Talk:Gottfried Heinrich Graf zu Pappenheim

Sack of Magdeburg

Untitled

"At any rate, the sack of Magdeburg was not more discreditable than that of most other towns taken by storm in the 17th century. "

Untitled

That's an opinion, and an unsourced one to that. Furthermore, if you judge "discreditable" by the relative casualties or sheer number of casualties, it is wrong. It is estimated that around 25 000 people died, leaving less than a fifth of the inhabitants of Magdeburg alive. That's a lot worse than most storming and sackings in the 17th century both in absolute numbers and relative casualties. -Sensemaker

You are making that comment to the writers of the original 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, who are long gone. Just rewrite it. :-) Dcoetzee 20:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New image

I've recently uploaded File:Wenceslas Hollar - Count Pappenheim (State 2).jpg (right). Feel free to use or not use. Dcoetzee 20:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Pappenheim and Haupt Surnames

The family name for all the Lords and Counts of Pappenheim was Haupt. Heinrich Haupt was the first Lord of Pappenheim in 1130. He would use the title of Heinricus de Pappenheim or Heinrich von Pappenheim. See the web site for the village of Pappenheim and read the history.

This was a Hereditary Lordship. In 1332, Holy Roman Emperor Ludwig IV also known as Ludwig the Bavarian awarded the title of Hereditary Marshalship (Generalship) of the German Nation within the Holy Roman Empire to this family after they were able to prove to him through their Ahnentafel (Family Tree) and other documents their family line back to the 1130's and before. Because this line had produced some key military figures and because they could show their lineage back to a critical point in the history of the Holy Roman Empire, they were awarded this title. The Pappenheim territory and it's Burg (castle) was basically a military training camp for Teutonic Knights.

The Lords and Counts of Pappenheim were christened with the family name of Haupt. As family members moved away from Pappenheim most would resort to the family name of Haupt. Others decided to keep Pappenheim as their last name and at the same time keep Haupt as one of their middle names.

I have recently communicated with Georg Pappenheim of Vienna, Austria and he has confirmed this to me. Through my own family research, I too have come to realize this. He says "all Pappenheims have decended from Haupts". His 3rd surname is Haupt.

Actually, not all Pappenheims have descended from Haupts. The territory of Pappenheim was a protectorate of the Jewish families that resided in the territory since the 1300's. It was common practice for Jewish families to adopt the name of their village or territory and use it as their last names. There are many Jewish families with the name Pappenheim. But all Catholic and Protestant Pappenheims are descended from Haupts.

In the case of Gottfried Heinrich (Haupt) von Pappenheim, he was born Protestant and reverted back to the Catholic faith likely because of the power and influence neighboring Catholic Bavaria had in the early years of the Thirty-Years War. It was a wise career move for him.

Pappenheims (and Haupts) who migrated from Pappenheim prior to 1530 will most likely be Catholic today. Pappenheims (and Haupts) who migrated from Pappenheim after 1530 will most likely be Protestant today. Pappenheim was in the Protestant Ansbach area within Protestant controlled Middle Franconia which was governed by the Protestant Hohenzollerns. There were no doubt other conversions elsewhere in Germany between these two faiths and involving these names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayhaupt (talk • contribs) 02:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

rating and comments

Apparently the writer reads some German, and there is a considerable amount of info in the German wiki article on the man to enhance this article. I encourage you to pull some material from that. He was a reasonably important figure of the war, and warrants greater coverage in the context of the war, and of 17th century warfare in general. It's a good start. auntieruth (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Bias in article

Beside the issue with lack of citation a lot of this article seem written in a way that's heavily opinionated. On a slightly lesser matter I'd also say the part about his deeds at Lutzen also seems a bit flowery compared with the usual wikipedia style of text.