Talk:War of the Austrian Succession

Merge section from War of Jenkins' Ear

Part of this section duplicates material in the War of the Austrian Succession article, but it does also bring in the impact on the British American colonies.Lisamh 18:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps as it focuses on the King Georges War it should be tranferred there with strong links from both Jenkin's and Austrian War to and from it. Provocateur 07:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The War of Jenkins Ear and the War of Austrian Succession are one and the same. Britain referred to it with the former, Prussia referred to it as the "Three Silesian Wars", the American's referred to it as "King George's War" or "The French and Indian War" and it is historically noted as "The War of Austrian Succession" for ease. Actually, much of the continent called it the "War of the Pragmatic Sanction". That's my contribution, from "A History of the Modern World" (R.R. Palmer, Joel Colton, Lloyd Kramer)Saint_Yondo 1:29 23 October 2006

The War of Jenkins Ear is not one and the same with the War of the Austrian Succession. The War of Jenkins Ear was a war between Britain and Spain that began in 1739, while the War of the Austrian Succession was a broader war that broke out on the death of Emperor Charles VI in 1740. When the British intervened to support Charles's daughter in the larger continental struggle, and the Spanish involved themselves in trying to conquer her Italian lands, the War of Jenkins Ear merged into the larger conflict, and became a part of it, but they were not one and the same war. The relationship is more like that between the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II. It was ongoing before the War of the Austrian Succession began, and took some time after it began before the two became fully entangled. The Third Silesian War, by the way, was the Seven Years War, not part of this war. the other two silesian wars do not refer to this war as a whole, but to the two periods of Prussian involvement from 1740-1742 and again from 1744-1745. john k 19:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to forget that the the war, and more particularly Jenkins’ ear itself, are iconic in British political history. (Say what you like about eighteenth-century parliamentarians, they knew how to do a dodgy dossier better than our contemporaries.) —Ian Spackman 21:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Don´t merge! This wars are different. I suggest to check the article: ""Guerra de la oreja de Jenkins"" in Wikipedia in Spanish.

These are two separate wars, even though they are related. They should both have full separate articles. --Ineffable3000 23:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

This article is too long for me to edit without truncating it, but it badly needs editing.

The first paragraph: "When Maria Theresa of Austria succeded her father Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor in the Holy Roman Empire in 1740 in accordance with the pragmaticae sanctiones" is simply wrong.

1. Maria Theresa did NOT succeed her father in the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. She succeeded her father in his Habsburg lands, which is not the same thing.
2. The Emperor of the HRE was ELECTED: it was not a hereditary title, and Maria Theresa was an empress by MARRIAGE (when her husband was elected emperor in 1745), not by INHERITANCE (at her father's death in 1740) or by her own ELECTION. She was not an Empress in her own right.
3. The war OF AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION was about the AUSTRIAN lands, not the Imperial title.
4. The Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 governed the succession to the Hapsburg dominions (but not to the imperial dignity, which was elective).

CAPS FTW!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.103.214 (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Something along the lines of: "When Maria Theresa of Austria succeEded her father Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor in his Hapsburg dominions in 1740 in accordance with the Pragmatic Sanction..." would be more correct. -- Someone else 23:40 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

I made som minor changes to adress formatting concerns, but I agree that the article is in need of editing and it is probably unavoidable to break it up in to smaller parts. -- Mic 10:07 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be somehow interlinked with the one on Silesian Wars? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 07:17, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well actually at this point the HRE was not elected, it was already controled permanently by the Habsburg family, and Maria Teresa was the Habsburg heir. Mac Domhnaill 23:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The HRE was elected, which is why the crown passed to the Bavarian prince for a couple years during this war until the Habsburgs could coerce the electors to return it to them.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland did not exist till 1801. It should read Great Britain and the Netherlands. N.B.: The Kingdom of the Netherlands was at one time part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Reading through this article, I noticed that it lacked a good deal of statistical details, and I was unable to picture the size of the forces moving to and fro during the various campaigns. If anyone has more information pertaining to the numbers involved, I think it would benifit the article. Only two numbers were given in the entire article, for one of the battles of 1745. It could also use some more descriptions of time (when and how long did it take the Hungarian levies to "pour into Upper Silesia by the Jablůnka Pass"?) The sentence prior to that was talking about maneuvers that probably took place over the course of a couple days, so a curious reader has no way of knowing if the Upper Silesian invasion by Hungarian levies happened over a few days or over several months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.161.252 (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is a data dump of details with little conceptual structure. The only way to find a specific fact is to slowly read the entire article, and maybe the fact won't be there. Main facts are buried amongst trivia. This needs a re-write. Any article on a major war should have an opening with this structure: "This war was between the group of countries A, B, C, and the group X,Y,Z. It ran from 1752 to 1759 (e.g.), with A,B,C victorious." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.123.113 (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

ITALIAN STATES INVOLVED IN THE WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION.

The Italian States involved in the war for the Austrian Succession were:

THE DUKEDOM OF MODENA - Its troops fought very well in the fortress of Modena until June 29, 1742 and in Mirandola until July 28, 1742 against the "Italian brothers" of the Kingdom of Sardinia. THE KINGDOM OF NAPLES - Its troops defeated (with the Spanish Army) the Austrians in the battle of Velletri (1744). The Neapolitan troops were under the Duke of Castropignano (1688-1758). THE REPUBLIC OF GENOA - Its troops fought in the battle of Piacenza (1746). THE KINGDOM OF SARDINIA - Its troops, under the Count of Bricherasio (1706-1782), defeated the French in the battle of Assietta (1747).

the Modenese, then, were fighting on the Franco-Spanish side? What side were the Genoese on (I seem to recall that they were on the French side, as well)? It should be added that the Duchess of Milan, Mantua, Parma and Piacenza fought in numerous battles, while her husband, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, remained neutral. Were the Pope, the Venetians, and the Luccans all neutral as well? The Piedmontese and Neapolitans, by the way, were involved fairly heavily, well beyond the individual battles that you mention. john k 19:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured

This is fantastic informative article. Can it be featured one?--Vojvodaen 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Very first World War

I believe this war has also been dubbed as "the very first world-wide War", or similar names. -- Matthead  DisOuß   12:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be a misnomer. Asia was not involved in this war, except via the European colonial powers there. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Omissions in the article.

An article on a war needs a good section on the causes of the war, which is sadly lacking here. Maria Therese wanted to defend her succession, but please explain why the other belligerents cared enough about this to join a war either with or against MT. By implication, Prussia really wanted Silesia, please explain this better. What were England, France, Russia etc fighting for? Also, give a better explanation of the outcome. MT got to keep her titles, Prussia got Silesia, what about the others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.154.188 (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this article, it seems to largely consist of fairly discreet accounts of military campaigns, and to neglect the politics and diplomacy which gives the military campaigns meaning. For instance, neither Fleury, Carteret, nor Argenson are mentioned in the article. The diplomacy of all three was pretty crucial in the way the war came about. There is no particular explanation, in particular, of the shifts in French diplomacy - from initial neutrality, to Belle-Isle's ambitious effort to secure the Habsburg inheritance for France's German clients, to the retreat to a traditional conflict in the Low Countries, Italy, and at sea after 1744. There is no discussion of early British policy - in particular of George II's policy in 1741, which led to him actually supporting Charles Albert's election as emperor in 1742, or how this changed, after Carteret came into power, to a more pro-Austrian position. The family ambitions of Philip V in Italy are only mentioned in context of naval warfare, and the Sardinian participation in the war is not explained. It is mentioned that Saxony changed sides in 1743, but it is not actually stated before this that it had been fighting on the French side. Changes in Spanish policy following the accession of Ferdinand VI are also not mentioned.

On the whole, the article could use a great deal of improvement. I'd suggest anyone interested in doing so should look at Reed Browning's book, already cited on the page, which is an excellent account of the war. john k (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also: I would suggest, on this basis, that the article be returned to Start Class. An article on a war should not be simply a laundry list of battles and campaigns. As Clausewitz said, war is the continuation of politics by other means, and the vast majority of the politics of the war is left unexplained here. john k (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hapsburgs allies of France?

The introduction states: "The habitual and constant allies of France and Prussia were the same Hapsburg relations in Spain and the Kingdom of Bavaria as had been teaming up for many issues and conflicts since the Thirty Years' War and to an extent, long before." It seems difficult to pack so many mistakes in a single sentence. First of all, the only Hapsburgs during the war were in Austria and fought AGAINST France; Spain was ruled by the new Bourboun dynasty and Bavaria by its own ducal house. Also, Spain had traditionally been Austrias´s (or the Holy Roman Empire's) ally and France's enemy (and often biggest rival) before, during and after the Thirty Year´s War; only the dynastic change after the War of Spanish Succession brought France and Spain toghether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Who was her father?

"In 1740, Maria Theresa attempted to succeed her father (WHO!?!?) as Queen of Hungary and Bohemia" as this is the only piece of information that i need, i feel like it should be in a fairly obvious place, and that i shouldn't have to look through the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.13.82 (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles VI. It's near the beginning of the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Casualties?

Are there any usable estimates on the numbers of people killed and/or wounded in this war? Please add. -- 92.229.142.182 (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In line citations

I added a bibliography, most of them accessible thru google but the article is in serious need of references, notes, in line citations.Tttom1 (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation for 'In one step, Prussia had effectively doubled its population and made huge gains in its industrial productivity and resource base.' This claim appears on several websites but without the source; bestsellers ones for population would be plus 50%, based on 2 million Prussians prior, plus one million Silesians.

The best I can find is A History of Eastern Europe 1740-1918: Empires, Nations and Modernisation by Ian D. Armour but it requires updating the last sentence, which is what I've done. 'Huge gains' - again that's hard to quantify that, especially since Armour states that Prussia's acquisition of Silesia cut it off from its economic hinterland in Austria and when combined with heavy taxes, meant Silesian manufacturing was actually lower in 1800 than 1700. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Are the colors on the map of the participants wrong?

Shouldn't the sides identified by green and blue be reversed? Tashiro (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... No. France and Spain at the time owned much of South and North America. 95.115.39.202 (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Long, detailed article about this war, but...

... who won? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.123.113 (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong flags

Dear friends, please be aware that the Austrian flags from 1743-1745 should not show the Imperial Eagle but a an royal Hungarian flag. Please consult : http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Austrian_Line_Infantry_Colours . Respectively the Bavarian flag became imperial 1743-1745 - see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kaiserlich_bayerische_Fahne_%C3%96sterreichischer_Erbfolgekrieg.jpg Grand Tour (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Replace Strategies section with Goals section

The "Strategies" section appears to deal only with the struggle between Britain and France over the course of the century generally, and leaves out the many other nations involved. I don't think it adds greatly to the understanding of this war in particular. I suggest replacing the entire section with a "Goals" section outlining the war aims of each of the belligerents. This would help give context to the military chronology of the war. 108.20.74.4 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC) J. Conti

I agree with the above and the current summary also omits one of the biggest issues affecting British strategy ie post 1714, the British monarch was also Elector of Hanover, which had a huge impact on both British and European policy. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to have a go at this :) and put it up for Comments.Robinvp11 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on major conflict infobox

A discussion on a major conflict infobox is taking place at Template talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies.. All input welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

.

Use of "blitzkrieg" in this article

I just corrected a minor typo (blitzfrieg -> blitzkrieg) and came to thinking on the use of blitzkrieg in this context.

Isn't blitzkrieg a 20th century concept, which didn't exist in the 18th? --ThSpeck (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a terrible anachronism. Ruddah (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Prussia

Maybe it's biased because most of the accounts are from Prussian perspective, but whoever wrote large parts of this has a massive hard-on for Prussia and its military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.235.249 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. That certainly motivated the Electors of Saxony and Bavaria to war with Austria: it would give their wives (thus them) the Habsburg inheritance. 164.51.226.98 (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The pretext

The article states that: "The war began under the pretext that Maria Theresa was ineligible to succeed to the Habsburg thrones of her father, Charles VI, because Salic law precluded royal inheritance by a woman". I'm not sure that's entirely right. The point of the matter was, as far as I remember, that the opposing powers supported the doctrine that the daughters of Charles VI's older brother, Joseph I had precedence over her. I'm going to look into that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

For the execution of the Salic law

There is a difference between the hereditary state of the Hapsburger monarchy (bohemia, hungary and Netherlands), these countries have no application of these kind of law, the german empire is elected by the german states and the choice of France in these wars(Bayern house) was not exempted by the succession of a women... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.112.31.13 (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

State of Austrian Defences in Silesia 1740

Worth expanding on why Silesia, the Hapsburgs' richest single province, was so defenceless in 1740; it's capture wasn't due to the wonderful new Prussian Army but Austrian weakness, which doesn't really come out in the current phrasing. This is an expansion, not replacement. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite

While a lot of work has gone into this, there are numerous instances of non-neutral wording and it needs to be tighter all round; a lot of detail should be in the articles on the battles. I've rewritten my rewrite of the Background to reflect that but happy to discuss them.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's NPOV neutrality rule WP:NEUTRAL says that editors have to be neutral between the different interpretations produced by scholars. It does not say that the article has to be neutral between France, Spain, England or whoever. Neutrality is about giving properly balanced accounts of the scholarly disputes. Rjensen (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It does not say that the article has to be neutral between France, Spain, England or whoever. Neutrality is about giving properly balanced accounts of the scholarly disputes. No argument from me and not what I've said or implied; examples include;

Neither Frederick nor his father had ever been fond of Austria and its various snubs against Prussia... or

What Frederick really feared..

That's just one paragraph, there are dozens of similar, unsourced statements.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Budapest

Buda and Pest was two cities. They were unified only in 1873.

Request for detailed information - recent anonymous edits

"The Capetian dynasty (aka the House of France) and House of Capet are not synonymous. The Dynasty encompasses the latter and all its cadet branches. The House of Capet, House of Valois, House of Bourbon and House of Orléans are one big family. You're the one confused here. The French-Habsburg rivalry began in the Italian Wars with the Valois, a century before Henri IV, first Bourbon king of France, hence the traditional "Capetian-Habsburg rivalry" being appropriate."

You're right - I am confused, but apparently I'm in good company. Can you please provide an historical reference that describes the War of the Austrian Succession as part of the "traditional Capetian-Habsburg rivalry?" I know that's what you think, but unfortunately that doesn't count as 3rd party confirmation.

This seems a great opportunity for you to improve Wikipedia by going through any number of articles and replacing "Bourbon", "Valois", "Orleanist" etc with "Capetian" - since as you say, they're all "one big family".

Your name's not Chris Cameron by any chance? You remind me of a former colleague.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Should we add the battle of villmanstrand to the battle column

In the info box it shows Sweden as being apart of the alliance between France, prussia, Bavaria, and spain. Sweden took part in the war buy the Russo-Swedish war of 1741-1743. So why is the battle of villmanstrand not shown in the battle column though being apart of the war. Redyr iksachli (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)