Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Kehl (1796)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kehl (1796)

[edit]
Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

Battle of Kehl (1796) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think (I hope!) it meets the requirements. It's had several thorough goings-over, and the only glitch that arose during the GA process was in the image review--I swapped out the controversial image with one whose authenticity I can verify. This is one of several that have been through A-class review (or are in review) related to the Rhine Campaign of 1796. This battle is actually the one that marked the start of the campaign in the Rhineland. auntieruth (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this for GA and I think it has the legs for A-class. I have a couple of nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "between the French king and his subjects" --> I think this would be clearer as "between the French king, Loius XVI, and his subjects..."
  • "24–year–old General Abbatucci" - minor nitpick, but the dashes here should probably be hyphens
  • same as above for "dual–pronged"
  • same as above for " 7,000–man militia"
  • Renchen appears to be overlinked
  • the Sources section appears to be slightly inconsistent in its presentation. For instance consider how Bertaud has the year near the ISBN, but the Dodge, Phipps, and Smith entries have it in brackets near the name
  • I wonder if the subsequent siege of Kehl shouldn't briefly be mentioned in the Aftermath. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rupert. I think I've fixed all your comments above. Added something into the aftermath as well. auntieruth (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, very close to a support:

  • "Initially, the rulers of Europe viewed the revolution in France..." - as the first sentence of the first section, this hasn't established which revolution you're referring to (there are quite a few revolutions in France!). I'd advise "Initially in 17xx, the rulers of Europe..." to contextualise the material that follows.
  • done
  • "They threatened ambiguous, but quite serious, consequences " - you could lose "quite" here without losing the meaning
  • done
  • "The French émigrés continued to agitate for support of a counter-revolution abroad." - unclear what "a counter-revolution abroad" means in this context; is it that the emigres, who were abroad, were agitating for support, or that the emigres wanted action to take place outside place? Or both...?
  • fixed
  • Is the Rhine linked?
    • In lead
  • Consistency of 21st century / twenty-first century / eighteenth century
  • fixed
  • Worth linking Trier and similar German states/places
  • done (in caption and in text)
  • "(including the three autonomous corps)" - I'm not sure you've explained what these are yet, so it shouldn't have the definite article (indeed, does the article ever explain what they are?)
  • clarified. Also added a note.
  • "and had already made itself onerous, by reputation and rumor at least, throughout France. " I'd advise "and already had a poor reputation throughout France" - at the moment it is hard to see if the article is saying it really was onerous or not.
  • clarified
  • "After April 1796, pay was made in metallic value, " - does this mean "pay was issued in coins rather than in paper money"? If so, worth being clear here.
  • done
  • "from the free imperial cities, and other imperial estates, " - worth checking capitalisation of "imperial" here, I'm not sure its right/consistent
  • Imperial City of Rottweil. imperial cities (generally). Imperial Cities of the HRE.
  • " Army of Sambre-et-Meuse" - consistency of how you're italicising these
  • done. Dj and I have a long-standing disagreement about this.
  • "the Swabian circle polities" - do you explain/link what these are anywhere?
  • Yes in the Geography and political complications section
  • "his troops assaulted the advanced posts in Strasbourg, " - I'm not sure what "advanced posts" means in this context; is it that they were "advanced"/sophisticated, or that they were "forward posts"?
  • forward.

Comments. I don't know what "The fortunes" means in the first paragraph; does it refer to something connected to that paragraph? Also, "Kehl, part of Baden-Durlach" suggests that Kehl wasn't just a city in Baden-Durlach (since the usual way to say that is "in") ... what was the relationship of Kehl to Baden-Durlach? Otherwise, the lead is fine. That's all I've got. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - not much to nitpick here, great work.

  • In the lead: "...and earlier in 1796, when the French crossed into the German states on 23–24 June" - this appears to reference the topic of the article. I'm not sure what should be here instead. It seems to be a copy-paste mistake from Second Battle of Kehl (1796)
  • Sometimes, the German term is given first, followed by the translation, and other times the reverse. It should be standardized one way or the other.
  • Might be worthwhile to explain why Fröhlich attacked the Swabian camp in the Aftermath section. Parsecboy (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "the French drove the Swabians from their positions and controlled the bridgehead on both sides of the Rhine." It might be clearer to say the French already controlled the bridgehead on the western(?) side and now gained the eastern one.
  • "the fates of Kehl, a village in Baden-Durlach, and those of the Alsatian city of Strasbourg". Similarly, I would add for clarity Kehl on the east side of the Rhine and Strasbourg on the west.
  • "A key to the French success was the army's ability to cross the Rhine at will." This assumes that you have already said the French won. Maybe "The French were victorious in the war, and a key to their success..."
  • "in such paces as the former rapids at Laufenburg, it moves in torrents." moved in torrents?
  • "When viewed on a map, the Empire resembled a "patchwork carpet")" Stray bracket.
  • "Both the Habsburg domains and Hohenzollern Prussia also included territories outside the Empire. There were also territories completely surrounded" Repetition of "also". I do not think the first one is needed.
  • "amounted to about 125,000" - presumably 125,000 troops.
  • There seems a contradiction saying the Directory did not budget for pay and that pay was in metallic value but in arrears. The first statement implies no provision and the second inadequate provision.
  • "In spring 1796..." I am not sure I follow this paragraph. You say it was largely guesswork where troops were placed then apparently contradict this by explaining Charles's reasoning. He expected an attack at Mainz so he put militia at Kehl. He put his weaker forces at Kehl because he did not expect an attack there? If so I think you should spell it out (which you do later).
  • "before Charles realized Moreau had left Spire." You have not said Moreau was in Spire in the first place and it is not linked.
  • "to align his northern flank in a perpendicular line" What does perpendicular mean in this context?
  • "but it was a moot point" - surely moot is understating it as they did not have the weapons - it was pointless.
  • "Even though the French still held the crossing at Kehl and Strasbourg, Petrasch's Austrians prevented French access." I do not understand this. Presumably the French still had access to Strasbourg?
  • "War of Independence in the British Colonies" Which war? If it is the American war of independence it is an unusual way of describing it.
  • Note 9. Why is Military Affairs underlined. There is an error message on n. 17. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support and a couple of niggles. I still think there is a contradiction in saying it was guesswork where Charles place his troops and then explaining his reasoning. Also there is still an error message on n 17 missing url. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've run the citation thingie and the error message doesn't come up for me. I've checked the citation (clicked it from different computers) and no problems. I just went into the text, though, and it had a cite web template, so I took that out and did it by hand.
Early in the campaign it was largely guess work where he should place the militiamen. He didn't want to use them in any important point, because of their lack of training. Once the French committed to crossing by Mainz (or appeared to do so), he had no qualms about putting the militia at Kehl, because they would be out of the way. I don't understand why you have trouble with this. It was guesswork to start with; he made an educated guess, and stuck them in one position. When the French massed further north, he left the militia there (at Kehl) because they would be out of the way. auntieruth (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So in the spring it was guesswork but by June he thought he knew where to put his troops. I did not realise you were talking about different phases. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • One DAB that needs to be fixed. External links OK.
  • the only dab is the one in the header that links to the other dabs. It belongs there.

Comments

  • Some of my comments about "which paragraphs should go where" are suggestions only. Djmaschek (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 3rd introduction paragraph the subsequent French victory at Renchen is noted. But in the "Feint and dual-pronged attack" section there is no battle mentioned, only a rendezvous with Sztáray on the 28th. The casualties for Renchen are mentioned in "Aftermath" but since no battle is mentioned, it's a bit confusing.
  • yes. took it out.
  • "Background": This section mostly discusses events in 1792, while this article is about 1796. The mention of the 1795 campaign is of course appropriate.
  • okay, consolidated some of this.
  • "Terrain" and "Political complications": These sections are very helpful but they are also included word-for-word in the Rhine Campaign of 1796. They should be full-length in one article and paraphrased and linked in the other article. (Yes, I repeat stuff in my articles too.)
  • other commentators have asked for the explanations that are answered in this section. I will eventually expand the section in the Rhine campaign article so that they are not the same.
  • "Disposition": This section is excellent and might be used as the background.
  • twiddled a bit, and it may work better
  • "Disposition": Mainz is linked the second time, not the first.
  • "French plans": This section gives the original Austrian deployment Archduke Charles/Wurmser and the switch to Charles being army group commander. The previous section gives the later subordinate army commanders, Latour (Army of Upper Rhine) and Wartensleben (Army of Lower Rhine). The order should be chronological, or explained somehow so the reader does not get crossed up. I know this is tricky with Wurmser suddenly leaving the theater after operations got underway!
  • well, yes, I've twiddled it a bit, see if this works better.
  • Need links: Lake Constance, Stuttgart ("Aftermath").
  • done
  • "Feint and dual-pronged attack" (2nd paragraph): The statement, "assaulted the forward posts in Strasbourg", sounds as if the Swabian militia were occupying Strasbourg when in fact the city was securely in French hands.
  • the city was, but the Swabians had pickets all along the river on both sides.
  • "Feint and dual-pronged attack" (3rd): It should be émigré not è.
  • done
  • Need links for Charles Mathieu Isidore Decaen and Joseph Montrichard.
  • 10,000 skirmishers seems too many for 2 regiments, each of which had a top strength of around 3,000 men.
  • see Smith, though. And there were already troops there. And I've fiddled with the grammar a bit, see if that works...
  • "Feint and dual-pronged attack" (5th): Sztaray needs his á.
  • done
  • "Aftermath" (1st paragraph): Typo: position has ss.
  • done
  • "Aftermath" (3rd): Wolff needs a link to your Wolff de la Marselle article.
  • done
  • "Aftermath" (4th): It should be Fröhlich, not Michael Fröhlich, since he was already mentioned once.
  • done
  • "Aftermath" (5th): Battle of Altenkirchen (June) should be Battle of Limburg (September). Limburg is sometimes called 2nd Altenkirchen.
  • done
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Kehl_(1796)&oldid=651160186"