The british swedish coalition of 1806. Eventually its result was a disaster because of the outcome of the fourth coalition. But the brit-swed. coalition was able to turn the balance of alliances in Germany very effectively upside down.
No, the answer is not so simple, for me it is the 6th coalition - the out come was not foreseeable of most nations joining and for some it was about life and death, Prussia for example.
Also it brought together the most diverse powers with the most diverse interests.
This just dawned at me when reading an article by Leggiere, Michael V. From Berlin to Leipzig : Napoleon's gamble in North Germany 1813 in Warfare in Europe in 1792 - 1815 edited by Frederick C. Schneid, kindle edition, nicely foot noted by the way, and full of other interesting articles.
- the out come was not foreseeable - That applies foremost to the first Coalition, surely the least effective one.
But the 6th coalistion lasted at least one and a half year, and was very bloody, with many reverses. So not very effective I would say.
And there is more to a coalition than a coalitionwar(s). It is also about diplomacy. So I still go for the british swedish coalition. Little effort, great outcome.
@Hans - Karl WeißIt caused Prussia to switch sides in 1806. There was a little fight with one swedish Husar dead. But the impact was big. Only Jena spoiled everything.
Does anyone here really considers war an effective way to solve conflicts? A coalition does not imply a coalitionwar. A coalition can also be a way to maintain peace.
The british swedish coalition of 1806. Eventually its result was a disaster because of the outcome of the fourth coalition. But the brit-swed. coalition was able to turn the balance of alliances in Germany very effectively upside down.
No, the answer is not so simple, for me it is the 6th coalition - the out come was not foreseeable of most nations joining and for some it was about life and death, Prussia for example.
Also it brought together the most diverse powers with the most diverse interests.
This just dawned at me when reading an article by Leggiere, Michael V. From Berlin to Leipzig : Napoleon's gamble in North Germany 1813 in Warfare in Europe in 1792 - 1815 edited by Frederick C. Schneid, kindle edition, nicely foot noted by the way, and full of other interesting articles.
- the out come was not foreseeable - That applies foremost to the first Coalition, surely the least effective one.
But the 6th coalistion lasted at least one and a half year, and was very bloody, with many reverses. So not very effective I would say.
And there is more to a coalition than a coalitionwar(s). It is also about diplomacy. So I still go for the british swedish coalition. Little effort, great outcome.
@Alfred Brans
Well - I have no clue about the British Swedish coalition, in case maybe you could elaborate or point me with a link towards your Napoleon wiki?
I also chose 6th coalition because it paved the way for the 7th.
For me, it was a great accomplishment to get all those major powers together an forge a coalition which was stable enough to cage Nabulieone.
@Hans - Karl Weiß It caused Prussia to switch sides in 1806. There was a little fight with one swedish Husar dead. But the impact was big. Only Jena spoiled everything.
I'd have to say, the last.
Does anyone here really considers war an effective way to solve conflicts? A coalition does not imply a coalitionwar. A coalition can also be a way to maintain peace.
But perhaps not wenn a Napoleon is around. . . .
I am not disagreeing, and as can be seen sometimes coalitions worked to prevent war.
Beatrice de Graaf wrote a good book on that.