Talk:Second Battle of Zürich
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
[edit] Zurich or Zürich
The standard spelling of Zürich in English is Zurich. It is not a translation of Zürich, if it was then the spelling would be Zuerich. I do not think that the Battle should be under the name Zürich any more than the name of Cologne should be in the English Wikipedis is Köln. Philip Baird Shearer 14:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- While I agree with you, this is the third battle of Zurich, fought on Wikipedia. (Well, "battle" is a bit exaggerated... but see Talk:Zürich.) A lot of people believe that the article on Zurich should reside at Zürich, and are now trying to make sure that Wikipedia uses a consistent spelling thoughout. It may be annoying to you (or to me), but is not really worth fighting about as long as redirects are in place. Lupo 14:02, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The major reason for keeping the name is that it breaks searches and as most English keyboards do not have an umlaut keys it is a pain. Philip Baird Shearer 14:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Searches will find the redirects. It's easy to type umlauts on Windows and Macintosh. What operating system are you using? Gdr 16:54, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
Not the point, because you can not spend you time teaching everyone who uses a compuer how to do it when the English standard is Zurich. Why did you change it? Philip Baird Shearer
- For consistency with Zürich. Get consensus for a change to "Zurich" and I'll be happy to move these battles. Gdr 19:54, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
[edit] Hannibal comparison
Without getting into the question of whether Suvorov was "betrayed by the Austrians" (the statement is fairly accurate, although I would use "abandoned" rather than "betrayed"), I'll point out that the comparison to Hannibal isn't really accurate. A fair number of armies crossed the Alps between Hannibal and Suvorov—notably the French before the Battle of Marignano (and at several other points during the Italian Wars). —Kirill Lokshin 16:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- The statement that Suvorov was betrayed (or abandoned, which is means basically the same without supplying any new factual information) by the Austrians is plainly wrong. It is sufficient to say that no Austrians could abandon Suvorov because there were no Austrian troops moving alongside his forces.--Pecher 16:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I might be mistaken, but I vaguely recall that the Austrian command was responsible for supplying Suvorov's army while it was in the Alps; and that this support was discontinued after the battle (for fairly obvious reasons), prompting (at least in part) Suvorov's withdrawal. —Kirill Lokshin 17:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Suvorov's article makes the same claim he was "betrayed" by the Austrians too. Which is reasonable, since they were notoriously unreliable allies. Of course his article also claims he was "one of a few great generals in history who never lost a battle.", which is clearly not the case. Masséna, perhaps with some help from the Austrians, DID defeat him here. I concur with Kirill, simply crossing the Alps does not warrant comparasions to Hannibal...it is what a commander does AFTER he make makes the crossing which proves him worthy or not :>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- It is a fact that Suvorov never lost a battle, even in spite of the Battle of Zurich and the overall Russian reversal in the Swiss campaign. It is most accurate to say that Suvorov, after forcing his way through southern Switzerland by defeating the French at the St. Gotthard Pass (Sept. 23-27), suddenly and unexpectedly found his position untenable due to developments beyond his control on other fronts. These developments were Korsakov's defeat at Zurich (Sept. 25-26), the defeat of Hotze's Austro-Russian force at the Linth River (Sept. 25-26), and the failure of the Austrian high command to supply him with promised reinforcements and supplies. At this point, isolated in central Switzerland without supplies and confronted with encirclement by Massena's overwhelmingly superior French army, Suvorov executed possibly his most brilliant career exploit by fighting his way to the safety of southern Germany. Suvorov's victories in this campaign -- all over different segments of Massena's army -- were at Muottental and Klontel (Sept. 30 - Oct.1); Netstall and Nafels (Oct. 2); and at Schwanden (Oct. 5). All of these victories were won by Suvorov in spite of being heavily outnumbered by the opposing French forces, and they were accompanied by skillful manuevering which confused Massena. Three quarters of Suvorov's original force of 20,000 was thus led to safety, accompanied by 2,000 French prisoners. (See Digby Smith's "The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book" for my source of information.)—User:Kenmore Sept. 17, 2006
[edit] numbers
The "Background" section says, "The coalition forces greatly outnumbered the French", but the infobox puts the French at 75,000, versus 60,000 for the coalition. --Delirium (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
