Talk:Battle of Lützen (1632)

Unsorted discussion

I just came here for a minor edit, but there's something at the beginning of the layout that I like. The article begins with a list of basic information about the battle. This could be put into a project box as has been the case with several other topics. Any comments? Eclecticology

Thx for the compliment, i am not yet entirely satisfied myself. How can I put something in a project box? TeunSpaans 17:14 Oct 18, 2002 (UTC)

---

The arbitrary format so far we have seen on battle pages really need some organizations. A

[[Wikiproject Battles]]

will definitely the best option. It can also solve the problem on sorting the battles chronologically, geographically alphabetically or on any other criteria have not been thought of yet. If we have all information about a battle oragnizeg properly on its page, creating sorted lists is simply checking watch links and look for the specific criterion. Say one wants to sort by the alphabetical order on the first alphabet of the battle sites. One can copy-paste all geographically names, sort them and saving them on

[[List of battles (geographical order)/A]], [[List of battles (geographical order)/B]] etc.

The parent page of List of battles became linking page of all sorted lists.

eg.

[[List of battles (geographical order)]], [[List of battles (alphabetical order)]], [[List of battles (chronological order)]], etc. 

I'll post this comment also on Wikipedia:WikiProject to gain more interests. Ktsquare Oct 19 2002

The battle tood place on Nov 16, not the 14th

Opening line

Was Lutzen in fact one of the most decisive battles of the TYW? I'd disagree. It was in fact a very messy, indecisive battle. Wallenstein's officers thought the battle was going well and wanted to stay to fight the next day, and were angered and surprised to hear he wanted to withdraw.

It also was not decisive in terms of the war itself -- the effect of the Swedish intervention had already been given a major haircut by the change in Imperial strategy and modifications to imperial army organization. Had the king not been killed, I doubt the Swedish forces in Germany would really have behaved much differently in the long term. Larry Dunn 14:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with all of the abovet goes as far as it goes. But, the death of the king is what makes it decisive without him sweden is still crucial in the war against the habsburgs, undoubtably. What they lose is the ability to dominate and overawe their allies in the same way gustavus had. Richlieu is able to gain more effective although still less than perfect direction of their swedish and german allies which adjusts the whole dynamic of the German aspect of the 30 years war. Kurtk60 (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Was this really a pyrrhic victory for the Swedish?

In the sidebar, it lists the victory as being Pyrrhic for the Swedish, yet it hints that the vanquished lost more in battle. Should this be edited?

No, it wasn't - use of 'Pyrrhic' as a qualifier would need to be sourced to a majority of reputable historians that state why it might be Pyrrhic. Best to use more generic qualifier.Tttom1 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsure

The Catholics probably lost more soldiers and equipment but still, Gustavus Adolphus died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolibollg (talk • contribs) 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

the number in the box(5000 Swedes / 8000 imperial) does not match the number in the article(6000/6000). Needs to be fixed.

Isidoros47 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Overall

I'd suggest changing the use of Protestant army for Swedish throughout the article. Using Protestant infers that the 30 years war was a simple protestant/catholic war which is an oversimplification. Particularly given Sweden was allied with Catholic France at the time of this battle and towards the end of the war fought protestant Denmark. Alternatively it implies that the armies were made up of strictly protestant or catholic troops which given the mercenary nature of the armies of the time never applied in practice. Any thoughts? Kurtk60 (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse removing religion from the article completely. I think the religious aspect is best addressed in the Thirty Years' War article, and it should be toned town here. I notice the EB1911 article on this topic goes through the whole thing without mentioning religion, but makes it Germans vs. Swedes, which may be just as oversimplified. I find the religious tone in the Wikipedia article rather jarring to read. Perhaps this particular battle was easy to cast that way, but I imagine there were other ways the two sides could be contrasted, and I think it would read better if the religious aspect were removed. Imperials vs. Swedes? Bob Burkhardt (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Strength of respective armies

I see no references for this. Also there should be noted that the reinforcements of Imperial infantry did not arrive in time to be engaged in combat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryaman13 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency between Wikipedia pages

At https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Battle_of_L%C3%BCtzen_(1632), how can one of the "belligerents" have been "Protestant Union" when, according to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Protestant_Union, the Protestant Union was dissolved in 1621? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.127.210.8 (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, dear IP editor. This was fixed some months ago. (By myself, I think.) 2.247.242.225 (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Figure of speech: German: So kenn ich meine Pappenheimer, lit. 'That's how I know my Pappenheimers'

The current version of this article claims that Wallenstein exclaimed this upon the return of Pappenheim and his cavalry's immediate charge on the battlefield. This saying is still a quite widely used figure of speech in everyday German, in the general meaning of someone exhibiting behavior that is supposedly typical of them.

To the best of my knowledge the real origin of this is a direct quote from Schiller's Wallenstein (trilogy of plays), specifically from Wallenstein's Death, 3rd act, 15th entrance (German: Wallensteins Tod; dritter Aufzug, fünfzehnter Auftritt). (Link to German text on gutenberg.org: [1])

It's possible that Wallenstein really originally said it during this battle, but I don't think so. Seeing that the claim is currently unsourced in this article, i will remove it as speculative. 2.247.243.115 (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Article must be revised in tone.

The articles contents itself aren't terrible, however the tone feels like reading a high-school essay. I don't have enough knowledge on the thirty years war to rewrite this article, however someone who is more qualified should consider changing the tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chariotsacha (talk • contribs) 16:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Now done. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding the Imperial strength

There are currently two strength-estimations for the Imperial side in the infobox; one by Schürger (13,000–15,000) and the other by Wilson (19,175). When reading the orders of battle by respectively author (both available online), you quickly realize that they are more or less the same (with only minor differences), only that Schürger's number reefers to the initial strength, whereas Wilson's number also include the late arrival of Pappenheim's forces – e.g., the infantry which was not engaged but was present on the battlefield.

Initial force (Schürger, p. 61):

• Infantry = 8,200 * based on a total figure provided by Heinrich Holk
• Cavalry = 5,350 (On page 63, Schürger estimates that the cavalry under Wallenstein was 4,800–5,800 men strong)

Arriving as reinforcements (Schürger, p. 62):

• Infantry = 2,925
• Cavalry = 2,430 * 80 men has not been subsided from the dragoon regiments, despite body-guarding Pappenheim and Merode; is it possible that these are counted twice, hence the difference between his and Wilson's numbers?

Grand total (Schürger):

• Infantry = 11,125
• Cavalry = 7,780
• Overall = 18,905 (18,355–19,355) * The difference between Schürger's and Wilson's numbers is due to the reasons above; the reinforcing cavalry and the initial strength of the infantry

Initial force (Wilson, pp. 213–215):

• Infantry = 8,550 * based on each unit's listed strength
• Cavalry = 5,350

Arriving as reinforcements (Wilson, p. 216):

• Infantry = 2,925
• Cavalry = 2,350 * Unlike Schürger's order of battle, Wilson has subsided 80 men from the dragoon regiments (as they were instead body-guarding Pappenheim and Merode)

Grand total (Wilson, p. 217):

• Infantry = 11,475
• Cavalry = 7,700
• Overall = 19,175 * The difference between Schürger's and Wilson's numbers is due to the reasons above; the reinforcing cavalry and the initial strength of the infantry

To me, this is not a question regarding which source to believe as there are only minor differences, but rather what should be included in the infobox; only Wallenstein's initial force (the current figure of 13,000–15,000 by Schürger) or both Wallenstein's and Pappenheim's forces (the current figure of 19,175 by Wilson, alternatively adding Schürger's grand total of 18,355–19,355). Your thoughts? Imonoz (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Imonoz, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and with few exceptions, information in the infobox should reflect the content of the article such that the article remains complete without the infobox (and without contradiction). The solution is (IMHO) for this to be resolved in the body of the article and for the figures reported in the infobox to reflect the "resolved" figures. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It should always be total strength, rather than "Initial"; the only possible exception is troops never arriving. If you look at the article on Waterloo, Allied strength includes the Prussians, even though (like Pappenheim) they only arrived at the end, while French excludes Grouchy's Corps who were part of Napoleon's army but spent the day chasing the Prussians.

So that means Wilson; I've removed the other figure from the Infobox and changed it in the body of the article.

As an aside, we shouldn't get too stuck on precise figures; officers got paid for the number of men they reported, rather than the actual, plus cavalry were notoriously understrength as so many were off "foraging". Robinvp11 (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

That means the issue is now settled. Thank you for listening! Imonoz (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)