Talk:Thirty Years' War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Thirty Years' War was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.


Zaporizhian Sich was AGAINST Russia, please fix[edit]

Title says it all. Zaporizhian Sich was allied with Poland and fought against Russia at this time. The table is wrong in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Bullet points in the lead section[edit]

The lead section contains a lot of information presented with bullet points. This is appropriate for a lecture with PowerPoint, but not for an encyclopedia article. The bullet points should be removed and the information integrated into cogent paragraphs. Mcattell (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally I rated this article as top importance for European History. It was as great an event as the First or Second World Wars after all. Mcattell (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Map and the Swiss Confederation[edit]

The map of Europe in 1648 accompanying this article shows the Swiss Confederation as outside the Holy Roman Empire but the Swiss Confederation was part of the Holy Roman Empire until it was dissolved, the Holy Roman Empire may have not de facto controlled it for much of that time, but that was true for much of its territory.--Supertask (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The map of the Holy Roman Empire in 1948 in the political consequences section suffers the same problem.--Supertask (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Times Atlas of World History gives a map of the empire in 1648 that clearly shows the Swiss Confederation as exterior to the Holy Roman Empire. The United States Department of State's website on the Swiss Confederation says it formally established independence from the Holy Roman Empire in 1499 ( (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I was the person who made this comment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Old talk[edit]

This is bound to be controversial. The causes alone are enough to provoke a riot in a roomfull of historians... sjc

You guys cribbed this article from the first couple paragraphs of my homepage ( That page is copyright, and noted as such in the META data on the page. You should either (a) delete this or (b) attribute it and give a link to the source (e.g., "Adapted from <A href="">The Thirty Years War</A>"). I appreciate what Wikipedia is trying to do, but you should remember that I've also put in a lot of time making free information available to web users. Stealing my material is just wrong. CHRIS

Removing section in question until the issue is resolved --Anders Törlind

This was my mock-up originally (I suspect) although I can't check the revisions to see for sure. I have a feeling I pasted the wrong block of text into the article late at night; I know I keep tabs on Chris's site which is a very good and in-depth assessment of the 30 Years War; his stuff on the Defenestration of Prague is also very interesting. I have mailed Chris very contritely and put up instead the piece I originally intended. My apologies to all concerned. sjc

Mr. Callaway's generous apology gratefully accepted. As stated above, I view my site and Wikipedia as being on the same team, which is why I was so annoyed. To show no hard feelings, will add a couple TYW facts. CHRIS

In 1644, the Torstenson War, a conflict between Denmark and Sweden began as a consequence of the Danish king Christian IV of Denmark's activities, lasting for about 2 years.

What is this paragraph doing in the Bohemian Revolt (1618-25) section? -- Pde 04:39, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Paragraphs below moved here from Talk:Thirty Years' War overview after merge:

Someone seems to have lost control here. Ortolan88 05:28 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Why in the world is there a separate article for "Thirty Years' War overview" from the main Thirty Years' War page? Oughtn't an encyclopedia article entitled "Thirty Years' War" give, you know, an overview of the Thirty Years War? What's going on here? john 08:18 25 May 2003 (UTC)

I agree. And they seem to have been started within a week of one another. They should be merged; there are better ways of preventing the article from getting too long. Deb 19:12 25 May 2003 (UTC)


wrong facts !!!!!!![edit]

hello there, I am researching the thirty years war for one of my degree modules - your page is useful BUT I have discovered one wrong fact ... "The Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia Matthias died without a biological heir in 1617" - Ferdinand was elected 1617 YES but Matthias did not die until 1619, the same year that Frederick V was elected King. Maybe this is just a typo but it confused me for a bit!

Books that prove this :

Early modern Germany 1477-1806 - Michael Hughes The thirty years war, the holy roman empire - ronald asch

In the 'Danish intervention' section i removed 'both England and France were in civil war,' and replaced it with 'England was weak and internally divided, and France was in civil war'. In the period in question Richlieu was fighting the Huguenots, and I guess this was civil war (just about), but England was not in civil war, it was fighting Spain and France. The English Civil War was much later.

Who is Philyaw?[edit]

The section 1621–1625 mentions a General Philyaw as commander of the Catholic League. I was under the impression that the Count of Tilly headed the CL (or at least its forces in Bohemia), and can't find any other references, anywhere, to the mysterious General Philyaw. Anyone know who he was?

I can't find an easy reference to him; I've deleted for now. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Mising Umlauts[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that I added the Umlauts to the reference to the city of Donauwörth in your artical. You could also write this as Donauwoerth, but not Donauworth as it was. Thanks for a great artical!!

a case for Talk:Zürich ;o) dab 19:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wait, wouldn't just saying "Donauworth" be more easy on the eyes than "Donauewoerth"? I know, the whole "yer supposed to have the "e" after the vowel!" and all that BS...but, really the umlaut doesn't stand out visually as much...if you weren't going to use the umlaut, that is. But, as always, use of the umlaut is preferred. -Alex 20:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

Ease on the eyes notwithstanding, "Donauwoerth" and "Donauwörth" are both correct, whereas "Donauworth" or "Donauewoerth" are not. I agree that the umlaut is more elegant and stylistically preferred here, but correct orthography is not BS. Pirate pete (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What were the battles like?[edit]

Maybe this is a stupid question but can someone put in the article what warfare was like during this period and in this region? E.g. weaponry, general tactics, who comprised the armies (mercenaries, draftees, volunteers, ???), etc. (Feb.10, 2005)

Start here at Early modern warfare--Will2k 16:28, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Casualties and disease[edit]

I shuffled things and split the Consequences section by adding a couple of paragraphs on epidemic and endemic disease associated with the war. Added references. Comments welcome. WBardwin 16:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Good idea
This distinction makes sense. I would also like to add that I believe that wars, particularly the Thirty Years War is supposed to have been important for the spreading of veneral disease, particularly syphilis, to all of Europe. Unfortunately I no longer have access to the sources where I read this. Does someone else know more on this subject? -Sensemaker

Finnish Nationalism?[edit]

Someone seem to be putting in some quite erroneous and/or biased opinions on pages concerning this war. Eg:

"The victory of Gustavus Adolphus at the Battle of Breitenfeld (1631), [b]secured under the command of the Finnish Field Marshal Gustaf Horn[/b]"

Not only was Gustaf Horn not a Finn, but giving him the credits is quite over the top. Sections about "famous Finnish Hakkapelitta winning all battles" seem to be popping up all over the place as well... --- While the above may be correctly pointing biased writing, to regard Gustaf Horn a Finn has a clear logic. He was born in Örbyhus, Sweden to Finnish parents: Carl Henriksson Horn af Kanckas(born in Masku, Finland c. 1550 - Horn family is recorded to have lived in Finland at least since 1380) and Agneta von Dellwig (born c. 1550 in Finland to Ewert II von Dellwig(also born in Finland 1525) and Helena / Magdalena Margaretha von Fahrensbach) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enricobarca (talkcontribs) 15:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


-helped the Germans by leading an army against the Holy Roman Empire- Are you speaking of Austrians, Bavarians, Brandenburgern, Hessen, Holsteinern, ... Sachsen and many many more. You cannot speak of Germans easily in this context.


Well, since many of the Germans were in rebellion against the Emperor and the Catholic Church, i guess "Germans" could be taken as a generalization of the inhabitants of the HRE. -Alex 21:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

I disagree, Alex. Too often in this article, "Germany" is spoken of as if it were a single, extant nation. Nothing could be further from the truth, and if you were to go back in time and say "Germany" or "German" to these people, they would have looked at you like you were crazy.

They were "Germanic people," not "Germans" and the areas were "Germanic states," not "Germany." (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

those people spoke German and they were ethnic Germans - it is like saying Tibetan or Kurds do not exist just because there is no souvereign nation of Tibet or Kurdistan (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

and since the early 1500s the offial title of that country/entity/empire was Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation - Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation - that thing had the word deutsch/German in it's official full name! 13:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

and look at Simplicius Simplicissimus a book from that time about that time - and it uses the term german and germans all the time 14:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
That would sure be odd, since it's written in German and in German the word "German" means "Germanic". Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


"A year later, Louis XIII died, leaving his five-year-old son Louis XIV on the throne. His regent, Cardinal Mazarin, began to work toward a restoration of peace. "

Mazarin was certainly not the regent. He was the chief minister of Anna of Austria, Queen Regent. --PK-- 12:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Edict of Restitution/Stralsund[edit]

I removed a sentence relating to emigration of Bohemian and Austrian Protestants from the paragraph on the Edict. The Edict had no force in Bohemia and Austria, which were outside the Empire. Ferdinand was able to impose religious uniformity as King of Bohemia, Duke of Styria, etc. a process he started well before 1629.

I altered a statement that Stralsund had no allies while besieged by Wallenstein. It was garrisoned by forces in the pay of the Danes and then the Swedes.

--CWA-- 11 Jan 06

Bohemia and Austria not in the Empire???? Wasn't it only because of his role as King of Bohemia that a Habsburg was an Elector? Please amplify your statment that they were not parts of the HRR. --StanZegel (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
You're correct on the Constitutional point. I'd argue that both areas were functionally outside the HRE, however. And, in any event, re-Catholicization in both well preceded the Edict, so I stand by my edit.
--CWA-- 16 Jan 06

The claim that anywhere under Hapsburg rule could be "functionally" outside the Empire when it was technically in the empire strikes me as a modernists attempt to equate the Empire and modern Germany, and to have no real relevance to how the Holy Roman Empire actually functioned.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Calvinist Bohemia[edit]

Bohemia was multi-religious with a Protestant majority (Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists). I changed the adjective Calvinist to Protestant as relates to prewar Bohemia.

--CWA-- 12 Jan 06

The "Danish" War[edit]

I've corrected this to reflect that Christian did not lead an "invading" army": he acted as Duke of Holstein, a member of the Lower Saxon Circle, by his lights defending the rights of Lutheran lower Saxony. Richelieu was not a regent (Louis XIII had assumed direct rule by then and Richelieu was his privado/creature/favorite, although to avoid confusion I've used the style of first minister. Further, the Hague league consisted also of the Dutch and English and none of the lot of them ever paid their debts to Christian, so speaking of them as having paid for the war is untrue.

Duke Frederik was Christian's second son: Prince Elect Christian was heir-apparent in 1621. Frederik wound up King only because both Christians predeceased him in the later 1640's. He was elected coadjutor in 1621 not 1623.

Source: Lockhart, Denmark in the Thirty Years War

--CWA-- 18 Jan 06

The Peace of Prague[edit]

Clarified that the Peace only suspended the Edict and added language pointing out whose ox was gored by the selection of 1627 as the normaljahre.

Clarified that the new "Imperial" army was old wine in new bottles

Added a reference to the prohibition on foreign alliances (as well as intra-Imperial pacts)

Added a reference to the amnesty

Removed claims that the Peace legalized Calvinism (it didn't) and that it resolved the religious issues in the war (ditto).

Source (inter alia): Asch, The Thirty Years War

--CWA 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Battle Information[edit]

I have added to what is the best of my knowledge historically accurate accounts and stats to the followings battles and personalities, as I found some fields lacking and/or historically inaccurate:

Battle of Pilsen (# of Rebel troops)

Battle of Weisloch (Stats, Rewrote the battle Info, Specified the location)

Battle of Wimpfen (Generals involved, troops numbers, rewrote the battle account, Protestant casualties)

Battle of Hochst(Mentioned the act that it is a disputed victory for the Catholics, added generals involved, troop numbers, casualties, Battle account, political repercussions pertaining to the battle)

Battle of Fleurus (Updated the generals involved, wrote the battle account)

Battle of Stadtlohn (Troop numbers, casualties, rewrote the battle account, wrote on implications of the battle.)

Battle of Dessau Bridge (Wrote the battlke account, troop numbers, casualties, generals involved, implications)

I wrote or contributed articles on the following personalities:

Christian of Brunswick (I was amazed that noone had written on him, as he is in my opinion one of the more coloful generals of the war, almost a rock star. I hope that this article is enjoyed and valuable)

Ambrogio di Spinola (I will be deleting my article tonight and correcting any mistaken links. My apologies for creating a dual article)

I also gave mentions to the General Gonzalez de Cordoba and mentioned his participation in several battle during the 'Palatine Phase' of the war as he is often not given credit for assisting Tilly in his victories or his own individual actions. I was and am unable to found any accounts on his life. I have left links open to him should anyone be able to do so.

I hope that this information is found valauble and contributing to the Thirty Years' War page as a whole, criticism and contributions are welcome.

Joshcurry 1/22

Corrections on the events leading up to and after Stadtlohn, mentioned that it was Christian of Brunswick, not Mansfeld who was defeated there. Also gvae information regarding the armistice between Frederick V and Ferdinand II

Stadlohn &c.[edit]

Fleurus was a skirmish. Even Guthrie, in his frankly guns-and-drums history, gives it no more than a few lines. The rest corrected per Guthrie vol. 1 pp. 105-06.

Source: Guthrie, Battles of the Thirty Years War

CWA 02:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reworked the article on the battle of Fleurus, it was not a very large battle, but certainly larger than a skirmish.--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Frederick V and Armistice[edit]

Re-added the note that Frederick surrendered upon the news of his losses at Stadtlohn, changed the link so that it will go to the battle information instead of town information. I will be adding geographic pictures to my developed battle pages soon.

Could you please provide a citation for your statement that Frederick V surrendered? Also the reference to exile is puzzling as well. Frederick had been sitting in the Hague making a nuisance of himself since shortly after White Mountain, and there he would remain. He didn't go anywhere just because Halberstadt got his come-uppance.
CWA 21:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My armistice/surrender citation is from David Eggenberger's "A Dictonary of Battles" (1967,) the quote suggesting this armistice comes from his entry on the Battle of Statdlohn

""The battle of Stadtlohn finished Christian, the "mad Halberstadtler," as an effective commander of Protestant forces. Three days later [bearing in mind that the battle was Aug. 6,] all hope abandoned, the elector palatine (and briefly King of Bohemia), Frederick V, signed an armistice with Tilly's superior, Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor."

It was after this point that he was unable to dictate the mounting of any further campaigns under his own finances or will. It was to my understanding as well that between White Mountain and the fall of Heidelberg, he had directed the war from that respective city before fleeing to The Hague. This knowledge is backed by the following quote from Encyclopedia Brittanica regarding his situation.

"He fled to The Hague in 1622 and for the rest of his life lived on money supplied by the Dutch and English. When Sweden joined the anti-Habsburg coalition, Frederick followed Gustavus II Adolphus in his march across Germany (1630–32), but he died before he was able to reclaim his throne. "

This can be found on the Britannica website under 'Frederick the Winter King"

This statement is the reason why I mentioned that he was forced into exile. He did not simply go from Bohemia to The Hague and conduct his war from there. He returned to his original home in The Palatinate and conducted his war from there using Mansfeld and Christian. He fled when it became apparent that The Palatinate was also lost.

Yes he did seek to have his kingdom restored to him, and only when major Protestant nations joined the war did he make a credible attempt to regain his throne on the coattails of Gustavus Adolphus. But at the point of the war that we are speaking of, he had no allies left that were militarilky capable of invading the HRE, he was forced to sign a armistice that cost him his titles as Imperial elector, he lost all of his land, and the armies that he had deployed were either immobile or decimated. Would you not consider the signing of a armistice under the terms that he was given at this point a surrender?

JC 1/26 3:10AM CST

Note: I reworded my sentence mentioning his exile to be chronologically correct, making it clear that he was forced into exile in 1622, before Stadtlohn and his signing of the August 9 armistice, not after his signing. My apologies for the misleading on that detail.

I've looked in the Cambridge Modern History, Gindely, Parker (the text and the chronological tables at the front) and Wedgewood. Only in the last is there any mention of an armistice, and that purports to be dated as of three weeks (not days) from the battle. No detail is given.
I also checked the relevant section in Pursell's biography of Frederick, which gives a proper account of what happened. As part of James I/VI's Spanish Match manouvering, Isabella (on behalf of Spain) had given Frederick three months to agree to enter into negotations to be held under her auspices. The Emperor had signed on to this initiative as well. James kept pressuring his son-in-law to accede, which he refused to do. Finally, after Stadlohn (and after the deadline had expired), James I/VI threatened to cut off his daughter and grandchildren without a farthing Frederick reluctantly agreed:
"On 26 August 1623 . . . Frederick signed the suspension of arms, under duress of his debts, according to Camerarius. Apparently all allowances from England, even those meant for Elizabeth and her children, would have been cut off if Frederick did not comply. But there was nothing to fear from any peace conference; he had signed the document after the expiration of the three months alloted for the organization of the peace conference in Cologne. The Infanta in Brussels said that it was necessary to appeal for the Emperor's affirmation once again. There was no settlement to be had regarding the Holy Roman Empire."
Pursell, p. 203.
As this alleged peace was, quite literally, a dead letter, I really think reference to it should be removed.
CWA 03:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a compromised section regarding the exit of Frederick V, but no solid mention of a truce. This will be until I can find solid literary evidence outside of the sources that I've already used. -JoshCurry 2/2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 10:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Thirty Years' War -> Thirty Years War. I recommend deleting the apostrophe; it is unnecessary and unidiomatic in English. The result of this vote should be applied to subpages and categories for consistency, without separate discussion. Septentrionalis 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support Septentrionalis 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - without the apostrophe it should be "Seven-Year War" PeaceOnEarth 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - see Talk:Hundred Years' War. Hard to type? Hardly. --Stemonitis 09:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same reasons as above, it's spelling would also break with the traditional notation of wars named after their duration, thus possibly discrediting the page to serious historians. JoshCurry
  • Support The war does not belong to thirty years it is "a war thirty years long". If one was to call it "Germany's Thirty Years War" then there ought to be an apostrophe. -- PBS 13:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ungrammatical and not hard to type. -- Arwel (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is not ungrammatical; the apostrophe indicates a genitive construction, not a possessive one. This is more common than you might imagine: "two days' time," "five dollars' worth," etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


Add any additional comments

I observe that the References are divided. The apostrophe is unneccesary, and hard to type. Septentrionalis 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inaccuracy abounds in this article![edit]

Excuse me, but this article is completely inaccurate! As a historian, I've spent much of my life studying this war. Some of the information here is completely preposterous. I shall be correcting the false statements. Before I do, however, I would like to suggest that those who do not know the subject should not be posting inaccurate information.

Welcome -- and welcome to your "expert" opinion. Before you begin any extensive changes, it would be best for you to sign in as a Wiki user so people can "talk" to you. Also, concensus and interaction is important here, so please discuss your changes on the talk pages and cite your sources. Best wishes. WBardwin 01:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In general it is best to cite sources for changes. Also people should bear in mind the no primary sources rule. Seconadary, published sources are the name of the game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


The map labels the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as Kingdom of Poland, which is inaccurate. Would someone mind fixing this error? Appleseed (Talk) 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the map unites the island of Great Britain as England. The Union of Scotland and England would not occur until 1707, and at this stage, Scotland, though Protestant, and ruled by the same monarch, was an independent nation state. Even once united, the new state would never take the name of England, and so this is more than inaccurate but potentially offensive. Hope it is corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Clan Munro battle info[edit]

If there are any experts out there, does anyone know which battles the Clan Munro fought in during the 30 years war ? I know that two successive Chiefs of the clan died during their time there. Sir Hector Munro died in 1635 made 1st baronet by Charles I - died in Hamburg, Germany and Robert Munro died in 1633, the black baron served in the 30 years war - died at Ulm, Germany.

Any info would be great.

  • This information seems more appropriate for the Clan Munro article than this article. Unless the men mentioned were significant generals who had stretegic effects on the war we should not mention them here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for inlince citations[edit]

This is a pretty good article, but it desperatly needs proper inline citations to progress further.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of "Good articles", just to help anyone who might review this, can anyone tell me whether the article was written solely with the references below or with something else? Homestarmy 19:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Inline referencing is needed here. Also, some POV tone issues ("French attrocities" in the lead, for instance) need addressing. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article status[edit]

This is on hold for 7 days for these reasons: there are no inline citations, whould should be in cite php format; there are only 4 references-I'm sure there are more. Otherwise, a very nice article.Rlevse 13:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed, no action taken.Rlevse 19:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Habsburgs thinking of England?[edit]

Currently the article states — in the Origins of the war section — "the Habsburg emperors who followed Charles V ... aware of the deathly evils and turmoil England had suffered due to official religious intolerance" What evidence is there that England's experience was in the minds of the Habsburg emperors? A cited source here would be helpful. Stumps 07:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

England had been an ally of Germany until the reformation; they both shared troublesome borders with France (when England was on the continent). Therefore, it is hard to imagine that the Emperor did not look at England, which was also the subject of the Spanish Crusade against Elizabeth.

Hmmm...its a little difficult looking for a citation that proves what anyone is thinking of, even if we had the Emperor's brain. 21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • We should not make claims unless there are sources. If this was a matter of concern, than it would have been discussed in correspondence between the Emperor and his subordiannts, and historians examinations of this could be found. Sources are needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The last paragraph- separation of church and state[edit]

At the end of this article there is reference to the US constitution containing a statement about separation of church and state. This is a fallacy. NO WHERE does the US constitution talk about the separation of church and state. This is a mis interpretation of the first amendment which only states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is a limitation on the powers of congress not extending the powers of government to stop religious expression in the public sphere. READ YOUR CONSTITUTION.

Read Jefferson and Madison. Esp. Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptists. The Establishment Clause does separate church and state by preventing the estalishment of state religions.

Including this in an article on the Thirty Years War is a bit silly other than as a minor footnote. No wonder the world regards the US as ego-centric and self absorbed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of article[edit]

The article wrote: In the decades after the war, while Austria and its German allies were busy defending against the Ottoman Empire in the Great Turkish War, which included such large conflicts as Battle of Vienna, France under King Louis XIV took the opportunity for aggressive expansion on both sides of the Rhine. The biography of Ezechiel du Mas, Comte de Melac illustrates the French atrocities in Southern Germany: he devastated the region using the slogan Burn the Palatinate!. The memories of these events that define the history of most cities in the area, along with lasting French annexions of territories such as the Alsace, and the repetition of the occupation in the Napoleonic Wars, led to the so-called French-German enmity and ultimately played a part in the origin of two World Wars.

This exceeds what should be written in the beginning of an article. Further, it is too focussed. And especially the part about Melac refers to history after the Thirty Years' War. I will delete it from the article. -- Zz 13:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Calvinists or Protestants[edit]

Who threw Wilhelm Grav Slavata and Jaroslav Borzita Graf Von Martinicz out of the palace windows? the Calvinists or the Protestants? according to this article its the Calvinists who did that but according to Defenestrations of Prague article it's the Protestants who did it. -- 15:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Calvinists are Protestants but not all Protestants are Calvinists. Protestant simply means one in "protest" to the Catholic Church. So to use the term Protestant in reference to a Calvinist is completely appropiate. The real differentiation is between Lutherans and Calvinists which should be made clear in both articles. HuronKing. October 2nd 2006.

Agreed HuronKing. Even people knowledgeable about history do not always know that both Lutherans and Calvinists are Protestants. This distinction is important for understanding of the Thrity Years war. -Sensemaker

I have found this mistake in a lot of articles about 30 years war and similar. It's fact that Protestants include majority (if not all? - I'm not sure) of Western-Christian religions, that separated from Catolics. But the important thing to say is that there were not a lot of Lutherans or Calvinists in Bohemia, they were Hussits (Utraquists) - and it's very different from other main Protestant religions (by the way, I think it was the 1st one). From the times of J. Hus, through the Hussite wars, reign of George of Podebrady, there were many of them. Bohemia was a religiously tolerant country almost 100 years before Schmalkalten war (Cuius regio, eius religio). The "fraction" of Czech Brothers existed in Bohemia - its well known bishop was J.A.Komensky himself, etc. So, is here anyone else who knows it "better" than me? I'm very sorry, but I don't know all thehistorical names in English and I didn't have a lot of time to seatch for it. Thus, I don't want to make any corrections now. -- J. Indracek, 25th December 2006


The article is very unclear. Please seperate the paragraphs further into smaller ones, or else show a timeline for one to follow. I found it difficult to understand - All i understood was that there was a protestant rebellion against the Catholic Holy Emperor, and that the combined arms of Sweeden and France won, mostly. Oh and that Denmark failed. As for the various rebellions and events, those were coming out of nowhere and ending before they were explained well.


The introduction ends by saying that:

"The war may have lasted for 30 years, but conflicts continued for 300 more years." [my bolding}

The "300 years" comment seems a rather odd one to make. Especially since it is not followed up by any kind of comment or explanation. Unless someone can come up with a good reason for keeping it I suggest we remove it. KarlXII 15:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe whoever wrote that wanted to say that wars in Central, Nothern, and Western Europe continued for 300 years but after that (id est after World War II) we have had peace for more than sixty years in a row now. That's a reflection that is fairly interesting, I wouldn't hasitate to include is as a finishing remark in a book or an essay about the Thirty Years War. However, I do not think it is really relevant to an article about the Thirty Years War in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to stick to the subject more stringently than an essay or a book. Besides in the formulation above, it is lacking in clarity. -Sensemaker

Cause for Swedish intervention[edit]

The reasons for Swedish intervention are stated as "to forestall Catholic aggression against their homeland and to obtain economic influence in the German states around the Baltic Sea." Judging from the debate in the Riksdag and royal propaganda, the wish to help fellow protestants was a reason mentioned at least as often as any other. I'm adding this. -Sensemaker

That would make a lot more sense considering that the war was about the right to worship in different churches (with the exception of the political aims of France).


Why isn't Transilvania among beligerant countries? At the end of the war, the Treaty of Westfalia recognised that Transilvania was part of the winners' alliance as an independent country.--Alex:Dan 11:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Strenght of the Armies involved[edit]

The numbers wasn't permanent along the war but, counting the highest peaks, the swedish army wasn't only 40-75 thousand men as say at the beginning of the article, but in fact 149.000 as say in the "Swedish intervention" section of this own article. So i will change the initial exposition of sources with a round number of 150 thousand swedish men.

Here is the dates for the dutch army, page 54

"When the dutch army was increased to 77.000 in 1629 during the threatened Spanish invasion..."

So i have change it from 50 to 75 thousand men (round number)


I have added 20000 men from the danish army. --Bentaguayre 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

England, Scotland[edit]

Does anyone know why England and Scotland are listed as combatants? I'm pretty sure they weren't, and I can't see anything in the article that would explain it. 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

King Charles I nephew ( Prince Rupert I think) fought for the Germanic Protestant Princes and against the Holy Roman Empire. As for Scotland, I can only guess that perhaps some mercenaries from Scotland and or England arrived in the scene. The war was a haven for mercenaries. In the book Battle by R.G.Grant, the Thirty Years war is grouped with the English Civil war since both have very similar causes and consequences: Religious warfare, and the decline of the King/Emperor's power. But I would like to comment that I don't agree on England and Scotland being listed as combatants since the countries did not actually take part in combate!! 21:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Prince Rupert was a Germanic Protestant Prince. His mother was English (Elizabeth, daughter of James I and VI), but his father was German. Sorry to be a pedant and all that.

England helped finance Frederick "The Winter King" and sent token amounts of troops to Frankenthal during the last years of that phase (1622-23.) (source: Afterwards they obliged themselves to pay war subsidies the Danes in the League of the Hague, but poor relations between Charles and Parliament prevented this. (source:

Scotland, still independent at this time was not directly involved.

-JoshCurry 7/2/07 (1:43 PM CST)

Scotland should not be in the list. Presumably someone added it because Scottish nationals were serving as mercenaries in the war, however that does not make Scotland a combatant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Peace of Westphalia[edit]

I think that the section on the Peace of Westphalia should be expanded a bit to explain its terms. Not a lot since there's a link to the article, but a little more would be good.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lost puppies (talkcontribs) 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Image layout[edit]

Please try to limit the amount of princely portraits. They're used excessively, often seem too large and are really dull when used en masse as they are. I also recommend placing images so they don't overlap sections.

Peter Isotalo 19:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the gargantuan infobox makes the lead look very unappealing by taking up something like half of the horizontal space. The placing of the table of contents between the info box and the first section doesn't exactly help either and makes the article look like something cooked up to appeal only to aficionados. A few suggestions for improvements is to make a briefer summary; fewer combatants and leaders; no breakup of the forces on either side; moving the list of battles to the bottom of the page.
Peter Isotalo 19:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Habsburg Decline[edit]

This defeat for Spain and imperial forces also marked the decline of Habsburg power and allowed the emergence of Bourbon dominance.

Only to a certain extent - The Habsburgs defeated the Ottomans many times later on and secured a grand Austrian empire that eventually after many defeats, beat Napolean's France (with Russia, Prussia and Britain). So Habsburg Power did not decline as such.

Also I have a question, in whatway was Prussia affected? I know that it had adopted Protestantism and therefore was probably an enemy of Austria and the HRE, but, any one else car eto inform me as to what generally happened i.e. was it invaded, did it suffer as much as Germany etc...Tourskin 19:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Crediting the Austrian Hapsburgs with "beating" Napoleon is a stretch - they were defeated by his armies several times before finally joining a gigantic coalition in 1813 that defeated him. As for defeating the Ottomans, recall that that state was called the "Sick Man of Europe" throughout that period. There is no doubt that the Hapsburgs came out of the Thirty Year's War weakened. Prior to 1648 the Hapsburgs (in both branches) were generally considered the greatest powerbrokers of Europe; this ceased to be the case afterwards. Spain lost several territories in the latter half of the century and then became a Bourbon state; Austria was reduced to merely one of several powers on the continent; and the Holy Roman Empire became functionally useless. Funnyhat 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Protestant/Catholic territory[edit]

At the end of all the fighting, which faith gained geographical territory in the empire - Protestantism or Catholicism? 22:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

GA status May 2008[edit]

This article is on GA hold for these reasons:

  1. Too many refs in the lead, a good lead, being a summary, will have few if any refs in the lead, the refs, as details, should be in the body.
  2. Several paras have no ref at all, even some entire sections have no ref at all, each para, esp for FA and GA should have at least one ref
  3. No need to bold "The Bohemian Revolt, the Danish intervention, the Swedish intervention and the French intervention." Done
  4. Don't need to link solo years such as 1640, only full dates  Done
  5. There should be no space between punctuation and refs, fixed a few for you, may be more  Done
  6. See WP:Layout WP:GTL, the fiction section should be lower in the body, below refs I think Not done
  7. Three external refs have numbered jumps, fix those Done
  8. Work the lead a bit, it should summarize each section of the body, you seem to leave out a few

Good points:

  1. Writing is fairly good,
  2. Most images are free and from commons

RlevseTalk 16:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's plenty we're willing to work on there, but I disagree mildly with point 6. I think the 'see also' and 'references' sections should be at the bottom, therefore the 'fiction' section is as low as I am willing to put it. I am marking it as 'not done' for now...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I can live with that. RlevseTalk 10:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
GA failed, issues not fixed, renominate when addressed. RlevseTalk 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to add a few comments concerning what would make this a better article (and perhaps a Good Article):

  1. The section Origins of the War is very long. Could it be broken up into sub-sections?
  2. There are 12 images: 9 portraits, 3 battle-related images, and 1 not-particularly-great map. The article could use more maps, not necessarily battle maps, but campaign maps that would help those readers not familiar with 17th century Europe orient themselves.
  3. Certainly a conflict that lasted 30 years and encompassed much/most of Europe has a huge cast of characters. Would there be any way to help readers orient themselves in terms of the important players? I realize that the portraits help in this regard, but perhaps there's something more that can be done. Perhaps little sidebar boxes at periodic intervals.

Thanks Madman (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Poland and the TYW[edit]

From a post of mine to a history forum that will be forgotten soon. I am not sure how to make it into an article or add it here, but it is relevant. I wonder if I should copyedit it and move it to Thirty Years' War and Poland, per Thirty Years' War and Norway? Please note it is all referenced to Radosław Lolo, Rzeczpospolita wobec wojny trzydziestoletniej. Opinie i stanowiska szlachty polskiej (1618-1635) (PLC towards the TYW. Opinions and attituted of the Polish nobility). 2004. ISBN 8389709066.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The 1629 Truce of Altmark was generally seen as unfair towards Poland. The szlachta was however unhappy with the Hapsburg offer of help; the Hapsburg-Wallenstein corps under Hans Georg von Arnim and later under Philip von Mansfeld that aided Poland during the recent hostilities was seen as ineffective and expensive. Please note the word seen; historians differ on the evaluation but contemporary Polish nobility was so annoyed with it that there was a near consensus that any future combat with the Swedes will be done without aid from the HRE. Regarding the Swedes, while - as I mentioned - there was consensus that PLC had to regain control over Vistula trade, it was decided that negotiations would be proffered - the last war was expensive both in term of money and life, and the Swedish forces gained much respect among the szlachta for their unexpected military valor. Polish king himself supported a more agressive stance, but he was blocked by the szlachta (remember, PLC was the only contemporary almost REAL parliament democracy).

2. In 1630 HRE Emperor asked the Polish king, Zygmunt (Sigismund) III Waza (Vasa) for aid. He refused, and the szlachta supported him - they were not ready for a new war with the Swedes, and wanted to adhere to the truce.

3. The death of Constance of Austria - wife of Zygmunt - in 1631 weakened the Hapsburg position in Poland.

4. In the meantime, Gustavus decided that PLC should be neutralized (kept busy) while he entered the HRE. With the death of Gabriel Bethlen in 1629 who previously pledged to take care of PLC, he needed new allies. Hence the Swedish-Muscovy alliance (in 1630 Swedish envoy received a promise from the Tsar that Muscovy would soon invade PLC). Swedish envoy Jacob Roussel also tried to instigate a Cossack uprisings agaisnt the Commonwealth in 1632 but his letters apparently were intercepted by PLC loyalists among the Cossacks, and made their way to top Polish officials who protested that Sweden is breaking the truce.

5. Both Zygmunt and his son and successor Władysław IV Waza decided that the best way to support their Harrisburg allies is to allow them to recruit Polish soldiers. Thousands of Polish soldiers would find their way to HRE, fighting for the Hapsburg. Do note that by thousands I mean between 1000 and 3000 (sources vary). Their commanders included Irish (but nobilitated in Poland) Walter and Jacob Buthler. The soldiers of course were mostly from the ranks of (poorer) szlachta, but included many semi- and real professionals (Polish mercenaries). Many of them returned to Poland in 1632, where they caused a little trouble, but were soon dealt with - some were hired into the royal army, and more unruly were dispersed by force. At the same time new troops were being recruited (a Swedish envoy in charge of that who arrived in Warsaw was Arnold von Clarstein). While the king and some top magnates, senators and officials (Karol Ferdynand Waza, Jakub Zadzik, Lew Sapieha, Jan Wężyk, Stanisław Łubieński, Stanisław Lubomirski, Stanisław Koniecpolski, Albrecht Stanisław Radziwiłł, Jan Tęczyński, Tomasz Zamoyski, Jakub Sobieski, Adam Kazanowski, Gembicki and Ossoliński families) supported the Hapsburg cause, szlachta envoys in the parliament opposed increasing recruitement, as they did not want to provoke the Swedes into breaking the truce. Clarstein, for the record, asked for significant numbers: 5000 calvalry and 10 000 Cossacks, as well as financial aid (do remember that the PLC government was always financially stricken, as the szlachta HATED paying taxes). Obviously if such an aid would be granted, the truce would be broken, and szlachta was adamant this was not going to happen. Even the king and most magnates were uneasy about breaking the truce, and preferred a more limited aid and were a bit taken aback by the large scope of Clarnstein's demands. In private talks with the king and the magnates / officials who oversaw the military matters, Clarnstein received a general and semi-official permission to recruit some soldiers, as well as to gather supplies (ammunition, food). In a separate communique, Wallenstein asked and was allowed by Wladyslaw to recruit 1000 of elite Polish hussars and few thousand of lesser cavalry, which were to be split and put under HRE command. Notable Polish commanders who recruited ~1000-2000 force in 1632 included colonels Tobiasz Minor, Stefan Wieruski and Andrzej Morski (and the HRE military organized in PLC was Karl Hannibal von Dohna), but anything more evaporated due to two problems: the beginning of the Smolensk War which required PLC to shift its attention to the east, and lack of money - neither HRE nor its PLC supporters were willing or able to pay for the Polish mercenaries. Already szlachta was complaining about troubles with recruited soldiers, but they were passing over to HRE Silesia. In 1632-1633 nonetheless ~5000 Poles were recruited and ended up in Silesia, but many returned to PLC to fight in the Smolensk War for their homeland, plus there were unhappy as they were paid less and expected to adhere to higher discipline than promised.

French Flag[edit]

Isn't the completely white French Naval Ensign absolute boring? Would it be unhistoric to use the Pavillon royal with the yellow lilies (fleurs-de-lis) on white background? --El bes (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Plus, didn't French kings use a blue pavillon until about the mid-1600s? Funnyhat (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to your point Funnyhat there is a link above to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica which seems to indicate from 1590s the blue flag was disbanded (the French WP article Guerre_de_Trente_Ans also makes this clear) however the royal costume below seems to suggest it was still used as an emblem:

Louis XIV

I have changed the flag of France to correspond with that shown in the French article.

Imprecise table[edit]

In the table listing the states for and against the emperor the first column is perplexingly labelled 'emperor,' it's hard to imagine the emperor ever siding against his own claims and regardless of his authority it can't really be claimed that he was a state unto himself. I think the sense would be better captured by renaming this column after his most personal fief simply as 'Austria'

I agree with the unknown author above, that the entry is perplexing but feel it should say "Empire" or "H.R.E." I came her to ask a related question: why are some parts of the Empire (Bavaria, for example) listed here, but not others (Wuerttemberg, for example)? The logic of who is on this list and who is not escapes me. (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


Does anybody else think that the prose in the intro is of relatively poor quality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction: Peace of Prague[edit]

...the Peace of Prague (1635), which entailed a delay in the enforcement of the Edict of Restitution for 40 years and allowed Protestant rulers to retain secularized bishoprics held by them in 1627. This protected the Lutheran rulers of northeastern Germany, but not those of the south and west (whose lands had been occupied by the Imperial or League armies prior to 1627).

However, according to Peace of Prague (1635)

The Edict of Restitution of 1629 was effectively revoked, with the terms of the Peace of Augsburg of 1555 being re-established... Amnesty was granted to the enemies of the Emperor (with the exception of the former Elector Palatine, Frederick V)... the treaty also brought to an end religion as a source of national conflict; the principle of cuius regio, eius religio was established for good within the Empire

Thus, according to the former the Peace only delayed the Edict of Restitution while according to later is revoked it. Also, the former specifies that all south and west Lutheran Princes were not protected, whereas the later only mentions Frederick V as an exception

Top.Squark (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no contradiction, it is just not well put. Both entries are right:
  • Regarding delayed vs revoked: The delay in implementation of the edict of restitution for forty years was to allow further settlements between the parties. The treaty says that if such a settlement was not reached after those forty years, everything should be set to the status it had on 12 November 1627. The treaty further granted to Catholics and adherents of the Augsburg confession the possessions they had on 12 November 1627, so nothing would change if the forty years expire without reaching a new agreement. Thus, the edict of restitution was effectively revoked for areas that were non-Catholic on 12 November 1627.
  • Regarding protected vs unprotected: The treaty protected the possessions and rights of Catholics and adherents of the Augsburg confession as of 12 November 1627. Those Lutherans who had already lost rights/possessions by this day did not regain anything and were not protected by the treaty (affecting primarily southern Germany). For restoration of property in Lorraine and for the amnesty, the reference date was set to 1630 (landing of the Swedish army).
Hope that helps. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, there is still a contradiction. If it's not put well, it has to be corrected. The clarification you wrote here should be in the articles (best with appropriate citations). As is, the text is contradictory. I'm putting the template back until the required improvements are made. Top.Squark (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Where is ("still") a contradiction? There wasn't any in the first place, as outlined above. But you should not "require" people to make improvements that clarify something for you, if you feel the articles need expansion (you are of course right, they do), WP:SOFIXIT. The contradiction template is not the appropriate tool to use here. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a contradiction. According to Peace of Prague (1635), only Frederick was exempted from the amnesty. According to you, the amnesty was granted to additional princes depending on the date their territories were occupied etc. Thus your explanation is not consistent with the current text. Also, the use of the phrase "delay in the enforcement of the Edict of Restitution" to mean "if such a settlement was not reached after those forty years, everything should be set to the status it had on 12 November 1627" is extremely misleading at best.
Regarding being bold and so on. I would gladly correct the text if I knew what is right myself. Since I have no knowledge on the subject except what I learn from these articles, and no access to other reliable source, I have no way of fixing these problems. The only problems I can possibly spot in the contents are logical inconsistencies. I can try using your explanation as the basis for the fix, but this is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, there are details which I still don't sufficiently understand, for instance the distinction between the two reference dates (1627 and 1630). Secondly, I can't place citations since I don't know the sources. In any case, it appears to me that it is suboptimal if I serve as a "broken telephone" translating your comments into article text, instead of you (or any other person knowledgeable in the subject) correcting it directly.
I think the template is the appropriate tool. The purpose of templates is precisely point out problems with articles and thus drawing the attentions of editors who can fix them. Also, I don't think the clarification is needed "for me" (this wouldn't justify so much effort), I think it is needed for all readers. Top.Squark (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a template on this page and not on Peace of Prague (1635)? This article is sourced with the Peace of Prague article having no references. If there is a contradiction, two article contradict each other and the solution may lie in changing either, or both. Why is all the burden put here? Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes, a contradiction template can go to "one or both contradicting articles top". I selected this article solely because it is edited by far more frequently, which means that placing the template here should attract attention and lead to fixing the problem faster. I have no objection to placing the template in the other article as well. Top.Squark (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

France supported Emperor?[edit]

The "Involved states (chart)" section states that France briefly indirectly supported the Emperor before opposing him. What is the source for this? None of the history books I've read mention it, and my history professor said that it's false... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Map of 1618?[edit]

This article has a nice map of the HRE after the 30 Years War, but nothing of it before the war. It would be a welcome addition, if there are any industrious map-makers out there. :) RobertM525 (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Reparations for Denmark from Sweden: result of Kalmar War?[edit]

Christian IV had obtained for his kingdom a level of stability and wealth that was virtually unmatched elsewhere in Europe. This stability and wealth was paid for by tolls on the Oresund and also by extensive war reparations from Sweden

Am I right that the aforementioned reparations were a result of the Kalmar War?

Top.Squark (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see se:Älvsborgs lösen, (Northern Seven Yrs and Kalmar Wars, treaties of Stettin and Knäred). Skäpperöd (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dutch involvement[edit]

I've always understood the Dutch involvement in this war was indirect (they were mainly fighting the Spanish). Reading the info box to the right would seem as if the Dutch were the main Belligerents, especially the Commanders collumn. Maybe the Dutch variant of the infobox is more appropriate and clear (divided into phases with seperate: "supported by" see: nl:Dertigjarige Oorlog. I can change that if people agree with that grouping.

Also the 75.000 men from the Republic is a fact taken from an article concerning the 80-year war, not the 30-year war. I do not know the correct number, so I can't edit that, but maybe somebody knows. Joost 99 (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Title: 30 Years' War?[edit]

It's not the 30 years' war. The war lasted 30 years, thus the 30 Years War. toolong 22:00, 08 October 2010

No, it's the Thirty Years' War, with the possessive apostrophe. Funnyhat (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Netherlands ????[edit]

Why are the Netherlands listed first in the Belligerents box? As far as I know they were only a minor participant. Sweden and France did the most fighting for the anti-Emperor faction while Bohemian estates were the first to fight the Emperor. I do not see a reason to name them first in the above mentioned box.

-- (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, see my comment above (Dutch involvement), but apparently people don't really care. Joost 99 (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. I removed your double entry.
Agreed and done, not quite sure if this order is correct but I list Sweden first followed by France. As you mentioned Bohemia was the first to fight the Holy Roman Empire, not sure what wikipedia says is the norm in these things, so someone change it if they're bothered - at least now it's a lot more correct than the netherlands being listed first. --Hst20 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Joost 99 (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's because todays English speaking people don't admit that the war was basically fought and won by Louis XIII of France. There are anyway many untold story about this man, and his negative reception today is largely influence by catholic propaganda. It also doesn't make much sense that he is supposed to be a catholic, but fights against the catholic Spain. Also the so called "cardinal" Richelieu is said to have founded the académie française, and this in a time when the catholic church was killing scientists through inquisition! Moreover, there were many calvinist fortresses attacked by Louis XIV, but yet nobody can explain why calvinists where allowed to build fortresses in a supposedly catholic France? Also it's not clear why a supposedly catholic Louis XIII did not reverse the edict of Nantes, but Louis XIV did! This all makes no sense whatsoever, and I'm 100% convinced that these untrue stories were invented upon the catholic revisionism introduced by Louis XIV, and that Louis XIII was in fact a calvinist, supported by Germany, England and the Netherlands. So don't believe everything what's written in today's history books...or the Wikipedia. -- (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Catholic Church lose power?[edit]

Substantial decline in the power and influence of the Catholic Church

What power, exactly is that? Whatever power the Church lost is in terms of political influence, which had already begun with the Protestant reformation. It's hard to see howthe Church lost its power considering its ability to call up a Holy League in 1684 (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The catholic Spanish actually lost much territory to France and other countries. But you were right: The church got the power back through Louis XIV by switching sides. So in the end they even became stronger. Their power? Well, getting money from kings and through confession. And ideological influence. Aso. -- (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge battle permastubs[edit]

I propose that Battle of Jüterbog be merge here. During the AfD discussion for that article it became apparent that there's little coverage for that battle. It seems it was created part of the Template:Campaignbox_Thirty_Years'_War timeline, but there's no reason why links there cannot be to sections of this article, or to redirects to sections of this article. This is common practice in other history templates to avoid creating WP:PERMASTUBs. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This suggestion is not carefully argued and seems not to have taken into consideration any historical sources whatsoever (in particular those in German, Swedish or Danish). A number of articles stubs for battles in the Thirty Years' War fall in the same category: Battle of Prague (1648), Battle of Lomnice, Battle of Sablat, Battle of Mingolsheim, Battle of Wimpfen, Battle of Dessau Bridge, Battle of Lutter, Battle of Werben, Battle of Wiesloch (1632), Battle of the Alte Veste, Battle of Wittstock, Battle of Breisach, Battle of Chemnitz, Battle of Honnecourt, Battle of Breitenfeld (1642), Siege of Hulst, and Battle of Zusmarshausen. The present suggestion arose as the result of a disruptive AfD started by an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Jüterbog). It make no sense to consider one battle article in isolation as suggested here. Mathsci (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):: I was going to add that list here, but you beat me to it. I have not checked however if these other battles/stubs enjoy substantial coverage or not. Some of them may have substantial potential for expansion (or they might not). Tijfo098 (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I selected those which had little or no sourcing and were short stubs (it was done quite quickly, so I could have made some errors). I'm not an expert, but the question of creating battle stubs for prolonged wars must have been discussed at length for different wars on WikiProject Military History. As already pointed out, details of these short battles can often be found only in specialized history textbooks, so it seems best to leave that kind of decision up to editors with more expertise in this area. Mathsci (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Please do not merge in the battle articles. This is a fairly long article as it is, and there is no reason to let it get tied up in the details of specific battles. There is good precedent for letting each battle have its own article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering how the Battle of Jüterbog article has been expanded upon quite a lot since the Stub back in May I am going to remove the merge proposal. Even if the article was still a stub there is no need to merge battle stubs into the main article, the stubs are there to be improved upon, and if articles that are thousands of bytes in size can exist on modern trivia a battle in which thousands fought and died from hundreds of years ago definitely deserves its own page. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC).

Map inaccurate[edit]

Minor point: England is highlighted as encompassing all of Great Britain in this era. It frankly didn't. Is there a possibility of editing the map so that Scotland is shown as a separate entity (which it was at the time)? I understand it is the same in the French version of the article which is still inaccurate.

Sitegod (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Map of Europe 1648.PNG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Map of Europe 1648.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Map of Europe 1648.PNG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Casualty List[edit]

Please put a casualy list on the right as is on other war articles. To simply say 8 million died, with NO REFERENCES is not in keeping with Wikipedia's aim to be based on references (even though not truth, sadly). Hussite (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC).


I would just like to point out that Brandenburg is misspelled in the chart under "9 Involved states (chart)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Scottish? Irish? A confusion of picture captions[edit]

Scottish soldiers in service of Gustavus Adolphus, 1631-cropped-.jpg

About this picture in the article. Who's right? The caption in the article reads "Scottish soldiers in service of Gustavus Adolphus, 1630–31", whereas the caption within the image itself reads "In ſolchem Habit Gehen die 800 In Stettin angekommenen Irrlander oder Irren". It does seem all too unambiguous given that the artist saw fit to use two German words that mean "Irishmen" (although the spelling is a bit archaic -- the first one would be "Irländer" today). So, are those men supposed to be Scottish or Irish? Kelisi (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the original German broadsheet that the picture was printed in, they actually are Scottish mercenaries, but wearing "Irish" (that is, Highland) dress. My source is 'The Civil Wars' ed Kenyon and Ohlmeyer, OUP, 1998, which reproduces the same image and discusses it. In the 17-18th centuries the term "Irish" was often used to refer to the clan-based Gaelic-speaking people living in northern Scotland as well as their closely-related neighbours in Ireland. (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Danish and Norwegian strength[edit]

The infobox says that the Danish and Norwegian strenth was 50,000 men. Where in the world did this come from? The Danes invaded the Empire with 35,000 men. (See article section, Danish intervention (1625–1629). Shouldn't this number be corrected? King Philip V of Spain (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I have lowered the strength from 50,000 to 35,000, which after further reading and investigating, may still be too high. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Russia in Thirty Years War?[edit]

How was Russia involved in the Thirty Years War? What role did the nation play? there is nothing in the article mentioning this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LienEmpire (talkcontribs) 09:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

From what I've read outside of Wikipedia, Russia plays no part in the Thirty Years' War. Uhlan talk 08:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on major conflict infobox[edit]

A discussion on a major conflict infobox is taking place at Template talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies.. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 07:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

People, get realistic, please[edit]

"The problem of discipline was made more difficult by the ad hoc nature of 17th-century military financing: armies were expected to be largely self-funding by means of loot taken or tribute extorted from the settlements where they operated."

Untrue. Up until the French revolution - maybe even beyond it - all wars were fought for robbery and not on ideologies. And these wars anyway weren't between "Spain" or "France" or nations whatsoever, but between kingdoms (Wikipedia is totally wrong with this view and just undermines todays nationalistic views but not the real world back in those days). There were no nations and no fiat money as today, and the so called "kings" were just conquering territory for gold, silver, commodities and taxes (sic!).

That's the reason for war 300 years ago as it was the reason for war 3000 years ago. Even the Romans were basically slaughtering celts just to get their gold. The Romans actually were just the nazis of the antics, who we nowadays look too much positive at. Just because they called their murdering system "republic", which only meant that Romans were free to kill any other people all around the world or put them into slavery. This so called "high culture" was in fact just a highly organized and sophisticated murdering culture against humans and nature.

Only the fiat money changed this, finally. However, due to the upcoming of the war industry it didn't prevent wars at all, it only changed the reasons for war. Today war is fought because some brain-sick weapon producers want artificial money coming out of a printing press. This is likely even more brain-less than the wars fought 3000 years ago. -- (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I would doubt that the Thirty Years' War was fought for robbery, considering the intricate causes of the event. Uhlan talk 08:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thirty Years' War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 11:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 11:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Before I go into detailed comments, can we establish which variety of English the article is meant to be in? At present it appears to be mostly in BrEng with occasional lapses into AmEng: "councillors", "metres", "favoured", "neighbouring", "an historical" and "theatre" on the one hand, and "neighboring", "unraveled" and "centers on the other. Tim riley talk 11:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Dead links: refs 21, 46, 51, 72, 73 and the first two External links.
I now turn to the details of the text, and am sorry to say that the article is nowhere near GA standard so far as GA criterion 2b is concerned. "Origins of the war" contains eight paragraphs – some quite long – with no citations whatever, and the same lack persists at many points throughout the article. This is serious enough to disqualify it from promotion: the "Immediate failure" criterion 2 clearly applies, and I am therefore failing the nomination. It is a great pity, as the article is well written, interesting and looks balanced and authoritative, but with wholesale lack of citation of reliable sources it will not do for GA.– Tim riley talk 12:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Sweden a reliable ally of Denmark 1625-29 ???[edit]

"Christian's poor luck continued when all of the allies he thought he had were forced aside: France was in the midst of a civil war, Sweden was at war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and neither Brandenburg nor Saxony were interested in changes to the tenuous peace in eastern Germany" According to all sources I've read as non professional amateur of history, Sweden never was allied in any way with Denmark these times. Rather they were old and future enemies very much competing for the control of trade in the Baltic Sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Causalties and disease[edit]

What about the frequently given numbers, that the population of Germany dropped from 12 million to just 4 million as a result of the war? Exaggerated?Marcin862 (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

covered in detail see text in section 7 at footnotes 74-85. Exact numbers are unknown. Rjensen (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Sebastian Vrancx[edit]

A painter from the area of modern-day Belgium. His paintings probably concern the bloody conflict The Eighty Years' War or Dutch War of Independence (1566–1648). They are constantly published in articles about the Thirty Years' War because they are very graphic, showing many acts of cruelty. These are in reality paintings from the late 16th century: . Marcin862 (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) In a serious documentary film, the Vrancx picture with a destroyed village was also used.Marcin862 (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC) These two wars went on simultaneously:, .Marcin862 (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are proposing. A couple of pics from Sebastian Vrancx are already in the article. If you have some additional ones, they could go in the Gallery. If you want them to be more prominent, you could be WP:BOLD and add them. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I mean they should probably be deleted. It is a mistake, I'm almost sure.Marcin862 (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I got it now. If you want to delete them, okay. But they aren't really "wrong" from our current prospective; they aren't used as specific historical events, just examples from the era about the sort of things that happened. But, yes, the first one is labeled as "Thirty Years' War" even though it's from 1620. I'll fix that, though leave the pic in for the moment. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Strength: About 20,000 Hungarian and Croatian cavalry[14][edit]

erm ... I think it was just a bit more than that, surely! (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)