Talk:Battle of Austerlitz

Endgame

This title seems kinda frivolous and inappropriate. Could we get something more encyclopedic?

180

--Diablorex 16:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

???UberCryxic 19:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Artillery captured

The 'Aftermath' states there were 180 cannons captured, yet Napoleon's speech states they captured 120 artillery pieces. Which is it?

--24.72.119.125 21:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Napoleon's speech would have been more percise; It placed the number lower. NapoleonAlanparte 11:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

'American' General Kutuzov

why does the article say "American" general Kutuzov?

• Because someone felt that this page needs to be vandalized.

Just check the history - it happened several times in past days. Now - 10/12 at 14.09 GMT - it is OK, it is repaired. User:Radoneme

Austerldiitz???

From the article "Austerldiitz (the modern town of Slavkov u Brna in the Czech Republic)...". Is this vandalization too? Saigon from europe 18:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Folklore

There are some myths and stories about the battle included in the article - one of which is:

"Another story features an unfortunate French soldier running from Cossacks; apparently, the soldier climbed through a chimney trying to hide, but the Cossacks found and killed him anyway."

Is something missing from this? It seems like a pretty ordinary event from a battle at this time - a guy runs away, tries to hide, gets killed. Ok, it's a chimney - but still it seems a bit pointless Gardar Rurak 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard a few legends about the Coalition defeat causing the fervently anti-Bonaparte British PM William Pitt the Younger to die of a broken heart. In reality, the stress of the defeat did contribute to Pitt's failing health. Would it be worth mentioning this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.7.6 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That entire section was taken word for word from a website, not a reliable source and has been deleted.Tttom1 (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Naming

I made some minor changes, inserting the Czech name Slavkov u Brno and the German name Brünn, clarifying historic and modern place names. Sca 14:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Now it seems someone has reverted my changes out. Who, and why? Sca 17:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The page was vandalized and a paragraph was removed from the introduction. The vandalism was removed, but the removed paragraph was not restored in that edit. Attilios then restored the removed paragraph by (presumably) editing an older version of the page which did not have your edits included. Olessi 19:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow....that vandal is funny and has an active imagination.--64.121.1.55 23:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The naming should be consistent, It should be Slavkov u Brna(Austerlitz) and Brno(Brünn). First being an official name in Czech and English language. Austerlitz and Brunn is in German. The name of the battle shouldn't be changed as "Battle of Austerlitz" is a common name. Also the place of the battle should be "Slavkov u Brna, Czech Republic" to conform with contemporary English name for the place. (the same case as for battles which took place in contemporary Germany for instance) (194.212.194.194 16:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

I second the above comment. It looks absolutely bizarre to me to see all these German place names. It's like seeing an article in English in which the US is referred to as "Die Vereinigten Staten" Does wikipedia have a place naming standard? I don't even see why it should be necessary to include the germanized names at all, except for cases like 'Austerlitz' and 'Brünn'. 209.6.22.185 (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Location Vandalism

I couldnt revert it, could some one please revert the obvious vandalism.--64.121.1.55 05:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I don't see anything obvious. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone already fixed it.--64.121.1.55 23:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Location distance from Brno

I cite from article: "The battle took place at Austerlitz (Slavkov u Brna) about 6.5 km (four miles) east of Brünn (Brno) in Moravia." If you look at the map, you see the battle took place between Brno and Slavkov. In fact, centers of Brno and Slavkov are more than 20 kms far away (I guess some 28 kms, but I do not remember precisely). As the military actions took place on large area, this characterization (6.5 km from Brno) seems to be very unprecise and perhaps even wrong. --Ruziklan 21:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Allied commander?

Wasn't Kutuzov commander of coalition forces at Austerlitz?--Staberinde 12:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, he was not. He was one of the commanders there, but the overarching commander was the Czar by general agreement between the Austrians and the Russians. If Kutuzov had been the commander, no one today would have heard of that little village called Austerlitz because there would not have been a battle.UberCryxic 21:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody hears about Austerlitz today. The village has been renamed. //roger.duprat.copenhagen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.74.219 (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did the battle occur??

Why did the battle occur in the first place??

Someone answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.42.21.81 (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Napoleon was threatened by the Third Coalition, and wanted to defeat the Russian and Austrian decisively. The more bellicose Austrians and Russians persuaded their more cautious colleagues to fight. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Height of Pratzen Heights incorrect

I live in the village of Prace, below the Pratzen Heights, and I can assure you it is much more than 40 feet high ! I will find out it's true height as soon as I can and get back to you.

62.92.82.7 15:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry dude, but look at Google Earth. The Prätzen height is not really high. In battles back then, some minor hills could be the difference between victory or defeat.

--Arsaces (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought

"Napoleon redirected his gunners to fire at the ice. The men drowned in the viciously cold ponds... Many regard this incident as one of Napoleon's cruelest acts in war."

It's a referenced statement so I'm not disputing it or anything (not sure about the "many" part though, who?)... just found it rather an odd point of view, that drowning fleeing enemies is somehow more cruel than shooting them in the back and leaving them to bleed to death or tearing them apart with shrapnel. One way to look at it is that both drowning and freezing are relatively peaceful ways to go, their bodies would have been releasing endorphins. Not that I'm suggesting it was in any way merciful, just, doesn't really seem more cruel than regular war, just a tad more creative. 121.45.189.3 15:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess the cruelty is that all these soldiers on pond were just fleeing the battle trying to save their lives as the battle was basicly over. Interesting is that according to official report of Austrian army only two soldiers drowned there and same states local chronicles ( 3 soldiers ), when the pond was cleaned afterwads they found only horses and cannons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.100.4.188 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

HRE

I haven't looked at the discussions here, but could we not put "End of Holy Roman Empire" as a Result in the campaign box? Also, under combatants, the Holy Roman Empire could be placed, couldn't it?Tourskin 23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The result in the battle box says "Decisive French victory, effective end of the Third Coalition".--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 00:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be said that they fought, but if they did, they fought under the name of the Austrians, since the Austrian Emperor was named as also the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Once that name was neglected by the Austrian Emperor after that battle, there was no more head of state, and more importantly no actual nation for him to be emperor over. Hence it was considered the HRE to have officially ended Xavier Dragnesi (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Troop Number

The number of troops in artical is different from the number in the map. Which one is correct? Also I thought Napoleon was outnumbered in this battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NineBlade (talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Different sources give different numbers, its hard to tell who is 'correct'. Generally the number given is around 73,000 for French (counting Davout's III Corps) and around 86,000 for Allies.--Bryson 22:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again; there are very few battles in which the troop numbers are precisely agreed upon. I prefer giving high and low estimates. Deltabeignet 05:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

broken wikisource link

the wikisource link (in the 'aftermath' section) is broken... might i recommend changing to 'Proclamation after the Battle of Austerlitz' 24.224.147.37 (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

broken sentence

Someone who knows what horse artillery is and what it does may want to fix this sentence in the "One Sharp Blow" section: "The horse artillery of the Guard also unlimbered a deadly toll on the Russian cavalry and fusiliers." The dictionary says you can unlimber a gun, whatever that means, and you can exact a toll of course. I'd change the sentence myself but I don't think I could guess what the author wants to say. Wegesrand (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlimbering a gun means, essentially, deploying it ready for use. No one has made a change here so I'll do it. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

officer's comissions in Russian Army

The WIKIPEDIA article on comissions purchase states that Russian Prussian armies never had custom of comissions purchasing - therefore corrections are needed.....

Andrey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.138.40.173 (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1,305 French Dead?

A PBS Special, made by David Machullah, can be found on youtube @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e34HS6cmneA&feature=related, says that it was over 9,000....SteveSmithIIV (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah... the usual obsessive anti-French rhetoric pervasive in the US. Historians (i.e. experts of history, not TV anchors) agree that the French lost about 1,300 soldiers. This statistics is not too hard to verify accurately, since the Napoleon army was thoroughly organized and rosters of the troops were kept updated. It could be that another 8,000 guys died in the following years after being wounded in battle, but that's irrelevant. If a 45 year old ex-soldier dies of alcoholism 20 years after the end of the war, the same alcoholism he acquired while serving in the army, he still should not be counted as a casualty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.191.193 (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is ridiculous. This number is out of the imagination Francophobe (many in the United Kingdom and the United States or one like it "break" in French) - Swax, 01:02 09/02/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.81.143 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Official French army report says 1389 dead and 7260 wounded soldiers that is in total loss of 8649 (as among losses are usually counted all dead and wounded), but than French propaganda says only around 1800 wounded, dont forget that history is written by winners so most of the numbers and statistics are coming from French side sometime directly from Napoleon himself. There is legend that one of the French officers asked Wienna citizens why they are preparing so many beds after battle (10000 by order of French army) and he was given reply "these 10000 beds are for your 1800 wounded soldiers"

?!

Can somone explain this conversation:

   Alexander I: What are you doing, Kutuzov !?
   Kutuzov: I am waiting for the other units to gathered in full number.
   Alexander I: This place is not the Tsaritsyn Square where the units gathered in full number in a military parade !
   Kutuzov: Your Majesty, because this is not the Tsaritsyn Square that I am waiting for the other units to gathered in full number. And if Your Majesty ordered... 

I'm missing a point...--VuXman ^talk 14:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbianboy (talk • contribs)

This appears to come from an official school textbook of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam: The character of modern history (Volume II / Russian) by Le Phung Hoang and Nguyen Thi Thu; Ho Chi Min City, 1997 (and thanks to Google Translate for this information). It appears to be a translation into Vietnamese from an unacknowledged European work, probably War and Peace Chapter 15, re-translated back into English. Dialogue from a scene in a novel shouldn't be used as a source in an encyclopedia. Foreign-language sources shouldn't be used where English ones are available. I'm going to delete it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Who is Murat?

Somewhere in the article, before the battle commences, Murat is introduced rather abruptly:

...instructed the Allied Army to accept Murat's ceasefire proposal so that the allied army could have more time to 
retreat. Napoleon soon realized Murat's mistakes ...

Perhaps someone could explain what Murat had proposed and where he blundered? Right now, the allusion is a bit incomprehensible. -- Syzygy (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Combat on the Pratzen heights

Does any user know which units of the second (Langeron's) and fourth (Miloradovich and Kollowrath's) columns were engaged in the firefight on the Pratzen heights, at the moment when Soult's corps attacked the Russian centre? Guard Chasseur (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the lead

"The battle was a tactical masterpiece of the same stature as the ancient battles of Gaugamela and Cannae, in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC" - the citation for this doesn't give a page number, and seems to be stating it as fact when I believe that such a statement is the assessment of a certain historian, and likely to be a matter of much debate - therefore shouldn't it read "the battle has been cited by X, Y [et al.] to be a tactical masterpiece of the same stature as the ancient battles of Gaugamela and Cannae, in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC." What is more, the citation is for something called "Encyclopedia of warfare"... is there a better citation or a more renowned historian/source to quote? I didn't want to spoil a FA by sprinkling "attribution needed" tags all over it. Any thoughts? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sun of Austerlitz

If the article is going to refer to the 'legendary Sun of Austerlitz', shouldn't it at least explain what that is and why it's so legendary? --2.105.139.62 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Four Columns

As it's written on the main article the Allies had four columns to attack the French right flank. But when Soult's IV Corps assaulted the Pratzen hights they fought some of the delayed detatchments of the Russian IV Corps and destroyed them. As you let us to understand the IV Corps was the fourth attacking column and after its destruction it is written that the French also enacountered some of the detatchments of the Second Column which forced them to withdraw to the slopes. How is that possible? I mean those Allied forces that forced the French back before they were counter-attacked by Saint-Hilaire's division must be logically detatchments of the THIRD column or I have misunderstood something with their deployment. Can somone give me a specific explanation about this?

Odd sentence

What does "This battle is one of four that Napoleon never awarded a victory title, the others being Marengo, Jena, and Friedland" mean? Myrvin (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This [1] says that N gave his marshals titles of many of his other battles, but kept Austerlitz for himself. Not that I understand what that means either. I can't see the other battles mentioned. Myrvin (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The article victory title makes some sense of this. The present article seems to be saying that, for each of his victories apart from the four named ones, he gave a title, based on the battle, to one of his marshals. Myrvin (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

From the hundreds of battle Napoleon fought, it's absolutely impossible he just didn't gave titles from these four. And actually the book just said he didn't gave a victory title of Austerlitz, nothing more. Bertdrunk (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

We need to change it then. Do you have access to the cited book? Myrvin (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No, but I assume it's safe to edit it or change the ref for your book. Bertdrunk (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandal in action

The lede has been vandalized. Carlotm (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Why on earth are Davout's men not counted in the overall number of Frenchmen?

It is quite bizarre to not include Davout's III corps in the table especially as they contributed significantly to the battle. The actual number should be 75,000 men as accurately estimated by Robert Goetz in his dedicated military history of the battle of Austerlitz. So why on earth are Davout's men not included in the count?Parsa1993 (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Dead and wounded

Why does it list the Coalition dead and wounded as one big number, "16,000", but then gives the French dead and wounded separately, "1,305 dead, 6,940 wounded". I gives the impression of smaller numbers then simply writing "8,245 dead and wounded", which the reader can instantly see is roughly half the number, without having to do mental arithmetic. Giving two numbers, one in the "1,000" range and one in the "6,000" range seems to have a similar effect as writing "$9.99" instead of "$10.00" (a tactic which is proven to work). The only time the total numbers are given is when the captured are included into the count as well, which gives an even greater impression of disparity. Which, undoubtedly there was, I just think it should be as transparent as possible.AnnaGoFast (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)