CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

Battle of White Mountain

1620 battle of the Thirty Years' War

Layered newspapers, civic records and oral-history reels arranged as chronological evidence
History and societyInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 21, 2026
Entity authoritySource title only
Source-derived summary

The Battle of White Mountain was fought on 8 November 1620 outside Prague in the early stages of the Thirty Years' War. An army backing Frederick V led by Christian of Anhalt was defeated by forces supporting his rival Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor, under Bucquoy and Count Tilly.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Battle of White Mountain” as 1620 battle of the Thirty Years' War. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Battle, White and Mountain.

Editorial reviewMost valuable as an event-and-institution map that identifies actors, dates and record creators for deeper historical inquiry. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1620—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Battle, White and Mountain providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Battle of White Mountain”, the useful work is to connect “1620 battle of the Thirty Years' War” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Contemporary correspondence, administrative files and participant testimony can test how later narratives organized the event or institution. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 21, 2026. The first chronological checks are 1620.

Critical limits

Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.

Best used for
  • Event chronology
  • Institutional context
  • Locating named record creators
Verify next

Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Battle of White Mountain”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Battle of White Mountain primary sources, Battle of White Mountain archive and Battle research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Battle of White Mountain”?
  2. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
  3. What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Battle of White Mountain” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.