I've given the article a new introduction per your suggestions. My own expertise is strongest for the period 1789 - 1914. Unfortunately it's more political, economic, and cultural than military. I may contribute more if no one else steps in. Durova 16:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-11-04T16:52:00.000Z","author":"Durova","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Durova-2005-11-04T16:52:00.000Z-Shauri-2005-11-03T15:44:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I edited the previous 'Hussite' text rather extensively, my reason being that although it was good information, it was probably written more from the 'czech' rather than 'german' perspective, and some of the detail (notably the Joan D'arc reference) would fit better in the Hussite article. Any thoughts? (Averscha 11:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-11-08T11:58:00.000Z","author":"Averscha","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Averscha-2005-11-08T11:58:00.000Z-Holy_Roman_Empire","replies":[]}}-->

I am not sure the paragraph on Louis the German/Lothar adds much to the subject, since there is no 'military' angle here. If the difference between German monarchs/Holy Roman Emperors is indeed relevant (and it couldwell be), then I would suggest it is worked into the narrative instead of a note. At the moment, it doesn't seem to fit in. (Averscha 12:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-11-09T12:22:00.000Z","author":"Averscha","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Averscha-2005-11-09T12:22:00.000Z-Holy_Roman_Empire","replies":[]}}-->

There should be made a difference between Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. When the Empire of the Frank's were splittet in the year 843 this was actually the beginning of todays France and also of todays Germany. From that moment on the Germans had their own kingdom and they did not mix it up with the Empire of Rome for the next five centuries. When Otto I conquered Rome in the year 962 he regarded himself still as king of Germany and additionally (from that moment on) king of Italy and emperor of Rome. In the days of Frederick I the Empire konsistet of three differend kingdoms with three differend chancellors: Germany, Italy and Burgundy. His grandson Frederick II was famous for naming seven differend crowns his own (among them the crown of the kingdom of Jerusalem). Later, when the Germans lost control over Italy, they renamed their kingdom into "Heiliges Römisches Reich deutscher Nation" (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation). It's true, that the Emperor still had control over some non-german people, but the same is true for the Zzar of Russia and nobody denies that there was a Russian nation establishing at the outgoing medieval. Some one argued: Prussia had some non-german inhabitants at it's eastern border. The same is true for France, which had control over a lot of Germans at its eastern borders (the inhabitants of Straßburg and the Alsace to be exactly). I must say that I was really a little bit shocked, when I read this article and read, that some people deny that there was a German Nation before the year 1871. --jake

Could someone help out with the details of nineteenth century German unification? It's been years since I studied this in college and I've been looking for sources to refresh my memory. The sources I'm finding on the Web slide over the 1850 - 1866 period. We leap from Friedrich Wilhelm IV refusing the crown of a united Germany to Bismarck leading an expansionist united Germany into war against Denmark. Durova 18:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-11-05T18:58:00.000Z","author":"Durova","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Durova-2005-11-05T18:58:00.000Z-German_Unification","replies":[]}}-->

I'll have a look through some reference works to make absolutely sure, but from memory I don't believe there was much in terms of 'military' history which might explain the gap... Averscha 19:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-11-05T19:26:00.000Z","author":"Averscha","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Averscha-2005-11-05T19:26:00.000Z-German_Unification","replies":[]}}-->

Added what I could find, hope this helps. Fact is that there was indeed very little in the terms of military activity from the 'German' states (except Austria, which declared against Russia at a very late stage of the Crimean War). Averscha 19:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-11-05T19:59:00.000Z","author":"Averscha","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Averscha-2005-11-05T19:59:00.000Z-German_Unification","replies":["c-Durova-2005-11-06T17:18:00.000Z-Averscha-2005-11-05T19:59:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thanks, the most important fact for this article in that case was that this stage of German unification was peaceful. Durova 17:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-11-06T17:18:00.000Z","author":"Durova","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Durova-2005-11-06T17:18:00.000Z-Averscha-2005-11-05T19:59:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

The one part that still needs serious attention is ancient Germany. Anyone up to the task? Durova 03:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-11-09T03:40:00.000Z","author":"Durova","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Durova-2005-11-09T03:40:00.000Z-Ancient_Germany","replies":["c-Astrokey44-2005-11-09T04:25:00.000Z-Durova-2005-11-09T03:40:00.000Z"]}}-->

one of the problems is its difficult to define who exactly you should include - germanic tribes who invaded rome? or just the things that happened in the present day boundaries of germany Astrokey44 04:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-11-09T04:25:00.000Z","author":"Astrokey44","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Astrokey44-2005-11-09T04:25:00.000Z-Durova-2005-11-09T03:40:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

The Germans never succeeded in their strategic objective of splitting the allied lines (hence the reference to a 'bulge'). The last edit seemed to indicate that they did, so reworded that change. If there was another reason for splitting that sentence, pls advise (Averscha 12:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-11-11T12:29:00.000Z","author":"Averscha","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Averscha-2005-11-11T12:29:00.000Z-Second_World_war","replies":[]}}-->

Does anyone know what German army units are currently in Afghanistan? Chwyatt 08:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-10-05T08:53:00.000Z","author":"Chwyatt","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Chwyatt-2006-10-05T08:53:00.000Z-Germany_army_in_Afghanistan_today","replies":[]}}-->

This article seems to have a strange historical twist ... If one were exact than the military history of Germany, starts in 1871 with the founding of (a unified) Germany. Of course this would be a bit strange so I myself think its logical this article also treats the historical German states and political entities with a large German presence as a part of Germany's military history. But to treat or make it seem as if the Germanic tribes are a real part of Germany's military history strikes me as a bit off ... if no one objects I'll remove them soon. Rex 16:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-12-02T16:51:00.000Z","author":"Rex Germanus","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rex_Germanus-2006-12-02T16:51:00.000Z-To_the_regular_editor(s):","replies":[],"displayName":"Rex"}}-->

The history of Germany did not start in 1871. The first political entity under one king that would correspond with todays Germany would be the Kingdom of Germany or East Frankia which was established in 843 AD. Because of its historic relevance it makes sense to even go back before the formation of a german kingdom and implement military tacticts of ancient germanic tribes which shaped europe in a most significant way.

Cannot believe this is B class when the link between the text and the external links are arbitrary. I would reserve B status until the REF tag had been used.... and maybe the cite tag Victuallers 10:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-23T10:38:00.000Z","author":"Victuallers","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Victuallers-2007-05-23T10:38:00.000Z-b_class","replies":[]}}-->

Image:Bundeswehr logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-12T04:12:00.000Z","author":"BetacommandBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-BetacommandBot-2008-02-12T04:12:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Bundeswehr_logo.gif","replies":[]}}-->

Many basic matters about this large empire are not explained clearly on Wikipedia. When there was a war abroad - was the army of the Empire composed of units from its constituent parts? Also, I can't find a list of capitals of that empire - if someone was the king/emperor, did he have his court in his own land and spend a lot of time travelling around the Reich and abroad? Was his private army the core of the larger army of the Empire?--Revery (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I understand there were dozens of residences around the country kept for emperors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiserpfalz --Revery (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-11-30T10:07:00.000Z","author":"Revery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Revery-2009-11-30T10:07:00.000Z-Holy_Roman_Empire_2","replies":["c-87.178.114.100-2010-01-07T22:55:00.000Z-Revery-2009-11-30T10:07:00.000Z"]}}-->

Speaking for medieval times, in case of war abroad every constituent of the empire had to sent troops for the "Reichsaufgebot" (imperial army) if the emperor demanded for them (the principle is called "Heerfolge", meaning the duty to follow the call-to-arms). This timespan of this duty varies through the ages (one quote says: 40 days of service on this (german) site of the alps and up to 410 days of service an the other(italian) site of the alps. However, the amount of soldiers sent to the imperial army by each constituent depended largely on the emperors influence on the said constituents: great amount of troops were sent from what is today southern and central germany, the rhineland, bohemia, etc. nearly no troops from northern germany or italy.

The problem about capitals is, that there wasn't such a thing during the early- and high-middleages. the king/emperor moved around the country with his court, using the Kaiserpfalzen as temporary capitals. in this context mark the saying "Das Reich ist, wo der Kaiser ist" (THe empire is located, where the emperor is located). In later periods Prague and Vienna became somewhat of a capital. 87.178.114.100 (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-01-07T22:55:00.000Z","author":"87.178.114.100","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-87.178.114.100-2010-01-07T22:55:00.000Z-Revery-2009-11-30T10:07:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

The Wikipedia rule is that Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book as a whole. and it's not much help to cite a book and give "pages 1-234". see WP:Page numbers Rjensen (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-19T02:37:00.000Z","author":"Rjensen","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rjensen-2011-01-19T02:37:00.000Z-Page_numbers","replies":["c-Hohum-2011-01-19T02:51:00.000Z-Rjensen-2011-01-19T02:37:00.000Z"]}}-->

The many passages which have the entire books as references are generally short, and quite specific. It isn't credible that there isn't a specific passage, page, or chapter which could support each one. It is not reasonable to reference the entire book in these cases, and it is not supportive of the policy of verifiability.

It might be reasonable to reference an entire book when you make a very general point about the book itself, like "A Short History of the World" gives a short, populist account of major events in world history, written in an engaging style." - But it clearly is not when making more specific statements.

I ask other interested editors to comment. (Hohum ^@) 02:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-19T02:51:00.000Z","author":"Hohum","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Hohum-2011-01-19T02:51:00.000Z-Rjensen-2011-01-19T02:37:00.000Z","replies":["c-Hchc2009-2011-01-22T20:05:00.000Z-Hohum-2011-01-19T02:51:00.000Z","c-Hchc2009-2011-01-22T20:05:00.000Z-Hohum-2011-01-19T02:51:00.000Z-1","c-The_Land-2011-01-22T20:14:00.000Z-Hohum-2011-01-19T02:51:00.000Z"]}}-->

I agree with Hohum on this. I've had a look over what the books are being used to support in the artcle, and they are specific points that in my opinion require page references to be verifiable.

e.g. "In 1226 Konrad I of Masovia appealed to the Teutonic Knights, a German crusading military order, to defend his borders and subdue the pagan Baltic Prussians." - this is a specific fact, and should be certainly tied down to a specific page (or pages) in Henryk Sienkiewicz and Miroslaw Lipinksi's edited volume of articles on The Teutonic Knights.

I'd offer to help pin down the page ref's, but my library of German history works is very limited. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-22T20:05:00.000Z","author":"Hchc2009","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Hchc2009-2011-01-22T20:05:00.000Z-Hohum-2011-01-19T02:51:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hchc2009 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-22T20:05:00.000Z","author":"Hchc2009","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Hchc2009-2011-01-22T20:05:00.000Z-Hohum-2011-01-19T02:51:00.000Z-1","replies":[]}}-->

In my experience it's very unusual for a whole book reference to be necessary. When we are using references, we're not using them to say (as some academics do) "read this book and you may understand this point". We're using them to say "if you are in doubt as to whether this is the case or not, this is how you can verify our information is accurate". It is almost never helpful to refer someone to a whole book to justify a particular statement. The only reason I can think of referencing a whole book in a military history article is in a discussion of historiography... The Land (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-22T20:14:00.000Z","author":"The Land","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-The_Land-2011-01-22T20:14:00.000Z-Hohum-2011-01-19T02:51:00.000Z","replies":["c-Sturmvogel_66-2011-01-22T21:09:00.000Z-The_Land-2011-01-22T20:14:00.000Z"]}}-->

With rare exception, I believe page numbers are necessary to establish WP:V. Giving just a title forces a reader to trawl through the entire book to find the fact or subject under discussion. I certainly require them when doing a GA or higher review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-22T21:09:00.000Z","author":"Sturmvogel 66","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Sturmvogel_66-2011-01-22T21:09:00.000Z-The_Land-2011-01-22T20:14:00.000Z","replies":["c-Hohum-2011-01-23T14:21:00.000Z-Sturmvogel_66-2011-01-22T21:09:00.000Z"]}}-->

From the responses here, and at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Military history#References without page numbers. - it seems appropriate to have page numbers except in special circumstances - which this isn't. (Hohum ^@) 14:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-23T14:21:00.000Z","author":"Hohum","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Hohum-2011-01-23T14:21:00.000Z-Sturmvogel_66-2011-01-22T21:09:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I seriously question that this article significantly covers german military history. You get the impression that the author used this platform for allied postwar propaganda more than anything else. I assume the author is british by the way he is emphasizing German-British engagements and using words like "the germans underestimated the quality of british aircrafts" and "the powerful british navy" is pure feelgood jingoism.

These are only some points that should be taken into consideration:

The first parts are confusing by throwing around all kinds of germanic tribes instead on focusing on germanic military tactics of these tribes.

There should be a section which explains the significance of the medieval "German School of Fencing" for european combat strategy.

There is no mention of the german tradition of weapon and armor production which supplied large parts of europe including France and England from medieval times to this day.

There should be a section which emphasizes that modern german military tactics including coup de main etc, were successfully adopted by many countries including the USA and the UK

The section dealing with WW2 should exclude or at least reduce the Battle of Britain and instead focus on the much more intense operations in the east which are unique for their strategies in modern tank warfare and their overall scale. The author tends to write the history from the end and thereby deliberatly omits the succesfull tactics which lead to the conquest of europe.

In addition, german military innovations like "Führung von vorne" and the concept of the modern infantryman should be included.

some more edits:

"The British Expeditionary Force and other allied units were driven back to the coast at Dunkirk, but managed to escape with most of their troops when Germany made a mistaken decision not to attack with tanks" should be changed into: "Guderians tank army drove back the British Expedtionary Force to the coast at Dunkirk. Hitler ordered Guderian to halt his army which had since been a matter of speculation whether Hitler was still in hope to come to an agreement with the british for ideological and strategic reasons. The British managed to organize a hasty retreat across the canal but had to leave all of their equipment and weapons on the beaches which caused the british army to loose its foothold in europe for years.

"Farrell argues that the historiography of the army in World War Two has been "extremely difficult" because of the stark dichotomy between its superb combat performance and the horrors of its destruction and crimes against civilians and prisoners." Sentences like this clearly show that the author is following a pattern of superior allied morality. You could argue that there were crimes against civilians but strangely enough nobody calls allied raids on civilians a crime. If you want to play this card, play it objectively and balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokith (talk • contribs) 19:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-07-26T19:00:00.000Z","author":"Lokith","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lokith-2014-07-26T19:00:00.000Z-useful_article?","replies":[]}}-->

It maybe a usefull hint to emphasize the mentioning of the somewhat unique conception of war in the german language. Most romanic languages took over the older german term "Wirren" (war, guerra, guerre...), which was shove aside - metaphoricly spoken - by the outgoing or achieving image of "Krieg" (kriegen= to get, to obtain...). Since this predomination of the positive term goes along with the hayday of early german militarism (meaning the mercenaries of dutch/flemish, swiss, scandinavian and german descent throughout the late medieval centuries), one might consider to give that aspect of german military history the same importance as the prussian role model for the last 200 years. For those, who like to distinct between the nation of Germany and earlier political phenomena I would advise to begin with the 3rd Reich. --85.178.36.130 (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-06-25T14:49:00.000Z","author":"85.178.36.130","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-85.178.36.130-2015-06-25T14:49:00.000Z-Krieg","replies":[]}}-->

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military history of Germany. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050205071414/http://home.versatel.nl/gerardvonhebel/germit1859.htm to http://home.versatel.nl/gerardvonhebel/germit1859.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051016000600/http://www.allempires.com/articles/hussite/hussite1.htm to http://www.allempires.com/articles/hussite/hussite1.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-01-31T06:16:00.000Z","author":"InternetArchiveBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-InternetArchiveBot-2018-01-31T06:16:00.000Z-External_links_modified_(January_2018)","replies":[]}}-->