Talk:Peace of Westphalia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dkhc03, Piledriver Waltz, KristenKeating1. Peer reviewers: AustinPage.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Adjectives
Please take care of adjectives. Catholics are described as "fiercely catholic" or "fervently catholic" (when referring to philip ii). No equivalent adjectives are used for other relgions. There is no reason to accept that members of other groups where less fervient or fierce. However, if the origins of conflict where also material / identitarian and not exclusively religious, (which is yet to explore), these adjectives would only ad confusion to the topic. If adjectives are descriptive, do change them. If they are literary devices used them with all the actors. Ps Im not a believer

Cardinal Richelieu
About the instigation of modern diplomacy, what about Cardinal Richelieu? His actions during the Thirty Years War were for raisons d'état. Indeed, I believe he coined the phrase.

I didn't want to change this until I was sure what your thrust was in adding your statement to the article....--Paul Drye


 * Richelieu didn´t do the whole thing by himself but was a major player. However, Richelieu died in 1642 and the actual Congresses started on 1634-1645. Cardinal Mazarin was the one who carried his works. Doidimais Brasil 01:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification is required about Cardinal Richelieu, since the first paragraph in "location" says "France blocked negociations in 1648, the next paragraph begins with "Cardinal Richelieu", this makes it look like he himself blocked the negotiations for the reason provided, this is impossible since he was already long dead in 1648. User:Fernando Medina De la Torre 16:41, October 29, 2014 (-6 GMT) — Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of comprehend as used in article
What does the "comprehend" in this sentence mean:


 * The treaty signed October 24, 1648 comprehended the Holy Roman emperor Ferdinand III, the other German princes, France, and Sweden.

Does "comprehend" mean recognize? I don't think so because they were already recognized. Does in mean "comprehended by"? If so, then "accepted by" would be more sensible.

WpZurp 15:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It simply means they were party to the treaty...--MWAK 05:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It means "applied to," i.e. what MWAK said. Comprehend basically means "include."  It is a poor choice of words here, I think.67.170.176.203 14:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Modern views
I still have a problem with the Modern Views part. It lends no credence to the fact that the Treaty of Westphalia is tought in virtually any political science class as the start of the modern system of diplomacy, and merely points out negative views of the treaty. This could lead to the impression that somehow the system is breaking down, when in fact that is very much not the case. - The Patmeister


 * I agree with The Patmeister, many good things of the Treaties remain until today. In any case, this article deserves MAJOR expansion. It deserves to be a 32 KB article. I´m doing research on the subject and I plan on vastly expanding the article until December. Doidimais Brasil 01:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

After EU
The Westphalia system began the modern notion of soveriegn nation-states, which has not only remained the status quo in Europe but also the entire world. To argue the political EU, after its electorial defeat in France and Netherlands, could challenge the Westphalian system is fallacy in my opinion, and I think the Westphalian system would proof itself still the predominant and robust system of the world. -Chin, Cheng-chuan


 * The EU is a challenge to the Westphalian system? Do sovereign states not have any power to surrender any part of their sovereignty (as would be necessary for a union)? What's the difference between the EU and the North German Confederation, besides size?68.19.232.147 (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It just confirmed there was no German state
The 1648 Peace of Westphalia simply confirmed the balance of power in Germany as it has been struck in 1555. It was definitely not a final European settlement, or even an end to the Wars Of Religion outside of Germany. The pattern of states west of Vienna was not hugely different after 1648 than it had been in 1548, or 1448. In fact Europe changed more between 1448 and 1548 than between 1548 and 1648. In 1448, Constantinople still held a remnant of the Roman Empire, while the pope was secure as top authority in the Latin-Christian tradition. The Chinese invention of printing had not yet been boosted by Gutenberg’s system of moveable type. Beyond Europe, no one had got very far down the coast of Africa; the idea of lands to the west was still a hazy rumour.

1648 confirmed the pattern of previous centuries, with Germany fragmented and much of Italy tied to 'Spain'—actually the Western Hapsburg dynasty. These ties lasted until the War of the Spanish Succession, which ended any possibility of a joint Spanish-Italian realm and which easily could have altered the balance struck in 1648.

The two treaties signed in Westphalia were just half of the actual peace process. A peace agreement became possible at Westphalia, only after the Dutch made peace with Spain. Rather, the unconquered northern half of the Netherlands made peace with their former rulers, the multi-national dominions of the Western Hapsburgs. By settling with the Dutch, the Western Hapsburgs secured about half of their former Netherlands territories, the lands that eventually became Belgium. The Dutch accepted that they'd never get this land back, while the Western Hapsburgs conceded that the Dutch rebellion had succeeded and had established a legitimate republic.

The 'Peace of Westphalia' was stages two and three in the process, beginning with the Treaty of Osnabruck between the Swedes and the Eastern Hapsburgs or House of Austria. The House of Austria were long-time possessors of the Imperial title, but no emperor could be certain of getting their heir elected to the Imperial power, whereas their claims to the other possessions of the House of Austria were secure. And though Westphalia saw the gathering of most of Europe, no principle of ‘multilateral mediation’ was established by this. The states present at Westphalia were those that were involved in the wars of the two Hapsburg dynasties, or the immediate neighbours of those states. Britain was marginal to the Thirty Years War and Britain was absent.

Britain in 1648 had just completed its main civil war and was edging towards executing King Charles 1st, creating a constitutional crisis that wasn’t really resolved until 1688. Small differences in the weather, personal choices or individual life-spans might have resulted in a British return to Catholicism, or alternatively a hard-line Puritan Britain under Cromwell’s heirs. Cromwell’s son-in-law Ireton would probably have kept power for a dynasty of Lord Protectors, or become Lord Protector himself, but he happened to die young. And, in Middle-Europe, the Turks nearly captured Vienna in 1683. The fall of Vienna after its emperor abandoned it would have utterly changed Europe, quite possibly giving Louis 14th the chance to make himself Holy Roman Empire and ruler of a unified Christian Europe. Louis 14th might also have triumphed if the pro-French King James 2nd had used his large British army against William of Orange, whose initial position was uncertain.

Alternatively, had Louis 14th failed in some of his anti-Spanish and anti-Austrian campaigns after 1648, the House of Austria might have been able to resume its campaign to make themselves true rulers of the Holy Roman Emperor. Had history gone that way, 1648 would have been just a blip in the ‘inevitable’ formation of a unified Hapsburg-Catholic Empire for Germany, maybe for all Europe and the New World.

Sovereignty is basic to human identity. But there have always been ambitious empire-builders trying to overturn this principle, both before and after 1648. The popes had claimed the right to preach crusades and to displace sovereign rulers: Popes had given official sanction to William of Normandy’s conquest of Saxon England, and later to Norman England’s conquest of Ireland. Popes also tried to depose Elizabeth Tudor, though this was not enforced. Note that it was popes rather than emperors who claimed this power and sometimes managed to exercise it. In most of Europe, the emperor was a foreign ruler with no more rights than any other foreign monarch.

The Peace of Westphalia was an agreement by the emperor that he would respect a mediaeval pattern of laws, customs and privileges that limited his power within Germany. It said nothing about his legal right to interfere in France or Sweden or England, because no one seriously supposed that he had ever had such a right. A few intellectuals viewed the emperor as the rightful ruler of all Christians—of the whole world, indeed. But only within the Germanic Empire did the emperor have some claim to overall authority of a genuine sort.

The right of the popes to interfere anywhere in the world was not mentioned in the Peace of Westphalia, except to specify that the pope would be ignored if he attempted to overturn this particular settlement. Papal power was still theoretically respected by Catholics, except that in practice they had always stopped him from exercising it. The nearest thing to 'humanitarian intervention' was the papal powers of Interdict and Crusade, including the Sack of Byzantium by the Fourth Crusade. Various abuses of power led to the ‘Holy Father’ being seen as an ‘Unholy Fool’, open to bribes and threats.

The pope’s protest against the Peace of Westphalia says nothing about Christendom having been dissolved into princely states, because this was not what had happened. Christendom was princely states, and had been since the Roman Empire broke up. Nor did the papacy desire a restored Empire; they normally opposed attempts by the Empire at Constantinople to re-conquer its lost lands (which it did with the campaigns of Belisarius, recovering Italy for a while and briefly having enough control of Rome to stop the popes opposing the process.) The papal crowning of Charlemagne is often seen as pre-emptive, to stop him from claiming the Imperial crown in his own right and without regard for papal opinions. Still, for some reason the papacy did keep re-creating the office of emperor when it lapsed and lost authority. I suppose it was part of tradition.

Pope Innocent X’s actual protest against the Peace of Westphalia cited the emperor granting official toleration of heresy outside of his own holdings as Archduke of Austria and King of Bohemia. Another issue was the creation of an eighth Electorate, since the papacy considered it had a right to supervise the process whereby emperors were elected. The pope felt that his rights had been infringed by the 1648 agreements, and issued a Papal Bull saying so, but it was treated as Papal Bullshit by Catholic and Protestant alike. The real power of the popes to intervene was much reduced and went on diminishing, though popes never fully abandoned the right to make rulings on the affairs of sovereign states, in the hope that Catholics would help enforce these opinions.

The Peace of Westphalia was an innovation, in as much as it brought most of the powers of Europe together to make the settlement. It was probably unavoidable: most states in Latin-Christian Europe were involved in the fighting, or were close enough to the Holy Roman Empire to be deeply interested in its politics.

--GwydionM 22:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems like the Peace of Westphalia just dismembered the Holy Roman Empire and set back German unification a few hundred years. You could just as easily say that France and other foreign European powers who would benefit from a power vacuum in central Europe were intervening in the sovereignty of the HRE as you could that the HRE was intervening in the sovereignty of its member states.68.19.232.147 (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It did not. The kreis system continued to function w/i the empire and the Peace did not establish any notion of sovereignty. The standard Western historiography about Westpahlia, the end of the HRE as a real entity, and sovereignty is not supported by the texts of the treaties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.126.173 (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Results section re Switzerland
Just curious: weren't the Swiss, like the Dutch, officially recognized as outside the HRE for the first time in 1648, despite a few hundred years of functional independence/self-determination? Think I got this from Colin McEvedy, but it could have been another historian. It's been years since I wrote a one-time paper on the political geography of the Peace of Westphalia, e.g. the expansion of the Margravates eastward and consolidation of German principalities and duchies, the separation from the HRE of the Swiss and Dutch, etc. but I seem to recall it was in the peace equation; and it was in that year that current Swiss boundaries with neighbouring states were established, I think; or formalized anyway.Skookum1 23:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See History of Switzerland and Swabian War. The members of the Swiss Confederation did not participate in any imperial affairs after 1499, nor did they pay imperial taxes. But they formally remained part of the Empire until the Peace of Westphalia. Chl 18:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I came here for the same remark, but then the Dutch part. Afaik the Dutch were defacto independant of the HRE sinds somewhere in the 13th century. I can be mistaken of course, or the definition varies (e.g. they kept sending delegates to the diet, even if Imperial rule has no practical power). So it would be interesting on what that remark is based (unless the OP meant 40 when he meant several decades) 88.159.74.54 (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, some further reading about the above topic makes the picture clearer. While the 13th centuries Dukes of the NL were nominally independant of the HRE in the 12/13th century, due to marriage and consolidation most of the Duchies came into the hands of mostly French nobility who were fiefs of the HRE (due to other properties), in time they ended up in Burgundy, entering the Burgundy Circle. Worse, they were in the hands of the Emperor himself (Charles V, who resided in Ghent). The remark is probably the leaving of Burgundy Circle during the Dutch Revolt against Philip II, which was only confirmed in Westphalia. Knowing all the bits, but not the connection. 88.159.74.54 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Holland and Belgium

 * ''By settling with the Dutch, the Western Hapsburgs secured about half of their former Netherlands territories, the lands that eventually became Belgium. The Dutch accepted that they'd never get this land back, while the Western Hapsburgs conceded that the Dutch rebellion had succeeded and had established a legitimate republic.

"accepted that they'd never get this land back"....not that they didn't try, post-Napoleon....Skookum1 23:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And indeed succeeded, see: United Kingdom of the Netherlands. But please, don't call us Holland... --MWAK 11:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, minus the parts that France kept, like Artois. 88.159.74.54 (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a dispute here between this article and the Spanish Netherlands article, which does not complete this territorial change until 1709. Can someone that knows more, please clarify? JohnAndrew (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Editing 'Principles' section
I just rewrote much of the Principles section, (it was unclear and did not use the correct tone), but I'm still not completely happy with it. That and the 'Significance' paragraph seem a little redundant, and I'm not sure if it is best to have the conceptual impact discussed before the specific historical facts. Any ideas of how to address these issues? --Ec- 15:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Revisionism
Surely this article should include at least a mention of the growing body of text surrounding the myths of Westphalia? The fact that sovereignty was never guaranteed by the treaties, nor was it meant to be, and that Swiss independence was gained in 1555 and only that of Basel is included in the text of the treaties? This article does not discuss the historical arguments around the treaties, rather the accepted view of the IR community.

Swedish possesions whithin HRE
The map showing the results of the peace treaty indicates that swedish possesions Pomerania, Wismar, Bremen and Verden were not parts of the HRE. This however not true. Pomerania, Wismar, Bremen and Verden remainded whithin the HRE - but with the swedish King as their semi-independent prince.


 * this has been fixed now. (it had been shown like that in the penguin atlas of medieval history, along with not including the spanish netherlands & burgundy) --Astrokey 44 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks much better! B****n 10:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of totally disputed tag
I have added the "totally disputed" template to the top of the article for a number of reasons.

I dispute the NPOV of this article because it gives no reference at all to the large body of academics who do not believe the Peace of Westphalia to have had any of the stated effects or consequences. While the existence of a phenominon called "The Westphalian System" can probably not be disputed, what can be disputed is the assertion that the Peace actually caused this system.

The article lists the following under the heading "Significance":
 * 1) The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination
 * 2) The principle of (legal) equality between states
 * 3) The principle of internationally binding treaties between states
 * 4) The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state

None of these were mentioned in the texts, or came out of the agreement. The Peace was an affirmation of current practice, rather than a revolution in the affairs of states. I will give a quick run down of the arguments against all these statements. I intend to re-write offending sections, of course with footnoted references to scholarly journals.

1) The Principalities of the Holy Roman Empire remained subordinate to the Holy Roman Emperor. The Emperor could and did depose individual rulers both before and after the Peace - as was his right.  Sovereignty is not mentioned once in either of the treaties.  Why would it be?  The sovereignty of France (Munster) or Sweden (Osnabruck) was not at stake, neither was that of HRE, so it makes no sense to have put it in.

2) The Holy Roman Empire had legal jurisdiction over the principalities both pre- and post-1648. Although every principality had its own legal system, they had to fit with the constitution of the HRE, and the Empire had courts of appeal higher than each principality's system.  The Court of Final Appeal was the Emperor himself.

3) This was already a principle. If this refers to the allowing of principalities to make treaties with other states themselves rather than through the Empire itself, it should be noted that this is not the exercise of sovereignty since they were banned from making treaties which were to the detriment of the Empire, and all treaty proposals had to be reviewed by the Empire as a result.

4) The Treaty of Osnabruck (France-HRE) specifically states that France my intervene in the internal affairs of HRE if it deems the terms of the Treaty to be broken.

There are various other factual innacuracies which have been taken issue with on this talk page. The whole article is written with the point of view that the accepted view of Westphalia is correct, and that no dissent has been recorded. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chrisfow 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of totally disputed
I am going to put the td temp back, please keep it there for the following reasons:

Your edit summary says this: 138.23.58.219 (Talk) (I'm removing the Totally Disputed tag because: Of course the article is written with the PoV that "the accepted view of Westphalia is correct." The view is accepted, isn't it?)
 * So you accept that it is written with a PoV? Therefore, it does not have NPOV!  The view is not accepted anymore, but has been in IR theory history.  This article is not current and therefore not of any use to someone who wants a general overview of the subject today.  In addition, it is totally unacceptable to someone who knows about the subject or wishes to know about it in greater detail.

I am currently rewriting the article, it should be finished by the end of this week. Unlike this article, it has NPOV and is balanced to include both the old accepted view and the contemporary revisionist one. So please 138.23.58.219, leave it be until I post the new one, which you can rip to your heart's content :P Chrisfow 13:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Major edit
Well, I have put my major edit up. I believe it now has NPOV. A new section, revisionism, has been added to show the updated arguments - the current "accepted" view of the Peace, as outlined in "Traditional Realist Views", is no longer accepted and is increasingly attacked by academics in the field.

This article now provides both basic information about the Peace and its tenets, and more in-depth information covering the academic debates on this important subject.

I have referenced all my new content, as well as attempting to find references for any old information which I have kept from older versions. This should make this article a lot more verifiable.

I have also removed the trivia section in line with good article criteria.

This article has been rewritten with the good article criteria in mind at all times. It is therefore factually accurate and verifiable, broad in its coverage and contains relevent images.

I hope my fellow editors will help to verify if the other two criteria, well written and written with NPOV, have also been met. If you do, then hopefully the final criteria, stability, will be met and we can push this article for WP:GA candidacy.

Chrisfow 18:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time nor knowledge to really comment much here, just some quick things that I can talk about without going into details:

Hope that helps, Kusma (討論) 18:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Westphalian System is used as a shorthand to describe the system of states which the world is made up of today.
 * What does that mean? Who uses this shorthand and in which context?
 * Please do not use links like Münster when a simple Münster produces the same output, but a much more readable wikitext.
 * I feel that the lead section is too short and doesn't really summarize the whole article. Some remarks about the significance of the treaty would be more relevant here than the differences between the two versions of the treaty.
 * It does, thanks! Chrisfow 18:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the basic premise of your edits. There are a couple of factual issues, which I'm not sure are the result of your changes or were there before. In particular, France, so far as I'm aware, never had a vote in the Diet. The territories taken by France were explicitly agreed to no longer be part of the Empire. I don't think Emperor was prepared to allow the French a voice in the management of the Empire. Secondly, Bavaria was not granted a new electoral vote. It kept the old Palatinate vote, and a new one was given to Bavaria. During the War of the Spanish Succession, the Elector of Bavaria was banned, and the traditional Palatinate vote was restored to the Elector Palatine, and its unclear whether Bavaria was restored to this vote after 1714, or if it got a new vote again - this was disputed between the two lines until they merged in 1777. Thirdly, Brandenburg did not merely receive Magdeburg and Halberstadt. It also got the Bishoprics of Minden and Kammin. Thirdly, your version claimed that Kammin went to Sweden, and failed to mention the Swedish acquisition of Verden. Fourthly, I find this supposed tenet a bit puzzling:


 * The election of Holy Roman emperors vivente imperatore (before the death of the current incumbent) was banned. 

In 1653, Ferdinand III's son Ferdinand IV was elected Emperor during his life time. As I understand it, he would have liked for Leopold to have been elected as well, after Ferdinand the Younger's death, but he was too young and Ferdinand didn't have the clout to force it through. Later, I know that at the very least Joseph I and Joseph II were both elected during their predecessors' lifetimes. In the other occasions, there were particular reasons that there was no election prior to the death of the incumbent. If this was a provision of the treaty, it was very soon overturned - within five years, apparently.

Finally, I've added a number of provisions that I seem to recall being part of the treaty - notably, the regulation of the Jülich-Kleve succession dispute (already provisionally decided, but never actually executed before the war - the whole area was under foreign occupation for pretty much the whole time between 1609 and 1648, and I'm not sure that either prince was able to take possession - certainly they never did so of their whole territories); and the provision that the Bishopric of Osnabrück would alternate between Protestant and Catholic Bishops. Were the secularizations of the Bishoprics of Schwerin and Ratzeburg and of the Abbey of Hersfeld also confirmed by Westphalia? Anyway, I'm glad to see that a distinction has been made between the actual history, and the enormous historically inaccurate structure that political scientists have created with respect to Westphalia. john k 01:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking it over John. The factual inaccuracies you have pointed out were in the original version, but I should have picked them up.
 * Do you have any idea about the supposed "no elections in the life of the emperor" rule? Given that Ferdinand IV was elected in 1653, this rule would have had to have been almost immediately amended, if it actually existed.  Do you know? If nobody is going to defend it, I'm going to remove the statement entirely - there were most certainly vivente imperatore elections after 1648 - three of them, to be be precise. john k 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 'One position [the Holy Roman Emperor] could successfully maintain against external opposition was a strict refusal to give up the possibility of an election of the King of the Romans vivente imperatore, because here he shared similar interests with the Electoral princes against the French and Swedish demands' (Peter Schroder 'The Constitution of the Holy Roman Empire after 1648' in The Historical Journal Vol 42 No 4 (December 1999) p. 16)


 * That is an extract from a journal article I have found. It would appear that although the French and Swedes originally demanded that viv imp was given up, the Emperor objected and the Diet backed him up, so that the victors did not press the issue.  Either way, it would appear to confirm that viv imp was not banned under the Peace.  I will edit that out at my next update if you don't beat me to it!. Chrisfow 00:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Where are the Dutch and Spanish?
The articles intro:
 * The Peace of Westphalia, 1648, also known as the Treaties of Münster and Osnabrück, refers to the pair of treaties signed in October 1648 which ended the Thirty Years' War. The treaties were signed on October 24, 1648, and involved the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III, the other German princes, France, and Sweden.

Why is there no (or who removed the) reference to the Eighty years war? Rex 16:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We should have a separate article about the other Treaty of Münster, which was signed in January 1648, I think. It should be mentioned here, but wasn't really part of the Peace of Westphalia. john k 18:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the January 1648 Treaty of Münster didn't involve any of the same parties as the Treaties of Münster and Osnabrück signed later that year. john k 18:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the treaty of Münster redirects here so that doesnt get us very far.Rex 19:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed it, because "the Peace of Westphalia" refers to the October treaties. The Treaty of Munster (Jan) should be a seperate article.  Neither the Dutch or Spanish were involved in IPM/IPO. Chrisfow 00:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And you never felt any obligation to create that article or even remove the line that says that the Peace of Münster is a synonym of the Peace of Westphalia? Rex 09:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never felt any "obligation" to Wikipedia, I don't believe that that is the ethos of this site. Surely its the encyclopedia that everyone is free to edit, not the encyclopedia which, once a contributor, you must edit.  I am not interested in the January Treaty of Munster, and do not wish to spend my time looking up information about it for an article when my Wikitime is stolen from time I should be working anyway.  The line did not say that the two were synonymous, but that the Treaty of Munster linked here, which was true.  When I see that written above an article, I find out a) why and b) more about the subject from another source.  I do not assume that they are synonyms, since the line does not say that.  Chrisfow 17:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about an obligation to wikipedia but an obligation to accept the concequences of your edits. When you remove what you claim unrelated information but at the same time leave in a line that says it is related you not only contradict yourself but also "harm" (well that might be a bit too much) the article.Rex 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there an article at all about the treaty which ended the 80 years war? searched for several minutes, everything gets redirected back to this page. Even the link provided in the 80 Years' war page comes right to this page.--Henrybaker 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've turned Treaty of Münster into a disambiguation page. Someone can now write an article about the January treaty that ended the 80 Years War, if they are so inclined. john k 23:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is terribly incorrect, the treaty of Münster in which the Netherlands and Spain signed a truce was a part of the Peace of Westphalia ... this has to be sorted out quickly. This article has been using pictures of paintings in which the Dutch celabrate a peace which according to some people here isn't a part of the PoW. Rex 10:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

northern Italy
Until just now, for some reason the article tried to claim that the Peace of Westphalia "formally recognized" the independence of northern Italy (including Savoy!) from the Holy Roman Empire. I have no idea where such a notion would come from. The duchy of Savoy was very much part of the empire after 1648; the duke of Savoy even had a seat in the Imperial Diet and the Imperial Circle Estates of the Upper Rhine. The rest of the Italian states had more iffy connections with the empire (they were not part of any imperial circle, notably, and, except for the Spanish/Austrian possessions, and Tuscany when Francis I was reigning there, had no representation in the Reichstag), but nothing about their status changed in 1648. Well into the eighteenth century the various states of northern Italy are referred to as imperial fiefs, and treaties dealing with the succession thereof and the like had to be approved by the Diet and the Emperor. François Velde's site has good examples of primary documents from the eighteenth century that clearly view these areas as fiefs of the Holy Roman Empire - see here, here, and here. john k (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see this material was added by a random anon with no explanation over two years ago. Wonderful! john k (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

-That's all very true; but nearly every map for between 1648 to the Empire's demise in 1806 (including the one on the article page)shows the states in question as being outside the Empire. Confusing! JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is true. I think it would be reasonable to say that northern Italy was not really part of the Empire in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries except in the most nominal sense.  But it's not reasonable to say that the independence of northern Italy was "formally recognized" by the Peace of Westphalia, because it wasn't.  The imperial connections to Italy just gradually atrophied despite the lack of any formal legal changes.  john k (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact; the claims to imperial suzerainty over the states of Lombardy was not finally given up until the 1797 Treaty of Campo Formio.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Pope reportedly calling it
I don't understand why the article would say "the Pope reportedly calling it" with a reference to the letter itself from the Pope. In other words, this is not a "report" from anyone, it's his own words. Or it isn't. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Other parts
Where are te parts about Luxembourg and the Balkans?212.179.111.210 (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thirty Years War
There does not appear to be much mention of the Thirty Years War in the article, but perhaps there should be.Vorbee (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The very first sentence says that it - the Peace of Westphalia - largely ended the European wars of religion. And the second para includes a nice clickable link to the Thirty Years War.   Given that the Thirty Years War gets plenty of wiki-coverage - much of it quite good IMHO - in its own wiki-en entry, I am not sure you gain too much by replicating more meaty chunks of that here.   But that is only my opinion.   If you elegantly slip in a couple more mentions of the Thirty Years War in ways which unambiguously make (or clarify or strengthen) a point of direct relevance to the Peace of Westphalia, it may well be that no one will think to question the soundness of your judgment.   Success Charles01 (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight in lead?
In the final paragraph of the lead section we currently have Leibniz, Rousseau, Kant, Schiller, and then Joachim Whaley. Is this fellow really of such significance as to be given this prominence in the lead (where a few days ago we had Kissinger to represent the later myth-making about the Westphalian Order)? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Joachim Whaley and Peter H. Wilson are the two best-known English-language historians of the Holy Roman Empire of the last 20 years or so. Henry Kissinger has published many books, including one on the Congress of Vienna (A World Restored, written ages ago) but he's certainly not a scholar known for his works on the HRE or the Peace of Westphalia. Since the late 1990s the so-called "Westphalian System" or "Westphalian Sovereignty" or "Westphalian Order" discourse, developed by American International Relations scholars (who were not historians) after WWII, has been attacked, not to say mercilessly demolished, by historians who have demonstrated that the discourse is fundamentally flawed historically.
 * We have a paragraph at the end of the article that adequately summarize the Westphalian System. It needs to be expanded and could include Kissinger's take on the issue. --Lubiesque (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * None of which is in question, but none of which actually addresses my concern. Kissinger is an infamous representative of the actual practice of international relations who would not be out of place in a one-volume biographical encyclopedia alongside Leibniz, Rousseau, Kant, Schiller. Their merits notwithstanding, the same can certainly not be said of Joachim Whaley or Peter H. Wilson. This gives the paragraph a somewhat comical bathos which is surely not intended. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will point out that Kissinger's name is nowhere to be seen in Sebastian Schmidt's 4-page bibliography in "To Order the Minds of Scholars: The Discourse of the Peace of Westphalia in International Relations Literature" (International Studies Quarterly, September 2011). To me, that doesn't bode well regarding Henry's reputation as a IR scholar. --Lubiesque (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Reputable source?
https://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=the_histories

The last paragraph of the lede cites this source, which has a grammatical error in its title ("it Affects") and numerous other mistakes in the text. For example:

The negotiations known as the Congress of Westphalia began in 1642 and lasted another 4 years [sic] until the end of the 30 Years War in 1648. Should we take this source seriously? 2600:1702:6D0:5160:F064:885A:AF74:4258 (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)