Talk:Battle of Lützen (1632)

message: Was Lutzen in fact one of the most decisive battles of the TYW?  I'd disagree.  It was in fact a very messy, indecisive battle.  Wallenstein's officers thought the battle was going well and wanted to stay to fight the next day, and were angered and surprised to hear he wanted to withdraw.
It also was not decisive in terms of the war itself -- the effect of the Swedish intervention had already been given a major haircut by the change in Imperial strategy and modifications to imperial army organization.  Had the king not been killed, I doubt the Swedish forces in Germany would really have behaved much differently in the long term. Larry Dunn 14:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening line 

message: In the sidebar, it lists the victory as being Pyrrhic for the Swedish, yet it hints that the vanquished lost more in battle. Should this be edited?
:No, it wasn't -  use of 'Pyrrhic' as a qualifier would need to be sourced to a majority of reputable historians that state why it might be Pyrrhic. Best to use more generic qualifier.Tttom1 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was this really a pyrrhic victory for the Swedish? 

message: The Catholics probably lost more soldiers and equipment but still, Gustavus Adolphus died.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolibollg (talk • contribs) 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsure 

message: the number in the box(5000 Swedes / 8000 imperial) does not match the number in the article(6000/6000).
Needs to be fixed.
Isidoros47 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: I'd suggest changing the use of Protestant army for Swedish throughout the article. Using Protestant infers that the 30 years war was a simple protestant/catholic war which is an oversimplification. Particularly given Sweden was allied with Catholic France at the time of this battle and towards the end of the war fought protestant Denmark.  Alternatively it implies that the armies were made up of strictly protestant or catholic troops which given the mercenary nature of the armies of the time never applied in practice. Any thoughts? Kurtk60 (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would endorse removing religion from the article completely.  I think the religious aspect is best addressed in the Thirty Years' War article, and it should be toned town here.  I notice the EB1911 article on this topic goes through the whole thing without mentioning religion, but makes it Germans vs. Swedes, which may be just as oversimplified.  I find the religious tone in the Wikipedia article rather jarring to read. Perhaps this particular battle was easy to cast that way, but I imagine there were other ways the two sides could be contrasted, and I think it would read better if the religious aspect were removed.  Imperials vs. Swedes?  Bob Burkhardt (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall 

message: I see no references for this. Also there should be noted that the reinforcements of Imperial infantry did not arrive in time to be engaged in combat.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryaman13 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength of respective armies 

message: At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_L%C3%BCtzen_(1632), how can one of the "belligerents" have been "Protestant Union" when, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Union, the Protestant Union was dissolved in 1621?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.127.210.8 (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, dear IP editor. This was fixed some months ago. (By myself, I think.) 2.247.242.225 (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency between Wikipedia pages 

message: The current version of this article claims that Wallenstein exclaimed this upon the return of Pappenheim and his cavalry's immediate charge on the battlefield.
This saying is still a quite widely used figure of speech in everyday German, in the general meaning of someone exhibiting behavior that is supposedly typical of them.
To the best of my knowledge the real origin of this is a direct quote from Schiller's Wallenstein (trilogy of plays), specifically from Wallenstein's Death, 3rd act, 15th entrance (). (Link to German text on gutenberg.org: )
It's possible that Wallenstein really originally said it during this battle, but I don't think so. Seeing that the claim is currently unsourced in this article, i will remove it as speculative. 2.247.243.115 (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figure of speech: {{lang-de|So kenn ich meine Pappenheimer|lit=That's how I know my Pappenheimers}} 

message: The articles contents itself aren't terrible, however the tone feels like reading a high-school essay. I don't have enough knowledge on the thirty years war to rewrite this article, however someone who is more qualified should consider changing the tone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chariotsacha (talk • contribs) 16:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article must be revised in tone.