Talk:Ulm Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ulm Campaign is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 31, 2007, and in the Did you know? column on October 4, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 1, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed October 5, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	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.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Associated task forces (nations and regions): French military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792–1815)

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: UberCryxic (talk • contribs • email) This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

[edit] Difference between the "Ulm Campaign" and "Battle of Ulm"?

I don't get it - Isn't the so-called "Ulm Campaign" just the background before the "Battle of Ulm" (with two minor battles before that - in a book on the Third Coalition that I read, the Battle of Ulm is the main focus of the campaign). There's a lot of new information, yes, but we should probably just add a "background" section in the Battle of Ulm article. Moreover, the casualties in the whole campaign and in the Battle of Ulm should be similar - but I see a big difference here. In this article it says 60000 casualties for the Austrian side, while in the Battle of Ulm article its just 12000 (30000 captured). Neither of the previous three battles had much casualties, so this doesn't make sense. There's also a problem with the box "War of the Third Coalition", which includes "Wertingen – Haslach-Jungingen – Elchingen – Ulm", the last linking to this article - however, this article also covers the previous three battles, so we can either: Remove the previous three battles from the list, or change the last to link into the Battle of Ulm. Aran|heru|nar 11:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The campaign and the battle are quite different events. The campaign was a large wheeling maneuver over the course of an entire month. The battle refers to the actions around the city of Ulm in mid-October. They are also analyzed separately in the historical literature. You bring up the point about the casualties: here is why they are different. At the actions around Ulm in mid-October, only 23,000 Austrian troops (or 27,000 depending on whom you read) surrendered. This was the core army under Mack. However, there were several other Austrian detachments that surrendered in other sectors. The total of this comes to around 60,000. The battles were not minor at all; they were very important to the progression of the campaign.UberCryxic 12:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought "casualties" means "wounded or dead" - shouldn't "surrendered" (or "captured") troops be separately noted? (e.g. in Battle of France, "360,000 dead or wounded, 1,900,000 captured"). Aran|heru|nar 14:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too short

This article is too short for featured article so I dont know why it was awarded? Please, explain me. --Vojvodaen 13:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think this one's short, see Hurricane Irene (2005). In any case, FAs are judged on comprehensiveness rather than length. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)