Talk:Battle of Lund

Untitled
Ned help with spelling and grammar. 83.248.26.176 03:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Copy-edit
I just performed a major copy-edit on the article. Although it has a wealth of information, it is rather Swedish-centric. It could do with more info on the Danish choices and actions (for example: where is King Christian in all of this?!). Any volunteers? --The Minister of War 10:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, does somebody have some more information on the Scanian War? From what i can tell, there have been multiple wars over the region, and this one apparently only covered two battles. Maybe it should be listed as a campaign rather than a war. Any thoughts anyone?
 * There were two battles at sea, the battle of Køge bay (no:) and the battle of Öland (no:). It was also battles around the cities Kristianstad and Halmstad. torstein 21:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Arenstorff or Arensdorff
Since the name of the two German generals have been edited, could someone please redirect from Carl von Arensdorff to Carl von Arenstorff and from Friedrich von Arensdorff to Friedrich von Arenstorff? 83.248.24.253 00:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Casualty figures and number of troops
I have reverted these recent edits because they changed the number of troops killed in a way that did not fit with the citation. I do not presume to know which figures are correct, but if there appear to be some discussion in the learned world as to the number of troops and casualties then please write that in the article. And most importantly you will need to find some sources for these new figures. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The bloodiest of battles in the history of mankind?
With some 10 000 casualties it is perhaps the bloodiest battle in Scandinavia. But "in the history of mankind" sounds a bit odd. What about Waterloo, Gallipoli, Verdun, Stalingrad &c? What does it really mean? Has it something to do with the number of combattants in the battle? Or has it to do with the length of the battle ("casualties per hour")? --Vedum (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The losses on both sides, compared to the total number of combatants, were extremely high. But to call it the "bloodiest battle in the history of mankind" seems exaggerated.
 * Andejons (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The statement is overboard. The WWII Japanese routinely have 100% casualties, at least among the ethnic Japanese, do they not?
 * The Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War. Any battle involving the Mongols.
 * I rephrased that somewhat.
 * Varlaam (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Dutch losses
According to the article, the Dutch marines suffer catastrophic losses but they never seem to participate in the battle.

Some description is clearly missing.

Varlaam (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Lund. 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/20121005042702/http://www.tv4play.se/dokumentarer/sveriges_historia?title=massgravarna_vid_lund&videoid=1997978 to http://www.tv4play.se/dokumentarer/sveriges_historia?title=massgravarna_vid_lund&videoid=1997978

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Order of Battle incomplete
The OOB only includes the infantry units in the center. The sizeable cavalry forces on both flanks are missing. 147.78.30.201 (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)