Talk:Battle of Leipzig

Numbers for the battle

The numbers for this battle were placed at 220,000 for the French and 350,000 for the Coalition previously. However, according the Stephen Pope's Dictionary of the Napoleonic Wars the armies nubmered thus:

COALITION: Schwarzenberg - 230,000 Blücher - 54,000 Plus Bernadotte and Bennigsen with 150,000 reinforcements between them (arriving on second day of battle). TOTAL: 434,000 Allied troops (probably slightly lower, given that Bernadotte and Bennigsen probably didn't have quite the full 150,000 - but certainly not lower than 425,000).

FRENCH: Napoleon: 177,000 Plus Sebastiani with 14,000 reinforcements arriving on he second day of battle. TOTAL: 191,000 French troops

Where the extra 29,000 French troops that were previously mentioned in the battle box came from I do not know. Nor do I know where over 80,000 Allied troops went missing from the lineup. I have rectified the figures accordingly.

Second Battle of Leipzig

Shouldn't there be a note that the Battle of Breitenfeld (1642) is sometimes called the 'First Battle of Leipzig'?

I would think so, sir.--Anglius 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Coalition forces and their commanders

I would also think that General-in-Chief Barclay de Tolly, the Russian commander, would be mentioned.--Anglius 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Barcaly (Alexander I) was NOT the commander-in-chief. There were were four coalition armies. I have added their composition and their commanders. Nominally, Karl Johan of Sweden was the overall commander. Largely as a political compromise between Prussia, Russia, Austria and Sweden.

Agree with tha above comment. There is no reliable source mentioning Barclay de Tolly as supreme commander. Some sources mention Schwarzenberg. Other sources mention prince Karl Johan as the compromise described above.

Liberation???

As people enjoyed more liberties and rights under Napoleon than they did under the Prussian, Austrian or Russian aristocracies, how can anyone consider Europe east of the Rhine as being 'liberated'??

Says who? In which cases? - The people in "Matrix" have also been happy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.56.0.113 (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Napoleon abolished serfdom, thats liberty bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.59.146 (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

130 000 Germans were forced to march with the Grande Armee against Russia in 1812, most of them died. And you wonder, if it was a "Liberation" ?!! Yes, it was !!, in Germany the Wars of 1813/1814 are called the "Befreiungskriege" (the "liberation wars"). For Germans the Napoleonic Regime was nothing but a terror regime and many German historians regard the Befreiungskriege as the hour of birth of the renewed German nation, despite it took another 60 years before the 2nd German Reich was founded in 1871. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:ED:F70C:BD00:F0F3:D95C:B475:3618 (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It was political liberation. Napoleon's administration had been milking the Germanic nations for some time. Most, but certainly not all, the German armies that marched into Russia got out. The Austrian Army was a good bit of it and was never in serious danger. The Prussian Corps joined the Russians. I'm pretty certain that the Saxon contingent got mauled.Tirronan (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Napoleon's rule was considered to be very libertarian -- his various reforms were the opposite of oppression. The entire Napoleonic period can be seen as various aristocracies/kings fighting against an enlightened despot (Napoleon). So in that sense, it was not a political liberation, not a civil rights liberation. It was a restoration of political power to the original parties -- whether they were more or less oppressive. Nobody thinks that the Czar and Prussian/Austrian kaisers were somehow more in favor of individual liberty than Napoleon. He was the arch enemy of kings. Not exactly Cromwell -- but you get the idea. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Expansion

Given that in many ways this battle was at least as important as Waterloo I have decided to start expanding it. I would sure like some help its a fairly massive job. Tirronan 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

French Generals

Even thourh there is lack of historical documents, especially battle maps, on the Battle maps it shows Marshals Ney, MacDonald, and Murat as being important commanders during the Battle. Kommisar Yan 16:39, 3 March 2007

I believe the article does as well Tirronan 23:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your judgement that this battle was at least as important as Waterloo both from a military standpoint and a political standpoint. The Prussians vs. Russians debate is in many ways a backward projection of contemporary 20 century politics that has little to do with Leipzig. The same goes for the "liberty" discussion. It seem to me, that it is in fact the Austro-Hungarian monarchy's contribution that is underrated in the discussion of this battle as well as the Napoleonic wars in general. I am currently preparing the diary of one of my ancestors who participated in the battle for publication and can give numerical data on the battle. Some may be relevant for the maps. These data can of course not be taken at face value but at the very least can be used to cross check statements in the secondary literature for their validity. A table with participating commanders, commanded units, days participated and locations held, taken or abandoned might be necessary to give an overview over this complex piece of history. Mdenk (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It really gets silly when you consider that the Prussians and Russians got on wonderfully at this time. Looking at the order of battle you will often notice that Prussian and Russian formations were paired together to make an army and together they accomplished much. As a footnote you might notice that Blucher seemed to prefer his Russian formations for urban fighting as they were more disciplined at it than his own troops. Both the the countries backed each other up at the congress of Vienna as well.--Tirronan (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Russian flag

Instead of the white-blue-red Russian flag, shouldn't either the Russian imperial flag (horizontal black-gold-white) or the green Russian army flag be used in the overview box? Uly 03:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

order of allies in the box

...while many russian soldiers reached the battlefield when the battle was already decided. The numbers don't say anything about the influence in it. As it is now it suggest the reader that it was a battle fought mainly between french and russians. But this is just not true. Forget the website stated below, (with the numbers of soldiers each nation provided for the battle). It is just wrong. This page does not say anything about the 36.000 Poles in the ranks of the russian contingent but declares them as "russians".--88.74.45.127 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1. you are an unregistered IP address.
• 2. I wrote much of this article and I am not anti-prussian by any means.
• 3. You need to put what you want changed with citation of source before this would be considered.

4. Register an account and make your case do not just change things. Tirronan 20:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, because my english is not good enough I am not going to work here. I have an account in the german wiki. I did this revert because the user who changed this first is also activ in the german wiki. He is well known as an russian-nationalist, and he did this change in the german article, too. I gave him an fundamental answer, with sources and facts, why he was wrong. Hava a look in the german version please. There hes is called "Voevoda". That is the reason why I wanted to change it here to. It is only the remains of sovjet propaganda as it was teached in the ex-sovjet and ex-GDR educationssytem (like the imperialisttheory as justification for the "anti-Fascist protective barrier" in Berlin. Do you want me to write the german sources here?? I think its useless for you, or?--88.72.254.161 20:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC) What are your sources? where do you got the idea that the russian contingent was so dominant in this battle that it has to stay on top?

An info box is a silly thing to get into a revert war on. The Prussian contribution is all over the main article and I know because I wrote 95% of it. Blucher lead the Northern forces for instance. I know about York's contributions. I am an American and I don't have a national axe to grind. In fact I wrote most of the Prussian sections in the English Battle of Waterloo and took a great deal of heat for it. Anything I write will be cited and I stick to what unit moved where and what it accomplished. Now please if you edit in here do so with an English account. I appologise if you didn't understand but we get about 100 IP edits and most of it is out and out vandalism by kids. I am going to revert this until I get a handle on what was done by whom and why. This is history and not national honor, what happened happened and that is it. Prussia had much to do with the Battle of Nations, so did every nation mentioned. Tirronan 00:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you! no more to say.--88.72.196.216 07:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, the flags of Saxony and Prussia in the box are wrong. Both were used later. (Saxony had yellow-black colors at this time and before, Prussia a black eagle on white ground until 1896? I guess--88.74.60.183 09:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll change them to the correct colors later on when the all this has calmed down. Tirronan 17:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

please delete of dead links

many weblinks not working and please remove of these weblinks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.222.90.150 (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Flag Box Reverts

This is a formal request that all parties cease reordering the flag box. Please bring your issues here for discussion and resolution. Please to not revert on reorder the flag box before coming to a resolution here. Any more of this and I will be talking to the admins about losing editing rights Tirronan 18:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexander I

According to Henri Troyat, Alexander I took a certain amount of personal control over battle command, disagreeing with Schwarzenberg at certain points and redirecting the troops under his command (to good effect, as it turned out). Should this be reflected somewhere? Is it not significant enough, or is Troyat not a good source? - 24.193.251.27 (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=Cvx52IEGO4gC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=alexander+admonished+Schwarzenberg&source=bl&ots=j9ioX3Ph-F&sig=uBHLHFGg3V-lFsCFJxDOURq_eXo&hl=en&ei=O9oGTrT5J8je0QHlnuDFCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=alexander%20admonished%20Schwarzenberg&f=false

Rather a side note but Alexander provided good direction at times and proved he had grown up as a commander.Tirronan (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Henri Troyat is about as reliable as... Henri Troyat i.e not at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibnrustah (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

UK in the infobox

Why is the UK in the infobox of this battle? To my knowledge, they had nothing to do whatsoever in terms of military contribution. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

They actually provided a rocket battery for the battle.Tirronan (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So, a battery, that's what? 50-100 men and 8-15 guns? That's really marginal for a battle involving some 600,000 men and 1500-2000 cannon, isn't it? I mean, there were dozens of staff officer of different nationalities in the various armies during the Napoleonic Wars, does that mean that we have to put the country's flag each time?--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL, Alex if you want it out take it out, I reversed an anon IP because I don't trust anything they do.Tirronan (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok ;-) Best, Alex --Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

UK at Leipzig

There was actually a brigade of British rocket troops at Leipzig, however their contribution to the battle was fairly small as the rockets had basically no effect at all on enemy troops. However they did well in lighting the village of Paunsdorf on fire. The British rocket troops were commanded by Bernadotte as they were with Bernadottes Swedish army.Also Perhaps the only British contribution in the main theatre of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.242.162 (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1813 - The Battery fought as the only British Army unit present at the Battle of Leipzig. They were attached to the bodyguard of Bernadotte, Crown Prince of Sweden. During the battle Captain Richard Bogue, the troop Commander was killed in action. The troop were awarded the battle honour Leipzig but this ceased, when the Royal Regiment of Artillery were awarded the battle honour Ubique. During the Eve of Battle Dinner (17 October) the Battery toasts "the King" [of Sweden] with akvavit and on the anniversary of the battle the reigning monarch of Sweden sends greetings to the battery....Andy Devenish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.245.199.40 (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Date discrepancy

The caption of the painting: "Richard Caton Woodville - Charge of Polish uhlans at Leipzig 1912", which is included in this article indicates that it is from an event that took place in 1812. However, the Battle of Leipzig took place in October of 1813. Something is amiss here... --Saukkomies ^talk 14:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is "von Bulow" used throughout the article, rather than "von Bülow"?

I mean, I can't understand why in Bülow's case, the umlaut is omitted, while it is (correctly) used for Blücher.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That is entirely my fault. I am an American and don't have that character on my keyboard. Please feel free to edit the article to change it.Tirronan (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

French forces did not enter Germany again until World War I.

That is a common myth but wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War#Occupation_of_Saarbr.C3.BCcken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.242.87 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Confusing infobox

Could anyone fix the infobox please? It's currently very confusing. In strength, one could mix up that the 25,000 Swedes (which are real Swedish soldiers) is how big the "Army of the North" was, when it was actually a lot bigger. However, on the casualties, it says 4,000 dead and wounded Swedes which is obviously the casualties of the "Army of the North" and not the 'real Swedish soldiers' which was only 170 or so. Same goes for Russian casualties where it says 4,000 when they were, obviously a lot more. I only have limited information about the battle, so I hope anyone with better knowledge could fix this. Imonoz (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Coaliton Army

Hello. I think in the infobox in section unit involved shouldn't be write Army of Poland but: Army of Russia. Poland fought on the Napoleon side against the Coalition. -89.228.232.64 (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There's some errors in the infobox unfortunately, however, the "Army of Poland" is the accurate name for it (doesn't mean the army was made up of Poles but that it was operating from there), just like the "Army of the North" had over or around 100,000 soldiers if I'm not mistaken, but there was only 25,000 Swedes in there. However, the strength reports, indicates there was 25,000 Swedes in the battle, which is correct, but then it says there was 4,000 Swedish losses which is incorrect, these were the losses of the "Army of the North" and not the Swedes (which was, in reality only 170 or so). The infobox is very confusing. Imonoz (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok sorry that was my mistake, I just thought that if there's flag of Russia,and next to it the signature of: Army of Poland, there must be something wrong. 89.228.203.35 (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

More references

There are a lot of paragraphs that are completely lacking citations, as well as long paragraphs that need more citations than they currently do. —howcheng {chat} 15:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Bernadotte and Napoleon.

The article states "The Swedish prince was the ex-French Marshal Jean Baptiste Jules Bernadotte. He had been one of Napoleon's most trusted field marshals, but Napoleon had stripped him of command in 1810, which led to his defection to the Coalition cause." This is too simplified and not 100% accurate. The Bernadotte-Napoleon relationship was strained and had been for a long time. In fact for the most part Napoleon seemed to have actually mistrusted Bernadottes loyalty as he thought Bernadotte was too ambitious and even suspected him of planning a coup against him at one point. (this was proven false however) Obviously Bernadotte was trusted enough to be made Field marshal, but to say he was "..one of Napoleon's most trusted field marshals" does not resonate with the facts. Also: Bernadotte was stripped of command yes, but this was just the last straw in a series of events that made him accept the offer of the Swedish Crown. He was already disillusioned by his experiences under Napoleon. The article excludes this part of the facts and makes it sound like everything was peachy (or at least nominal) until his removal from command afterwhich he went to the Swedes as a sort of revenge. 81.227.190.9 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Russian contingents in every field army?

In the info box, it shows that Russia had troops in every field army, but, in sourced sections, all army's are all one nations. Is this true? Kai2004 (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The Army of Bohemia is not so shown in the infobox. The Army of Poland was a Russian army. It is well cited that the Prussian Army of Silesia included Russian troops under Blucher's command - see the action of October the 16th. On October the 19th the Army of the North is reinforced from the Army of Silesia, the reinforcements including Langeron's Russian Corps. The only thing I'm not quite clear on is whether a significant number of Prussians end up under Bernadotte. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

There were Prussian Corps under Russian Command, Russian Corps under Prussian Command. This was in fact a measure of just how close the two countries had become. At the Battle of Deniwitz Bulow was serving under Bernadotte. I believe that in this battle he was just leading the Swedish Army. Blucher had overall control of the Northern armies.Tirronan (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Saxon and Württemberg defections 18 October

What was the scale of the Saxon and Württemberg defections on 18 October? German Wikipedia notes:
"Dagegen griff erst am Nachmittag der rechte Flügel der Böhmischen Armee unter Bennigsen ein. Er eroberte Zuckelhausen, Holzhausen und Paunsdorf, woraufhin 3.000 bis 4.000 Sachsen und 500 württembergische Reiter unter General Karl von Normann-Ehrenfels auf die alliierte Seite wechselten. Dieser Verrat sorgte dafür, dass in Frankreich noch Jahrzehnte später Abtrünnige mit dem Ausspruch „C'est un Saxon“ – „Das ist ein Sachse“ – beschrieben wurden."
Soon after, however, the Saxon King was taken prisoner by his own troops. It seems they acted on their own accord, and were not following orders. This presumes some Saxons and Würtenbergers remained loyal to Napoleon until the end of the battle. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Need help finding more information/history on Mecklenburg-Schwerin

We should expand the article about Mecklenburg-Schwerin...Its role in Various wars, like its war with Denmark, its involvement in the Napoleonic wars, and wars of German unification. Mecklenburg98 (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry...I meant for this on the Mecklenburg-schwerin article...However, more info on Mecklenburg involvement at Liepzig would be nice. I have information on Mecklenburgs involvement, but I'm not sure, if it needs to be added Mecklenburg98 (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing

Sweden did participate with 1,500 canons Sao saosson (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sweden did not. The cite you have produced says that the Allies overall had 1,500 guns; these were not all Swedish, and they are already listed in the infobox so there is no need to list them twice.

Do not accuse users of vandalism just because you don't like their edits. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

United Kingdom in infobox

There is really no basis for excluding UK from infobox, their troops participated in battle and suffered casualties. General standard in battle infoboxes is to include all participants, regardless if their participation was limited to only some small unit(s) operating as part of some larger formation of another country, just some examples: Battle of Borodino (GA), Battle of Waterloo (GA), Normandy landings (GA), Guadalcanal campaign (FA), Battle of Musa Qala (FA). Weight complaint is a nonsense, by putting UK at bottom below smaller German states, and including their strength figure, we make it very clear for readers that their participation was minor. Also we don't have any issues with infobox getting overly large here currently, so there is really no practical reason to start inventing some arbitrary cutoff point to exclude some countries.--Staberinde (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

You need a source which clearly states that the UK was a belligerent in the battle (this is absolutely not made clear in the article), the one which merely mentions a British company under Swedish command, as part of the Swedish force, is not going to cut it; it was not an independent British unit with its own command structure, the company was more or less leased to the Swedes (and there's really no reason to have every nationality displayed in the infobox). One problem this is causing is that their number [150] is counted twice, since they're already accounted for in the number the sources are giving for the Swedish strength [18000-25,000], thus creating inaccuracies which should be avoided, even if it's minor. Also, what do we know about the 6,000 troops from Mecklenburg-Schwerin? They're not mentioned anywhere in the article, which makes me suspicious that they too might be counted twice. This infobox needs an overlook.. 81.224.71.102 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

British Army unit participating in battle is very much sufficient to establish UK as combatant. This leasing argument is nonsense, as by that logic most French client states should be removed from Napoleonic wars battle infoboxes, as all those contributions were basically such "leased units". Only reasonable reason to exclude some nationality from infobox would be if infobox was getting excessively long, that's actually a valid issue in some articles but clearly not a problem here. This inaccuracies complaint about strength figures would be a relevant concern if Swedish figure was given with 100 soldier accuracy, but as it has only vague range of rounded estimates this is quite silly issue, although I guess there is always option to add a short clarifying footnote. Btw, regarding Mecklenburg-Schwerin, there is a source but with no page number it is hard to check, quick google also gives some indication that it may be confused with Mecklenburg-Strelitz, although I didn't dig much deeper at the moment.--Staberinde (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Order of battle

I've noticed that the French counterpart of this article has an entire order of battle page dedicated to the battle, going into greater detail the orginisation of both the French and Coalition armies. Should this article have something similar? 86.128.65.111 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)