Talk:Thirty Years' War

The image in the infobox

Would other people like to see a collage of multiple images in the infobox like on pages on other big wars? World War II, World War I and the Seven Years'War are examples. I think it would do more justice to this massive conflict. It would look something like this:DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Example 1. Clockwise: The Surrender of Breda (1625), The Death of Gustavus Adolphus at the Battle of Lützen (1632), The Battle of Rocroi (1643) and the Battle of Colberger Heide (1644)
• 
  Example 2. Clockwise: The Defenestration of Prague (1618), The Death of Gustavus Adolphus at the Battle of Lützen (1632), Dutch ships gather before the Battle of the Downs (1639) and The Battle of Rocroi (1643)

Yes, I think this might be a good idea. But I don't understand why you did not include the picture that is already there in either one of your proposed collages? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that the current image looks particularly good, but these collages are by no means final. If enough people want another image included that can be done DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Overall good idea! Instead of Breda I would prefer the Defenestration or one of Peter Snayers paintings of the Battle of White Mountain to focus on the outbreak of the war. I agree with the choice of Lützen and Rocroi (you could change Gustavus Adolphus' death at Lützen with him at Breitenfeld 1631 but Rocroi is set). Regarding sea battles, I would rather go with the Downs over Colberger Heide. The Torstenson War was rather a sideshow in contrast to the Spanish-Dutch conflict.--Palastwache (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I support the multiple image idea. I think the first selection you chose looks good. DayTime99 (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is an example with just contemporary paintings including White Mountain and Breitenfeld. Should I include any of these over the other paintings? Personally I like example 2 the most.DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Example 3. Clockwise: The Battle of White Mountain (1620), Frederick Henry and Ernest Casimir at the Siege of 's-Hertogenbosch (1629), Gustavus Adolphus at the Battle of Breitenfeld (1631) and the Battle of Honnecourt (1642)

I am fine with example 2 also. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I am also assuming that the descriptions would have wikilinks added to the pages covering these events? warshy ^(¥¥) 17:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree as well with the collage, easier to represent the conflict with a few different images as opposed to a single one, works well on other war articles like the ones mentioned. TylerBurden (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The current image collage includes an image that doesn't really have much to do with the 30 Years' War at all. The Battle of The Downs is more exclusively an 80 Years' War battle than it is a 30 Years' War one. I completely understand that editors such as you who are Dutch would want to include some Dutch history in the image collage, which is not at all a bad thing, but it really doesn't have much significance to the 30 Years' War; not as much as the Battle of Nördlingen.

I think its better if you include the Battle of The Downs in an 80 Years' War image collage rather than in a 30 Years' War One.

This image collage is more fitting for the 30 Years' War in terms of battles of high relevance to the war itself:

It includes the Defenestration of Prague, the Battle of Lützen, the Battle of Rocroi, and the Battle of Nördlingen. Overall though, I like most of the images you have selected with only the Battle of the Downs seeming out of place to me. If you want, I'd also be glad to help you regarding input when (or if) you ever make an image collage for the 80 Years' War! :)

Cheers! Archiepo (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree; the Battle of the Downs is part of the Eighty Years War, not the Thirty Years. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Archiepo I disagree with your assessment that the Battle of the Downs is exclusively part of the 80 Years War. Every large work that covers the military events of the 30 Years War will spend some time on the Downs. Look at some of the books cited on this page, and, fot that matter, the page itself. These wars were to intertwined to pull them apart.

And as long as the Dutch are included in the infobox and their front is covered in the article it is fair to represent it in the lead image. I think you should dispute that first if you want to change the lead image. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@DavidDijkgraaf That's an interesting way to look at it though picking the Battle of The Downs over the Battle of Nördlingen is a bit criminal, don't you think?

@Robinvp11 seems to agree that the Battle of The Downs has more to do with the 80 Years' War, and with every reason to. The battle only includes 80 Years' War belligerents.

I also see that you are one of the main contributing editors to the Battle of The Downs page, which explains a lot to me why you'd want to include it, but I simply see it more fitting in an 80 Years' War collage than in a 30 Years' War one. Archiepo (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@DavidDijkgraaf While the Battle of the Downs was a significant battle of the Eighty Years War, and both wars were intertwined, it does not represent the connecting part of both wars. Heavily intertwined are the 1620-ies and early 1630-ies with Spain's military commitment in the HRE to secure the Spanish road, with the Emperor occasionally lending troops to the Spanish to support them in sieges, and finally with the Dutch Republic funding Protestant enemies of the Emperor. Nördlingen 1634 actually represents one of these links. The Downs, however, were neither fought within the Empire nor with involvement of the Emperor or any Imperial prince. Though events of the Thirty Year's War partly led to the Downs and itself had influence back, the Downs happened entirely in the Dutch-Spanish theater of war. I'm not against an image of the battle within the article. But in the infobox, I would prefer a core battle of the war to an important battle, where you can argue whether it was directly part of the war or not. Palastwache (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Archiepo I am open to discuss this, but assuming why I did or did not do things doesn't help a conversation. As you can see I presented editors with various examples of how a collage could look. The current one was most acceptable to the other editors so I placed it in the infobox. I did it this way, because I knew it would be more difficult to come to an agreement with this conflict than with other collages I made for other conflicts.

I like the current image, because the dates are spread out and because they represent different fronts. I chose the defenistration image to symbolize the Bohemian fase of the conflict, Lützen to symbolize the Swedish-Germany front, the Downs to represent the Dutch-Spanish front and Rocroi to represent the last fase and Franco-Spanish front. An added bonus of this collage is that the colours look well together.

I considered including Nördlingen to represent the Swedish-Germany front, but I liked the art of Lützen better and it showed Gustavus Adolphus, the most famous commander of this war. The painting of Nördlingen also doesn't work well with the other paintings.

@Palastwache I am open to changing the image, but I don't think that the Dutch-Spanish theater is seperate of the Thirty Years' War. Why is it that we include the Dutch in the infobox? If they were just co-belligerents they shouldn't be there in the first place.

Anyway, maybe we should post a few examples of other collages here so we can choose if we don't want the Downs to be included. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@DavidDijkgraaf Ok so I see where you are missing in a few places. I can inform you that co-belligerents, are indeed included in infoboxes (look no further than the 80 Years' War infobox) so I don't know where or who you got that information from. On the other hand, it seems that you are the only one here who considers the Battle of The Downs to be part of the 30 Years' War but that's besides the point. To maintain the cohesion of the image collage, I suggest that it is best to include events that took place in the main theatres of the war (that being the German theatre and the Franco-Spanish theatre). If you have any other ideas for an image collage which does not include the Battle of The Downs or any other 80 Years' War related events, please feel free to share it with us. For now though, it is more fitting to use the one I submitted due to the aforementioned reasons.

If you want to share an image collage that fits the rubric I just explained, please feel free to do so. Some recommended events of importance to cover would be those in the German theatre or the Franco-Spanish theatre (Nördlingen and Rocroi are great examples).

Cheers! Archiepo (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Co-Belligerents are not included in most conflicts on Wikipedia and I think the guidelines even advise against it. Maybe @Robinvp11 can speak on this? Do you think that the Dutch should be influded in the infobox Robin?

it seems that you are the only one here who considers the Battle of The Downs to be part of the 30 Years' War but that's besides the point.

The discussion has just started here. There is not need for haste. Maybe you are right that I'll be alone in this, although in my opinion I am supported by Thirty Years' War literature. However, if nobody wants the Downs included you should come with a better alternative. Your alternative is not well chosen in my opinion. I would like some other opinions as well before we go with your collage. And I would advice getting a Nördlingen painting with less pixels in any case. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, I don't see how the Dutch-Spanish front wasn't a major theater. The majority of the army of Flanders was directed at the Dutch during the Thirty Years War. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@DavidDijkgraaf

Also, I don't see how the Dutch-Spanish front wasn't a major theater. The majority of the army of Flanders was directed at the Dutch during the Thirty Years War.

You have the 80 Years' War for that.

As regarding the Nördlingen painting, no problem, I'll satisfy your demands :) Archiepo (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations. Kudos! Nice job, very nicely done! Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• Since we are discussing the lead image, the purpose of the lead image is not to be a photo essay of the article subject. WP is not a picture encyclopedia. Per the WP:LEADIMAGE, the lead image should carry a representative image ...to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. We might think of a representative image as one which is emblematic. Per WP:COLLAGE, Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative [emphasis added]. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us we should not try to write the article in the infobox. This applies equally to text and images. Mutiple images stacked togeather are smaller and more difficult to see (making them more of a distraction rather than a benefit) while extensive captioning bloats the infobox when WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that less is better. I would observe that the placement of these images togeather is not necessary and that the collage here tends to being decorative in function and intent. WP:OTHERCONTENT is not of itself a sound rational for use. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with your point but are you suggesting we replace it with one image? Robinvp11 (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm also not against your point but I believe the image collage is able to captivate an event such as large as this through the inclusion of multiple events of great significance. A single image could very much narrow things down and reduce the greater scope of things. The lead image of a long war should represent the important events which took place in said long period of time; and quite frankly, I believe this would apply just as well for the 80 Years' War as I would also like to see a multitude of events be recollected in an image collage as well, but that's for another talk. Archiepo (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Which image could represent this conflict on its own? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am advocating against a collage, so yes, I am suggesting we replace it with a single image. We should note that the article has existed until recently with just a single image, though I am not saying that that image was the most suitable to use. Reading through this section, the recurrent theme is to use multiple images to capture (represent) multiple aspects of the event. This is not the same as a representative [emblematic] image ...to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. The notion of creating a photo essay to represent the events is at odds with the guidance, which is telling us to use an emblematic image. Most of our readers will come to this article with a rudimentary knowledge of the subject. The images of the collage have been selected on the basis of what editor|s believe to represent the war, not on the basis of an image that readers will identify with the war. Therefore, the significance of the images is only apparent after reading the article or jumping away from the article through a link in the caption. The images chosen in the collage (and their captions) do not directly support the text where they appear or have a clear relevance to the lead. They have not been chosen on the basis of what image|s readers are likely to associate with the war. I do not have in mind a particular image, only that we should strive to select an emblematic image - something readers are likely to have seen in a documentary or on a book cover. As examples, File:Charge of the Light Brigade.jpg is emblematic of the Crimean War (though unfortunately, File:Scotland Forever!.jpg is the image probably most associated with it), and File:The Terror of War.jpg is an iconic image of the Vietnam war. Both of these would be good lead images for the respective articles though neither are used as such. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  There are only a few candidates for "a representative [emblematic] image". Previously, we had "La Pendaison" or "The Hanging" by Jacques Callot, the most famous of his series Les Grandes Misères de la guerre. Instead of warfare, it shows the punishment of thieves and marauders by an army; its most likely inspiration was the occupation of Lorraine by France in 1633. This niche conflict is neither well-known nor mentioned in the article but it's still prototypical for the war - it was caused by both the French–Habsburg rivalry and internal strife (though in France), the exiled Duke of Lorraine and his landless army continued to fight as an undisciplined mercenary force for the Habsburgs, terrorizing civilians and plundering the land to survive. The image could be seen as emblematic for the entire war because it does not refer directly to a specific conflict.

  As alternatives I can imagine Gustavus Adolphus at Breitenfeld - not Carl Wahlbohm's painting of his death, it's rather anachronistic (from 1855). Paintings of Lützen or Nördlingen as the other major battles during the apex of the war are thinkable. Also the Sack of Magdeburg as a symbol of the devastation of this war, although I really don't like the image. All of these images have the problem that they are very specific to an event and/or a person. Palastwache (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I get the intention, but I think that you are not easily finding an image that everyone is likes for this war. A collage often solves that problem.

  Although, if there is one image that is emblematic for this war it is probably gonna be the painting of Gustavus at Breitenfeld. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have looked at this a bit more and would agree that images related to the Hanging do appear to have a close association with the war and could be considered representative. We have this painting by Francesco Simonini and another painting here, though I didn't see either on Commons. I could live with the image of Gustavus Adolphus at Breitenfeld. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  • I don't have a strong opinion on whether we use a collage, or what picture, but I think the Battle of the Downs needs to come out anyway. Can we please start by replacing that, then arguing about the single picture. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Where are we on this? Robinvp11 (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think we have a couple of candidates for a single image, it is just a matter of some agreement on a particular one. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I guess, the only remaining candidats are The Hanging and Gustavus at Breitenfeld. I can live with both, although I slightly prefer Gustavus at Breitenfeld because it's more clearly identifiable with this specific war. Palastwache (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I still prefer the current collage, but if we are gonna choose one single image I am for Gustavus at Breitenfeld DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Article states Alte Veste to be the largest battle?

Though the largest engagement of this war was the Siege of Nuremberg 1632. Over 95,000 combatants, counting both sides. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Downplaying of religion

I can’t help but notice that since edits by User:Robinvp11 were made in 2020, the role and importance of religion in this conflict has been downplayed and obfuscated, at least in the lead section. This POV seems to be at odds with every historical analysis on the subject. The only reason I noticed it was because Wikipedia’s entry is so vastly different than every other expert source on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Be specific: which "expert source" (the article lists those used, but I may have missed a few), and how (in your opinion) do they differ from the summary provided in the Lead?

Until the 20th century, historians generally viewed the war as a continuation of the religious struggle initiated by the 16th-century Reformation within the Holy Roman Empire. The 1555 Peace of Augsburg attempted to resolve this by dividing the Empire into Lutheran and Catholic states, but over the next 50 years the expansion of Protestantism beyond these boundaries destabilised the settlement. While most modern commentators accept differences over religion and Imperial authority were important factors in causing the war, they argue its scope and extent were driven by the contest for European dominance between Habsburg-ruled Spain and Austria, and the French House of Bourbon. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Prior to your edits, the lead said directly and quite explicitly that it was a "war between the Protestant and Catholic states" that was "instigated by the election of Ferdinand II as Holy Roman Emperor, a staunch Catholic who tried to impose religious uniformity on his domains. In response, the Protestant states of northern Germany formed the Protestant Union to defend their interests." Now, after your edits, the reader is left wondering if this had anything to do with religion at all. I find that very odd. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly what the reader needs to ask himself. Modern historians mostly argue that religion wasn't the main driver of the war and that its importance has been historically overrated DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

That’s what confuses me. You cite a single source for this assertion from like almost a century ago. If you can back this assertion up with something a bit more current, I would love to take a look. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(a) This is what the Lead says: differences over religion and Imperial authority were important factors in causing the war, [but]] its scope and extent were driven by the contest for European dominance between Habsburg-ruled Spain and Austria, and the French House of Bourbon. The role of religion in starting the war is detailed extensively in the Background.

However, even before formally entering the war in 1635, Catholic France was the primary financial support for Protestant opponents of the Habsburgs, including the Dutch, the Swedes and the Heilbronn League. Protestant Saxony and Brandenburg supported the Habsburgs prior to 1628 and post 1635, the Pope at various times opposed them, Protestants and Catholics fought on both sides, Spanish participation was an offshoot of their war with the Dutch, with fighting taking place in areas outside Germany, including France, Northern Italy, the Spanish Netherlands etc etc. That makes it very much more complex than an internal German religious war, which is what the Lead says.

I think you are conflating two different things, ie what sparked the war in Germany (differences over religion and Imperial authority), and why it went on so long (the Habsburg/Bourbon rivalry). These different factors are set out clearly in the body of the article; if it needs clarifying, suggest some wording;

(b)You cite a single source for this assertion from like almost a century ago. I'm having trouble seeing where you get this from; the Lead refers to "modern commentators" (which certainly began with Wedgwood, but doesn't name her or claim she's the only one), while the Source provided in the Lead for this comes from 1992.

There is an extremely extensive list of Sources attached - pick a couple. Wilson and Parker are probably the most accessible. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents

How come England is not mentioned in the list? I was brought to this article by another that mentioned thier involvement, yet at a quick glance i do not know what side they were on. 2603:7080:9207:AD00:346A:3353:CAD2:78E4 (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The nation's involvement doesn't seem notable enough to be listed as a belligerent. TylerBurden (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The five year Anglo-Spanish War was essentially the "western front" of this war for a period. England raised upwards of 60,000 troops that supported the various Protestant causes (having learned more about all this, compared to my initial post of wondering what side they would even be on), with manpower and clout helping dramatically in the Palatinate campaign. I am not sure if this includes the 10,000 Scottish contingent that was also raised.

So, could you elaborate on why England and Scotland are not notable enough for a mention in the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:9207:AD00:11C7:D858:80EF:9A0A (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

English soldiers fighting for other countries armies is quite different from England itself entering the war, in which case there would be a lot more to stand on in terms of being an actual belligerent. A modern example would be people going to fight for the Ukrainian army in the Russian invasion doesn't mean their country is a belligerent. TylerBurden (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

And, the Anglo-Spanish War part of the overall war?

I would also note that there are lots of articles that include "supported by" sections within the belligerent part of the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:9207:AD00:11C7:D858:80EF:9A0A (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Tbf, if we do consider the 1621-1648 part of the Eighty Years' War as a part of the Thirty Years' War there could be an argument for the Anglo-Spanish War as well. The Anglo-Spanish War is an intervention in the Eighty Years War after all.

Lastly, we should consider removing the image at the bottom of the page which shows the involvement of the different countries if England isn't a belligerent DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"Belligerent" is a closely defined legal phrase; non-belligerents (for example) don't sign peace treaties, and neither England or Scotland were signatories to Westphalia in 1648. Since England's non-participation in the Thirty Years War caused massive tension between Parliament and the Crown, and was one of the issues that led to the outbreak of civil war in 1642, it's also counter-factual.

Infoboxes that use "supported by" are frankly not following Wikipedia template guidelines (What does "supported" mean? Where do you draw the line?) but I've given up arguing the point. The categories are different, as shown in the current Infobox eg France financed the Protestant cause from the 1620s and provided diplomatic support, but did not become a formal Belligerent until it declared war on the Habsburgs in 1635.

IMO, the article does not need to be changed; the Eighty Years War is already listed as a related conflict. The Anglo-Spanish War is a related conflict of the Eighty Years War, not the Thirty Years - if you argue for the inclusion of related conflicts of related conflicts, then this list will get far bigger.

Image removed; whoever constructed this spent a lot of time on it but its been challenged before and I don't know how to edit it.Robinvp11 (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I really do appreciate the discussion, as it did not seem to have previously been talked about and I clearly do not know enough on the subject to what to edit the article.

I see what your saying about related conflicts, but the 80 Years War article says it's also part of the 30 Years War. For the layman (me) there seems to be some inconsistency among the various articles about what forms part of what. As mentioned, whatever article I was reading yesterday linked to this article with a piped link that stated England had declared war based on religion before.2603:7080:9207:AD00:11C7:D858:80EF:9A0A (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The question of English involvement has been covered in a previous, now archived discussion, but no harm in asking for clarification :).

As you can appreciate, getting Wikipedia articles to align is like nailing jello to the wall, but I will take a look. The one on the Anglo-Spanish War certainly needs updating, it has no references and contains a number of fairly obvious errors. So I will certainly update that.

Can you recall which article or link states England declared war based on religion; that would be a vast over-simplification of the diplomatic reality.

Thanks for your help in improving coverage of this period. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Result

Have there been any past discussion about the result of the war? and if so, what was the consensus? I'm just curious Gvssy (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "Result"; if it's "Who won", then you need to refer to the Aftermath section which goes into this in some detail.

Unlike individual battles, wars end in treaties (here, Westphalia), and are rarely clear cut in terms of winners and losers. Robinvp11 (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah alright, thank you for the answer. Gvssy (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia listing for Thirty Years War

This Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conflicts_in_1618 should include a listing of this source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

Thanks Bw Schulz 23:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwschulz (talk • contribs) 23:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Army Strength infobox

John A. Lynn and Jan Glete give 125,000 real maximum stength for the French and 200,000 nominal strength. How is there such a big difference with Parrot? What does he say exactly? And does it really make sense to only include the Army of Flanders for Spain and only the Swedish troops in Germany for the Swedes? I think it is misleading DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely misleading. The number for the Swedes should include all troops that fought in Swedish service, not just the national Swedish and Finnish troops. For Spain, it is more complex; are the troops that fought Portugal in the Restoration War or Catalonia in the Reaper's War really part of the Thirty Years War? Most historians wouldn't include them and neither would we. But the Spanish troops facing France outside of Flanders? They are closely associated with the Thirty Years War because they usually fought on the territory of the HRE, in alliance with the Emperor against a common foe (whereas the Emperor e. g. almost never openly fought the Dutch). And the Spanish and Imperial Army frequently exchanged troops, both in Flanders and in northern Italy. Therefore, at least Spanish troops in northern Italy (if numbers are available) should be included. Palastwache (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

first perhaps we should look at Army of Flanders, which Geoffrey Parker 86,235 personnel in 1574 and 49,765 in 1607. i think this should give us insight of the Spanish recruitments condition during the span of eighty years war and thirty years war Ahendra (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel these points have been largely addressed in the FNs attached to the Strength figures. If you think they're unclear, we can discuss potential changes.

John A. Lynn and Jan Glete give 125,000 real maximum strength for the French and 200,000 nominal strength. How is there such a big difference with Parrot? What does he say exactly?

Footnote (c) refers specifically to the difference between "Reported" (or "Authorised" if you prefer), and "Actual". These are educated guesses by historians, so I'm not surprised there are differences. That's before we get into the discussion of what proportion of Dutch/Spanish troops were engaged in the Thirty Years War (this article) versus the Eighty. We should not fool ourselves into thinking these figures are anything other than estimates.

I don't know which Parrott Source this refers to (there are several), but as the person quoting it, presumably you can answer this question. Since he is the Source for the difference between "Reported" (ie Authorised) and "Actual" strengths in the FN above, I would imagine it has something to do with that.

And does it really make sense to only include the Army of Flanders for Spain and only the Swedish troops in Germany for the Swedes?

The number for the Swedes should include all troops that fought in Swedish service, not just the national Swedish and Finnish troops.

Footnote (d) in the Infobox specifically states the figures refer to "In service of ", ie all troops nominally part of the Swedish army, not simply Swedes and Finns.

Footnote (f) covers Spanish figures; 90k is way too high for the Army of Flanders, but it implies roughly 50% of the officially sanctioned figure of 200k in the entire Spanish military establishment (which includes garrisons in Spain, Portugal, Italy and other possessions) was involved in the war. That doesn't seem unreasonable.

If you want to suggest alternative figures, please do so. Robinvp11 (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Lets discuss step by step.

footnote C, i agree it should be valid professional estimation or guess from historian, but it should be noted as estimation rather than raw data from primary Source S

footnote D i have no comments, i havent yet delving too much about Swrdish army composition

footnote F also agree, this conflict were spanned in 30 years length, so the maximum numbers of the Flanders army doesnt meant much with the total casualties at the end of the conflict, since its pretty sure the cadualties arent estimated from single battle alone, not to mention about the further recruitments of new soldiers for each post-battle. So the fluctuation of numbers arent unreasonable 139.193.50.17 (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I have problems with this line

Battles generally featured armies of around 13,000 to 20,000 each, one of the largest being Alte Veste in 1632 with a combined 70,000 to 85,000. Estimates of the total deployed by both sides within Germany range from an average of 80,000 to 100,000 from 1618 to 1626, peaking at 250,000 in 1632 and falling to under 160,000 by 1648

citation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEClodfelter200840-10 by Micheal Clodfelter

So far i didnt find any single engagement in this war that reached 250,000 personnels. perhaps we should examine this case? Ahendra (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

250k refers to the total number of troops under arms, regardless of location eg field armies in different theatres, garrisons etc.

13,000 to 20,000 refers to the size of the armies present at any specific individual battle or siege, such as Alte Veste. I hope this makes sense. Robinvp11 (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Citations

The citation style implies that there are over 200 source, whereas a cursory glance reveals about 10. I can't find a template for marking citations as needing general cleanup, but it is misleading, and I don't currently have the time to clean them up myself. Thus: ^{[citations need deduplication]} :) Dukese805 (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It's fine and does not require clean-up. There's not generally much confusion between "citations" and "the works they are citing" when both are labeled and the former links to the latter. It's a very common citation style on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

Your cursory glance was also insufficient: nearly every work in the Sources section is short cited somewhere in the article. Your notion of "deduplication" is also odd, because every claim in this article requires an inline citation per the Good article criteria. Remsense诉 02:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Poland-Lithuania (as a minor, but real participant) during the Danish and Swedish Phase

I've recently make an edit (which is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thirty_Years%27_War&oldid=1231752483) in which I included a brief intervention of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Navy (commanded by the Spanish Navy) in the Baltic Sea to fight against common enemies (Dutch, Danes and specially Swedes) during 1627-1632. There, the spanish-polish fleet were patrolling to defend Albrecht von Wallenstein occupation of Northern Germany and Jutland. Those operations also were related to the ambitious efforts of develop a Navy of the Holy Roman Empire (which at the time was inexistent, and also all the rest german ships were controlled by the protestants of the Hanseatic League), a Spanish Baltic Base (to make a two-front war to the Netherlands) and a planned invasion to Sweden by them and the Catholic League (with the objective of giving the Swedish crown to Sigismund III Vasa). There were even diplomatic exchanges between Spaniards, Poles and Germans planning those naval operations which demostrates that those are a direct extension of the Thirty Years War instead of a militar campaign without or brief relation.

Also, if there's a concensus by similar reasons that Eighty Years' War and Dutch–Portuguese War are part of the Thirty Years War, since their fusion in 1621 caused by diplomatical exchanges between Habsburg Spain and Habsburg Austria from the Oñate treaty on 1617, then it have to be the same with the Polish–Swedish War of 1626–1629 (which officialy didn't ended on 1629, as it was only accorded the Truce of Altmark, instead of an offical peace that only was reached in 1635 with the Treaty of Stuhmsdorf) since this Polish entrance on the Naval Campaign of the Thirty Years War make a fusion of both conflicts (that it's exactly like the Spanish ones), which also was continued by the envy to Poland of HRE's troops under the leadership of Hans Georg von Arnim-Boitzenburg. And yes, we can argue that was a minor entrance without relevant effects on the Principal Theater in Mainland Germany, but at this point the Conflict was not only Germanic (as also will evolve to have theaters in the Iberian Peninsula since 1640, outside HRE, or the global colonial war), and also due to this Polish intervention is that they were an official party on the Treaty of Lübeck that ended Danish phase. Sr L (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You gave it away yourself: it's simply a very minor part of the war. An encyclopedia article for a general audience does not need to discuss the very minor Polish–Lithuanian involvement; moreover, the article is long and does not have room for it. The infobox—intended for the key facts of an article—certainly does not need to display it. WP:OTHERCONTENT also does nothing here. Remsense诉 03:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not a completely "very minor part of the war". As, if we see the Polish-Swedish War and Thirty Years War as the same War instead of two separate conflicts (like with Eighty Years War), then it was minor, but actually relevant part in the war, as it avoided Sweden to enter in the Principal Theater in Germany due to the Polish Menace (and the mention of Spanish-Polish Naval skirmishes as minor, but relevant data of how it was fused both wars, also with the envy of Hans Georg von Arnim-Boitzenburg to Poland, or the Polish participation in Peace of Lubeck), even it was recognized by the contemporary diplomats that Polish-Swedish War was a very important topic that affected Thirty Years War as it retarded the Swedish intervention in the Thirty Years' War, so it was a key fact according to those contemparenous (like the Eighty Years War or the Transylvanian invasions of Hungary, other fused conflict that is mentioned) and that's why PLC should be in the infobox, like the inclusion of minor, but *relevant* participants in the infobox of Napoleonic Wars (like Qajar Persia or Ottomans in such article) as their role of the Poles in the conflict wasn't totally irrelevant like the bunch of german and italian states in both sides that just doesn't have space for the infobox.

I accept the need of resume that minor naval theater, that's why I put it on just one paragraph (as it could be more information due to the diplomatical exchange that I personally consider important, but if there was an article of "Diplomatic Relations on the Thirty Years War") and I would accept to reduce it, but not to just ignore Polish involvement during Wallenstein Campaign. Also there's a part of "The Conflict Outside of Germany" that could let the Polish-Swedish War to be included in his own autonomy on the Vistula region (like the mention of Reapers' War and Portuguese Restoration War in the Iberian Peninsula), if the reason is that not have room in the part of the Main Theater as a Land War in the HRE, then it should be in that topic the Polish-Swedish War and would be compatible for the general audience. Sr L (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This issue keeps recurring; if you look elsewhere on this TP, I've had to repeat most of this for the sixth time. As a general point, there is no reason to include PLC as a Belligerent, as explained below.

"Belligerent" is a closely defined term by Wikipedia; it does not extend to bits and pieces participation, which would be an endless list for a 30 year war that touched nearly every part of Europe to some extent. Unless the PLC formally declared war on the HRE or Spain, it is not a Belligerent, no matter how minor or major.

For example, from 1618 France supported the Dutch, Swedes and Protestant Germans with significant money, diplomatic and even military back up on occasion, but did not become a Belligerent until declaring war in 1635. England is excluded as a Belligerent throughout, even though it had a far greater level of involvement in the war than the PLC ever did. So we're being consistent.

Specific points re the comment above;

(a) As, if we see the Polish-Swedish War and Thirty Years War as the same War instead of two separate conflicts... You can't simply make this statement without a Source. Please provide a reference, because as the main editor on this article, I've not seen any historian make this claim.

They might mention the impact of Gustavus' war with the PLC on Swedish intervention, which is what the article already does. The addition on ship movements does nothing to enhance it for the general reader

(b) The Reapers and Portuguese Restoration Wars are mentioned briefly, in the context of why Spain found it so hard finance its participation in the Thirty Years War post 1640, and the implications this had for peace negotiations. Neither Portugal or Catalonia are listed as Belligerents.

(c) ...inclusion of minor, but *relevant* participants in the infobox of Napoleonic Wars (like Qajar Persia or Ottomans in such article)...

And their inclusion has led to similar arguments as the one here, and still doesn't make the edit correct. Robinvp11 (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur with the comments by others. The justification appears to fall to WP:OR as opposed to sources that specifically say that the involvement was part of this war. We include key facts in the infobox and the documentation limits listings to major participants. WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a sound argument of itself. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverts on Christian IV and Gustaf II Adolph entering the war

I objected to the sentence in the introduction "Rulers like Christian IV of Denmark and Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden also held territories within the Empire, giving them and other foreign powers an excuse to intervene.", because to my knowledge at least Gustaf Adolf held no territories within the empire. And even for the Danish king, one could doubt that the defense of his territory of Holstein was the reason or pretext for his intervention.
So I changed "also held territories within the Empire" into "saw their interests at stake", for not to make an unsubstantiated assertion. This has been reverted twice, with the comments ("read the sources that were cited" and "You're missing the point - it does not say "Denmark" or "sweden" but Christian and Gustavus, both of whom separately ruled territories within the Empire in their own right").
While Christian was also the Duke of Holstein, and so reigning a territory within the Empire before his intervention, Gustaf Adolph or the House of Wasa was not. As the result of the Polish-Swedish War (1626-1629) he gained some cities around the mouth of the Vistula, but which were parts of Poland, not of the Empire. Furthermore, while he was married to Maria Eleonora of Brandenburg, and he may have made claims to other territories in case of dynastic turns, he was not a recognized ruler of any Imperial territory or city.
Also the very elaborate article Swedish intervention in the Thirty Years' War doesn't allude to any territorial possessions of Sweden or Gustaf within the empire at the time of his landing in Germany.
I would ask the reverters (or anyone other interested) to substantiate the claim that Gustaf "held territories within the Empire". If they don't, the line in the article should be changed accordingly. --Knollebuur (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you are correct. Gustavus Adolphus did not held territory in the Empire in his own right. His first (military) presence in the Empire was to support Stralsund against Wallenstein's siege. He acted as a protector of Protestantism. This was his legitimation to intervene - similar to Christian IV who claimed to protect Protestantism AND the estates of the Lower Saxon circle which he presided. So both Christian and Gustavus saw their interests in northern Germany/the Baltic Sea at stake and justified their intervention with the protection of Protestantism. You can compare that to France that justified their war declaration on Spain in 1635 with the protection of a French ally and electoral-prince of the Empire - arch-bishop Philipp Christoph von Sötern, who had been captured by Spanish troops. Palastwache (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

As a brief reminder, the purpose of the paragraph under discussion is why the war went on as long as it did, and why it drew in so many different parties.

Neither Denmark-Norway, or Sweden, necessarily entered, then persisted in fighting the war on behalf of their own national interests, but the territorial holdings and dynastic ambitions of their rulers.

Christian specifically entered the war as Duke of Holstein and war leader of the Lower Saxon Circle, annexing Verden, Bremen, and Hamburg on behalf of his younger sons, not the Danish state.

Unless I'm misreading my own writing, nowhere does the article claim Gustavus held territories in the Empire prior to 1618. That changed following the occupation of first Stralsund, then Pomerania post 1629, which provided an ongoing need to retain them. The balance between national interests, such as tolls from the Baltic trade, versus shared religion, is covered in detail in the article - and his German allies began deserting Gustavus when it became clear self-interest was the primary motivation. It is a key element in why the war lasted so long - if it was just about securing the Protestant religion, it would have ended in the 1630s.

Thats the point, and it doesn't seem necessary to expand the already lengthy Lead to emphasise. However, to avoid lengthening this discussion, I have made alterations to the wording which I believe addresses these concerns. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes! I think this settles the potential misleading aspect of the previous wording. "Acquisition of territories" and "ongoing motive to intervene" have a broader scope that can be applied to both Christian IV and Gustavus or even France (which had acquired e. g. protection rights and garrisons in Alsace or Trier to be able to block the Spanish road). The added sequence also sufficiently emphasizes the potential threat on Protestantism posed by the Edict of Restitution. I see no further need of clarification. Like you said, the lead is long enough. Palastwache (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Difference in flag icons

@Remsense I just wanted to ask regarding your edit (which I have no problem with by the way, I'm just curious), what is the difference between using the 1506 Spain flag icon and the Spanish Empire flag icon? I thought the Spanish Empire one would be more accurate to use in this case since it's the 17th century no? Thanks for answering in advance. BucketAPC (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The Empire was not the proximate entity as such. Instead, troops were fighting for the metropole, for Spain as such, and used the corresponding symbols. Remsense ‥ 论 16:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)