Talk:Doppelsöldner

Military history: European / German / Early Modern

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Germany Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is my first page so any help or criticism would be most welcome.

You can't break a phalanx of Landsknechts with a sword

Never ever!

It says: The factuality of this tradition is disputed, but at least as a legend ...

It's more than clear, it is a legend only. Attacking a De-facto-phalanx of long Landsknechts equipped with long pikes would have been sheer suicide. Foreigner 09:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Zweihander was used by the Landsknechts as a specialed weapon, a form of 'assault troop' to break into the pike lines of their enemies, opening them for further assault. The article does not imply that the Zweihander was used, as you state, against the Landsknechts, but by them. Given that the Brotherhood of St. Mark took the time to train soldiers to wield the blades and that such expense (twice normal pay) was expended to procure such soldiers (perhaps a form of hazard pay), I hardly see an understanding of how the Zweihander, if abley wielded, was a useless weapon. Xiliquiern 15:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Xili. The fact that these men were paid double what was regular pay tells me that the commanders at the time certainly valused these soldiers.The Bryce 10:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Double mercenary" is actually a pretty bad translation. The German word for mercenary is Söldner, that is correct. But Söldner comes from Sold, which means "a soldier's wages". Söldner are men who receive a Sold. So, Doppelsöldner actually means "men who receive twice a soldier's wages". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.68.82 (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the translation is pretty precise as "Double mercenary" is how Germans would interprete the meaning of the word since it is old german language and the word itself is not longer in common use. Söldner more translates to "He who recieves a soldiers pay", making Doppelsöldner "He who recieves double a soldiers pay". But this idea that a Söldner is one "He who recieves a soldiers pay" is long lost in Germany, so while "Double mercenary" is still debatable due the fact that (as far as I know) anglophone people cannot make this connection, it is not a bad translation. Tarendas (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Actually, the translation is pretty precise as "Double mercenary" is how Germans would interprete the meaning of the word since it is old german language and the word itself is not longer in common use." --> that's not the definition of "pretty precise", that's the definition of a bad translation based on a literal interpretation by people who no longer understand what the original terms meant! The andf (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crossbow is not a firearm

The page calls the crossbow a firearm. This is of course incorrect, and needs to be rephrased. Mcvos (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake!

The text says that Fredrick III lived in 1487.But thats comletly wrong,because Fredrick III was King of Prussia only 99 days in 1887,i think.(I have to know it,i`m german.Sorry for evertually writing mistakes.I`m only 12.)--Friedrich von Nassau (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many kings and emperors named Frederick III, and even more de:Friedrich III. The link in this article for Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor refers to the Habsburg Friedrich III. who was crowned Emperor on 19 March 1452. You refer to a completely different emperor, the Hohenzoller Frederick III, German Emperor who indeed had nothing to do with Doppelsöldner. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.I didn`t know that.--Friedrich von Nassau (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

double mercenary

Sorry, but "double mercenary" just does not make sense. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not everybody agrees – see above. I'm not sure the source you provide is all that reliable, misspelling the word in two places – "doppelsoldner", RLY? It shouldn't be too difficult to glean the meaning when reading the article's next sentence about double pay. Anyway, leaving an article on Söldner without a link to mercenary seems unhelpful, whereas links to entries at Wiktionary allow the reader to form their own view. I also think that your removal of wikilinks to pikemen and Swiss mercenaries does not improve the article. Lastly, let's call a spade a spade and not use the empty euphemism "Media reception" for a video game instead of the commonly used "In popular culture". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: the procedure on Wikipedia is "bold edit – revert – discuss", not "bold edit – revert – revert – discuss". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing keeping you from improving the article. Your makeshift translation however lacks founding in etymology. The German term has no equivalent in English, so we need to find an adequate expression, not a mere translation of its components. "Thomas the Tank Engine" is not "Thomas der Panzermotor" and "Reisläufer" are not "rice runners", although that would be accurate translations of parts of the word. While "mercenary" is the proper translation of "Söldner" (omitting the umlaut is not the same as misspelling BTW), a "double mercenary" would be a mercenary who is hired by two different employers at the same time.

Apart from that, the process was - removal of content without an edit summery, revert, bold edit, revert, discussion. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]