Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Third Silesian War

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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Third Silesian War

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Bryanrutherford0 (talk)

Third Silesian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the third in a series of four articles I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century. The "Silesian Wars" are mainly a feature of German military historiography, since from other perspectives they seem to generally be thought of as theatres of wider wars (the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years' War), but they mark a watershed in German history, signalling the rise of Prussia to parity with Austria in German affairs. This article, along with the others in the series, was recently promoted to GA (after a helpful review by Peacemaker67), and I'd like to take it further up the quality ladder with help from this project! Thanks for your help! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up all of the maps using |upright=
As at the review of Second Silesian War, I feel that this change would be counterproductive; it would be visually strange for the maps to jut out into the text more than the other images, and the details of the maps are still not going to be legible without opening them at fullscreen. If there is a consensus to do this, then I'll go along with it, but I disagree. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Battle_of_Leuthen_2.jpg: in what country was this published? Any further details on provenance?
It's a crop of a painting by Carl Röchling, so it was almost certainly first made public in Germany; I don't know where the Commons uploader got this particular scan/photograph, but the WMF's position on art like this is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain", so by that standard the image is certainly PD. I can try to pick a different version of the same painting with a known online source, if you think it's necessary, but the license is certainly good, regardless of who digitized it. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how do you feel about File:Prussian infantry advance at Leuthen.jpg? It has information about original publication on its Commons page. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Erstes_pr._Bataillon_Leibgarde_in_Schlacht_bei_Kollin.jpg: source link is dead; any more information on provenance?
I've updated the Commons page with an archived copy of the source page.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the image with File:Johann Christoph Frisch - Death of Field Marshal Schwerin.jpg, as in the review of Silesian Wars.  Done -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Seydlitz_Prussian_Cuirassiers_Seven_Years_War.jpg: is the engraver known?
I don't know anything more than is in the Commons page (which duplicates the information on the stock image site). The painter is well documented, but if this is an engraving after the painting, then I don't know anything about that. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, when you contributed an image review to the A-class review of Battle of Rossbach, you didn't have a problem with the use of File:Schlacht bei Roßbach.jpg, so I've replaced this image with that one.  Done -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Röchling_-_Regiment_Bernburg_bei_Liegnitz.jpeg: where was this published?
Again, almost certainly in Germany, but I can find very little documentation of Röchling's work online aside from the images themselves. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what if we replaced this with File:Kotzebue - Einnahme von Berlin (1760).jpg? How do you feel about the license and provenance of that image? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I've updated the license on Commons.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria can you please indicate if anything above is a war-stopper for you? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Points 2 through 5 above, particularly point 4 - without more information we can't verify pre-1924 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know what you think about the above proposals. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of the proposed replacements look fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

I reviewed at GAN, and tend towards a detailed look there, so I haven't much substantive to add, mostly prose tweaks:

  • suggest dropping the citation in the lead, Frederick's reputation is well covered in the body
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "through two previous" as the third war hasn't been introduced as yet
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Austria refused finally to" or "Austria ultimately refused finally to"
Replaced with "ultimately".  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Maria Theresa's husband, Emperor Francis I,..."
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first two"→"the previous" on the same basis as the above
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Kingdom of France to Early modern France
Hmm, okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which he believed (correctly)"→"which he correctly believed"
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "of Saxony prisoner, although he was allowed to withdraw to his other realms on 18 October."
I struggled with how to make that idea flow smoothly, thanks!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "In return, Austria promised (after the victory was won) to grant France control"→"In return, Austria promised that after the victory was won she would grant France control"
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "pursued by Daun's army (enlarged by the Prague garrison)"→"pursued by Daun's army, which was enlarged by the Prague garrison."
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest ", killing Winterfeldt"→"during which Winterfeldt was killed"
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Neisse link Nysa, Poland
Oops, good catch.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest dropping the parens around "(which had been largely emptied of defenders in preparation for Kunersdorf)" and just put a comma after Saxony
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liegnitz]] and [[Parchwitz
Ach, how did that get there? Weird, thanks for catching!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk)
  • suggest "He agreed to a ceasefire with Frederick (since France had never formally declared war on Prussia)"→"Since France had never formally declared war on Prussia, he agreed to a ceasefire with Frederick and..."
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • use a comma instead of parens for "(who would receive no other reparations from Prussia)"
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are of high quality and reliable. The issue of the age of Carlyle has been gone over with the other Silesian Wars articles when they went through ACR, and isn't a problem. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Constantine

[edit]

It so happens that just yesterday I finished reading a German book on the Seven Years' War (Klaus-Jürgen Bremm, Preußen bewegt die Welt) which has a refreshingly critical view of all people involved. So my review will be somewhat influenced by that. I will add my comments here as I go through the article. Constantine ✍ 15:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Looking forward to it! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Context and Causes

Overall this section reads *very* well, clear and comprehensive. Well done at representing such a complex chain of events clearly. My comments:

  • and Emperor Francis I, perhaps "and 'Holy Roman Emperor' Francis I" for clarity (optional)
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • alliance among Austria..., "alliance between Austria..." Also, perhaps it should be mentioned at this point that while France and Austria were allies, they wanted to exploit one another for completely different objectives: France did not so much care about Prussia but wanted to be able to march through the Austrian Netherlands and occupy Hanover so as to counterbalance the expected losses of its overseas colonies, whereas Austria needed to keep France away from its former ally Prussia and hoped—after Rossbach largely in vain, as it turned out—for a French expeditionary corps against Frederick. The French may have been enraged at Frederick's volte-face with Britain, but were never ready to actually realize Kaunitz's suggestions to break up the Prussian kingdom (too valuable as a counterbalance to the Habsburgs from the French POV).
I believe the standard preposition usage is "between" for two objects and "among" for three or more? I've tried to reword and supplement that section a bit to include some of this insight; I think France's plans with regard to Hanover are maybe more of a "Seven Years' War" matter than a "Third Silesian War" matter, but I've tried to emphasize the role of Britain's concern for Hanover, as well as Austria's interest in ensuring that France would not be a Prussian ally in the forthcoming Silesian War.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frederick's broad strategy had three parts this, I assume, is based on his political testament of 1752. However, as Bremm points out (pp. 112-113) this was under the assumption of a continued Franco-Prussian alliance, which was no longer the case. He suggests that Frederick rather aimed at a deterrent effect, by seizing Saxony and thus creating a political block that could only be defeated after a long war. If this had not its desired effect, it would still provide him a basis from which to withstand a long war of great powers (as indeed happened, even if barely so). Frederick correctly saw Vienna as the heart of the coalition against him and intended to attack into Bohemia as he had done previously in order to force the Austrians to the peace table, but the 'Blitzkrieg' project envisaged in 1752 was no longer feasible.
Indeed, I think that's pretty much what I said: seizing Saxony would "provide him a basis from which to withstand a long war", or as I put it, give him "strategic depth and the use of the Saxon army and treasury to bolster the Prussian war effort"; he "intended to attack into Bohemia as he had done previously", or as I put it, "advance from Saxony into Bohemia, where he might set up winter quarters at Austria's expense"; finally, he hoped his army in Bohemia would "force the Austrians to the peace table" by threatening "Vienna, the heart of the coalition against him", or as I put it, his army might thence "advance on Vienna to force an end to the war". Is the difference you note that I suggest he still hoped to attack Vienna itself, whereas you're saying he only hoped to deter the Austrians into making a white peace? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • which he believed (correctly) was a secret party to the coalition against him interesting, Bremm (p. 111) is quite explicit about the opposite: although in possession of the Saxon archives in Dresden, Frederick never published a credible 'smoking gun' for this, other than the fact that the Saxons were aware of the secret negotiations between Vienna and the Russians, which he then published. Bremm assesses its propaganda impact as almost zero, apart from Britain. Bremm emphasizes the diplomatic isolation Frederick brought himself into in this way, with even the Protestant princes of the Reich joining the Habsburgs against him.
The sources I've seen certainly agree that publishing the Saxon papers does not appear to have helped Frederick's cause in the French or other foreign courts; however, Fraser (p.319) specifically says that the Dresden papers provided "direct evidence ... of hostile Saxon intentions", and Fraser's citation is to Politische Correspondenz Friedrich des Grossen, a collection of letters to and from Frederick published by Alexander Duncker. All sources seem to agree that the appearance of an aggressive attack on (publicly) neutral Saxony badly hurt Prussia's diplomatic position among the actual neutrals. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Course
  • Saxony's treasury was emptied... I have some interesting figures here (p. 113): from a total Prussian war expenditure of 139 million thalers, Saxony ended up furnishing a whopping 48 million (by comparison, the sum of the British subsidies were 27 million, and the gains from currency debasement 17 million).
  • recurring difficulties with logistics limited the offensive capabilities of the large Russian army... Bremm (p. 159) also highlights the fact that Tsarina Elisabeth was ill at the time, and rumours circulated about her imminent death, so that Apraxin was also motivated by the possibility that the Prussophile Peter would soon become Tsar.
If you can give me a full citation for your source, I'd be happy to incorporate some of these insights! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 7 September Austrians under Daun and Prince Charles advancing the Austrians, and comma after Charles.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • briefly occupy Berlin, ransoming the city for 200,000 thalers and then retreating. perhaps mention that the Austrians lost a golden opportunity to destroy the Prussian armament factories in the city.
As above, if that's in your source, I'd love to add it with an appropriate citation. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm Constantine could you please confirm whether you support or not? It's almost three weeks ago when you dropped your comments just wondering when you'd support? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry CPA-5 , been a bit out of circulation lately due to RL events. Generally the article is fine as it is, so I have no problem with supporting. My comments above were mostly supplementary either way, rather than indicating any severe deficiency in the article content. Regarding these additional references/content, if you don't mind, I will return in September and then we can go this over together. Up to you whether you want to do this as part of this FAC or after it. Constantine ✍ 13:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh understandable, my apology to disturb your real-life events. I was gone for almost three weeks too during the summer months. But indeed we'll see each other back in September. Hopefully, they're not bad real-life events if so good luck and I'll pray for you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • The Third Silesian War (German: Dritter Schlesischer Krieg) Unlink German here.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • would be attacked in the spring of 1757 Try to avoid to use seasons here.
I've removed the "spring"s and an "autumn", but winter had strategic significance for military campaigns in this era, and I don't think it's helpful to try to avoid mentioning it.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over the winter of 1756–7 the belligerents By MOS:DOB the years should be four-digit or two-digit style and not one-digit.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sweden also agreed to invade Prussian Pomerania Current counties shouldn't be linked.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After wintering in Saxony King Frederick decided I think we need a comma between Saxony and King.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ransoming the city for 200,000 thalers The raid in Berlin's article says it was 250,000 not 200,000. Which one is correct?
Actually, the text of that article currently says 225,000, but the source cited there (this source) agrees with Asprey that the figure was 200,000. I've updated the other article. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • his 22,000 men marched 274 kilometres (170 mi) in twelve days At the time they usedn't metric units. I reckon we should flip the units here. Same with the other sentences where metric units are the primary unit.
Er, I don't follow your thinking here. This article isn't written to be read by Germans in the 1760s but by English-speakers in the 21st century. WP:UNIT says that the standard in non-USA topics is the use of SI units, which means kilometers. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • hoped to provoke an Austrian counterattack American counterattack.
I'm guessing you mean that you want it changed to counter-attack? Being an American, I don't know what the standard is elsewhere, so it would be more helpful if you could tell me what you want it to say rather than what you don't want it to say.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe standardise the usage of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.
I'm not sure what you mean. What usage do you feel is not currently standardized, and how do you recommend improving it? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Bryanrutherford0, about that, we've Poland itself in the sentence "and then exchange that territory with Poland for control". it is linked to the Commonwealth's article and vs Poland–Lithuania which is also in the article. I reckon we've to standardise the usage of the Commonwealth in the article. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only "Poland" that existed in the 1760s is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Poland had long been the dominant partner in the joint state, and it was common then and is common in modern historiography to refer to the Commonwealth as "Poland" (e.g. the Partitions of Poland, not the "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth"). For simplicity, I've cut all references to Lithuania, since it is indeed Poland of which Augustus was king, etc.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Memel is overlinked.
Good catch, fixed.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a war of partition.[103][25][97] Reckon to reorder the refs here.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maria Theresa's Austria in the mid 1700s You mean "mid-1700s"?
  • in mid 1756, and it ended Same as above.
If you prefer.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and retreated soon afterward You mean afterwards?
Apparently this is another American English issue. It seems that "afterwards" is more common outside North America, so we'll switch to that here.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • to find 66,000 Austrians in formation around the village You mean information?
I do not. The Austrians had put themselves into a military formation, in preparation for an engagement. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Russo-Austrian victory, totally scattering the Prussian You mean shattering?
I do not. The Prussians were scattered—sent in all directions without order. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the belligerents agreed an end to the Third Silesian War --> "the belligerents agreed to end to the Third Silesian War".
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • army to defend his northeastern flank American northeastern.
  • near Burkersdorf, northeast of Schweidnitz Same as above.
Again, I'm guessing that you mean you want a hyphen added.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention and input! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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/Third_Silesian_War&oldid=913114980"