Talk:Albrecht von Wallenstein

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeAlbrecht von Wallenstein was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 11, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Expand this article?[edit]

I've switched here from the endless German text in the hope to get concise information and not to spend a whole afternoon got et information about this one topic. --Werfur (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Untitled[edit]

"force a just peace on the emperor in the interests of united Germany."

Untitled[edit]

Is there a source for this Quote? I find it hard to believe that someone spoke of a united Germany at that time. There was a german language and being german meant speaking a german language as a native language (used in a broad sense, e.g. the dutch were considered germans) but nothing considered "Germany". Or was he referring to the unity of the empire ("Holy Roman Empire of German Nation")? That would make more sense, as the empire was split by the religous factions. 213.191.70.226 15:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of Wallenstein[edit]

In the 18th and throughout the 19th century there was a great discussion on Wallenstein in Germany. It would be fine, if there was some information on this perception in the article.

Good Article?[edit]

The current article doesn't mention anything else than his military career as a warlord. There's no info how his military career started, no mention about his small "empire" he set up in northern Bohemia, no information how he devalued the currency in Czech lands to obtain more finances for the war. His political maneuvrings are barely mentioned. List of campaigns and battles is missing. Later fate of his wife and children is obviously uninteresting. Pavel Vozenilek 04:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed nomination - As per Pavel Vozenilek's comments above. The article is too incomplete. --Konstable 02:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing also about the enormous palace he had built in Prague, it still stands and part of it is now the official seat of the Czech Senate. Plch 01:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wallenstein": Wallenstein's name was actually "Waldstein" or "Valdstejn" in the Czech transkription. The name Wallenstein was more or less invented by Schiller, probably because it matched better.

I am a German user and see, that the problem in the English story about Albrecht Eusebius Wenzel from Waldstein is, that you don´t no anything about his person. So look in the German storys of caesar Ferdinand II and Waldstein and let tell them you in English.

Wallenstein's birthplace[edit]

The following link gives some information about Hermanice, Czech Rebpulic: http://www.fallingrain.com/world/EZ/0/Hermanice4.html

Well, the official site of Hermanice doesn't even mention the expulsion of the Germans, which is rather strange given the fact that this village was inhabit by Germans for at least 500 years until 1945. So, i wonder how true to the facts they are with the rest of their history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.181.113.155 (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The official website of Heřmanice does not need to mention it. Anyway, Heřmanice was not a German town, it was a Czech-German town, it was the language border. --Zik2 (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming he was an ethnic German, right? this would be interesting to mention in the article, somehow... Mountolive | Talk 05:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Born at Hermanic, Bohemia, 24 September, 1583; died at Eger, Bohemia, 24 February, 1634. He belonged to a Czech noble family of Bohemia who were members of the Bohemian Brethren"([1]). Stammer 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wallenstein, or in fact Valdštejn, was not an ethnic German. Heřmanice was a Czech-German town - it was a Czech-German language border before 1945. So not purly German. Anyway, he came from two Czech noble families - Valdštejnové and Smiřičtí. --Zik2 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wallenstein's Death Inconsistent?[edit]

In this article, Wallenstein is purportedly killed by a "Walter Butler", an Irish count who was part of his military force, supposedly on orders from Emperor Ferdinand II. Yet, in the "Thirty Years War" article (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War), it states he was killed by a "Captain Devereux", who was one of his soldiers, as Wallenstein attempted to make contact with the Swedes.

Anyone have the correct answer, and if so, please update both articles?

Tommy6860 09:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Tom[reply]

He was killed by Walter Devereux, one of his army´s officials. The reasons are not very clear according to several historians who have studied this assassination.


After browsing through two major biographies (those of Golo Mann and Hellmut Diwald), allow me to add some information:

1. his name: spelling in general was not fixed in the 17th century, when the concept of a universal, fixed orthography seemed still very remote. Besides, a name can changed over the centuries, as the language itself changes. According to bis biographers, the name of the family as first recorded in the 13th century, was Waldnstein, of which first Waldstein and later Wallenstein became easier to pronounce varieties. The latter form was used less before Schiller published his famous triology in 1799, but according to Mann, the duke himself signed his name as Wallenstein at least once.

2. his murderes: the man who rammed a partisane through the unfortunate's duke chest on the night of February 25 was Walter Deveroux, an Irish mercenary captain. Walter Butler was another Irishman, a colonnel of Dragoons, who helped organize this murder, and participated himself in the killing of Ilow, Trčka, and Kinsky.

3. his nationality: calling him either a Czech or a German would hide the fact that he was equally at home in either culture, spoke both languages, and counted himself among the princes of the Holy Roman Empire - which combined many nationalities in one fragile union. Officially, by the standards of his days, there was no Czech nation as such, there was Bohemia, a constituent state of the Habsburg Monarchy. With respect to statehood and citizenship, there was no such thing as Germany either, only the Empire, and some German states outside it (like East Prussia). Textor (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to:

An Authentic Account of the Death of Wallenstein, with a Vindication of the Motives of Colonel Walter Butler
Author(s): Francis Prendergast
Source: Transactions of the Kilkenny Archaeological Society, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1852), pp. 9-32
Published by: Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25489808
the reasons given in the article for Wallenstein's assassination are incorrect. According to Prendergast, Butler took it upon himself to assassinate Wallenstein when he realised that he was no longer loyal to the Emperor and intended to fight against him. Butler enlisted the help of Devereaux, Gordon, et. al. The Emperor subsequently issued as edict to justify the assassination after the fact. Prendergast cites a contemporaneous account given by Butler's Irish Chaplain, Fr. Patrick Taaffe in support of this version.

See also:
Wallenstein and Butler: 1634-1934
Author(s): Mary M. Macken
Source: Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, No. 92 (Dec., 1934), pp. 593-610
Published by: Irish Province of the Society of Jesus
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30095174 (in particular p604 and following).
Dennisson9 (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are much too old and rather partisan. Most modern historians believe the Imperial government ordered the killing, and had a cover-story to present afterwards. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prendergast was a land agent and barrister in Dublin, together with his more famous brother John Patrick and a third brother William Paul. All three worked for customers who wanted to corroborate their claims to land ownership. Presumably such a hopeful heir wanted Butler to be exonerated and thus the latter's original huge traitor's reward to appear legitimate. In 1848, Francis traveled to Vienna and Lombardy to find suitable sources. 188.99.141.155 (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)--[reply]

Wikiproject Germany[edit]

Wallenstein's nationality is not sure, Germans say he was a German, Czechs say he was a Czech, this is not what I want to speak about. Absolutely sure is, that the project „Germany“ is not right in his case in my humble opinion. Even if he his nationality would be German, he didn't live in Germany. There was Holy Roman Empire, but in this empire lived many nationalities, Germans, Czechs, Italians, Dutchmen, Slovenians and others. In 1620, the Czech lands were connected to Austria - and it's not Germany. Germany, as a real national state, is there since the 19th century. --Zik2 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't get any answer after more than one month, I'm changing the wikiproject to "Wikiproject History". If you want to deny my view and give the wikiproject back, I'm looking forward to discussing. --Zik2 (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a regular Wikipedia user but I wanted to comment: Wallenstein's nationality IS sure, he was Czech. It is just the name that sounds German. And I think it is justified to classify him as an important person in German as well as Czech history (and in the history of the Holy Roman Empire, naturally). And there is no contradiction in it. Modern definitions of "nationality" make no sense applied to the 17th century. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.120.172 (talk • contribs)
An article can be in a number of WikiProjects - in this case he is of interest because of his involvement in the 30 year war which had a major influence on Germany as it stands now. Being tagged for a project does not imply nationality or ownership it simply means that the project in question has a vested interest in that article. Agathoclea (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, O.K., how about to add the WikiProject Czech Republic as well? Sure, there was no Czech Republic during Valdštejn's life, but there was no Germany, too! Germany was created by Bismarck in the 19th century. --Zik2 (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say so. "Germany" was a geographical and political term even in Wallenstein/Valdstejn's lifetime, and has been since the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages, all the "Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire" were crowned 'Kings of Germany' beforehand. So the term "Germany" was always there, although the political definitions varied. Bismarck in 1871 created the German nation-state (called the "German Empire", no longer the "Roman Empire"), but the name "Germany" is older. (And it is only from 1871 on that the term "Germany" excludes Austria.)84.57.90.60 (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, O.K., I just think present stadium, created by me (both WikiProject Czech Republic and WikiProject Germany) is good. Agathoclea told Wallenstein (Valdštejn) was joined to the WikiProject Germany, because he has a strong influence in today's Germany. The same in the Czech Republic - Wallenstein built many sighteens in Prague and in northern and eastern Bohemia. --Zik2 (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good - I just rambled a bit off-topic in my above comment! --88.65.122.12 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Zik2 - your comment from 2009-01-07 - Germany, as a real national state, is there since the 19th century. Since when exists a real tchech national state? 1993-01-01? Late 20th century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.35.102 (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing question. How cool would it be if we had an internet encyclopedia to look it up! See Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic. Corinius (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


When The Czech Kingdom (České království) came into existence

or The Great Moravian Empire (Velká Morava) --Posp68 (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wallenstein's treachery?[edit]

I wondered about the last paragraph before the 'Treachery and death' section where his guilt of treachery is claimed:

'Wallenstein had, in fact, started preparing to desert the Emperor: he expressed anger at Ferdinand's refusal to revoke the Edict of Restitution. History records little about his secret negotiations; but rumors told that he was preparing to force a just peace on the Emperor in the interests of united Germany, at the same time hesitating — as he used to do in other respects — and trying to stay loyal to the Emperor as far as possible. With this apparent "plan" he entered into negotiations with Saxony, Brandenburg, Sweden, and France. But, apparently, the Habsburgs' enemies tried to draw him to their side. In any case, he gained little support. Anxious to make his power felt, he at last resumed the offensive against the Swedes and Saxons, winning his last victory at Steinau on the Oder in October. He then resumed negotiations.'

That 'in fact' Wallenstein was 'preparing to desert the Emperor' is not verified by a reference. The 'evidence' put forth here seems to be flimsy ( 'rumors told that he was preparing to force a just peace on the Emperor' ), and for whatever reason the very hefty article on Wallenstein in the German Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenstein) does only mention accusations of treachery. I find it hard to equalise peace negotiations with treachery, not to mention desertion. All told the bombastic 'in fact' currently seems to rest on contemporary rumours and accussations - but as I'm no expert on Wallenstein or the Thirty Years' War there may be good evidence out there. As it is, however, I suggest adding such evidence (referenced accordingly), and/or modify to reflect accusations of rather than proven treachury. And that he is considered to be guilty by his own 'top brass' (the Emperor) who wants a tougher line against the Protestants, has a replacement ready, and apparently has him assassinated (rather than formally convicted) does not exactly chime well with a wealth of evidence against Wallenstein.

Mojowiha (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Place names and some errors[edit]

First, please read WP:PLACE. Some errors corrected:

  • His uncle Jindrich was not member of Herrnhuter in 1595, as they were founded in 1722.
No, his parents were (as majority of Czech population was then) members of the Czech brethern who were founded in 1457, and who were just precursors of the Herrnhutteren (read more details of the story in the linked article). They certainly were not Lutherans (there were almost no Lutherans among Czechs), and I don’t think they were Utraquists. At least Czech wikipedia is clear on this point.
Ceplm (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " ..the money would go back to the province" Moravia was autonomous land, with own money, Army, citizenship etc. not province.
  • Egerland was part of Bohemia from 1322. For English name of the city, try googletest (Cheb 45 300 000 ghits)
  • Nekšova - see Britannica "to an elderly Czech widow, Lucretia Nekšova"
  • Heřmanice (Náchod District) - Heřmanice is name of the article, is used in the Britannica and gtest - Hermanitz 8000, Heřmanice 1 900 000
  • Jindřich Slavata of Chlum and Košumberk - compare with Vilem Slavata of Chlum and Košumberk Castle
  • Re-Catholisation - redlink changed to Counter-Reformation
  • Jičín - article is Jičín and gtest - Jičín 18 700 000, Jitschin 38 400
  • Olomouc, article is Olomouc, gtest Olomouc 42 300 000, Olmutz 808,000

Official language in Bohemia and Moravia was Czech ([2], " from 1430 on the number of documents in Czech grew and in ca. 1470 won a leading rank. In its capacity as the official language, Czech survived until the 17th century.", "The Czech language remained the first language in the kingdom.".

If you use German sources, please understand, that we are in English wiki and we must use English names. Argument, that some name is in German source, is wrong. If someone use source in Chinese, will be Berlin 柏林? No.--Yopie (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule in WP:PLACE calling for removal of non-Czech names as you did, to the contrary, WP:PLACE encourages giving alternative names in the appropriate contexts. The article should use German as well as Czech spellings (Chinese is not relevant here), because of the following context:
  • Bohemia was bilingual at that time. (The "official language" quote above from Jurek (2004) refers to chancellories in Upper Silesia around the 16th cty)
  • Wallenstein was bilingual (an exclusively German speaker when he was an adult though).
  • Wallenstein was important for Bohemia but even more so for Germany.
  • Wallenstein lived long before nationality came to have the modern meaning. (I have sourced that with respect to Wallenstein in the article)
  • Wallenstein's most-read English bios are most certainly those of Friedrich Schiller and Golo Mann in their respective English translations, which use the German names.
  • Other English works also use the German variants, e.g. compare googlebooks search for Wallenstein+Eger+death to Wallenstein+Cheb+death, with the addition that many books of these samples use both names. (The search results above are not really relevant as they just resemble web entries instead of scholary use in the context of Wallenstein and his era)
  • There is a consensus to use German as well as Czech variants as evident from the page history.
The article should thus feature both the German and Czech names/spellings for places and family members. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PLACE not encourages for not used, historical names. "Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution." Use with caution is warning, not encouraging. Wallenstein bilingualism, importance for Germany or nationality is not impotrant in this context. And about bios by Schiller and Golo Mann - do you have source, that are most read? Naming policy prefer books published after 1993. --Yopie (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PLACE is designed primarily for article titles, but nevertheless encourages the use of alternate names, in the section "alternate names": "Wikipedia articles must have a single title, by the design of the system; this page is intended to help editors agree on which name of a place is to appear as the title. Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information." WP:ENGLISH further calls for inclusion of alternatives. Also, it is long-standing practice to do so, even here (see edit history). Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improper Italicization[edit]

There is no grammatical or expository reason to italicize current Czech names of formerly ethnic-German localities in the Czech Republic. In English, italics usually denote foreign (non-English) words for things or concepts, but not place names. Since 1945-46, Cheb – formerly known as Eger – has officially been Cheb, not Cheb, and the Czech name should not be italicized.

(The same principle applies to former German names, which also should not be italicized.) Sca (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albrecht von Wallenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albrecht von Wallenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albrecht von Wallenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Historical Reenactments to Legacy[edit]

Hey there, I just wanted to ask if we should add the historical Reenactments which are done under the Name Wallenstein (e.g. Wallenstein Memmingen (german) or Wallensteinfestspiele Altdorf ) because they are pretty big (eventually the biggest historical Reenactments in Europe) Blablupp (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment[edit]

I have downgraded this article because it has multiple sourcing issues beginning in 2012. The criteria (#1) states, The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The tags conflict with this. I am not sure about the "Expansion tag". The "External links" section has 8 entries and needs trimming per WP:ELPOINTS #3.

Expand from German[edit]

@FromCzech : As you see the German article contains much more info. I do not necessarily mean that it must exactly be copied in the image of the German article; just that it can be expanded from de.wiki. Another possibility could be sub-articles. Synotia (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wallenstein funds the Peace of Westphalia[edit]

@Palastwache : You reverted the section below with the following comment: What's the closer connection to Wallenstein? It was not "his castle" and most of the wealth of Prague did not derive from his former residential palace. Sweden did indeed prolong the war to gain money for dissolving their army but they demanded (and in the end, received) financial compensation from the German estates. Looting Prague was profitable but a bonus. What definitely is worth including is the fate of de Vries' statues.

I'm not saying that it necessarily has to be my text in the article. But I want to highlight two aspects that are important:

  • The problem of being part of a war without knowing how to get out of it, successfully or as an emergency exit, you have to have a plan and a backup plan. It is relevant in all historical eras and even now. It was obvious that Sweden was in a bad place at the negotiating table at the Peace of Westphalia when they risked bankruptcy. The war had been going on for 30 years and everyone wanted to end it but still it dragged on. It is an important lesson and no one with public support from the parties wants to write about it really bluntly, being on the verge of ruin is not politically beautiful for posterity? As soon as they learned that the Looting Prague raid had been carried out, they signed the peace. What is missing in today's wars that go badly to make peace?
  • Sweden was involved in a series of wars from 1520-1720 on the continent (and has never itself been occupied since 1523) but nothing has left its mark on Swedish cultural collections like the remains from the Looting Prague in 1648, partly the fortunes of the Swedish nobility (especially the Wrangels) to the reductions in 1676 but also the objects in the state collections. What is consistent, aside from some art in state museums, is that the goods generally have nothing to do with Prague, but with what Wallenstein did, especially the Venetian War. The scale of the looting during the Thirty Years' War was extreme and the robbers plundered by the robbers. We have a number of Wikipedia pages with the estate referenced to the Looting Prague.

I don't think you should leave the readers wondering? The basic idea of Wikipedia is the links and events need to be linked.

I also believe that it was not just a Swedish robber plan, but that the Austrians proposed it as a desperate attempt to end the war. For one thing, it was the estate of Wallenstein's heirs and the emperor did not like Wallenstein, who had already been taken off the rails 14 years earlier, and the emperor was not in a position to have an iron grip on all the German petty princes in 1648 and take over the estate himself, but still for lack of better.

For that reason, I think the coup was carried out quite obviously as a kind of spectacle where they were really completely uninterested in the other side of Prague and definitely did not have the resources to control that side, just putting up a show. They were there to collect the goods and as far as possible make it look like a coincidence. But it was probably absolutely anything but a coincidence.

So the reality was probably far more elaborate than anyone can ever write, now or then. But something in the style of what I wrote is needed in order to understand the context.

Text:

Wallenstein funds the Peace of Westphalia

The problem with concluding the Peace of Westphalia was that as soon as Sweden signed the peace agreement, the state would go bankrupt. It had carried out its participation in the Thirty Years' War in an attempt to finance the army through plunder. But after many years that income decreases and continues to wage war on credit, credits Sweden was unable to pay. This was one of the main reasons why the peace negotiations dragged on.

The solution to the problem was to raid with a military operation the former Austrian general's castle in Prague, where of the emperor in disgrace and murdered generals accumulated plunder after years of war was considerable. So significant that as soon as it became known that the raids had been carried out, the Peace of Westphalia was signed. [1]

The proceeds paid the war credits and made many Swedish high ranking officers very rich, with Carl Gustaf Wrangel being responsible as governor of Stralsund for the repatriation and making a fortune that filled his new Skokloster Castle. It also provided the Swedish state with a significant material and cultural addition such as the Silver Bible and the Codex Gigas were brought to Sweden[2], and a large part of the loot, like The many statues scattered throughout the Baroque garden that were created by the artist Adrian de Vries, ended up at Drottningholm Palace, residence of the present Swedish King.

. Zzalpha (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the necessity for Sweden to gain as much money as possible to be able to end the war. As well as the cultural impact of Prague’s looting on Sweden. My problem is how much part you want to give Wallenstein in the looting. Wallenstein died in 1634, his wealth was mostly given to the men behind his elimination, Gallas (who received Frýdlant and most of Wallenstein’s estates), Piccolomini (received Náchod from or Aldringen (received Teplice). The Habsburgs had already distributed Wallenstein’s fortune in 1634, they could not offer it in 1648 to the Swedes. And besides it’s speculative, I think it’s absolutely unplausible that the Austrian court wanted Sweden to plunder Prague in 1648. It was a shock for the court and a catastrophy for the whole city. A lot of nobles loyal to the Habsburgs were robbed of all their wealth, many of the commonfolk were killed. The civilians in the Old town of Prague had to defend it for months against a Swedish siege (there were heavy Swedish assaults against the city walls even after the signing of the peace on 24 October because the Swedish army was not informed yet about the peace). The Wallenstein palace was just one of the many plundered mansions, and its owner, Albrecht’s distant relative Maximilian Waldstein, was a respected man with a high position on the court in Vienna.
So I don’t see how Wallenstein has funded the Peace of Westphalia. The wealth of Prague was not his wealth, the city of Prague had not been Wallenstein’s estate. Prague’s wealth laid in the nobility, in the churches and monasteries, and in the riches of Prague castle, the former residence of Emperor Rudolf II. Most of Rudolf’s splendid art collection was still there and Queen Christina loved art. She personally asked her generals to reserve certain pieces for her. I also don’t understand how “the goods generally have nothing to do with Prague, but with what Wallenstein did”. Most of Prague’s wealth was not robbed during the war, it had already been there (all of Emperor Rudolf’s collection like the Codex Gigas). The accumulated wealth of e. g. the infamous sack of Mantua (not ordered or planned by Wallenstein) ended in the pockets of many soldiers from all over the empire and in the collections of Gallas, Piccolomini or Aldringen - none of them had a major residence in Prague. What exactly had Wallenstein done in regard to the looting of Prague 14 years after his death?
I think you try to see a big picture that simply is not there or is at least too vaguely connected. I agree with many of your individual points but not with your conclusion. Most importantly, Wikipedia does not allow original research. You can only add material stated by realiable sources and only add conclusions that were explicitly stated by a source. So if there's no reliable source that explicitly stated "Wallenstein funded the Peace of Westphalia", you can't add it. I can agree with the addition of the plunder of his former palace and the fate of de Vries' statues (verifiable by sources and directly connected to Wallenstein). Alas, I can't agree with stating that he thereby funded the Peace of Westphalia. Wallenstein didn't do anything directly related to the looting of Prague, he was dead. Also the fate of Prague was only one element in finalising the peace. The Swedes preliminarily agreed to the peace on 6 August because they had all what they needed. The ports at the Baltic coast (Swedish Pomerania) for their maritime empire and the financial compensation to which the Imperial estates had agreed in June. Prague was a very welcome bonus but there are not many clues for a long-term Swedish plan. They deemed it to strong of a fortress, the Swedish commander Königsmarck had not enough troops for a siege or a frontal assault. Only the imperial defector Ernst Odowalsky could convince him that Prague's defenders were careless and he showed him a poorly defended place of the city walls for a surprise attack at night (the article for the battle of Prague has to be expanded in this). Palastwache (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is true historical description?
I am glad to have this debate on this Wikipedia page with you.
The reason is that I think that one should question the current description of history with regard to the fact that power and money have so much more influence than anyone considered decent to describe the situation as (the official description of history). Some debate is necessary.
Wallenstein was from a Protestant family convert to become a high command in the Austrian army I think can be summed up by Frank Zappa "We are only in it for the money!". And when there is nothing more to loot, he wants to quit and gets murdered by those who are bound by political convictions rather than money. But Wallenstein was probably only slightly more efficient than his neighbors in Prague, all living in a robber culture since 100 years ago (which is the reason Sweden is Protestant, see Swedish_War_of_Liberation#Economics, and the extension the Count's Feud in Denemark, money was out for the Hansa and the Pope and as suc,h out politically in Scandinavia).
We can see a very strong paradigm shift among Swedish official historical research about the history of the 16th century and the reasons why it swings so much to end with Linköping's riksdag 1600 which finally totally silenced the hen house and created a correction in the ranks. Something that took another 80 years in Great Britain to happen through the Glorious Revolution, where Amsterdam's burghers funded the event and moved to London, reverse Brexit because they were less likely to be invaded by France every 20 years which was bad for business. In typical Swedish style, you don't talk about your business, Amsterdam's businessmen were happy Brits in London and doing good safe business. A view not yet anchored in official historical research, but it will probably come. Why else fund the event than 350 years of successful business, that ends with Brexit?
The Swedish higher officers did not have the same culture because the king had total control over them, but not over the Swedish parliament, nobody got anything without the king giving it to them. However, the events after Prague in 1648 created a touch of continental culture among Swedish nobility that ended with the Great Reduction in 1680.
Almost always, to a much greater degree, it is money that is absolutely decisive in historical descriptions. The official account of history is probably more untrue than my assumptions. Yes, these are personal analyzes and assumptions, and I would like to see a bit more scientifically based research on the subject.
Comments to your post:
I think it is a very likely assumption that after Wallenstein's death the estate is indeed changed in terms of ownership, but is not moved from the place, i.e. Wallenstein's robber estate remained 14 years after his death in the same place, a place that was robbed in 1648. And traditionally the high commanders robbed in the Austrian army to an extreme degree in the wars it was involved in, not least land areas still owned late by the continent's largest landowners.
What is really the reason for my insight into the matter is rather as a museum visitor where goods from Prague 1648 are on display, but there is nothing I have seen that has a Czech connection or to Prague in general, it stinks Wallenstein of everything, re-robbed goods from anywhare. We have Skokloster Castle, which is perhaps the largest collection, Drottningholm Palace Park (arrived there 100 years later), the State Portrait Collection at Gripsholm Castle, Carolina Rediviva Uppsala University Library and the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm (previously in the Tre Kronor (castle)), everything is related to other things primarily from Germany and Italy. The closest you get are some portraits of Emperor Rudolf's family (really good) at the National Museum.
The third link is the classic situation of being in a war without being able to use an exit (the lack of an overall plan). Has probably never happened to the Swedish state after that (Charles XII of Sweden was thrown into the war, but failed also in that point). But it is rather the rule than the exception right up until the wars that are going on right now (were were Adolf Hitlers exists?). We can also see based on focus and objectives, the extreme success of the US in World War II with absolutely insane efficiency, please see Robert McNamara's description of the period in the free movie The fog of war https://watchdocumentaries.com/the-fog-of-war/ . We have five wars destroying Serbia in the 90s for lack of the same thing, so also wars right now.
It is bad that uninitiated politicians do not read about it in the history description, on how you lose wars when you lack clear communicative objectives, because they start wars without them and these wars are extremely painful for very many, with no possibility of success.
Where the latter part of the Thirty Years' War was characterized by a desperate search for objectives and exits. I think so desperately that was the price the Austrians finally had to bid in Prague. Because what are the alternatives, even more expensive.
One of the reasons to be able to believe that the Austrians invited Prague in 1648 is the necessity to play theater. The need to make it look like something other than it was. The squad was too small, and could have been larger if it was necessary to think about occupying all of Prague. They were only there to collect the goods.
I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying it's an obvious description worth scientific study, digging into. Zzalpha (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Grimberg, Carl. "440 (Svenska folkets underbara öden / III. Gustaf II Adolfs, Kristinas och Karl X Gustavs tid 1611-1660)". runeberg.org (in Swedish). Retrieved 2020-12-19.
  2. ^ "Goterna". Retrieved 23 August 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albrecht_von_Wallenstein&oldid=1213758394"