Talk:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition

Fall of Dutch Republic section

I edited the Fall of the Dutch Republic section to make it more consistent with the facts as given by Schama. I think the link to William V's page is better than that to "Prince of Orange". Also the Fall of Amsterdam page is full of nonsense. The Patriots had already taken over power in the city before the French arrived. The point is important, because the revolutionary committee in Amsterdam was the first to make a capitulation agreement with the French as the new authorities in charge. Admittedly, the French had held up their advance from Utrecht (which indeed "fell" on Jan. 17) so as to let their Dutch comrades have this face-saving sop. But there was therefore never a "Fall of Amsterdam". See Schama, pp. 190-193. I therefore eliminated the link and rewrote the paragraph. I think there could be more material on the Dutch side of the campaign in the article and will supply it, when I have more time. There is no need for POV-language like "puppet state" etc. The article on the Batavian Republic gives a balanced view on the matter and there is a link to that article included.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of features on the 1793/94 Flanders Campaign

I'm working on this Campaign and it's associated battles, sieges and characters to give it a more in-depth and accurate coverage, expanding this page to hinge other articles to. I'm fairly new to Wiki editing, so it's a slow learning curve, however the French Revolutionary Wars are a specialist subject for me and I've a range of sources, including some original 1790's sources, which I'll be gradually adding to features when time allows.

I found a lot of inaccurate generalizations in the existing text that needed expansion and revision, in some cases replacing misleading facts. If anyone would like to comment, please do get in touch. I'm a Wiki beginner but Campaign old-hand!

At the time of writing I've expanded coverage of the 1794 campaign, which was almost wholly from a British angle and used sweeping assessments of complicated issues. Also expanded features on battles of Mouscron and Beaumont 1794. Working on Hondschoote and Dunkirk at the moment. (Bwcajp (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC))

Naming conventions

The use of the gallicized version of the names of various geographical locations in Flanders is maybe to be commended for its compatibility with the various accounts of the campaign, but does make it difficult to locate these places on modern maps, where most of the places are now referred to by their Flemish names. May I therefore suggest adding the modern Flemish name in brackets after the gallicized version? Examples include Furnes (Veurne) and Courtrai (Kortijk). Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. I have made a start today to implement it.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Name of Dutch commander

I was surprised to see "Prince Friedrich of Orange" (Prince Frederick of Orange-Nassau) listed as Dutch commander in the campaign box, but find a link to his brother Willem Frederick (William I of the Netherlands). Both were commanders in the Dutch States Army in this campaign, but are apparently conflated. If one thinks mentioning both in the campaign box is too much honor, I think mentioning the elder brother William (in English) would be indicated. This would be in line with the wikilink already in place. I have therefore edited the entry accordingly. If Frederick was intended, he should be called "Frederick", "Frederik" (Dutch spelling) or "Fritz" (his nickname), and not "Friedrich" (which probably comes from a German source, though there is no citation), as this is not the German wikipedia. And the link should go to the proper page. Come to think of it, "William Prince of Orange" might cause another misunderstanding, as in the article there are only references to William V, Prince of Orange, their father. Putting William V in the campaign box would not be completely idiotic, as he was the nominal Captain-General (Commander-in-Chief) of the States Army at the time, but he did not actively command troops. His son Willem Frederick had the courtesy title of Erfprins (hereditary prince) at the time, as he is known in the historiography before he became Prince of Orange in his own right after his father's death in 1806. So maybe I'd better add the courtesy title to the campaign box to nip any misunderstanding in the bud.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I just looked closer at the Prince Frederick of Orange-Nassau article and found there that allegedly Fredrick was in command at the battles of Menin/Menen and "Furnes" (this should be "Veurne" I think, or however that is called in the English wikipedia. The wikilink to Furnes given is to the Norwegian place). However the confusion over the place names may be, this may very well be the case; I'd have to check. Unfortunately, no citations are given, as per usual :-) So I think maybe the "honor" in the campaign box should go to Frederick, after all, but then his name should be spelled correctly and the wikilink should be the proper one. I'll leave it to the person in charge of the campaign box.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Latest news: the Dutch equivalent of the article on the younger brother (which gives his proper Christian names in its title: Willem George Frederik) states that Frederick was a onderbevelhebber (sub-commander) under his elder brother (so he did not "command" his elder brother as the English version states), indeed by Menen and Veurne (with has its own article with the Dutch version of the name in the English wikipedia). In other words, some wikipedia editor was seriously confused here. I think the current version of the campaign box is the correct one (even though I now think young Frederick would be more deserving of the "honor" as the (relatively) less worse commander of the two). I hope I don't have to make further amendments :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

After having read up on the matter I decided that it would be best to edit the article text to replace a number of references to "Prince of Orange" (that was William V at the time) with "Hereditary Prince" ("of Orange" the first time, where the wikilink to William I of the Netherlands is placed). In Dutch historiography the son is always called Erfprins and in Anglophone historiography (at least the books that bother to be aware of the distinction) this is usually translated as "Hereditary Prince". Referring to the "Prince of Orange" in the article, where clearly his son is intended, would give the impression that the old man personally had taken command of the Dutch-States-Army troops, while in reality his son had been bombarded to "lieutenant-Captain-General" (the old man remained Captain-General).--Ereunetes (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Diction

May I suggest that this article, at least in the "1793 Campaign" section, heavily overuses the word "investment?" Sol Pacificus (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Some comments on the section dealing with the resumption of the French advance, December 1794

The description of the attacks on the Bommelwaard would benefit from some clarification.

"On 10 December, Antoine Guillaume Delmas attacked the Dutch defences in the Bommelerwaard in vain"-

It should be made clear that this probing attack was made before the heavy frost closed the rivers and consisted of a series of waterborne attacks across both the Maas opposite the Bommelwaard and across the Waal further upstream. The simple insertion of the word 'had' before 'attacked' will at least make the time-frame clearer, hopefully with the implication that it was the ice in the Maas that made the successful attack of 27th-28th possible.

It might be more accurate to say that Herman Daendels, the Dutch Patriot general fighting with the French, attacked the Bommelwaard rather than Dlemas, since he planned the operation and lead the main attack. The temporary commander of Armee du Nord, Moreau, was sceptical of the plan's viability and undertook it only because he was ordered by the government in Paris, who had the firebrand Daendel's ear.

"Delmas, Herman Willem Daendels and Pierre-Jacques Osten succeeded in avoiding the Dutch Water Line, attacking fortifications and cities to the east and the west."

This generalisation is both vague and misleading. For a start, it is not clear that Daendels and Osten were brigade commanders subordinate to Delmas, commander of 6me Division, although the politically suspect Delmas does seem to have been sidelined by Pichegru after his successful management of the sieges of S'Hertogenbosch and Nijmegen (Daendels, too, was removed from the 'point' position immediately after his capture of Bommel, because Pichegru believed that Daendel's Patriot agenda was making him insubordinate and reckless).

Secondly, the French were not avoiding the Water Line in December 1794. s'Hertogenbosch and the Bommelwaard were key to the eastern stretch of the Southern Water Line. Moreover, Daendels and Osten were not impeded by the Water Line, because both the waterways and inundations on which it depended had been neutralised by the ice. That fact is key to the success of the French winter offensive. The reference to "attacking fortifications and cities to the east and west" seems to me to make no sense. Until he was replaced, Daendel's attack from S'Hertogenbosch threatened to open up the direct route due north into Holland via Utrecht, while Osten, hooking west, mopped up Dutch positions between the Bommelwaard and Breda, bringing him up against the remaining Dutch stronghold on the line of the Waal/Merwede at Gorinchem.

For clarity and accuracy, I think it would be worth amending these passages.

JF42 (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments- British Evacuation

"The British continued their retreat northwards, by now ill-equipped and poorly clothed." This comment, citing Richard Holmes, seems misplaced. The British had been suffering from lack of shelter, inadequate clothing and short supplies since the previous autumn.

It might be sufficient to amend the sentence to:

"The British continued their retreat northwards. Marching in the face of a severe blizzard, inadequately clothed and half-starved, hundreds died of exposure." JF42 (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

The article currently states:

In the British popular imagination York was widely (and inaccurately) portrayed as an incompetent dilettante, whose lack of military knowledge had led to disaster,[32] although historians such as Alfred Burne[33] and Richard Glover[34] strongly challenge this characterisation.

This is confusing because it does not make clear if Burne and Glover, are disputing the fact that "In the British popular imagination York" was incompetent, or that despite British popular opinion (at that time and subsequently) he was not incompetent. I suspect the sentence is meant to mean the latter, but it needs to be clarified, because they may be social historians debunking a long held belief about how he was seen at that time, and not military historians discussing his merits as a commander. -- PBS (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Richard Sharpe

I have amended the comment relating to Richard Sharpe to clarify that this is a fictitious character. Whether it belongs in the article as such I'll leave others to judge. A reference might be appropriate. JF42 (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

conditions

The very poor conditions for the fighting men are mentioned, but it would be good to have a proper treatment. It was the experience of this that led York to initiate his important military reforms. Spicemix (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Name and periodisation

It is not evident to me that 'Flanders campaign' (or 'Campaign in the Low Countries') is a commonly used term for this set of battles outside of British historiography, nor what the periodisation should be. I realise that I may in part be responsible for the continuing confusion that I tried to resolve when I started editing this article in in 2016. At the time, the periodisation was '1793–1795', with no clear beginning nor end, but with a clear focus on the British entry (February 1793) and exit (April 1795) from combat operations, a central role for the Duke of York and how well or poorly he performed. The sources used up until that point also reveal a heavy reliance on the British perspective of history, somewhat disregarding the fact that the war had started several months earlier, and not really paying much attention to what happened on the continent once the British evacuation was complete. Now, I may be incorrect in having assumed that the Siege of Luxembourg (1794–1795) (concluded 7 June 1795) should be considered the final act in the Flanders campaign, mostly due to the fact that the city of Luxembourg belongs in the 'Low Countries' region. There are good counter-arguments to be made that it actually belongs to the Template:Campaignbox Rhine Campaign of 1793–94 / Rhine campaign of 1795 instead due to the strategic situations and troop movements at the time. That would mean the Capture of the Dutch fleet at Den Helder on the night of 23 January 1795 was the campaign's final act. Similarly, I may have been incorrect to first frame the Battle of Jemappes (6 November 1792) as the start of the campaign, and later just the 20 April 1792 declaration of war, followed by the battles of Battle of Quiévrain (1792) and Battle of Marquain (28 to 30 April 1792) as the campaign's start (nor the June 1795 capture of Menen and Kortrijk, and the Battle of Harelbeke), because the literature does not seem to regard especially the latter battles was part of the 'Flanders campaign', and these took place in the County of Hainaut, not Flanders 'proper'. The April 1792 incursions into the Austrian Netherlands ("Belgium") also involved a cancelled attack on Namur and Liège by Lafayette, even further away from 'Flanders'. Although Jemappes could still be argued to be the start, I think it's time we looked for literature framing it as such, especially (English-language or other-language) literature without a British perspective (bias?) on the matter. Combat actions didn't start or end with British participation in them, and the series of battles might be known under different names than 'Flanders campaign' elsewhere in the literature, but the stretches in interpretations that I have made may well be untenable either. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking about calling the April-June 1792 actions into the Austrian Netherlands the 'early 1792 invasions of Belgium'. https://books.google.com/books?id=jxqdnKQrAmEC&pg=PA33 Rothenberg 1980 calls the whole period from 20 April to 20 September 'the first campaign', and the Austrian Netherlands parts '...the immediate invasion of Belgium.' and '...by the end of June the invasion of Belgium had collapsed.' Similarly, https://books.google.com/books?id=oOzcrC5e-LIC&pg=PA22 Connelly 2012 p. 22-24 speaks of two invasions of Belgium: '...to invade Belgium.', 'Second invasion of Belgium' and '...planned a second invasion of Belgium.' Although Connelly notes that some historians do not considered Valmy to be a 'turning point', he does. The next section is titled 'Dumouriez invades Belgium', and this time it is frame as 'the conquest of Belgium', no references are made to the two previous invasions, let alone that this one is framed as 'the third invasion of Belgium'; it is regarded as a new chapter of the war.

So, my reasoning for a separate article titled 'early 1792 invasions of Belgium' is as follows:

• 'Early 1792' because Jemappes happened late 1792 and is considered a new episode.
• 'invasions' plural (per Connelly) rather than 'invasion' singular (per Rothenberg), because the French revolutionary troops had essentially retreated back into France after the late April incursions resulted in utter defeats and caused the Lafayette attack on Namur and Liège to be abandoned. Connelly has good reasons for considering the June incursions a 'second invasion', because apparently there were no French troops (let alone movements) in the Austrian Netherlands in May 1792.
• The words 'campaign' and 'invasion' are used interchangeably by Rothenberg, but 'campaign' is also used to encompass the Valmy campaign, which represented an Austro-Prussian-Émigré invasion of France.
• 'Belgium' may be somewhat misleading here, because België was not yet widely used in the Dutch sources of the time (who still called the Austrian Netherlands 'Nederland(en)', and the United Belgian States the Verenigde Nederlandse Staten, and the Committee of United Belgians and Liégeois the Comité der Vereenigde Nederlanders en Luykenaers), but French sources already called it Belgique and used belge and Belgique as adjectives (e.g. in États-Belgiques-Unis as the French name of the United Belgian States, in Comité général des Belges et Liégeois Unis as the French name of the Committee of United Belgians and Liégeois, in Légion belge or Légion belgique as the French name of the Belgian Legion (1792), and in Légion des Belges et Liégeois as the French name of the Legion of Belgians and Liégeois). Notably, there seems to be no Dutch-language equivalent of these post-Brabantian Revolution patriot legions; all Google results I'm getting for 'Nederlandsch Legioen' refer to a World War II SS formation of Dutch soldiers collaborating with Nazi Germany. Also, the Dutch version of the Committee's Manifesto uses the adjective Belgische at least three times; twice as 'Belgische Provincien' ("Belgian Provinces", one of which is a deliberate replacement of 'Oostenryksche Provincien' "Austrian Provinces"), and once as 'Belgische Republieke' ("Belgian Republic"). Some sources including Connelly p. 32 claim: 'On 20 October 1792, at Valenciennes, he [Dumouriez] took command of the new Armée de la Belgique, comprising 40,000 men from the Valmy campaign, 20,000 from the Nord, and some 10,000 volunteers from Châlons.' Although this 'Armée the la Belgique' is rarely heard from again, it seems to have officially existed, if briefly. Finally, the article title Prussian invasion of Holland takes 'Holland' as pars pro toto for the entire Netherlands cq. the Dutch Republic, but pragmatically speaking it's a handy name, and so we can allow 'Belgium' in 'early 1792 invasion of Belgium' for pragmatic reasons. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: since you just nominated Category:Flanders Campaign 1793–94 for speedy renaming to Category:Flanders campaign (which I do not object to), I wonder if you'd like to share your thoughts on my observations from June 2022 above. I'm really not sure how we should name and periodise this series of battles, because it is heavily based on a British perspective, and the literature is unclear and inconsistent. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw: I was about to create a new category with the descriptive title Category:French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands until I noticed that the abovementioned category already existed so I populated that. Rethinking that, it seems that we are lacking an article French conquest if the Austrian Netherlands of which Flanders campaign could be regarded a spin-off focusing on British POV. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: Thanks for your input. It's a better name, but I see three/four issues with it.

1. The current article also includes the French conquest of the Dutch Republic, the Prince-Bishopric of Liège and all the other smaller semi-independent polities in the south, and I think it's important to discuss them all in the same article, as they were interlinked. The belligerents seemed not to pay too close attention to the state borders within the Low Countries: it was the French Revolutionaries versus the Ancient Régime (trying to coordinate their actions within the First Coalition). So, something with Low Countries in the name?
2. Given that France has invaded and (temporarily/partially) conquered the Low Countries before, I would also think that "French" isn't specific enough. So something like French revolutionary conquest of the Low Countries, perhaps?
3. It may just replace the British POV with a French POV, and might suffer from hindsight bias. This is what the French Revolutionaries ended up accomplishing, but it may not have been their original intention. The French may well have set out to conquer the Austrian Netherlands when they declared war on Habsburg Austria in April 1792, but the Dutch Republic didn't enter the war until later.

• Sidenote: It's unclear when the Dutch Republic entered the war, and why. The text (in an unsourced sentence that I didn't write, but find plausible) states: As the Austrians retreated, Dumouriez saw an opportunity with the Patriot exiles to overthrow the weak Dutch Republic by making a bold move north [on 16 February 1793]. (nl:Beleg van Maastricht (1793) adds that Francisco de Miranda already conquered Roermond in December 1792.) That suggests the Dutch Republic (that is, the Orangist/stadtholderate faction led by William V and William Frederick) wasn't part of the First Coalition until that point, and Dumouriez and Miranda (backed by exiled Dutch Patriots of the "Batavian Legion") launched an unprovoked opportunistic attack. Nevertheless, Encarta (2002) says: Omdat de Republiek zich had aangesloten bij een anti-Franse coalitie vielen de Franse troepen Staats-Brabant binnen. That claims the Republic had joined the Coalition before it was invaded. But we still don't know when exactly. Lacey 2016 p. 285 implies it happened around 16–19 November 1792, just after the Battle of Jemappes on 6 November (because the French declaration assert[ing] the right of the French armies to pursue the Austrians into neutral territory... violated Dutch sovereignty, so the Republic had been "neutral" until at least 16 November), which seems plausible. That is still several months after war broke out in April 1792.

Back on topic: I'm currently thinking more in terms of Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition. This doesn't suffer from a 'national' POV, and better describes what the article is about. I also don't think it will be regarded as WP:OR, because this phrase just describes part of a wider war in which the Low Countries are often (indirectly) described as a "theatre". Some examples:

• Fremont-Barnes 2006 p. 488: The campaigns in Italy between France and members of the First Coalition from 1792 to 1797 were initially regarded as occurring in a secondary theater of operations to the campaigns fought along France's borders with the Low Countries and Germany. This implies that the campaigns fought along France's borders with the Low Countries and Germany initially constituted the "primary theatre" of the war. The Low Countries and Germany are taken together here, but more often I see the battles on the Franco-German border described as "Rhine campaigns".
• Englund 2010 p. 72: By the turn of 1794, with Napoleon coming off his brilliant action at Toulon, the war of the First Coalition had been waged on and off for nearly two years on several fronts in the Low Countries, western Germany, the Pyrenees, and on the Franco-Italian Riviera. This last theater was the least active and, in some senses, the least important. The second sentence makes clear that the four "fronts" mentioned in the previous sentence may alternatively be called "theatres".
• Lacey 2016 p. 285: (describing the British military situation in several areas): For the defense of the Low Countries, the British landed token ground forces to augment the larger Austro-Prussian-Dutch armies. In the Mediterranean theater, London resorted to... This implies the situation in the Low Countries was a "theatre", just like the Mediterranean one.
• The article itself uses the word "threatre" 4 times already.

We don't need to find the exact phrase Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition in literature in order for it to be a legitimate name (compare Asian and Pacific theatre of World War I; I can't find that phrase anywhere in literature online, but that doesn't mean it's OR either). What do you think about it? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• An article with that title would be ok. I still think we need two categories, as part of the tree of Category:Austrian Netherlands and Category:Dutch Republic respectively. The article can be included in both these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Marcocapelle: Thanks, then I'll rename it right now. :) What kind of categories were you thinking about? My current thinking is something like:

  • Rename Category:Flanders Campaign 1793–94 to Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition
    • Re-parent from Category:1793 in the Habsburg monarchy and Category:1794 in the Habsburg monarchy to Category:1790s in the Habsburg monarchy.
    • Add parent Category:1790s in the Southern Netherlands
    • Add parents Category:Wars involving the Dutch Republic and Category:Wars involving the Habsburg monarchy
    • Question: there is no Category:Wars involving the Austrian Netherlands, but there is a Category:Battles involving the Austrian Netherlands, which seems strange. It wasn't a sovereign state actor at the time, so perhaps either category shouldn't exist, because Category:Wars involving the Habsburg monarchy and Category:Battles involving the Habsburg monarchy (should) cover it already? I think Category:Battles involving the Austrian Netherlands should be CfD'd, also because it is in Category:Battles involving Belgium; which includes historical battles in which state of Belgium (1830–present) participated. That eliminates pre-1830 battles.
  • Remove Category:History of Flanders: inadequate for this article; just because British historians have termed it "Flanders campaign" doesn't mean Flanders as a county was particularly relevant here, only as part of the larger Austrian Netherlands.
  • Remove Category:History of the Low Countries: "Low Countries" is probably too broad. We could create a (container)cat in between named Category:Military history of the Low Countries. But that currently seems unnecessary; through Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition, it will already be in Category:Wars involving the Dutch Republic and Category:Wars involving the Habsburg monarchy.
  • Remove Category:1793 in the Habsburg monarchy; through Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition, it will already be in Category:1790s in the Habsburg monarchy.

  Curious what you think. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Nederlandse Leeuw: that is a whole lot of proposals :-) Let me first elaborate on what I was initially saying, the two categories I have in mind are Category:French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands as part of the Austrian Netherlands tree, and Category:French conquest of the Dutch Republic as part of the Dutch Republic tree. The former can be created simply by renaming Category:Flanders Campaign 1793–94 because that category currently only consists of battles in the Southern Netherlands. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Marcocapelle: Haha well, our recent interactions at CfD/R/M have made me quite skilled (if I do say so myself) to think about how to properly organise categories, so thanks for that. ;-) Also, your speedy-renaming nom of the cat has stimulated me to revisit the problem of naming and periodising this article (which I wrote down in June 2022, but nobody responded to). And your suggestion to rename it to French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands eventually led me to reason out loud, and conclude that it should be Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition, which I'm very happy you agreed with. So I renamed the article.

  Given my point #3 that a name like French (revolutionary) conquest of the Austrian Netherlands / Dutch Republic / Low Countries may just replace the British POV with a French POV, and might suffer from hindsight bias was why I advanced the new title that you then accepted, I think those "Category:French conquest of" proposals are now obsolete.

  As your argument for speedy-renaming was WP:C2D, and you agreed with renaming this main article, the result of the speedy-renaming should now be Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition, shouldn't it? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Nederlandse Leeuw: Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition could serve as a parent category of Category:French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands and Category:French conquest of the Dutch Republic but it would be a rather isolated category as there is no Category:Low Countries parent. We can easily go forward without it. Not every article must have an eponymous category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Marcocapelle: it is true there is no Category:Low Countries parent, but there is a Low Countries "ancestor", namely Category:History of the Low Countries > Category:History of the Netherlands > Category:History of the Netherlands by topic > Category:Military history of the Netherlands > Category:Military history of the Dutch Republic > > (proposed) Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition.

  Category:History of the Low Countries is also an ancestor of Category:1790s in the Southern Netherlands and Category:Battles involving the Austrian Netherlands (I won't list all cats in between). So two of the parents I propose ultimately go back to it; it won't be as isolated as you might think. As I wrote, We could create a (container)cat in between named Category:Military history of the Low Countries. But that currently seems unnecessary. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  PS: Come to think of it, Category:Military history of the Low Countries might actually not be a bad idea. I myself wrote List of wars in the Low Countries until 1560 and List of wars in the southern Low Countries (1560–1829) some time ago; both are currently in Category:History of the Low Countries. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Category:Flanders Campaign 1793–94 is currently nominated for speedy renaming, probably to Category:Flanders campaign (1792–1795). That can go ahead regardless of this discussion, I guess. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Dundas

Just noticed that the reference to 'General Dundas,' the officer commanding British troops in Germany 1795-96 after the retreat from the Netherlands, links to the politician Henry Dundas rather than Major General David Dundas. Amended accordingly. JF42 (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)