Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Thirty Years' War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Thirty Years' War[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Robinvp11 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review; it was rejected for GA status in 2008 due to lack of adequate Sources. This issue has now been addressed, while the article itself has been rewritten from the ground up. I believe it now meets the criteria. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe

The lead needs to be dramatically shortened to bring into compliance with MOS:LEAD; it's seven paragraphs but supposed to be no longer than four. (t · c) buidhe 03:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Y Done
For the lead image, I think it would be most helpful to see a map of the countries that participated in the war, rather than a woodcut that not all readers will be able to see clearly at infobox size. (t · c) buidhe 04:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Y Done Robinvp11 (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CPA[edit]

Since this article is about Protestant vs Catholic countries in the 17th century we don't know which calendar is used in this article. I assume New Style but Old Style should also be included in the dates. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N With very specific exceptions, historians use New Style, a standard adopted throughout Wikipedia and in this article. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robinvp11: MOS:OSNS disagrees with this. Per this list and article Denmark-Norway adopted the New Style in 1700, Sweden adopted this in 1753, and some parts of the Dutch Republic used it until 1701. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See above; I have not disputed the fact certain states adopted NS later than others. However, it is historical convention to use NS unless absolutely necessary to avoid confusion eg when comparing dates (see the article I have edited on the Glorious Revolution). If you read any of the Sources provided, they all follow this without exception, as do the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Catlemur[edit]

I wrote a separate article on how and why Wallenstein was assassinated, which can be found here: Eger Bloodbath. I suppose you can wikilink it. From my understanding the town was called Eger at the time of the war.

Y Added the link; where there are conflicting names, I've used that provided by the relevant Wikipedia article which in this case is Cheb, not Eger.

As the article already mentions the Peace of Westphalia did not completely settle the conflict. There were still disagreements on whether the normative year imposed by the treaty took precedence over other treaties in regard to church properties. This nearly reignited the conflict in what came to be known as the Düsseldorf Cow War.

N I think this point is sufficiently made already.

A translation needs to be provided for the titles of the sources that are not in English.

Y Done

There is no section dedicated to how the war was actually fought. Not a single mention of the Tercio or Hakkapeliitta and very little mention what tactics were employed, what the soldiers were equipped with or what made commanders like Wallenstein stand out in the field.

N This is about the Causes, Course and Outcome of the war, not 17th century tactics and structure - a huge topic in itself and worthy of its own article. If people want to learn more about Wallenstein, there's a link to his article. There are several references to the impact of recruitment and forcing soldiers to live off the land, which are more relevant here than cavalry tactics.

Can you mention Kipper und Wipper in the Human and financial cost of the war section?

Y Done

Perhaps the article would also benefit from a paragraph or two about the cultural impact of the war. Notable works such as Simplicius Simplicissimus and Mother Courage and Her Children were both inspired by the war.

Y I've reduced the amount of space devoted to the witchcraft trials and expanded this to include cultural impact - see what you think.

"Markó 2000, p. ?." - What does the question mark mean here?

Y Reference supplied by a previous editor, I couldn't find the page number and have now removed it.

From my understanding all the Notes need to referenced.--Catlemur (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N I think all those that need a reference have one - the only exceptions are my clarification on who's included in Belligerents and the official name of Hamburg which I don't think is contentious. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Catlemur: I've added a paragraph on Military Developments; can you take a look. It would be helpful if you can either Support or Oppose the request for an A class so we can close off this long-running assessment. Thanks! Robinvp11 (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to support.--Catlemur (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref errors

Found using Ucucha/HarvErrors script & Citation Style 1 error messages; see also User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck.
Duffy 1995, p. 125. Harv error: link from CITEREFDuffy1995 doesn't point to any citation.
Parker 1997, p. 120. Harv error: link from CITEREFParker1997 doesn't point to any citation.
There are a total of 18 sources in the Sources section which are not cited in the text. These should be moved to a Further Reading section. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robinvp11: I fixed your references for you. I think you need to learn how to do them correctly, so that other folks don't need to fix them. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi.Random: Curiously, I fixed them only to discover you'd already done so. I didn't ask you to do that and if it annoys you, please feel free not to bother in future. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems I mistakenly assumed you had no idea how to fix them. Ucucha's script is invaluable in this regard. But it still requires a bit of attention. There was, for example, one source in the "Further reading" (which was then labeled "Bibliography") which was actually cited in the article text. It would have been easy to miss-- it was the only one without a Harv error warning in the middle of many that had them... This is a long article with many good sources. Good work taking it on. It takes courage to dive into the thick of something long and rather involved. That is admirable. Sorry if I was too quick to chide. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Palastwache[edit]

The demographic losses stated in the lead ("up to 60% of the population [...] in some areas", refering to Würtemberg) and in the "Human and financial cost of the war" section are not referenced by Outram 2002 who only mentions that "in Baden-Würtemberg only 57% of buildings survived the war" (p. 251). Outram cites the overall losses estimated by Günter Franz (1940) on page 248 but gives no numbers to extreme examples like Würtemberg.--Palastwache (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks. The Outram reference should have been placed next to the sentence on Franz and I have clarified these figures using Parker. See what you think. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - Wonderful. Now it's accurate.--Palastwache (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: The Peace of Westphalia section lacks the mention of two key parts of the religious settlement of the war: The limitation of the "ius reformandi" for all Imperial estates except the Emperor and the "Normaljahr" 1624. With the limitation of the "ius reformandi", a ruler could still convert to Catholicism, Lutheranism, or now also Calvinism, but he could not (force-)convert his subjects anymore.--Palastwache (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complementary, the "Normaljahr" settlement determined the religion of an estate to the dominant religion in 1624 (a compromise between Catholics and Lutherans) and legalised all religious minorities present in 1624. Exception were the Oberpfalz and the Habsburg territories, where recatholization was acknowledged despite not completed in 1624.

Made some changes - let me know if the revised wording works for you. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, nice work, this does work for me.--Palastwache (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Round 3, last remark before I give a support: The German theatre between 1639 and 1641 is entirely missing - currently, the transition is "Despite the death of Bernhard, over the next two years the Franco-Swedish alliance won a series of battles ..." which is not referenced (Clodfelter (2008) only refers to Second Breitenfeld) and factually wrong, Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar died 1639 but the next Franco-Swedish victory was Wolfenbüttel 1641. In 1640, the Swedes under Johan Banér were pushed back to the Weser, in 1641 he unsuccessfully attacked the Regensburg Reichstag. His death on the retreat caused a mutiny that was (according to the Austrian historian Lothar Höbelt) the last serious chance for the Imperials to defeat or rather buy-out the Swedes (then Torstensson appeared and saved the day). Especially Regensburg (the Emperor stayed there and risked captivity) and the mutiny could be noteworthy.

To the truce between the Dutch Republic and Spain in 1647: The given cause is "At this point, Olivares publicised secret discussions initiated by Mazarin in early 1646" - Olivares had already been overturned in 1643 and died in 1645. The sentence could be changed to "... the Spanish government publicised ..."--Palastwache (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, made some changes, see what you think. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job! You have answered all questions I had :) Palastwache (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Will take a look at this; I'm not very familiar with this time period. Hog Farm _Talk 03:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the better :)

From a quick look, not all of the commanders and leaders are mentioned elsewhere in the article. I only looked at the list of Swedes, and Oxenstierna is only in the infobox
Y Removed unused - Oxenstierna now mentioned
You use both Lennart Torstensson and Torstenson. Recommend picking the better variant and sticking with it
Y Done
Structural origins mentions the Habsburgs without really explaining who they are
Y I've expanded this, see what you think.
File:Spanish road (in red).png - What do the various colors on this map mean?
Y Done
Link Philip Fabricius to Filip Fabricius
Y Done
"Thurn established a new government, and the conflict expanded into Silesia" - This is a bit unclear as to when the military conflict itself actually started - was it with the Second Defenestration of Prague, or afterwards?
Y Clarified wording
"this was helped when the Ottomans went to war with Poland in 1620, then Persia in 1623" - MOS:EGG issues. It really looks like the links to Poland and Persia are going to the nations, not the conflicts. Maybe include "with" in the piped links?
Y Should be clearer now
I'm also concerned that the deaths denoted in the infobox aren't all mentioned in the prose - for instance, Spinola is marked as KIA, but this isn't mentioned
Y Technically, Spinola died of fever in Italy, so easily resolved :)
"In the October 1619 Treaty of Munich" - link Treaty of Munich (1619)
Y Done
A map specifically indicating where the Palatinate was located would be useful, as it seems to have been in a strategic location
N If you look at a map of the Palatinate, you'll see the problem; it consisted of a bunch of widely scattered, non-contiguous territories and I think it would be more confusing than helpful
"John George of Saxony and the Calvinist George William of Brandenburg feared Ferdinand intended to reclaim former Catholic bishoprics currently held by Lutherans (see Map)" - So is that map showing only those bishoprics and all the relevant bishoprics? The caption is pretty vague
Y I've removed "See Map" and clarified map caption
"Richelieu's policy was to 'arrest the course of Spanish progress', and 'protect her neighbours from Spanish oppression'" - Are these Richelieu's words, or that of a secondary source? I'd recommend in-text attribution as to who this is quoting
Y Clarified
"under von Gronsfeld at Oldendorf in July" - Who is von Gronsfeld?
Y Easier to remove him (not a major player) Robinvp11 (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Y Actually, now added him into the Infobox as he appears elsewhere as Bronckhorst-Gronsfeld. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the Phase II Section, hope to get back to this tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 04:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Iberian Union is mentioned in an image caption; it should probably be introduced in the text as well
Y Done
The involvement chart needs an explicit source in the text, as not all of it is directly referred to in the article - such as Transylvania'a involvement in the 1640s, for instance
N I didn't produce this so I don't know where it came from but I'm reluctant to remove something which clearly took someone a lot of work. I don't think it matters whether every piece of involvement is mentioned in the text, its simply a broad overview.
The breakdowns of casualties and strengths in the infobox don't all seem to be cited
Y Done Robinvp11 (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pappenheim is either only mentioned in the infobox or appears in the body under another name
Y Now done (killed at Lutzen)
Croatian cavalry is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body
Y Moved into FN (as explained, most commentators think these are included in Imperial forces) Robinvp11 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the first pass, will make another one once these are resolved. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hog Farm _Talk 04:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

As, after eight months, no consensus to promote seems to be forming, I am archiving this nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened per this discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.