Talk:Ulm campaign

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)

French strength

Although the "Grand Armee" did indeed number ~230,000 - is it accurate to state that they all took part in this action? Surely some were kept as garrisons along the route - 230,000 is a huge army to keep suppplied by any stretch of the imagination. I would have put the number at 2/3 corp present - numbering perhaps 60-90.000, possibly slightly higher. Any other references? Audigex (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is accurate---the 235,000 were not one mass but divided into separate corps of 20,000-30,000 men, that marched and traveled by different roads and occupied different areas (thereby solving the supply problem), but which all converged around Ulm. Not every man was engaged in battle, but their purpose would have been to block the roads through which the encircled Austrians could escape. Napoleon's strategy and the scale of the Austrian defeat relied on these men being present to block the roads around Ulm.Lilyyuuta (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Ulm surrender dates

Battle of Ulm says that Mack surrendered on 19 October, whereas this one says some forces surrendered on 20 October and more on 21 October. Please reconcile the difference. —howcheng {chat} 16:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire?

It doesn't really make sense that the Holy Roman Empire is listed as the combatant, the HRE at this stage was practically a non-entity, it was the Austrians the French were fighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.114.79 (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Featured article concerns

I have some concerns about this featured article and the featured article criteria. There is uncited text mixed throughout, and an outstanding contradiction maintenance tag for contradiction with another article - the main contradiction seems to be if the surrender happened on the 19th or 20th. The uncited material needs addressed, and the validity of the cleanup tag needs determined, or this article may require a featured article review. Hog Farm _Talk 15:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

As passed at FAC, used mdy dates, now has dmy. Some of the (still unaddressed) uncited test looks like it needs to be checked for original research. Listing at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)