Talk:Second Schleswig War

message: Needs references. LordAmeth 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MILHIST Assessment

message: I'm somewhat puzzled by the casualty figures added today. The page quoted  mentions Danish losses of almost 3,000 dead, wounded and captured just in the battle of Als (Kampen om øen havde kostet den danske hær næsten 3000 mand i døde, sårede og tilfangetagne.) and a similar figure for the fighting at Dybbøl as almost 5,000 (De danske tab var næsten 5000 mand i døde, sårede og tilfangetagne. De preussiske tab var omkring 1200 mand.) Do anybody have some good references for such figures? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty rates needs checking 

message: Anthony Appleyard, please note that "Schleswig-Holstein" didn't exist yet, only Schleswig and Holstein. I think it is a good idea to use the present tense in the timeline, but there is still some past tense left. Maybe we should move the timeline should be a separate article? Many articles use such a solution so the main article won't be too long. --Sasper 16:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: The prose of the war's proceedings is difficult to follow in its current state, as it is a mix of timeline and paragraph form (compare to Crimean War, for instance). The detailed timeline could possibly be moved to Timeline of the Second War of Schleswig, although that would probably be a content fork. If the battles are important enough to describe in detail, separate articles should be created for them. Additionally, descriptions of many of the battles are taken directly from a copyrighted external link and should be removed. Olessi 18:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article style

message: I notice that this section has been made very short. Maybe some of these details I added in November may be re-added to the article? 
The adoption of the Constitution of Denmark in 1849 complicated matters further as many Danes wished for the new democratic constitution to apply for all Danes, including in the Danes in Schleswig. The constitutions of Holstein and Schleswig were dominated by the Estates system, giving more power to the most affluent members of society, with the result that both Schleswig and Holstein were politically dominated by a predominantly German class of landowners. Thus more systems of government co-existed within the same state: democracy in Denmark, and absolutism in Schleswig and Holstein. The three units were governed by one cabinet, consisting of liberal ministers of Denmark who urged for economical and social reforms, and conservative ministers of the Holstein nobility who opposed political reform. This caused a deadlock for practical lawmaking. Moreover, Danish opponents of this so-called Unitary State (Helstaten) feared that Holstein's presence in the government and, at the same time, membership of the German Confederation would lead to increased German interference with Schleswig, or even into purely Danish affairs. In Copenhagen, the Palace and most of the administration supported a strict adherence to the status quo. Same applied to foreign powers such as Great Britain, France and Russia, who would not accept a weakened Denmark in favour of Germany, nor that Prussia acquired Holstein with the important naval harbour of Kiel or controlled the entrance to the Baltic.
Now, the point which I maybe forgot to mention above: Denmark wanted to let go of Holstein, and they chose this moment for it. But the German powers and the German movement in Schleswig didn't want Denmark to let go of Holstein if it meant Denmark would keep Schleswig.
The analysis stems from a little article by J.P. Noack, historian and Keeper of the Public Records of Denmark,Grundlove er ikke Gratis (Constitutions are not for free). It was written for the 150th anniversary of the Danish constitution in 1999, and it adds a very important dimension. Causes of the war such as nationalism and the succession issue are well-heard of, but they don't explain why the war actually broke out at this time. --Sasper 08:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional crisis 

message: Someone added this query to sections First War of Schleswig#Events and Second War of Schleswig#Events. This query seems to refer to its format, which is timeline with interspersed longer entries. I have seen several ancient and modern chronicles written like this, and they are adequately clear to read. The only way to satisfy this demand would seem to be bale the timeline parts into "best school essay style" into even-sized paragraphs regardless of content, which I am against, as, plus the usual accompanying "varying the expression" and "elegant variation", it would make the text harder to read through when looking for any one bit of information. "Leave well-enough alone": these sections have stood in this format for over 4 months without anybody complaining about it. Everybody seems to have "best essay style" drummed into them at school until they do not realize that sometimes "best essay style" is not appropriate, even to the case of (for example)  (a report on the 2 November 1892 Thirsk rail crash) being written in that period's best literary style in long meandering classical-type periods. The ultimate clash here seems to be literary elegance versus clarity. Anthony Appleyard 06:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone not particularly knowledgeable about the subjects, I have found this article and First War of Schleswig difficult to follow. While each has suitable backgrounds to the wars, there are no concise summaries of the wars themselves (such as this). I do not know enough about the wars to know which is the most important info to summarize, and the articles in their current states are not conducive for this, IMO. Aside from not being sufficiently referenced, I also do not think the articles would be approved for FA in their current styles. Olessi 20:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not say that information should be removed, but that a summary of the war's proceedings should be added. As I have said, I do not know enough of the details at the moment to do it myself. Olessi 06:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for adding that. I think it makes the article more complete and allows those following the detailed timeline to have a better understanding of the most important events. Olessi 16:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proseline 

message: Any objections to renaming the page to Second Schleswig War? That phrasing is used by more recently published texts than "Second War of Schleswig". Olessi 20:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Move completed. Olessi 17:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Does anyone know the full name of "von Falckenberg" who reached Skagen? :de:Eduard Vogel von Falckenstein was one of the leaders of the Prussian army during the war; is it possible Falckenstein is referred to instead? Olessi 17:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're on the right track. According to this page it must be the same person. Valentinian T / C 17:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  von Falckenberg 

message: I've also heard this referred to as the "Doughnut War" (Bismarck vs. Danish). I wasn't sure if that would be too informal to add to the list of alternate names at the beginning of the article and/or make some redirects for people like me who know it by this name. —bse3 (talk • contribs • ite=  count • [ logs]) 04:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huhh?? Where do doughnuts come into it? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Otto von Bismarck, leader of the Germans, is a "Bismark" (another name for Berliner (pastry)). The Danes are "Danishes" (refering to Danish pastry). Bismarks and Danishes are doughnuts. The war was Bismarck against Denmark. —bse3 (talk • contribs • ite=  count • [ logs]) 23:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard about any doughnut war. Are you American? :-) --Sasper (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Never mind. It seems to hard for everyone to comprehend. —bse3 (talk • contribs • ite=  count • [ logs]) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doughnut War? 

message: The Netherlands is named as an allied Belligerent of Denmark in the infobox, however there is no mention of the Netherlands in the rest of the article. I would suggest the role of the Netherlands is further explained in the article or the Netherlands is removed as one of the Belligerent. As a Dutch citizen I have never learned of a Dutch participation in the Second Schleswig War.
--Ameer (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism and has been removed. Next time feel free to remove wrong facts yourself. You might even want to give the perpetrator a warning, so as to try to prevent them from doing it again. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Belligerent the Netherlands

message: Anyone know where we can find a map of the territorial changes as a result of this war to add to the article? --Thorwald (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just find these two maps, regards, --82.82.255.217 (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of territorial changes?

message: In Germany, the Battle of Dybbøl and the Second War of Schleswig have largely vanished out of public consciousness. You'll need a good source for this. At the very least it should be rewritten to reflect the fact that Germany in this context is a very large country. The people of Schleswig certainly haven't forgotten the war. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced removed

message: The map of territorital changes is incorrect when it comes to defining what was part of Schelswig and Holstein. Ærø and Ribe area is marked as danish but was prior to 1864 Schleswig, as well was Fehmern that is marked as Holstein. And a western part og what is marked as Schleswig was Danmark proper before 1864.94.145.236.194 (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ribe was part of the Kingdom of Denmark prior to 1864. It was part of Ribe Diocese, alongside a group of other enclaves geographically placed in Slesvig but purchased by the Danish crown during the Middle Ages (shown on the map in darker red) and thus formally belonging to Denmark rather than the Duchy. You are correct about Ærø being part of Slesvig prior to 1864, and Fehmern, but as far as I can see all this is also what the map shows, so I must admit I am a bit confused about your post since your description of the map doesn't seem to match the actual map. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: *The page for the Battle of Als includes a link to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBCazLxXGsw , which is "AM II, 190 AMS "Der Alsenströmer"", a march to commemorate the Battle of Als. That Youtube page includes a link to https://www.youtube.comwatch?v=u0Pm_GHZW8A "AM II, 191 AMS "Der Lymfjordströmer"", which is also a march. Does it commemorate a crossing of the Limfjord?, which is much further north in Denmark. But the last battle which page Second Schleswig War mentions is the Battle of Lundby. In this war were there other later incidents which are not described here? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incident on the [[Limfjord]]? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Second Schleswig War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012165639/http://milhist.dk:80/1864/1864/1864_dk.htm to http://www.milhist.dk/1864/1864/1864_dk.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there any source stating that there were plans for that Canal to be built by Prussia?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.165.12 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiel Canal 

message: Hello,
I don't know where Codfelter has his statistics from, but this site http://www.denkmalprojekt.org/2008/vl_1864_cov.htm lists all german fatalities in very specific form.
Im Gefecht gefallen (killed in action) 426
Verwundung (died of wounds) 234
Typhus 136
andere Krankheiten (other sicknesses) 76
Unglücksfall (accident) 12
Selbstmord (suicide) 5
Ohne Angaben (unspecified) 88
977
So, significantly less. I don't know whether there is a danish equivalent, but I suggest to at least add this number
84.178.58.243 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  German casualties 

message: If we want to include 1863 events, we should prove that 1863 events are part of this war. Please, I check Danish and German articles, and there is no mention about 1863. (of course they cannot be main sources for refernces) And "pre-war events" mean it is not included in conflict. -- Wendylove (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  1863 events