Talk:Swiss mercenaries

message: The statement "Landsknechts, using a formation similar to that of the Swiss, were defeated with terrible slaughter by the Spanish Sword and Buckler Men at the Battle of Ravenna" is , to put it mildly, misleading. At the Battle of Ravenna the Spaniards suffered a crushing defeat. I am changing so as to preserve the intended meaning. Stammer 10:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is a perfectly apt description. The Landsknects were indeed defeated with terrible slaughter at Ravenna.  It was the returning French gendarmerie that defeated the Spanish, who were in disorder after having overthrown the Landsknechts.Larry Dunn 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, they were "in disorder"? Tut-tut. They shouldn't.Stammer 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ravenna

message: It is not totally true that the Swiss strictly refused to fight each other on the battlefield. During the Italian wars and other campaigns, there were actually Swiss mercenaries on both sides who did fight each other, although the Tagsatzung prevented a major battle between two contingents of Swiss mercenaries in 1500 (Treason of Novara). A fight of that extent between so many Swiss on both sides would have been disastrous, with the Swiss confederation, even at that time, being a small country.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.16.215 (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds a good point - you'd better add it yourself, with references. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Swiss mercenaries on both sides

message: An online middle high German dictionary defines "Reise" as having the same meaning as in contemporary high German, namely, "to take a trip or travel". If there's a middle high German reference that states otherwise it should be included, if the inference is that "reise" was used in the vernacular to imply traveling to war...then that would contradict the literal definition given for Reisläufer. As is, and using contemporary German, the literal definition looks more along the lines of "one who travels by foot". Can anyone offer clarification or a reference for the article passage in question? ~L  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.45.79.246 (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The native term Reisläufer literally means "one who goes to war" and is derived from Middle High German Reise, meaning "military campaign". 

message: The Swiss, with their head-down attack in huge columns with the long pike, refusal to take prisoners, and consistent record of victory, were greatly feared and admired—for instance, Machiavelli addresses their system of combat at length in The Prince
I tagged the above sentence as needing citation because its claims are particularly egregious but to some extent these issues permeate the entire article.
Did Swiss mercenaries really have a "consistent record of victory"? How has this been determined? Is the claim here that when a medieval army, which was normally composed of many different contingents of mercenaries, was victorious it was SOLELY because of the presence on the battlefield of these Swiss super soldiers? What if, as was often the case, Swiss contingents fought on BOTH sides? Doesn't the defeat of some of the Swiss balance out the victory by the others? I would suggest this claim is plainly incoherent.
Similarly, the claim that the Swiss were "greatly feared and admired" is just sensationalism. Please provide contemporary sources attesting to how much more the Swiss were feared and admired than, say, English archers, German halbardiers, or Genoese crossbowmen, all of whom were also standard components of medieval armies.
Finally there is a serious issue with context here. As has already been indicated medieval armies were very often composed of mercenary contingents from many different regions, of which the ubiquitous Swiss pikemen were only one. The article completely fails to place the Swiss mercenaries within this larger historical context regarding the role of mercenary forces in medieval warfare. Lexington50 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context and POV 

message: There has been a minor dispute concerning a statement in this article that "capitulations" (in the sense of agreements or contracts) relating to the employment of Swiss mercenaries sometimes included provision for their recall if the home federation came under attack. The source cited is a comment in an article appearing in the New Yorker of some years ago. While the New Yorker gives excellent coverage of modern political and cultural matters, I am not sure if it rates as a recognized source on European military history. More importantly I have not been able to find references to any such "bring the boys home" provision in any of the published history works on this subject to which I have access. Which is not of course to say that they did not exist. Can anyone help with this? It is rather frustrating to be told to provide a source reference disproving a practice which may not have existed. Buistr (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitulations and contracts 

message: Does it?  I have just listened to a reading and there was no mention, but possibly the reading was not complete..?2A02:C7C:2ED1:D300:75E9:4C91:374B:DDFD (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapter 12 of The Prince mentioning pike tactics "at length"