Talk:Battle of Breitenfeld (1631)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cost shorted? 

message: Maybe we should merge Breitenfeld (1631) order of battle with this article?
 / Mats Halldin (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YES!  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Breitenfeld (1631) order of battle]]? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Other sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: I've added  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: 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

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)
replies: text: Thanks Kojo,  just needs now some attention from the military types, and  some citations. :)  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responding to edit/copy/citation problems 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Making large Edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.   Bodart, Gaston. Militär-historisches kreigs-lexikon  (1618–1905). Wien: Stern, 1908, p. 847.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tercio and linear formation 

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Which source?Top.Squark (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Parker and Meade.  I added the source to the paragraph.  auntieruth (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  English ships pirating against Sweden? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Caracole 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sabaton- Gott Mit Uns 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What I find in the infobox regarding the combatants looks like this: 
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)
thread_title:  Belligerents 

message: 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 (, ) 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)
thread_title:  Current location of captured standards 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Casualties