Talk:Thirty Years' War

On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 15, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
June 5, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
June 11, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
November 22, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
March 3, 2022WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
March 20, 2022WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
April 14, 2022WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 14, 2004.

The opening of the page

I'd like to open a discussion about the general description of the opening for a reword that should feel appropiate. Folkekirken256 (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning. The opening somewhat doesn't feel quite right, especially it's remark on being one of the bloodiest conflict ever. While true, it should be mentioned somewhere else later after the description of its time, where it was fought, factions etc. similar to the pages of WW1 and WW2. Folkekirken256 (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The edits are not an improvement, either grammatically or in terms of readability.
They are also inaccurate eg "30 Years War" means exactly that, not a series of periods, Parker (who is the source) specifically refers to "Germany" etc.
The opening somewhat doesn't feel quite right, especially it's remark on being one of the bloodiest conflict ever. While true, it should be mentioned somewhere else later after the description of its time... This makes no sense.
Happy for others to weigh in. Robinvp11 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aha I see, let me try to clarify. My intentions where to try to model the page that it features other things right in the opening sentences where it is explained what the Thirty Years' War is all about, like its causes and what it became(I mean a HRE religious civil war to a full pan-European conflict involving almost all major powers) and then we mention the effects, that being changing the European continent and then being one of the bloodiest wars in history and such. However I may have used bad wording to explain this, hope this clarifies. Folkekirken256 (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your recommended edit. Additionally, it's more common for articles to have the main events of the war detailed in the first few overview paragraphs, while the impact of the war is noted in the final paragraph of the overview section. Starting the entire article of with what is essentially "Blah blah blah was among the worst tragedies to ever inflict the earth" doesn't help inform the reader; instead, it would be more informative if the opening lines detail the years when the war it was fought, in what region, etc. Additionally, I believe that the statement itself should be changed to "one of the deadliest in European History" and not "in human history" since, according to the wikipedia list for deadliest wars, it doesn't even make the top ten, making "in human history" rather subjective. It is, however, indisputably among the worst in European history. Maxcapacity5 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! I have changed it to "European history". Gawaon (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any estimates of how many soldiers fought during the duration of the war?

Since we know peak estimates on all sides, but no known figures for all combatants for the duration of the entire war. it is estimated that 450,000 soldiers casualties and when including diseases that 1.3 to 1.8 million soldiers died during the war. Has anyone ever calculated the amount of troops that had actually fought? TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was Transylvania a formal belligerent?

Transylvania was a significant and active participant in the Thirty Years' War, with its military and diplomatic actions directly impacting the course of the conflict.  Transylvania's involvement in the Thirty Years' War.  Under the leadership of Princes Gábor Bethlen and György I Rákóczi, the Protestant principality of Transylvania repeatedly waged war against the Catholic Holy Roman Empire. Its involvement was far from informal, as it was a key part of the anti-Habsburg coalition.Military action,Transylvanian forces fought on behalf of the Protestant cause and allied with other major powers. For instance, Bethlen launched campaigns that threatened the Habsburg capital of Vienna, and Transylvanian soldiers fought alongside Swedish forces in later phases of the war.Diplomatic treaties,Transylvania's participation was formally concluded through treaties that shaped the war's outcome, such as the Peace of Nikolsburg (1621) and the Peace of Linz (1645). These agreements secured religious freedom for Protestants in Hungary and gained territory for Transylvania, which demonstrates its recognized status as a player in the conflict.

Representation at Westphalia.  Negotiations, not physical presence:While Transylvania was not physically present at the Westphalian peace conference, this was not uncommon. Many smaller states and allies negotiated through the major powers, such as Sweden and France, who were seen as "guarantors of the imperial constitution".

The final settlements of Westphalia did not directly involve Transylvania but addressed many of the religious and territorial issues that Transylvania's actions had influenced throughout the war. The treaties reaffirmed the right of German princes to choose their religion and confirmed amnesties that affected allies of the Protestant cause. In conclusion, Transylvania was a formal belligerent in the Thirty Years' War. Just another russian (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the WP:reliable sources that confirm what you say? Gawaon (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a AI-generated summary. But Google Gemini or ChatGPT are no reliable sources. AI likes to hallucinate facts and tell stories that sound plausible but actually aren't. For example, Transylvania did not negotiate "through the major powers" at Westphalia. Westphalia had nothing to do with their conflict against the Habsburg emperor over control of Royal Hungary and the right of the protestants there. Arguably a separated - though related - conflict from the Thirty Years War. The Habsburgs and Transylvania peaced out at Nikolsburg 1621 and Linz 1645, separatedly from Westphalia and without direct interference from other political actors (the most direct foreign influence possibly came from the Ottomans in 1645 who tried to pressure George I Rákóczi to make peace). Palastwache (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claims of on my response being AI are false. This quote, ''separately from Westphalia and without direct interference from other political actors (the most direct foreign influence possibly came from the Ottomans in 1645 who tried to pressure George I Rákóczi to make peace)'', makes no sense. Transylvania was not at the Peace of Westphalia because they had already signed two peace treaties, does not somehow make it not being able to be qualified as a belligerent, many country have left a war from signing a peace treaty earlier in war before the main settlement. Just another russian (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources for your analysis. Because Wikipedia is not a forum WP:NOTFORUM and not an essay web WP:NOTESSAY. We as editors only cares about Reliable sources, anything else should be treated as original research Simple non combat (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here is a source called "The Princes of Transylvania in the Thirty Years War" from the historian Gábor Kármán (and other collaborators) with a very good research of why is part of an Hungarian theater of the Thirty Years War (specially due to the collaboration of Gabor Bethlen with Cardinal Richelieu and Dutch Republic, and then of George I Rákóczi with the Swedish Empire). Even the Transylvanian invasions generated a religious conflict between Hungarian Catholics and Protestants in Hungary that was an extension of the post-Bohemian Revolt HRE religious wars and anti-Habsburg insurrections (which are the essence of Thirty Years War). The fact that Transylvanians quited before the end of the war isn't a good argument, because a lot of sides quit from the War before the Peace of Westphalia (like Denmark–Norway after it's separated Peace of Lübeck in 1629). Sr L (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is was a theatre doesn't mean it was a formal belligerent. Gawaon (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such theatre is a direct consecuence of Frederick V of the Palatinate's diplomatical activity in the Bohemian Revolt, and then of Cardinal Richelieu and Axel Oxenstierna in later stages (making Transylvania a belligerant), not a local conflict in which Transylvania accidentally and isolately take action. Even Transylvania was directly included in the Alliance of The Hague (1625). So, I don't see how they aren't a formal belligerant, considering that there's a lot of material assuming it as evident. It isn't the case of informal participation like the Russian tsardom in defense of Protestants and Anti-Habsburgs through only economical actions Sr L (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant to the issue being discussed and I'm not sure why we need to have this discussion every two months. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is this discussion not relevant? Just another russian (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because none of the conclusions drawn are supported by the Sources.
For example, France routinely supported anyone who opposed the Habsburgs - that was the central plank of French diplomacy for centuries. No one disputes that FACT, which included financing the Transylvania rising, Swiss Protestants, unrest in Catalonia, Naples etc.
It is the next stage that is irrelevant eg France supported the uprising ergo Transylvania is a Belligerent. That simply isn't correct and if you look at the various Sources used in this article (ie quite a lot), I can assure you NONE of them suggest Transylvania is a Belligerent and its really hard to figure out why this seems so controversial. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note I have the same concerns about the article Thirty Years' War in Eastern Europe, which adopts pretty much the same approach and I will be asking for this article to be critically reviewed. As currently written, it's extremely misleading in its conclusions. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Years War campaignbox seems a bit messy

The Thirty Years War campaignbox has become very large and messy. There is currently a debate ongoing to change the Eighty Years' War campaignbox,[1] but perhaps a similair thing is needed here. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I commend this LocalF15 (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we do so, can we remove minor sieges and battles (especially those that have no article associated with them), rather than splitting the list into more specific periods, as seems to be the case with the Eighty Years War. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removing minor sieges and battles would definitely help. Some of them (though not all) are to minor to even justify an own article. E. g. the sieges of Freiberg 1639/43 are better told (as they already are) within their campaigns (Freiberg 1639 in the Battle of Chemnitz, Freiberg 1643 in Battle of Breitenfeld (1642)). I also question the necessity of the sections "Related conflicts" (do they belong in a campaignbox?) and "Global battles" (are they really part of the Thirty Years War?). Palastwache (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although this can be a solution it would cause an endless debate about what constitutes a minor action and wouldn't result in a very stable campaignbox. Splitting the campaignbox, like has been done with the Napoleonic Wars, is a better option I think. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would need clear criteria for which actions to include, such as an existing article. Otherwise, we would still have the current editorial anarchy with edit wars now and then.
Different campaignboxes for each phase like for the Napoleonic Wars are easier to overlook, for sure. But this example also looks very complex and convoluted to me. There is a separate campaignbox for the War of the First Coalition with a selection of battles (so we would have the problem about defining what battle makes the cut all over again). And within this are under-campaignboxes for e. g. the Rhine Campaign of 1796 with every battle with an existing article.
I agree with you that we should seek a stable consensus. But we should also look for a simple solution. Palastwache (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About a debate, there is a serious one in considering the Oversea battles (product of Eighty Years' War, 1621–1648 and it's very related Dutch-Portuguese theater) as part of the Thirty Years' War and the recent advances in Historiography of seeing the 1618-1648 French-Habsburg and Religious wars (through the Dutch Empire vs Iberian Union and their allies) as a proto-World war in which the inter-colonial conflict were very related, if not an extension, of the main HRE conflict of the Thirty Years' War when it fused with the Eighty Years' War. Sr L (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What or who are these recent advances in historiography? You yourself mention the main HRE conflict - this is what historiography generally agrees to call "Thirty Years' War". To cite Peter Wilson' comprehensive account from 2009: "The war in the Empire was related to other conflicts, but nonetheless remained distinct" (p. 8). And, more in detail: "Nonetheless, all Europe was affected [...]. Of the major states, only Russia remained uninvolved. Poland and the Ottoman empire exercised a significant influence without engaging directly. The Dutch just managed to keep their own conflict with Spain separate, while trying to shape events in the Empire with limited indirect assistance. British engagement was more substantial, without that state ever becoming a formal belligerent. France and Spain intervened, but kept their participation separate from their own mutual struggle that had separate origins and continued another eleven years beyond 1648." (p. 9). Historiography may have changed due to C. V. Wedgwood and others interpreting the war as a Central European one rather than a solely German and religious war. But the recent interest in global influences on the war doesn't make it a global war. The Dutch-Portuguese war was the Dutch-Portuguese war. It happened simultaneously, it had some influence. That does not make it part of the same war. The conflict in the Empire and the Eighty Years' War did overlap. But neither completely nor the entire time. And especially not in (one of) the most remote theatres of the Eighty Years' War, namely Brazil.
The infobox has to reflect that. Palastwache (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No historian disputes the global impact of the 30 Years War - it dominated politics, diplomacy and finance across Europe, and to a lesser extent, other powers. Providing quotes from Wilson or Parker stating this obvious point is like saying the sky is blue.
Impact or even indirect involvement is NOT the same as being a Belligerent in this war, a point that has now been discussed in different ways at least a dozen times on this TP.
An obvious example is Ukraine, a war being fought between Russia and Ukraine, which has dominated global politics for three years. No one is suggesting Hungary or Poland are Belligerents in this war simply because they're being impacted by the fighting. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently the sky is not blue to everyone. I think you have misunderstand my argument which goes in the same direction as yours, @Robinvp11 (but for the campaignbox, not for the list of belligerents). Because apart from not making e. g. Poland or England a belligerent, the impact of the 30 Years' War on other wars (and vice versa) also does not make them part of one global war. Therefore, the campaignbox should only list battles of the core conflict of the Thirty Year's War. Which is the war in the HRE and its surroundings but not the entire Spanish-Dutch conflict (for exactly this I cited Wilson "The Dutch just managed to keep their own conflict with Spain separate", directed at @Sr L).
The Hungarian revolts are a bit special in that they happened outside of the Empire but also against the Holy Roman Emperor/the Austrian Habsburgs. But this was also a very distinct conflict with only sometimes a bit of overlap (Vienna 1619, Brno 1645). So I see good reason to leave the Hungary section out of this campaignbox. If someone must have a campaignbox for the Hungarian revolts, they are free to create one. Palastwache (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The changes to the Campaign box look like an attempt to refight the same issues we've already discussed eg is Transylvania a Belligerent etc etc, to which the answers have all been a resounding No.
Anyone who has ever worked in business is familiar with this approach :) Robinvp11 (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Start with those for which there is no associated article - that's a pretty good indicator. I don't think it's as complicated as suggested. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About the Related conflicts and Global battles, considering that the Template:Campaignbox Napoleonic Wars adds related conflicts like the Russo-Persian War (1804–1813), Russo-Turkish War (1806–1812) or Swedish–Norwegian War as part of the general conflict (despite not being in the main conflicts of the Coalition wars, but still very dependent to those ones as a Derivative War, or a Fused conflict after an intervention of France or the Coallition). Then I don't see why those conflicts shouldn't be considered as part of the Template:Campaignbox Thirty Years' War if they meet similar conditions of being a war stemming from the Thirty Years' War main conflict (like the Polish–Ottoman War (1620–1621), Valtellina War, War of the Mantuan Succession, Catalonian Revolt, Portuguese Restoration War, Torstenson War, Transylvanian invasion of Hungary (1644–1645), etc which are direct consecuences of the Battle of Humenné's Polish Intervention or the Spanish, Swedish and French interventions militarly and even diplomatically) or were they conflicts that ended up merging with the Thirty Years' war (like the evident cases of Eighty Years' War, 1621–1648 and the Franco-Spanish War (1635–1659), also can be argue the inclusion of Polish–Swedish War (1626–1629) and Dutch–Portuguese War in a pan-european and global perspective) Sr L (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed recent additions to the Campaignbox, which look like an attempt to bypass this and other discussions on this TP eg adding a new category for Transylvania. Please abide by the TP consensus, even if you don't agree. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just delete things randomly, just for the sake of "Simplify, No reason to include Treaties surely", your edited is disruptive for the campaignbox Just another russian (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You reverse the burden of proof. You have to justify why these battles should be considered part of the Thirty Years' War in the first place. I support including the Crossing of the Somme here because it was a combined Spanish-Imperial operation in reaction of the French intervention in the Thirty Years' War. However, I don't see why any of the other battles you reverted back in should be part of this campaignbox. All happened in distinct other wars outside of the Empire and without the Empire's participation. Palastwache (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For some of the battles were battles that were fully a part of the war like Bernard's Upper Rhine Campaign, assault on Greifenhagen, battles of Dachau and Leignitz, and the sieges of Hohentübingen and Korneuburg. Most of the rest are battles from the Franco-Spanish, Eighty Years, and Torstenson War, which are part of the war and had consequences and effects on the thirty years war Just another russian (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for seeking out the discussion. Robinvp11 has reverted recent additions to the campaignbox to discuss them first. I think he also removed some minor engagements that had only little significance to the overall war. For them, there is no question that they were part of the war. That's an editorial question - should an overview campaignbox include every minor siege or skirmish? Obviously not. Some of these battles are in between however, neither completely insignificant nor really impactful. Therefore we have to discuss them. And when the consensus is to leave them out, there are alternatives. Like separate campaignboxes for the stages of the war - the Palatinate campaign already has one. (To discuss one specific battle - Hohentübingen 1647 is only of local German relevance, it wasn't even part of a campaign, the castle was just conveniently close to Turenne's winter quarters. The siege should not be part of the grand campaignbox)
Regarding battles of other wars: Their impact on the Thirty Years' War does not make them part of it. Impact alone is not sufficient. We have repeated this statement several times now. The consequences of these battles and wars are mentioned in the body of the Thirty Years' War article. The right campaignbox to place them is the one of their respective war. Palastwache (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bernard's Upper Rhine Campaign's major campaign in the thirty years war, while the Franco Spanish War and Torstensson War were caused by the thirty years war while, eighty Years War was a part o the Thirty Years War and was directly involved. So it makes sense to add the battles form those war that fit into the time frame of the Thirty Years War. Just another russian (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the Campaignbox is supposed to reflect the agreed content of the article. This makes zero sense, and you need to stop edit warring on this topic. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re discussion above, I don't think Somme Crossing really qualifies as a battle but its not a hill I need to die on :) Robinvp11 (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the Somme Crossing was rather a skirmish and a glorified river crossing than a battle (literaly glorified by Pieters Snayers' painting). But the article on the crossing also describes the campaign. And the Somme-Corbie campaign was significant enough. The question is how do we handle articles on campaigns? Bernard's Upper Rhine Campaign also was a major event. Though the article's topic is mostly redundant to the Siege of Breisach (it contains the prelude, siege, the relief battles and the aftermath to Breisach) and could possibly be merged. Palastwache (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are some Eighty Years' War battles included and some aren't? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavus Adolphus picture caption

I changed the caption at the Gustavus Adolphus picture on Nov 29. It was undone.

I'm sorry I was hasty and careless and never explained myself clearly. I'm no expert in this yet I have read a little. I assumed it was common knowledge that the "Lion from the North" is seen as Swedish propaganda. Intended to make the Germans friendlier to the Swedish cause early on in GA and Sweden's involvement.

I see now that the English Wikipedia on GA says that the "Lion from the North" was a nickname he got. IOW maybe a well earned honour or some such. Suggesting the propaganda origin perhaps not common knowledge.

The Swedish article makes the same argument I had intended to make here in defense of my edit, only better. Detailing how "The Lion from the North" idea was deliberately used to promote the Swedish campaign.

Translated from the Swedish Wikipedia article: "Prophecies and symbolism also played a major role in strengthening Gustav II Adolf's position as a divinely chosen leader among the Protestant forces. Swedish leaflets distributed in northern Germany portrayed Gustav II Adolf as "Der Löwe aus dem Norden" (The Lion from the North) and Der Löwe aus Mitternacht (The Lion from Midnight Land), a messianic figure derived from older prophecies. In one of these prophecies, falsely attributed to Paracelsus, a yellow lion from the Land of Midnight (the North) would come to defeat the eagle of evil (the emperor) and subjugate all of Europe and parts of Asia and Africa. The Swedes used this prophecy in Protestant propaganda to portray Gustav II Adolf as a savior in the fight against the Catholic armies."

And in Sveriges historia 1600-1721 ((Swedish History 1600-1721), Villstrand, 2011):

"At the beginning of the Thirty Years' War, the lion was associated with Frederick V, Elector Palatine, known as the "Winter King," and later with Christian IV, but the lion came to have particular symbolic value for the Swedish king. Prior to Sweden's intervention in the war, he was portrayed in Swedish propaganda as the savior of the Protestant side in its hour of need."

My intention was to change the caption such that it had a more balanced and neutral tone. Also trying to make it similar in style to the article's other captions. What I put there is from a work that to me seemed very well written, clear and balanced. Also available on line for free. Lars A (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had reverted you since your version read to me much more pompous and puffery than the previous (and existing) version. Simply mentioning the nickname doesn't seem POV to me. But if it's a problem, we could simply remove the nickname from the caption. Gawaon (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Realizing this discussion is outside my capacity. Thanks again for your time and patience with this inexperienced user! Lars A (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edit, its always useful to have additional perspectives :) I've changed the caption because I agree it should be more neutral. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions re conflict outside Europe

These are substantial and in my view largely irrelevant additions which considerably expand the content and scope of an already lengthy article. This is an A class article and they should be discussed in detail on this TP first. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is already very long and this seems to be a side topic that doesn't need extensive coverage. The sources also same to be fairly obscure, at least in some cases. Gawaon (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It needs some coverage because it's very relevant for the historiography of the conflict in Iberian and Dutch perspectives (as the Eighty Years' War and the Dutch–Portuguese War fused with the Thirty Years' War). Even very important historians in the matter, like Geoffrey Parker, agree that there is a global dimension of the Thirty Years' War. Also, despite the source from Johannes Muller can be "obscure", it isn't invalid as it's a very reliable from the Oxford University Press, and has very good arguments about the perception in contemporary Germans of XVII Century that this oversea conflicts were integrated in the German conflict (and also the perception of seeing the Thirty Years' War as a pan-european conflict instead of solely a war in the HRE). Sr L (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the article is to provide a brief summary of the conflict, not to argue the contemporary point of view of the war. Might as well make another page/draft for this (as an example, there is a historiography or something article for the 80 years war) LocalF15 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering to do a draft for an article of the Historiography of the Thirty Years War to profundisate in these topics. Specially the debates of seeing it as a Proto-world war or not, of seeing it as a pan-European war or solely a war in Germany, and of seeing it as purely a Bourbon-Habsburg war of hegemony or a mix between it and mainly Religious War.
Despite, I mentioned that contemporary view as an argument to mantain the section of "War outside Europe". It is possible to shorten that section (or cut it and move it to that possible new page on historiography), but I don't think it's right to delete it entirely, given that it's important for understanding the war in a global context. Sr L (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I can agree to summarize the content of the Colonial Campaigns in the Thirty Years' War (to maintain the article's good rating), I consider it very abusive to remove the entire section about the War outside of Europe. Even some oversea battles, like the Battle in the Bay of Matanzas, has very important and direct consecuences for the European theater in economic matters, benefiting Protestant and harming Habsburgs. Sr L (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Events outside Europe, particularly their economic impact on the major belligerents, are covered throughout the article where relevant, so it is inaccurate to claim they have not been included. FYI, "abusive" is not the right word here.
If you want to create a separate article on this topic, please do so, but these issues are tangential to the article being discussed on this TP. I cannot see a consensus for adding them here. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brunswick-Lüneburg

Why is there no Brunswick-Lüneburg on the info box. Lüneburg formally allied with Sweden and formally was at war with the Emperor. They participated twice once from 1631-1634 and 1641-1644. Cerealisasoupforsure (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I also think Baden-Durlach should be on the info box for similar reasons Elstupido1618 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading statement

"One example is Simplicius Simplicissimus, often suggested as one of the earliest examples of the picaresque novel;"

Not only does this statement lack a source, it is also dubious. The first story widely considered to be picaresque is "Lazarillo de Tormes", first published in 1554, making it over a century older than Simplicius. Therefore, it is impossible for Simplicius to be considered one of the "earliest examples of a picaresque novel", unless one considers a century a negligably small amount of time. Maxcapacity5 (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "outside of Spain", which is in agreement with what Picaresque novel actually says. Gawaon (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Average actual in infobox?

Nihlus1 had added estimates for "Average actual" strengths to the infobox, but how useful are they? There are given only for the Anti-Habsburg alliance and not for all troops (e.g. no Danes or Dutch). If we had complete estimates of average troop strength, I'd consider that useful, but an incomplete estimate for one side seems less useful than the "Maximum actual" estimates we have as well. Including both adds more noise to an infobox that is already fairly long. What do others here think? Gawaon (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The estimate is complete for the periods it actually covers. The Dutch weren't fighting the Imperials and the Danes were out of the war. Additionally the average strength of either side is probably the single most useful data point after the total number who served (which no one has) and having half of the correct data is better than having none of it. Though if you do want the Danish data for whatever reason, it's there in the same source just a paragraph prior: "the ‘Danish’ army, which consistently numbered around 25,000 from 1625 to 1629" (Peter Wilson, "Blood and Iron", 2023, p. 180). On the same page, it doesn't give an actual annual average for the Imperials+allies like it does for the Danes (1625-1629) or Swedes+allies (1634-1648), but it does give the whole range: "The League continued to muster about 25,000 into the mid-1630s, while the imperial army fluctuated between 74,000 and 125,000. Numbers declined but in October 1648 the imperial army still numbered 51,000 with a further 12,500 in the associated Westphalian army, while Bavaria mustered 20,500." If you were to go for the middle estimate it'd be a combined strength varying from ~125,000 (1633-1636, "mid 1630s") to ~84,000 (1648), so basically the same as Sweden+allies (90,000) and the Franco-Bernhardines (18,000) at a combined average of 108,000 from 1634 to 1648.Nihlus1 (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see Robinvp11 has removed your addition again, so I guess it will stay out unless you can make a good point for its inclusion. Personally I don't see that yet. That these estimates cover only half the war and some armies weakens your case further. Having both maximum and average strengths seems too much, as I noted above, so the averages would have to be well-sourced and comprehensive to replace the current maximums. There's also no way to get an average from a statement such as "between 74,000 and 125,000" without doing OR, while the maximum is already there. Gawaon (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thirty_Years%27_War