Talk:Thirty Years' War/Archive 2

Regarding Bohemian-Phase of the War
I missed the parts right before the Defenestration of Prague in the article. The under-representation of the protestant minority in the city councils and in the realm's politics, the demolition of churches, executions and expellings that were taking place before the Defenestration and is vastly documented. Ferdinand was doing this same politics in Austria and other Habsburg possessions, the Bohemians saw they would be next target. Omitting such aspects give a totally different impression of how the war started to simply political quarell between supporters of Ferdinand and his opposition.

I'm here to question the way the article was constructed, for it appeals to a certainly biased presentation of the events. If possible, I want to contribute latter with such sources.

Thankfully, Pedro Gaião.


 * I think this has now been addressed in the rewritten background sections. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Effects outside Europe
A section on the effects that the war had outside Europe, especially how it affected colonization efforts in the Americas, would be great. -- 194.39.218.10 (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am considered, there were no major impacts. However Oliver Cromwell did invade Jamaica in 1655, and you could consider the First English Civil War and Spain's wars with France and England to be an aftermath of the war. You could say this war emphasis the colonial theatres more, as European nations looked to limit fighting in Europe, but colonies did not become important in wars until the War of Spanish Succession. Azaan H 06:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Habsburg states and allies
I want to give as feedback that if you include -Catholic League -Austria and -Lorraine as part of the Holy Roman Empire. You have to include also -The Kingdom of Naples - Portugal, etc, also as part of the Spanish Empire. The Philippine Dynasty, which is the House of Habsburg in Portugal when Portugal and Spain were the Iberian Union, was still in command during the Thirty Years War. Naples and Sicily were controlled by the Kingdom of Aragon by that time too. Because they were part of the House of Habsburgs when the Habsburgs decided to separate into two. The Austrian Habsburgs and the Spanish Habsburgs. I mean, if you include subgroups for the Holy Roman Empire, you should include them also in the Spanish Empire and for the other members of the Habsburgs too. 130.83.136.200 (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but the two situations are different; the Austrian Habsburgs only directly controlled their own lands, and the conflict was in many ways a civil war within the Holy Roman Empire, Austria and the Catholic princes on one side, Denmark/Sweden/France plus Protestant princes on the other.


 * The Spanish Empire was far more cohesive, which is why it appears as one Belligerent; the revolts in Portugal and Naples are not generally considered part of the Thirty Years War. Spanish involvement derived from its control of the Spanish Netherlands, a territory within the HRE, seeking to regain the Dutch provinces, also considered part of the HRE until 1648. Hope that makes sense. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Chronological inconsistency in the causes of the war
The article says, "The war was instigated by the election of Ferdinand II as Holy Roman Emperor, a staunch Catholic who tried to impose religious uniformity on his domains. In response, the Protestant states of northern Germany formed the Protestant Union to defend their interests. Tensions grew until the Defenestration of Prague (1618), when Bohemian Protestants threw the Emperor's representatives out of a window."

Ferdinand was already King of Bohemia in 1617, but wasn't elected Emperor until 1619. In 1618, people were only trying to arrange for Ferdinand II to be elected. Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor says that "The Diets of Bohemia and Hungary confirmed Ferdinand's position as Matthias' successor [in 1617 or 1618] only after he had promised to respect the Estates' privileges in both realms. The different interpretation of the Letter of Majesty, which summarized the Bohemian Protestants' liberties, gave rise to an uprising, known as the Second Defenestration of Prague on 23 May 1618."

Sounds like the Defenestration happened because the Bohemians weren't happy with the rights Ferdinand II promised them. But it might also have been due to policies Ferdinand was already implementing, as King of Bohemia. Someone who knows the history should fix this. Philgoetz (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Should be fixed following extensive rewrite. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Qing Dynasty?
Is this some kind of a joke? I couldn't find any mention in the article of the involvement of the Qing dynasty to the conflict in the article or any source. China is a long way from Continental Europe, even if they were in some way involved with one of the European parties; this does not mean they were involved in the war. --121.215.171.163 (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto. warshy (¥¥) 19:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Why the death toll figures keep being moved around?
The death toll of the thirty years war ranges from 4 million minimum to 12 million maximum. While 8 million is said to be the best estimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaipingRebellion1850 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There a few articles that show that the death toll could of been 10 million+. Here's one link where the death toll of 4-12 million. https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2017/05/23/thirty-years-war-first-modern-war/ TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I've read the referenced link, since its the first hit on Google, but looking at the literature in general, 4 to 8 is the most likely estimate. The problem is 19th century German historians often exaggerated the total for political reasons (ie this is the consequence of Germany being divided). Then you get into what conflicts are part of the war, do we include falls in the birth rate etc. 8 is the upper limit given by Peter Wilson in the most recent work on this area.


 * Like the Taiping Rebellion :) 20 million is the most usual figure for deaths, but I've seen estimates of 50 to 80 million. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * A curious comparison per this; an estimated 1.4% of the then global population died during the 30 Years War, versus 1.7% for the Taiping. https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/08/The-100-Worst-Atrocities-over-the-last-Millennia-New-York-Times-Data-from-Matthew-White0.png  Robinvp11 (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I think the higher estimates are taking in account of diseases that were caused by the thirty years war in other countries. The smaller estimates take in account war related deaths and diseases that affected the territory of the holy roman empire, and the many foreign European solders that invaded the holy roman empire. Good example, the Italian Epidemic of 1629 was directly caused by German and French troops in the city of Mantua in 1629 associated with the Thirty Years War. Over 1 m million death occured from 1629-1631, in Italy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1629%E2%80%931631_Italian_plague TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The higher estimates take into the possibilities of the affects of the thirty years war, on other European countries population, mainly diseases. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * See rewritten Impact session, which provides details and references. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Can someone add the Italian bubonic plague here since it was caused by this war?
I was just wondering if someone could mention this on this article. The plague had spread to italy in 1629 and lasted until 1631. Over 1 million died. Here's a wiki article about this epidemic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1629%E2%80%931631_Italian_plague TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've included it in the section on Northern Italy; until the 1660s, Europe was subject to frequent outbreaks of plague, so hard to argue it was 'caused by the 30 Years War' as opposed to being exacerbated by it, while Kohn suggests a primary factor was the relaxation of quarantine regulations during the Easter holiday in 1629 (relevant today). Robinvp11 (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It was caused by the war because of the German and french troops that was mobilized there because of the thirty years war. Similar how the Spanish flu was spread during ww1 TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Language improvements summarily reverted by Svejk74
In the subsection "The Palatinate Campaign" @Svejk74 keeps reverting my edits for readability and clarity, marked and explained as such. His explanations for summary reversions have evidently become rather shrill, sad to say, so I am doubtful that an attempt from me for direct engagement would be fruitful and instead would only enflame. General discussion here instead will hopefully be more effective toward a solution.

I encourage review of the subsection for clear, readily readable communication of the subject matter. To me what I found yesterday tended to be neither due to convoluted sentence structure and diction, so I took some time for cleanup. I would appreciate appreciation of such attention and effort, not summary revision.

Surely clarity and readability are valid reasons for article edits. Claiming otherwise strikes me as odd and spurious.

For one example, after this sentence

In August 1620, a Spanish army of 25,000 occupied the Lower Palatinate to secure the Spanish Road.

came originally this ill-juxtaposed and difficult sentence

German Protestants had hoped to ensure peace by abandoning Frederick, Catholics to prevent outside interference by supporting Ferdinand, but both now found themselves involved in an international war in the Rhineland.

So I edited to this, coherently capturing the author's clear intent, I think.

''The war continued because Frederick refused to accept defeat, while Ferdinand was determined to re-assert Habsburg control over the empire, and neither was willing to compromise. In August 1620, a Spanish army of 25,000 occupied the Lower Palatinate to secure the Spanish Road, frustrating the hopes of both German Protestants, who had sought to ensure peace by abandoning Frederick, and Catholics, who had supported Ferdinand in order to avoid outside interference. Instead both found themselves ensnared in international war in the Rhineland.''

A good improvement, no? @Svejk74 begs to differ, criticizing for instance the word "ensnare" because "someone [must be] doing the ensnaring." What, events can't conspire to ensnare?

I request that my peers review. :)


 * "Shrill"? "Direct", I think - also happy to engage via talk.


 * I'm afraid that most of the changes add nothing in terms of meaning or clarity while adding pointless bulk - this is a long article already. "Ensnared" to me implies that a snare has been set; "involved" is more neutral.Svejk74 (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

to differ, criticizing for instance the word "ensnare" because "someone [must be] doing the ensnaring." What, events can't conspire to ensnare?

I request that my peers review. :)


 * "Shrill"? "Direct", I think - also happy to engage via talk.


 * Glad substantive discussion with you is possible, Svejk74. The original construction truly satisfies you? So long as clarity and readability are preserved, I agree that brevity is best, of course.


 * The original version is disjointed at best and therefore hard to follow. How is the reader to gather that the Spanish action frustrated well-considered moves by both Protestants and Catholics to avoid just such an outcome? Only by reading the paragraph to the end and then piecing together what the heck the author was trying to communicate, that's how. Once I had solved that puzzle, I decided to spare future readers the chore and add some flow, fitting the pieces together with cues to move the reader along the way. Redigest this matter objectively from the standpoint of a new reader, and I think you might see the matter similarly.


 * I could have gone on and on in such a language-improvement mode with this article but soon realized doing so would overwhelm article history. So I stopped.


 * I see you are a regular editor of history-related pages. I am sure you see hundreds of crappy edits along the way, and you may press undo reflexively if the edits are language-oriented instead of adding topical substance. I get that and can sympathize. But please also give consideration to efforts to allow for efficient consumption of the substance. At least sometimes. ;)


 * As for "ensnare," clearly the word takes no side and is therefore also neutral. If you look, I am certain you will find thousands of literate and figurative uses of the verb where intention is absent. Non-fictional writing need not be bland to be good, you know?


 * I hereby withdraw my aspersion "shrill," despite your prior description of my edits as "nonsense." Haha. PaulCRyanJr (talk)


 * "The would help still" is objectively nonsense, unless one intends the word "the" to be the subject of the sentence. WP Ludicer (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Unsure what you're referring to Leducer. Was there a typo amidst my edits? If so, nonsense it was. Thanks. :) Paul_Ryan (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's what you wrote in your most recent (I think) edit.


 * As an example of other problems, the same edit replaced the sentence "Many Protestant rulers had refused to support Frederick because they objected to removing a legally elected king; now Ferdinand proposed to do the same, a concern that changed the nature and complexion of the war, especially when combined with his desire to re-establish the primacy of the Catholic church" with "Protestant rulers had refused prior to support Frederick because they had objected to removal of a legally elected king (in Bohemia), but now Ferdinand proposed to do the same, an act that would surely change the nature of the war, especially considering his suspected underlying desire to re-establish the primacy of the Catholic church".


 * What does the odd-sounding "had refused prior" (sic) communicate that "had refused" doesn't? Why the awkward "(in Bohemia)" in brackets? Readers are unlikely to have forgotten the preceding few paragraphs. What does "would surely change" convey that "changed" doesn't, more simply? Why "suspected underlying desire"? Ferdinand's motivations are well-known. In short then sorry, I don't think this is a terribly good edit, and doesn't even seem to have been sense checked before you pressed "publish", hence "The would help still". If you're going to hack about other people's prose (n.b. - not mine) in the name of 'clarity', then make sure it's actually clearer afterwards.


 * If reversion actually makes people think about what they're writing, I think it's the right approach, no matter how 'summary' it comes across.Svejk74 (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

As the original editor :), I don't mind "improvements" even if I don't agree with them, because they often lead me to review and think about how to improve. So I've gone back and done some rewording.

One of your edits contains this statement '''why undo language improvements? The article needs a lot more of it, in fact'''; if you're proposing to make additional edits in the same style, I'd like to set out a few key principles.

(1) Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, intended for general users; it needs to be concise and easily comprehensible for an audience, some of whom are using English as a second language. I've put a lot of effort into keeping it short and avoiding overly complex/flowery language, even if that means being bland.

(2) ''The original version is disjointed at best and therefore hard to follow. How is the reader to gather that the Spanish action frustrated well-considered moves by both Protestants and Catholics to avoid just such an outcome? Only by reading the paragraph to the end and then piecing together what the heck the author was trying to communicate, that's how.''

This seems to assume no one's read any of the preceding sections because all of these points are made several times in the sections above.

(3) As a point of principle, I'd challenge the idea the revised wording is clearer - and based on the comments above, it's not just me.

As mentioned, I've rewritten some of the content; I put a lot of effort into this article, so if there's something you think isn't clear, then tell me.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * For the most part fair enough, Robin. Of course I had no idea who the original author was and to whom to direct commentary.


 * Yes, I found the article quite disjointed, and I was reading from top to bottom, and so your supposition of the reader being able to piece things together without tie-in cues in transitional spots did not work for one perhaps intelligent, careful, interested first-time reader. (To wit also my "in Bohemia" parenthetical which bothered Svejk74.) I am certain your audience would appreciate another once-over of your orchestration of voluminous content in this regard.


 * One hopefully mild request I have is that you review your style for semicolons throughout. In general, the second sentence should be helpfully subsidiary and tend short, else the run-on becomes hard to follow or digest, leading to enough irritation in some to press edit, whereupon one thing leads to another. ;) For instance, lo, your last semicolon here in your response to me. Much better if you'd replace such with a period by default; it seems a predilection of yours.


 * While I agree on keeping language simple, some edification along the way for readers, especially in areas of the humanities, is a fine thing. For our favorite example, 'ensnare' communicates so much better than 'involve' or whatever it was. I likewise used 'predilection' just above instead of 'tendency.' :)


 * All nits aside, I appreciate your approach to editing and collaboration. Much better than blunt, cycling rejections which border on the behavior of a troll. Paul_Ryan (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Belligerent of War
I think we should talk about this. Rovinrp still insists that some of the countries are not belligerents, but if you look at other wars which is part of its wars, we should talk about this. -- Wendylove (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia definition of a "belligerent" is fairly clear-cut. If the articles for some subsidiary conflicts break that rule by including states that sent mercenaries, maybe they should also be changed?Svejk74 (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * First, thank you for raising this on the Talkpage so we can discuss it together :) I'm going to explain in detail, because it does come up on a regular basis; I'm sure you're aware of some of these points already but this also for others.


 * Second, this is a complex topic; historians dispute when the war started (1568? 1609? 1618? 1625?), when it finished (1659? 1714? 1756?) and who it involved. So I understand the confusion.


 * The more complex it is, the clearer and more consistent we need to be; as mentioned above, 'Belligerent' is a very specific definition. To qualify, it has to be (a) a national entity and (b) involve a formal declaration of war. For example, France was closely involved in supporting other participants in the war as far back as 1609, but only became a Belligerent in 1635 when it declared war on Spain and Austria.


 * Being consistent and sticking to that definition prevents endless arguments about whether who else might be involved eg the Ottomans, the Poles, the Russians, the Chinese etc.


 * It is very different from "involvement" or "participation", a point many editors do not seem to appreciate. I've seen similar discussions on other pages and the majority are simply not following the guidelines provided. The reason Wikipedia is so clear on the distinction is to avoid lengthy arguments on this topic.


 * 17th century armies were not organised on national lines; based on studies of a mass grave uncovered in 2016 and personnel reports, the Swedish army at Lützen contained Scots, Croats, Italian, Dutch, French, German, Swedes and Irish. Among others :). Just because Irish soldiers fought in a battle does not make Ireland a Belligerent; members of every nation and both religions could be found on both sides in the same battle. So using 'participation' to determine Belligerents would be endlessly confusing.


 * Finally, the reason I'm so adamant neither England or Scotland were "Belligerents" is because their neutrality was a major factor in tensions between Charles and his Parliamentary opponents that ended in the English Civil War. In the 1630s, Charles 'rented' the Royal Navy and use of English ports to the Spanish, so they could transport supplies through the Channel without being intercepted by the Dutch; this led to a mutiny in 1638.


 * Hope this makes sense. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Why bother raising this on the TP if you're just going to ignore the discussion? Robinvp11 (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't read your opinion properly, so I misunderstood your point of view. I read this in the morning. (In korea, it is 10:00 am) So I answer late. I mostly adopted your view of belligerent, but one thing is not clear. If you don't mind, could you explain why Anglo-Spanish War cannot be part of this war? If this is clear, I can understand your view more clearly. And sorry for my misbehavior, because I think you were upset and unpleasant about that. -- Wendylove (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Happy to explain; I think it will be helpful for others, because it is complex.


 * The Thirty Years War is a conflict within the Holy Roman Empire (or HRE). To be considered part of the war requires (a) the fighting to primarily take place in the Empire (b) the participation of Emperor Ferdinand on one side or the other, and (c) for external powers, a formal declaration of war.


 * The Anglo-Spanish War does not meet any of those criteria (the article is next on my list for updating :))


 * Spain and the Dutch are Belligerents because until Westphalia in 1648, Spain was technically fighting on behalf of the Emperor to put down a revolt in an Imperial province. The Imperial Diet did not formally recognise Dutch independence until 1728.


 * The War of the Mantuan Succession is a related conflict because although Mantua was not part of the HRE, the causes related to the wider conflict in Germany and involved Ferdinand (see the relevant section in the article). The same applies to the Portuguese Restoration and Reapers Wars, although I'm less convinced; there is an argument for taking them out but they're currently in the main article and the Lead is supposed to reflect the content.


 * Using these criteria, many of the Belligerents currently listed in the Infobox should come out - Bohemia, Transylvania, the Palatinate etc were simply Imperial provinces in revolt and I've yet to find any sources that list them as 'Belligerents'. They should be included in the Protestant Union (pre 1624), the Heilbronn League (pre-1635) and the Catholic League; Saxony, Prussia and Bavaria maybe deserve to be listed separately but all the others should be removed.


 * This area attracts controversy out of all proportion to its importance, so I choose my battles - yes, there was fighting in Bohemia etc, so I can live with it, but including England is actively misleading. As I've mentioned, English neutrality was a leading cause of discontent in the run-up to the Civil War, plus ensuring England stayed out was why Charles failed to gain support from outside powers during it. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explain. I'll help you if you're going to edit Anglo-Spanish War. Thanks for clearing my view, and I'll accept your point. -- Wendylove (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Dragovit: This looks like a re-run of the War of the Spanish Succession discussion - can you please read the thread above, then this below; if you still disagree, please explain why and lets talk about it rather than editorial back and forth.


 * "Supported country" is not a definition used by historians or an option per Wikipedia - see Template:Infobox military conflict. I've seen it elsewhere eg Korean War but it is a fabricated category and its use incorrect - in Korea, Belligerent is the United Nations.


 * There are two reasons why Wikipedia is so specific on this. First, where do you stop? For several centuries France financed Ottoman wars against Austria; logically, if you include the Ottoman Empire in the Thirty Years War, you must then include France on nearly every war fought by the Ottomans from 1500 to 1860, including ones where it was technically a belligerent on the other side eg Cretan War (1645–1669).


 * Second, how do you define support? Some editors think it includes humanitarian aid, diplomatic backing and equipment - see Vietnam War. That requires a vast expansion of the Infobox for most post 1945 conflicts eg the Nordic countries (which specialise in this area) would be included in the Syrian War, Iran-Iraq, Lebanese Civil War, Darfur etc etc.


 * If people want to play around with flags (which honestly seems to be the most common justification for this idea), do it on articles for specific battles, where Combatants allows split into different national units - eg Battle of Jankau. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor - repeated text
The following useful comment currently appears in two nearby paragraphs in Part 4, entitled ″Phase II; France joins the war...″

25 years of constant war had devastated the countryside, forcing armies to spend more time foraging than fighting, and drastically reducing their ability to sustain campaigns.

- this is in the paragraph mentioning Cardinal Mazarin and then repeated three paragraphs later. Perhaps one copy can be dropped? --AconUK (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks - redone and I've made some other changes. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Continuing disagreement
I don't think a single source can suffice for a claim that a particular view is generally accepted. Here's a 2008 article, noting that there are a range of views and suggesting that the "religious war" view has regained ground https://academic.oup.com/ehr/article-abstract/CXXIII/502/554/413775

(purely speculative, and not relevant to the article but I suspect this is part of a more general shift towards taking religious conflict on its own terms, rather than as a cover for "deeper" causes.) JQ (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising this on the TP.


 * Wilson is used as a primary source throughout (not just his book but several papers); I'm not sure this article supports the argument it should be seen as a 'religious war', given Wilson then proceeds to demolish it.


 * I've done a lot of research, much of which doesn't appear here due to lack of space; I haven't simply taken Sutherland's word for it, I've used his article because it includes a detailed examination of the different perspectives;


 * There's a difference between religious antagonism (the destabilising impact of the Edict on the Augsburg Settlement led to conflict between Catholic and Protestants) and religion as a primary driver. That's Wilson's point and I think its hard to disagree given Catholic France's support for Protestant Sweden and the Dutch Republic, Spanish and Papal opposition to the ultramontane Catholic policies pursued by Ferdinand II, the multi-confessional nature of all armies, lack of Protestant support for Frederick in 1618. And in a wider context, Protestant England allying with Catholic France against French Protestants, who in turn were supported by Catholic Spain, Muslim Ottoman and French Catholic support for Hungarian Protestants against Catholic Austria etc etc.


 * In nearly every single case, temporal strategic and political objectives took precedence over religious ones. There is general agreement it was Ferdinand/Maximilian's action in depriving Frederick of his lands and title that sparked the war, rather than his religion. That's the point, surely. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

About calculating figures
I think that the term like "French", "Swedes" or "Dutch" in infobox is not meaning the ethnic group, but abbreviation of its army (French Army, Swedish Army......) After all, breaking down of this army into ethnic group is quite unnecessary, because most of participants hired mercenaries. For example, although it is written in Swedish-led Germans in infobox, if you see the edit of pre-Rovinvp edits, there are various references that Scottish and English soldiers fought alongside with Swedish army, but we don't figure them as Swedish-led English or Swedish-led Scots.

Like the same context, it is different by historians to figure people of Thirty Years' War, but as Rovin said there is no references about distinguishing the term "German Lands". Also, the term "German Lands" is quite vague to understand. If it means the land that major ethnic group is German, then Kingdom of Bohemia, Margraviate of Moravia, Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) should be excepted. If it means the lands within the Holy Roman Empire, then we should consider about Brandenburg-Prussia, Kingdom of Hungary and many other lands of Habsburg Monarchy which was outside of border of HRE. If it means the land which is directly controlled by Holy Roman Emperor as King in Germany, then we should consider Duchy of Holstein, Old Swiss Confederacy, and Spanish Netherlands, which was controlled by other countries or was independent.

My point is this. Calculating figures with ethnic group is not quite useful during Thirty Years' War. So whether to interwine this war with ethnic perspective should be much careful, I think. Wendylove (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree and I would point out the Source provided (ie Clodfelter) admits they are largely guesswork. I was happy to use him for general estimates, although as User:Nihlus1 has made clear in a previous edit, Clodfelter thinks Holy Roman Empire equals Germany, which makes me less confident on his figures.


 * if we're going down this ethnic route then I suggest reading Parrott, whose work on this area is seen as the gold standard.More importantly, I don't understand why it is relevant; as I've said before, I've invested considerable time in removing (my own) content that on reflection was not necessarily useful to the general reader. Its reasonable to ask others to do the same.


 * This content belongs in the Military of the Swedish Empire or Swedish intervention in the Thirty Years' War, not here, and should reflect the whole of the Source used (ie it's a guess), not just bits of it. Otherwise its misleading. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead hard to follow
My knowledge of European history pretty much collapses to famous dates prior to the Treaty of Westphalia. Still, I wouldn't expect this article to be too much of a stretch, and yet I found the lead difficult to follow.

There's a general tendency in the prose of this article to be light on specific pronouns. This tendency is underlined by the major section which begins:

These tensions occasionally resulted in full-scale conflict like the 1583 to 1588 Cologne War, caused by the conversion to Calvinism of its ruler.

No, you can't begin a new major section with "these tensions".

Analysis of lead text

Conflict between German Protestants and [German] Catholics caused by the early 16th century Reformation had been temporarily settled by the 1555 Peace of Augsburg.

Without the second "German" it could be German P. and Catholics in general.

This agreement was gradually undermined by political and religious tensions, and in 1618 the Protestant-dominated Bohemian Estates deposed the Catholic Ferdinand II as King of Bohemia.

Do Estates depose? Only in the abstract. Some unspecified mix of civil servants and rabble-rousers? They offered the Crown to the Protestant Frederick V of the Palatinate, but most German princes refused to support him, and by early 1620 the Bohemian Revolt had been suppressed.

Protestant German princes? Catholic German princes? German princes who resided inside the Bohemian Estates? Outside the Bohemian Estates? Mercenary German princes at large? German princes married to some kissing cousin far away in the United Kingdom?

This was the first of many points at which the conflict could have ended but did not.

Revolt suppressed, what's left to do?

When Frederick refused to admit defeat, the war expanded into the Palatinate, whose strategic importance drew in external powers, notably the Dutch Republic and Spain.

What defeat? A suppressed revolt automatically counts as a defeat, rather than a temporary setback?

By 1623, Spanish-Imperial forces defeated Frederick, who was stripped of his possessions and exiled.

So he admits it this time? That sentence I did understand.

[Frederick's defeat/stripping/exile] Combined with his [Frederick's?] support for the Catholic Counter-Reformation, this threatened other Protestant rulers within the Empire, including Christian IV of Denmark, who was also Duke of Holstein; [should be new sentence] in 1625 he [Christian IV] intervened in Northern Germany until forced to withdraw in 1629.

Ferdinand now passed the Edict of Restitution, which sought to restore Catholic property lost at Augsburg and destabilised large areas of North and Central Germany. This [sought and achieved destabilisation?] provided an opportunity for Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden to invade the Empire in 1630 in pursuit of his own territorial ambitions.

Another vague "this".

Backed by French subsidies, from 1630 to 1634 the Swedes and their German allies won a series of victories over Ferdinand, despite the death of Gustavus at Lützen in 1632.

No problems here.

However, tensions over Swedish objectives and [German or Swedish or both?] defeat at Nördlingen in 1634 led their German allies to make peace.

Would make sense more quickly if joined to the following sentence with a colon.

At Prague in 1635, Ferdinand guaranteed the autonomy of the German states in return for the dissolution of the Heilbronn and Catholic Leagues and their respective armies.

Okay, fine.

With Sweden also threatening to make peace, fears of the resulting increase in Habsburg power pushed France to intervene directly in the conflict.

Increase relative to what standard or prior time frame? Ferdinand sounds like he has merely regained so far, but not so much gained, unless the German peace pact was a major diplomatic coup.

In April 1635, they [probably the intervening French military brass] agreed a defensive alliance with Sweden against Ferdinand, then declared war on Spain in May.

So, I take it that the Swedes were not suckered into the Spanish war.

Although the Franco-Spanish war continued until 1659, fighting in Germany ended with the 1648 Peace, whose main provisions included acceptance of "German liberties" by the Emperor and Dutch independence by Spain.

This meaning mainly religious liberties, I presume?

By weakening the Habsburgs relative to France and its allies, it [the 30 years, or the 30 years plus this additional French adventure?] altered the European balance of power and set the stage for the wars of Louis XIV.

Yes, I'm a dunce. Steven Pinker calls this the curse of knowledge. Dunces like me are half your audience. I've exaggerated my quibbles to make a point, this being that this many small issues back to back does soon swell into a hazy burden of jagged puzzle pieces for historical dunces like me. &mdash; MaxEnt 00:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these insights. I have done my best to clarify where appropriate, given the constraints that the Lede is a Summary of the article.


 * Whether you are a dunce is a judgement I'm not qualified to make, although I'm not sure all the wording here is particularly helpful. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)