Talk:Battle of Strasbourg Bridge

Disputed

I've been searching on Google books for modern literature that describes this "battle" in detail or even mentions it, without much success. To my understanding from reading several older books, this was merely a minor action (Barthold, 1826 - pp. 34–35) and not a large battle in which both "armies moved to meet each other at the battlefield near the village of Willstätt" with thousands of casualties as a result; the Imperials sent a vanguard to harass the Swedish army which was retreating over the Rhine to Strasbourg, following the defeat at the Battle of Nördlingen. Minor skirmishes between this vanguard and the Swedish rearguard broke out, first near Willstätt but most significantly later on at Kehl, where the Swedes lost 300 men according to Pufendorf, 1688 (p. 224). The article is based mainly on these sources: Gallart, 1635 (pp. 170–171) and Robert, 1883 (pp. 46–47) which in turn describes it as a larger battle where, out of 7,000 Swedes, up to 5,000 were lost. My question is, why is this "battle" so scarcely mentioned in modern literature (as far as I can tell) if the Swedes suffered almost twice as many casualties as they did at the Battle of Breitenfeld? Is this more or less a fabricated battle, or was there really a large battle taking place at Willstätt and not just a minor skirmish? I own very few books about this war, and the ones I have doesn't even mention it. Weymar Horren, being the creator of the article, do you know any modern sources which can help up validate its content? Palastwache, Robinvp11, TiltuM, I've seen you guys contribute to articles revolving the Thirty Years' War, can you help? Imonoz (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I've checked more sources, they seem all to agree about a skirmish of Werth's and Lorraine's cavalry harassing the retreating Swedes. However, Riezler, 1903 (p. 488) only states casualties of 1,500 Swedes. Lahrkamp, 1962 (p. 40) cites Riezler and mentions that no report from Werth about the battle exists - which indicates further that there was no large battle. Revisiting Des Robert, he only specifies Swedish casualties of 2,000 and speculates about more that perished in the getaway or drowned in the Rhine. The Theatrum Europaeum III, 1639 (p. 290) as one of the principal sources for contemporary reports briefly mentions the skirmish at Kehl (without any numbers) and as core of the event at Willstätt the almost-capture of Rheingraf Otto Louis who was surprised by Werth's cavalry with 15 of his men and saved himself by jumping with his horse into the Kinzig river. All sources about Otto Ludwig mention the incident (e. g. his ADB-entry by Wittich). Therefore, the series of skirmishes on 27 (Riezler) or 28 (Des Robert) September 1634 is validated by sources but neither a large-scale battle nor the enormous casualties. The range is from 300 (Pufendorf) to 2,000+ (Des Robert). Ferdinand des Robert might have exaggerated the extent of the battle to illustrate the success of his protagonist, the Duke of Lorraine. Palastwache (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

In addition: The usually trustworthy Johann Heilmann (1868) who uses original documents from Bavaria's state archives mentions the battle on pp. 501–502. He describes minor clashes and the almost-capture of Otto Louis at Willstätt but like all sources except Des Robert, he sees the main fighting at Kehl. According to him, the Swedes (or their rearguard) defended themselves in battle formation but Werth caught them in their flack, forcing a disorderly retreat over the Rhine bridge. If this was the case, then 1,500 casualties are realistic but other sources (primarily Pufendorf) seem to argue that most Swedes escaped over the bridge beforehand and only a few 100 men got hit by Werth's attack. No source however (not even Des Robert like it's cited in the article) mentions the collapse of the bridge at Kehl, this has definitely to be removed. Palastwache (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind help! You're actually right - neither des Robert nor Gallart mentions 5,000 Swedish casualties from what I can see, despite them both being cited in the infobox following that claim. Also, I can't make sense of the description of events written in the article; it goes over the encounter at Willstätt and the many Swedes who drowned in the Rhine during the retreat - shouldn't these be the ones who supposedly drowned following the encounter at Kehl, which is only mentioned later? And the same with the rout of his regiment - did this occur at Willstätt or Kehl? To me, it seems like some kind of weird mash-up of the sources has occurred, making the description confusing and unreliable at places. I'm thankful that you found more sources describing the events as it clears up some of the questions I had. Like you're saying, most of them seem to agree that the main clash occurred at Kehl, not Willstätt, and that it was probably not as significant as it currently appears in the article (with 5,000 losses, etc). That begs the question, should the article be moved to "Battle of Kehl" or not? Imonoz (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and quote some of the sentences in the Battle section of the article which I find questionable:

• "On 27 September both armies moved to meet each other at the battlefield near the village of Willstätt" — This doesn't seem correct, as most sources agree that the Swedish army, apart from a small rearguard, was on its way to cross the Rhine and thus didn't give battle at Willstätt.
• "The Catholics mustered 6 regiments of cavalry, 2 of croats and 300 musketeers, in all about 3,000 cavalry and 1,500 infantry" — des Robert is cited here (pp. 46–47), he mentions 15,000 infantry for the Imperials, not 1,500. This might've been a typing mistake as he previously mentioned only two regiments of Croats and 300 musketeers. However, Gallart (pp. 170–171) mentions 1,500 infantry and 3,000 cavalry, while Pufendorf (p. 224) mentions 2,000 infantry.
• "the Swedish, having collected their forces from Swabia and the Bodensee, numbered 6,000 or 7,000 men" — That is, the whole Swedish army under Otto Louis. Most of it wasn't engaged in any fighting, since it was about to cross the Rhine.
• "The battle [at Willstätt] lasted for three hours, until Charles of Lorraine led an attack that broke the regiment of the Rheingrave ... About 2,000 Swedish soldiers were killed on the battlefield" — According to des Robert. Now, was there even a battle at Willstätt (and not just a skirmish as most sources say), with 2,000 casualties as a result, or is it just the case where des Robert has mixed the engagements together and turned them into one huge battle at Willstätt?
• "700 Swedish soldiers entrenched themselves inside a farmstead and perished amidst the flames." — While des Robert is cited here, I can't find such a number mentioned in his book? And again, did this occur at Willstätt or Kehl?
• "The Imperial and Leaguist forces took 6 cannons and 4 flags." — Schreiber is cited (pp. 660–661), but he seemingly mentions Kalb, and Barthold (pp. 33–34) mentions Calb. Were these taken at Willstätt or Kalb/Calb, or is it simply the same place?
• "The Rheingrave [Otto Louis] was about to cross the Kinzig ... when he ran into some Bavarian cuirassiers of the regiment of Keller" — Schreiber is cited, and in his version it appears as if the cuirassiers came from behind as Otto was retreating from Willstätt. However, when reading Barthold and Pufendorf, I get the impression that this occurred when Otto was searching for the Swedish rearguard near Willstätt, but instead stumpled upon the curiassiers. If so, he wasn't commanding the rearguard during whatever engagement took place at Willstätt.
• "The Rheingrave managed to reach Kehl, where he entrenched his remaining men" — It should probably be the ones at hand, and not the remaining men. As far as I understand, most of his men were already crossing/about to cross the Rhine.
• "the bridge collapsed shortly after because of the excessive burden of his fleeing soldiers, and many of them were drowned." — As you've already pointed out, this isn't mentioned in the source. Imonoz (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Before I make any changes to the sentences above, I'd like your input if you will. I'm using a translator for some of them, so there might be issues understanding. Furthermore, I'm thinking of removing/replacing des Robert's book completely from the article as I don't find it very reliable when comparing it to most other sources - is this a drastic move, in your opinion, or do you agree with this? If so, Riezler's number of 1,500 Swedish casualties could be used as the higher figure, while Pufendorf's 300 would be the lower end. Imonoz (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for asking! About the name: No source calls the action "battle of Willstätt", it is usually called the "encounter/engagement at Willstätt and Kehl" (in German "Gefecht bei Willstätt und Kehl", e. g. at Lahrkamp). Or the "Battle at Straßburg Bridge" (Heilmann and Riezler mention it as place of battle; Engerisser, 2004 (p. 607) and Polišenský, 1977 (p. 319) use the whole name). I would prefer this name over "Battle of Kehl". To the sentences:

• "On 27 September both armies moved to meet each other at the battlefield near the village of Willstätt" — Agreed, the armies did not move to meet each other. The Swedes were attacked when they crossed the river.
• "The Catholics mustered 6 regiments of cavalry, 2 of croats and 300 musketeers, in all about 3,000 cavalry and 1,500 infantry" — From des Robert, it's certainly a typing mistake, the Duke of Lorraine (who actually commanded no Imperial contigent but the Catholic League army) simply could not have 15,000 foot soldiers (who are only of limited use in a chase). Overall 3,000 and 1,500 seem realistic.
• "the Swedish, having collected their forces from Swabia and the Bodensee, numbered 6,000 or 7,000 men" — Yes, that's the whole army. But it's the only number we have. And none of them were totally absent, they were actively trying to disengage from the fighting. In a somewhat similar case, at the Battle of Zusmarshausen, we quote the whole Imperial-Bavarian strength despite the battle only being a prolonged rearguard action and the defence of a river crossing - in which most of the Bavarian army had already retreated across the river and did not participate in the fight.
• "The battle [at Willstätt] lasted for three hours, until Charles of Lorraine led an attack that broke the regiment of the Rheingrave ... About 2,000 Swedish soldiers were killed on the battlefield" — I guess, des Robert has mixed the engagements together.
• "700 Swedish soldiers entrenched themselves inside a farmstead and perished amidst the flames." — The number is nowhere to be found, des Robert only mentions "un grand nombre" of Swedes. But a similar incident is mentioned at Heilmann who describes how some Swedes tried to entrench themselves inside of the village of Kehl where they were killed or smoked out by fire.
• "The Imperial and Leaguist forces took 6 cannons and 4 flags." — Calb means Calw, this was a previous encounter during the Swedish retreat, the sentence has to be moved to the prelude of the battle.
• "The Rheingrave Otto Louis was about to cross the Kinzig ... when he ran into some Bavarian cuirassiers of the regiment of Keller" — I agree, this happened prior to the main fighting at Kehl. At this stage, Otto Louis was separated from his army and had to find back to his troops.
• "The Rheingrave managed to reach Kehl, where he entrenched his remaining men" — As we don't know how many Swedish troops were actually deployed to defend the crossing, you could simply change "remaining men" to "rearguard".
• "the bridge collapsed shortly after because of the excessive burden of his fleeing soldiers, and many of them were drowned." — We already agree here. According to Heilmann, Werth's troops captured a redoubt at the bridge but could not hold it against the shelling from a larger redoubt. Therefore they could not follow the Swedes over the bridge.

Replacing des Robert might be radical but I think it's reasonable to leave him out of the description of the battle. He can still be used to source the aftermath where the Duke of Lorraine demanded entry in Strasbourg and Otto Louis transfered his strongholds to France. This is confirmed by other sources (except Basel, the Swiss city had no Swedish garrison, maybe he meant the bishopric of Basel). Palastwache (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking your time. Early next week, I'll probably start making some changes to the article according to our discussion - until then I'll give anyone who wants a say the chance. If there are no protests, I'll move the article to "Battle at Straßburg Bridge" (it's a much better name) and fix the redirects that comes with it. Des Robert will remain as source in the aftermath and prelude, but only where it's absolutely necessary in the battle section. The sentences that are unsupported will be edited/removed. Some new ones might be added. You're welcome to undo any changes I make and fill in the things I forget, but I'll stick to our dialogue as best as I can. Imonoz (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! I might change the mentions of the Imperial army in the article to "Catholic League army" and add the movements of Otto Louis to the background. In fact, he did not fight at Nördlingen because he and his corps took too much time to besiege Rheinfelden and arrived "too late for the party". Palastwache (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. So I've had a go at the article. I've merely only touched the battle section, as well as the infobox and lede, and tried clearing up some of the confusing (to me at least) parts. "The Imperial and Leaguist forces took 6 cannons and 4 flags." has been removed—as you said, this information should probably be used in the prelude, but I left it out for now as I failed to do so in a way I thought was not going to take away from the main focus of the article. Over to casualties: When translating Gallart, 1635 (pp. 170–171), I understand it as 1,000 Swedes dead in the entrenchments [battlefield], and several hundred more drowned or killed in the fire, with 2,000 not escaping (as currently stated in the article)—can you confirm? The previous version had it 2,000 killed on the battlefield and several hundred more drowned, etc (citing des Robert), which got me worried I got the translation wrong, somehow.. Would you rather see 2,000 Swedish casualties as the higher end (from the statement that 2,000 Swedes did not manage to escape [Gallart]), in the infobox, or Riezler's 1,500, as it currently is?

Now, I've got two questions: Firstly, would you be fine with "Battle of Strasbourg Bridge" over "Battle at Straßburg Bridge" as name? I recall an instance where one of my articles, Combat of Rosslau, was moved from "Combat of Roßlau" because, as it was said, the "ß" should be avoided in English Wikipedia (if possible). The "of" instead of "at" also seems to be more in line with similar articles, as seen here; secondly, do you know how big the Imperial army was in total, including the vanguard that was sent to intercept Otto? I feel as if this information would help a lot when explaining why Otto decided to retreat across the river before the battle took place.

Apart from that, and like I've said, feel free to undo any changes I've done (and fill in the missing parts). I'll wait with moving the article until you've responded. Imonoz (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the best title should be "Battle of Strasbourg Bridge" because "at" indeed seems unusual in English (in German, battles are generally called "bei" (="at") a certain place instead of "von" ("of")), and "Strasbourg" is the common English spelling. When Gallart also supports the 2000+ casualties (and not only the unreliable description in Des Robert), we can add the number to the infobox. For an army in flight over a river crossing, high casualties are realistic - what we don't know exactly is if the casualties happened in the actual battle.

I looked for the Imperial army strenght in Höbelt, 2016 (p. 27, a book about the Imperial warfare and strategy between Nördlingen 1634 and Jankau 1645). He describes that only half of the Imperials fought at Nördlingen (around 20,000 stayed in Bohemia to defend it against Sweden and Saxony), supported by the Spanish army under the Cardinalinfante and the Catholic League army under Duke Charles of Lorraine. After Nördlingen, the Spanish marched to the Rhine, while the Imperials and Leaguists split their forces into three groups: Piccolomini invaded Franconia with 5,000 Imperials and 3,500 Leaguists, Ferdinand took Heilbronn with 8,000 Imperials, and Charles of Lorraine and Werth had around 4,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry in Swabia (plus additional Imperial garrisons in Breisach, Villingen, Konstanz). This places 7,000 as the maximal strength for the Imperial-League force. Not much more than the Swedes under Otto Louis had, but I guess Otto Louis didn't know how many troops pursued him. Palastwache (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I think I'm about done with the article - I'm removing the "Disputed" tag since I think it's been resolved. I'm leaving it to you, if you want to add something - like the movements of Otto as previously mentioned, which I think would be a nice addition, and the 7,000 strong Imperial army (or just things that I've forgot). Thank you so much for your kind help. Imonoz (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)