Talk:Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor

Confusion between two Leopolds?

This article is totally screwed up. The beginning part talks about Emperor Leopold II, but the entire second half of the article is about his grandson, Grand Duke Leopold II of Tuscany. Someone ought to clean it up, but I'm not sure how that would be done.

I think I've sorted it out. Smallweed 16:06, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Its actually the same person

Leopold, second son of Maria Teresia, has first ruled for 25 years in Tuscany as Peter Leopold the First. Only after the death of his brother Josef II he became emperor Leopold II of the holy roman Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhabsburg (talk • contribs) 13:15, 4 November 2006

Future preditions in this article

I added a crystal template to this page, but User:Abberley2 removed it. I don't mind the template being removed, as long as the underlying issue is addressed.

This article states:

If Leopold's reign as emperor and king of Hungary-Croatia and Bohemia had been prolonged during years of peace, it is probable that he would have repeated his successes as a reforming ruler in Tuscany on a far larger scale. But he lived for barely two years ...

My personal opinion is that if Leopold had lived another twenty years, he would have had an affair with George Washington's wife, and then supported Aaron Burr's attempt to institute a monarchy in Louisiana. The writer of this article, however, believes that if Leopold had lived another ten years, "he would have repeated his successes as a reforming ruler in Tuscany on a far larger scale". Should we take a poll of Wikipedia editors to decide which of us is correct?

Again, this article states:

Catherine would have been delighted to see Austria and Prussia embark on a crusade in the cause of kings against the French Revolution. While they were busy beyond the Rhine, she would have annexed what remained of Poland and made conquests against the Ottoman Empire. Leopold II had no difficulty in seeing through the rather transparent cunning of the Russian empress, and he refused to be misled.

If Catherine was delighted, then give some citations. If Catherine made explicit moves to annex this territory, or stated her intention to do so, give some citations. Otherwise, this sounds like another prediction -- Catherine would have done this, if virtuous Leopold had not been so brilliant. Do you really know what Catherine would have done?

Unless you can produce the crystal ball used to write this article, I don't see why the crystal template is inappropriate.

Another one here:

Leopold was too purely a politician not to be secretly pleased at the destruction of the power of France and of her influence in Europe by her internal disorders.

Was he really secretly pleased? If so, how do you know about it?

Furthermore, I think it also deserves a hagiography tag, but sadly no such tag exists. I guess POV will have to suffice. I'm thinking of wonderful passages such as this one:

He and Joseph II were tenderly attached to one another and met frequently both before and after the death of their mother. The portrait by Pompeo Batoni in which they appear together shows that they bore a strong personal resemblance to one another. But it may be said of Leopold, as of Fontenelle, that his heart was made of brains.

And of course the passage cited earlier:

Leopold II had no difficulty in seeing through the rather transparent cunning of the Russian empress, and he refused to be misled.

I guess Leopold is brilliant, since he sees through her cunning with no difficulty. (Or so the author asserts, but I wonder -- perhaps there was a very very tiny bit of difficulty?) On the other hand, Catherine's cunningness was "rather transparent", so maybe it was easy for him to figure out her plans. On the gripping hand, I have a problem with the claim that any scheme can be both "cunning" and "rather transparent".

His good sense was revolted by the folly of the French emigrants, and he did his utmost to avoid being entangled in the affairs of that country.'

Leopold has good sense, while the French emigres have folly. Can you guess which of the two are admired by the writer of this Wikipedia article?

This is actually a wonderfully written article. I enjoyed reading it, and I suspect that the author's personal judgments are very likely correct. But they are still personal judgments, and that's a problem. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Update, 20 May 2009: All of the passages I cited above are still in this article, with only one minor modification (one future prediction was changed from "probable" to "possible").

If anyone thinks these future predictions are defensible, then please add footnotes showing where reputable historians have made these predictions of what would-have-happened. I think that still would violate Wikipedia guidelines, but at least it would be sourced. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence, I concur. If you wish to remove them, feel free to do so. Kind Regards -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)