this period, the separate reasons for entering wars against the common enemy and the total lack of collaboration between the U.S. and France in their wars against the common enemy further undercut the argument that they were co-belligerents in each other's respective separate wars. Donner60 (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)