Talk:Battle of Breitenfeld (1631)

Cost shorted?

Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean?

from 1630 to 1632, the cost of Gustavus' army was shorted by 80%, but the strength was increased to over 350%.

Should that be 'reduced by 80%' or perhaps the French supported 80% of the cost? MilesVorkosigan 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It´s true the french contributed with subsidiaries, but they amounted to less then 25% of the total cost for the original army (Some 38000 men) The reason the cost the swedish crown (thus meaning the swedish people) had to bear was so reduced was that the concured lands and cities had to contribute to the costs of war by taxes and such.81.227.68.254 (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Breitenfeld (1631) order of battle?

Maybe we should merge Breitenfeld (1631) order of battle with this article?
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

YES! --Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Leipzig

Is this battle also known as the Battle of Leipzig 1631 ??? Psycotics1454 18:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Breitenfeld is not far from Leipzig. 81.227.68.254 (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.68.254 (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Other sources

I have noticed that the article rests basically on a single modern source, I have corrected the numbers given in accordance to Guthrie "Battles of the Thirty years War". I have also edited a bit the article, which i think really needs a more balanced view--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems a bit pro-Swedish to me. Looks like it is glorifying the "unstoppable northern lion" too much at the end of the article.

Isidoros47 (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyeditting

I'll work on copyeditting this article. --Banime (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

Something around half of the references refer to the novel 1632, a work of fiction (even if mostly historically accurate). That's not a valid source by any means. Xuenay (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I read the novel, came here to get a more neutral and accurate view and all there is is a mix of hagiography and a retelling of the novel. I've added a few more "issues" to the box in the article. A novel surely is not a reliable source.--ospalh (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

I've added {{Primary sources}} as an issue. As Xuenay has noted above, most references are to a novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ospalh (talk • contribs) 10:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. That was quick, sinebot. I just realised I forgot so sign and wanted to add it by myself.--ospalh (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article has so many issues, I think it would be simpler to rewrite it than to fix everything. Unfortunately I don't really know anything about the Thirty Years' War's history, so I can't be any real help.--ospalh (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. This is written more as an economic and political analysis; and from that viewpoint. As a piece on the political and economic factors in broad overview it is not bad. This is not my specific area of study, but one of my favorites. I will try to work something up. BLS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.163.133 (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing

I've just done some editing what I hope improved the quality of the article. Apart from some comma things and breaking long sentences into shorter ones which are better readable, I think I changed the overall tone so that the article is now much more neutral - however, I kept the "lion" bit in, though I personally think it should simply be deleted. I also think the monument should be removed from the introduction as it is not important for a first overall understanding of the topic. --Kojozone (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Responding to edit/copy/citation problems

This header appeared on the page of the article. I attacked the article, and rewrote significant parts using the three books I have on the topic: Wedgewood, Parker, and Meade. I've taken it as far as I can in terms of content. Someone else will have to approach the military issues that remain.

• specifics of the battle, details, etc. beyond what I have. Did the Saxons fully desert in the first moments of battle? The original article cited text from 1632 to support this, but 1632, however well researched, is still a piece of fiction.

• although I know that generally Gustav was a very competent general, and an innovative tactical and operations guy, the article needs a better analysis of his innovations: by better, I mean more balanced, and less impressed with the Lion of the North.

• I suggest, also, that the Order of Battle page be "moved" (or whatever) to here to better look like the articles about other battles.

I will work this for the military apsects. BLS

{{primarysources|date=April 2009}}

that said, I'm happy to copy edit when someone has done some more work on this. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

very bizarre, that kojozone and I would chose to work on this at the same time!!--Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

just had a look at the new version of the article. I just say wow, it's much better now!--Kojozone (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kojo, just needs now some attention from the military types, and some citations. :) --Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Making large Edits

This article needs major work. I am working on going through and rewriting it. I know the material but do not have my library. If someone could help me with the notes, it would be great. I will referance the Doughty text as that is one I am highly familiar with and it is highly relaible. Will take me a few days to finish. BLS --BShafer (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Great! Go for it. It was originally based on a piece of fiction, and underwent an edit about a year ago, but I don't have the sources to do it properly. Glad to see someone take it in hand! I have sundry Parker texts, and some good general purpose texts on 17th century Europe, also. Let me know if there's anything I can do, such as a copy edit. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I will keep working on this as I can. This battle is too important not to have a better coverage. I will fill in the glaring holes then rework the other bits to make it more coherent. The recount of the battle itself is so jumbled; I will probably have to work that out from scratch. I think some parts with analysis of the military implications is appropriate also, but I do not have a source on hand for that. I do not have my library with me, but I have access to the division historical one and can pull stuff from there. People have already done great work on this with links but so far I have found quite a lot of Wiki links that should be included and I will try to get them linked up. The personalities of the commanders at a lot to the understanding of this battle, but analysis of them wold be needed beyond the bio to make it pertinent to the article.

 --BShafer (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Tercio and linear formation

The Tercio vs the linear formation is a key aspect of this battle. The Tercio in Wiki is hte original one and Tilly is using modified ones with 1500 men. I think this is a core of pikemen 50 wide and 15 deep with handgunners 5 deep on all sides. I am trying to verify this. Does anybody have a referance to verify the tercio used in this battle? Also need referance for the formation of the Swedish line? What size battalions? Ranks how deep? Need sorces for all also. --BShafer (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You might have better luck asking this question on the appropriate WikiProject Military history talk page. I doubt that many people have this watch listed. I don't have the proper source for you, unless youthink it's in Parker or Jonathan Israel. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

a bit of information to include. The 19th century historian Gaston Bodart places Breitenfeld (1631) as one of the 10 most costly victories for the Habsburgs, with losses at 24 percent. (in German) Bodart, Gaston. Militär-historisches kreigs-lexikon (1618–1905). Wien: Stern, 1908, p. 847. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Dutch formed their infantry in battalions. The innovation of Gustavus Adolphus, among others, was to group the infantry in brigades. The wiki-article on the order of battle at Brietenfeld describes this fairly well. The brigade was more agile and moveable than the heavy Spanish tercio. When the Saxons fled the battlefield, Gustavus Adolphus could wheel up replacement brigades from his reserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.195.79.82 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

English ships pirating against Sweden?

...Polish, Lithuanian and English ships continued to prey upon Swedish trade

Which trade routes were the English attacking? Wasn't most of Swedish trade inside the Baltic sea? If so, what were English ships doing there? Isn't that too far from home and too close to competing European powers?

Top.Squark (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Swedish trade occurred throughout the region, not only in the Baltic. and English pirates went where they could get loot. Check the source cited. Aunt Ruth (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Which source?Top.Squark (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Parker and Meade. I added the source to the paragraph. auntieruth (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

But this information is in this article is relevant? As this is continental battle, this information of the English charge againts the Swedes first in the articles of marine battles needful. Doncsecz^talk 19:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The Meade References are all wrong - there is an error in Google books and Thomas Barker's "The Military Intellectual and Battle", which is mostly a translation and commentary on Montecuccoli, appears in Google Books books as James Meade's "Principles of Political Economy", vol 4. I'm going to have to find my old password and log in and try and fix that (not looking forward to that chore!), but meantime, please be aware of it. MIke Cosgrave, UCC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.185.84 (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Caracole

The caracole had lost favour after the pikemen became combined with arquebusiers into pike and shot formations in the 16th C. It is not correct what is said in the section on cavalry that the caracole was still being practiced. The term caracole in the 17th Century is normally used simply with the meaning of a manouever. It does not have the original meaning. For example: "In the meane time, to divert the enemy from him, his Majestie did make a Carracole with the halfe of his Army towards Swede on the River of the Oder, and caused to fortifie it with Skonces" - Robert Monro, His Expedition, Part II, The sixth Duty … Brandenburg Skamnelis (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Meade source

I've tried cleaning up some of the stuff that read like it was sourced to the novel 1632. I am curious if anyone still watching the page has access to a copy of Principles of Political Economy: Just Economy. It is a book on economics, not history, and I am curious if it is accurately cited or might have been put in by accident.

Heavy Edits

I would not be surprised if someone disagreed, but I've made huge cuts to this article, ostensibly about the battle of Breitenfeld. I see many requests for edits here, so I went ahead and made some. The article previously had paragraph after paragraph of material about 17th century combat in general as well as Gustavus' military reforms in specific, much of it uncited. It clearly does not belong here, anymore than the average American Civil War battle page needs 2000 words about how that war was typically fought. I've moved out great swathes of such material, with the intention of placing it in the Swedish Military Reforms page (now linked to in the article if people feel the need to learn about years of efforts taking place before the battle). Palindromedairy (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

For reference, the edits in question are mainly these two.

I reluctantly agree with its removal. AFIAK, much of the information was accurate, but it was largely uncited, and smacks of WP:SYNTH. I'd like to see a better home for it, but I agree it is not up to current WP standards. --A D Monroe III (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sabaton- Gott Mit Uns

Should we add something mentioning the song Gott Mit Uns by Sabaton? It's in the album Carolus Rex and is primarily about the Battle of Breitenfeld I AM THE ONE WHO EDITS (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Breitenfeld (1631). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307170142/http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/631XAC.PDF to http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/631XAC.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Belligerents

What I find in the infobox regarding the combatants looks like this: [1] with "Protestant States" linking to article "Protestantism". I find this quite misleading, raising the following questions: Did the Catholic League consist of the Holy Roman Empire, Hungary and Croatia? What was that union called "Protestant States", consisting of Sweden and Saxony?

I'll change it to be more in line with other articles on battles of that period. 2.247.243.60 (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Current location of captured standards

The article claims that "One hundred and twenty standards of the Imperial and Bavarian armies were taken (and are still on display in the Riddarholm church in Stockholm)" and cites the book Principles of Political Economy (?!). Other sources ([2], [3]) claim that during the 20th century all trophies were transferred from Riddarholm church to the Swedish Army Museum. Has anyone seen any of the captured standards themselves and can say which source is the most up-to-date? Lee Choquette (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Casualties

I believe that post-battle deserters and killed by peasants should not be counted. For example, Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Breitenfeld) also counts only the 3,000 men lost the day after battle who surrendered to the Saxon pursuing troops. Kolya Muratov (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)