Talk:Eighty Years' War

Too long?

Why all this talk on the article being to long? What are we, children? Are our attention spans that short? Come on! This is an encyclopaedia. It should be detailed. I want the details. If you can't read the whole thing, don't. Go watch your cartoons. Let the rest of us get back to improving Wikipedia with even more detailed articles. The article should, by no means, be shortened. PS: This article is not too long for dial-up users. Do the math. --Thorwald (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SIZE. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I know all about that guideline. I simply don't agree with it. Some articles are about complex subjects and need to be longer. Of course, they could also be broken into smaller pieces, as long as the goal is not to water down the content and make it "easier" for readers. We shouldn't spoon-feed. --Thorwald (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I read the arguments above too quickly. I initially thought the arguments about the article being "too long" had to do with it having too much information. I know understand them to be more about the actual length and wanting to split the article into smaller pieces. As long as we keep the information (and even expound and expand upon), it is a good idea. Sorry for the fuss. --Thorwald (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A word of caution about splitting anything up: it should be done, if at all, by people who know what they are doing. There was a suggestion earlier to hive some of it off to an article about "the military aspects of the Dutch Revolt". This would amount to turning everything upside down, as the Eighty Years' War is the military aspect of the Revolt. Besides, as is explained in the article, the Dutch Revolt covers only the first thirty years or so. Far better would be to write an article that properly covers the Dutch Revolt (see Talk:Dutch Revolt). The first part of this article could then (but only then) be appropriately shortened. I also wouldn't object to first improving the articles on Twelve Years' Truce and Peace of Münster and then condensing the sections in this article. Only don't expect me to do the work :-) You could use my work here, though. It is in the public domain, after all.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That was the point: "the Dutch Revolt covers only the first thirty years or so". It would obviously be best if you do it. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not the one having a problem with the length of this article. I am just afraid of people spoiling it on spurious gronds. I do have a problem with the Dutch Revolt article, as explained on its Talk page, but I don't want to start editing that without first having a proper discussion.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I don't get why people complain, the more knowledge, the better! TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Belligerents in Infobox

Please note "Belligerent" is a closely defined legal term, which requires a formal declaration of war. I realise a lot of work went into digging out the various icons etc but there's a reason why the Wikipedia template does not include "Supported by" or other variations, even though that doesn't seem to stop people adding them in.

One of the problems is the idea of national armies being largely homogenous (ie composed of people from the same country) did not arise until the 19th century. For example, most estimates suggest the overwhelming proportion of the "Swedish army" during the 30 Years War were German. So having Germans serving in the Dutch army doesn't imply anything other than sympathy.

This issue comes up on a regular basis. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that you take a far to precise stance on the infobox than needed. This is what the guidelines say about what can be written in the infobox:

the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

DavidDijkgraaf description of the belligerents coincides very well with several countries that intervened in this war in favor of the Dutch Republic, such as France and England, with which they made alliances and even carried out joint military operations (examples: Capture of Cádiz in 1596 or Siege of Leuven in 1635). We are not talking about mercenary troops in the service of Dutch Republic, which I am not saying there were not, but there was also participation of those states with their respective state forces. Muwatallis II (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

...however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding...

How does this apply to any of these? Are you seriously suggesting Anjou (who is an individual, not even a state) somehow qualifies as a Belligerent? The Infobox is supposed to be factual.

And FYI, England never agreed a formal alliance with the Dutch against Spain. The fact English volunteers served with the Dutch does not make England (the entity) a participant. In fact, in the 1630s Charles pursued a policy that was pro-Spanish - so the current Infobox is actively misleading.

Whatever; I'm clearly less interested in the Eighty Years War than you are, but these arguments are simply starting with the answer you want. Either put them as Belligerents (Wikipedia does not say "add new categories if you fancy it"), or take them out. Don't make categories up.

And as I'm here, what are your precise objections to the changes made in the Lead? Robinvp11 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Anjou was a valois whose garrison in Cambrai held the town past his death without changing allegiance. Later the Spanish only retook the town after a formal French declaration of war. English participation is very uneven. In 1578ish they composed mercenary units. 2601:140:4101:DA40:1D9C:E2FC:CBDC:A0CF (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

To be frank, I find the infobox rather confusing too. It is about a war that lasted 80 years, but yet we list countries that pitched in only a fraction of that time (often without official alliance) as such - most strikingly Portugal which only allied with the Netherlands for 7 years (<10%). And when doing so, they mostly helped out with a small force (as did Elizabeth I). Therefore I also find it rather dubious that such heads of state are listed as commander and leader in the 80 years war. Elizabeth never personally lead anything other than England, and Louis XIII did do things of relevance in the larger 30 years war but not specifically in the specific 80 year war engagement (strikingly the word Dutch only appears 3 times in the Louis XIII article and the word Netherlands only once. None of those occurrences are about any lead in the 80 years war.) As is now it seems the commanders / leaders / belligerent include a more or less random selection of countries and their heads of state struggling with Spain at the same time as the Dutch (but why not the German fiefdoms that provide much more support, or Turkey, or any other country....). I would argue this list needs to be cleaned up Arnoutf (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Casualties

@2.56.206.98 You didn't adress my concerns (please answer them here) and after reading the websource it is clear the 100,000 figure also includes people killed under Charles V, which is before the Eighty Years War even started. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

These are also not academic sources. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw @Muwatallis II Could you guys take a look at the sources used for the casualty figures. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It's a good question, but a very complicated one that will almost certainly never be answerable with a high degree of precision. For early modern wars such as this one, we usually don't have good estimates, much less accurate data, on how many military personnel, civilians and everyone in between was killed, wounded, missing, defected, deserted etc.

A lot also has to do with definitions and periodisations, for which the Eighty Years' War / the Dutch Revolt is notorious. (I pride myself on having done what I can to bring coverage regarding this conflict into balance on both English and Dutch Wikipedia.)

What is certainly not going help is editwarring over a tiny space in the Infobox military conflict. If there is a place for discussing it, it should be in the spin-off articles Aftermath of the Eighty Years' War and/or Historiography of the Eighty Years' War. After all, this is where we discuss the impact of the war, and what scholars have found and debated. Figures like this are very rough, not precisely calculable facts. It's a conversation about what we know and not know, and what can and cannot reasonably extrapolate. Let's dedicate a section to it, in prose full sentences, not in infoboxes, lists, tables or graphs.

In this prose text section discussing various estimates by scholars, I would suggest including the two figures mentioned in European wars of religion#Death tolls. Not as representative, or a baseline, or outer limits, but as just 2 examples to start with. "Highest and lowest estimates" here are at risk of both WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE.

@DavidDijkgraaf Hope this helps. Good night, NLeeuw (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw Thank you. And I totally agree. The problem is that this user wants to insert figures that are not propogated by academic historians and that that 100,000 figure includes protestants who were killed under Charles V. I think you would agree that it doesn't belong anywhere in this article. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Definitely need other sources to come up with a best guesstimate figure of the losses of such a long war. The recent sources used are very problematic and confusing, so best left as is. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright, seems more like a conduct issue than a content issue, but I was happy to make suggestions. I might do some edits, too, but not tonight.

I'd encourage you to start with that section, gathering some scholarly estimates and discussing them, and perhaps their methodologies. E.g. including figures from during the reign of Charles V seems out of the question, since rarely anyone considers the war to have broken out before 1566. But the 1566–1567 period is more questionable. And do we include the victims of Alba's "Blood Council" or the "Martyrs of Gorcum"? Or are these executions of civilian prisoners not acts of war to be counted amongst the war-related "casualties"?

Every scholarly source we consider should probably discuss such issues, and motivate why they would include or exclude such groups from their counting. Otherwise we may be comparing Apples and Oranges (pun intended). NLeeuw (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The casualties of Alba can arguably be included, but they aren't neccessarily rebel casualties. Hoorne and Egmont did not support the rebel cause for example. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, a modern source was added and yet you still removed it. 2.56.206.98 (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Sources for casualties

Let's gather what we can. I'll start with what is currently stated European wars of religion#Death tolls:

• c. 600,000 to 700,000 deaths, according to "Victimario Histórico Militar". Archived from the original on 1 July 2018. Retrieved 12 February 2018..
  • With all due respect, ReMilitari.com self-identifies as a forum for military history enthusiasts. There appears to be little editorial control, other than community guidelines. It's unclear by whom and how the Victimario Histórico Militar was put together, aside from a brief introduction and a bibliography. The following line in the introduction stands out (autotranslated): The accounting of victims is open to different interpretations depending on the sources used, the statistical methodology, and the researchers' judgement. All figures are estimates , so we caution against always comparing the data presented here, even though the preparation of this table has been extensively documented. (bold in original). We don't know who the 'researchers' were, how did the 'preparation', and the degree of discretion they exercised in their 'judgement'. Therefore, I am inclined to conclude that the Victimario is a mixture of WP:SELFPUB and WP:SYNTH.
  • However, the Bibliographic Sources or Fuentes Bibliográficas (solo en lengua inglesa) at the bottom of the index are worth considering. Given our subject, based on titles alone, the following sources might contain relevant figures that could serve as WP:RS:
  • Clodfelter, Michael, Warfare and Armed Conflict: A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1618-1991.
  • Dan Smith, The State of War and Peace Atlas (1997), vThe New State of War and Peace (1991), The War Atlas (1983).
  • Urlanis, Boris, Wars and Population (1971).
  • Bryan Perret, The Battle Book: Crucian conflicts in history from 1469 BC to the present (1992)

Now, IP address user 2.56.206.98 tried several times to add the following, but has been reverted:

• 100,000 Dutch Protestants killed (1568–1609). Source: Halley's Bible Handbook, 24th ed. 1965.
• 18,025 English dead. Source: Charles Carlton, This Seat of Mars: War and the British Isles, 1485-1746, Yale University Press, November 2011. Page 54.
• "Twentieth Century Atlas – Historical Body Count". necrometrics.com.

I haven't yet examined it. I do know that necrometrics.com has been considered unreliable before at European wars of religion, but I can't remember the details right now (to be continued). NLeeuw (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

DavidDijkgraaf said about these repeated insertions by the IP: Not clear if this is about soldiers or civilians, and a lot of Dutch civilians and soldiers who died at the hands of the Spanish side weren't even protestant. This figure tells us nothing. Use the talk page if you want to include it. To be fair, it might tell us something, but it is a very incomplete picture, and calling for discussion on the talk page is always a good move when there is disagreement or uncertainty.

The IP 2.56.206.98 said: dont care what they were, multiple sources say 100,000 Dutch killed and thats enough. That's not very constructive. 'Dutch Protestants' and 'Dutch' are not the same, and reverting an edit while saying you 'don't care' about the objections of a fellow editor is commonly considered disruptive editing.

David then restored the previous version with You should care. The Dutch weren´t all catholic and didn´t all support the rebel cause. The figure is misleading and needs explaining. The English figure is also only about British troops in Dutch service in the 1586–1603 period. It doesn´t count British deaths in service of their own army and British deaths in other years. It is also misleading. I am mostly in agreement with David here, but mostly for pragmatic reasons that these are incomplete figures pulled from different sources, crammed into an infobox that doesn't have much space for nuance and explanation. That said, it doesn't mean the figures are wrong or irrelevant, and reverting the edit usually isn't conducive to solving a dispute, even if it is restoring the accepted previous version.

Finally, 2.56.206.98 wrote check the web source, several historians (Gibbon, Motley, Schaff, Eerdman) give the figure of 100,000 Dutch killed, who are you to question them? First of all, WP:AGEMATTERS. Gibbon and Motley are very old and unreliable early historians who did not have modern evidence and critical scholarly standards. Secondly, the IP just continued reverting without any edit summaries anymore. They also never tried to engage in conversation on the talk page, despite multiple attempts from other editors to do so. That is disruptive editing and indicative that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia, but to push for a certain POV. Note that the IP never tried to add estimates of casualties on the Habsburg side of the conflict, equated 'Dutch Protestants' and 'Dutch', and used a Bible handbook as a source (not necessarily wrong, but a source to use with great caution). I would suggest disciplinary actions to be taken against 2.56.206.98.

Nevertheless, if any of these sources could be consulted and would prove reliable and relevant, they should be considered for inclusion in our potential future Casualties section. NLeeuw (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

This seems a lot more promising, especially its bibliography:

• Petram, L.O.; Kruizinga, S.F. (2024). "War Dummies: Structured Data on Organised Armed Confrontations with Dutch Involvement, 1566–1812". Brill. Retrieved 21 October 2025.

NLeeuw (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Reading this one right now:

• van Besouw, Bram; Curtis, Daniel R. (2022). "Estimating warfare-related civilian mortality in the early modern period: Evidence from the Low Countries, 1620–99". Explorations in Economic History. 84: 101425. doi:10.1016/j.eeh.2021.101425.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)

It's quite a systemic approach, but its relevance to our problem of casualty rates is unclear, and its scope from 1620 to 1699 of course only partially overlaps with our scope of 1566 to 1648.

This sentence in the introduction struck me as particularly relevant:

Indeed, the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48) is estimated to have killed about five million out of a population of roughly 15 million people, mostly through war-related disease (Eckert, 1996; Theibault, 1997; Voigtländer and Voth, 2013). Most of these casualties were civilians because the number of soldiers was simply too low to impact aggregate death figures (Outram, 2001; Landers, 2005). The presence of armies exposed civilians to unfamiliar pathogens, brought excessive demands on their food supplies, and sometimes forced civilians to flee from danger (Alfani, 2013a: 43–4).

So estimating military deaths and civilian deaths are likely on completely different levels.

Furthermore, they demonstrate that the nature of relationships between military activity / 'war events' (defined as battles, sieges and hostile occupations of towns) and excess mortality in localities is difficult to establish. In other words: we've got lots of information on civilian deaths by church burial records from 327 localities, but we're not always sure why/how they died? Were civilians living within 30 km of a battlefield killed in battle (unlikely, but perhaps passing armies conscripted them or otherwise forced them to participate, or killed them on suspicions of aiding the enemy etc.), killed by passing armies plundering the countryside for food, killed by starvation because passing armies deprived them of food / destroyed their harvest by turning their farmlands into a battlefield, killed by diseases spread by the passing armies, etc.? To my surprise, that last one actually appears to be one of the most common causes of death, caused directly or indirectly when soldiers from passing armies came into contact with local civilians. The epidemics could spread far beyond the 30 km circle around the battlefield due to non-military contacts amongst civilians in the countryside. (Knowledge and understanding of infectious diseases was of course still very limited in this period, and they usually spread far faster than any useful warning of its spread could). The question then of course becomes whether an outbreak of a deadly disease over 100 km away from the battlefield where it was carried to by soldiers can really fairly be attributed to "the war", or rather an almost complete lack of medical science and modern health care to prevent and address lethal infectious diseases. At some point, attribution may become somewhat arbitrary, but van Besouw and Curtis are at least trying. NLeeuw (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

PS: I should add that in the examples I gave above, I pretty much assumed the typical civilian who risked dying due to the war was a farmer, and that a typical 'battlefield' should be located in the countryside, but that appears incorrect. Multiple researchers have found that mortality rates in the 17th-century Low Countries did not significantly differ between urban and rural localities affected by war events. Walls may protect townspeople better from enemy soldiers, and towns usually had better health care than the countryside, but diseases spread faster, the risk of famine was higher, and military activity was far more focused on besieging and conquering cities than on raiding farmers or traders in the countryside, because 17th-century armies were simply too large to 'live off the land'. This is something we should keep in mind. But this relatively equal urban/rural civilian death ratio could be different in the 1566-1619 period. NLeeuw (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I honestly doubt that there are reliable Eighty Years' War casualty figures that aren't incomplete in some important way. I haven't encountered any myself. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

"War on independence" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect War on independence has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 16 § War on independence until a consensus is reached. — An anonymous username, not my real name 02:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)