A trouble in Bohemia

Towards the end of July 1619, the voters or their representatives had arrived in Frankfurt to take part in the Imperial Election.
The 31 July, Lusatia, Silesia and Moravia they entered into a federal agreement with the Bohemia in order to defend the national integrity.
On 19 August, the Confederate States of Bohemia, Lusatia, Silesia and Moravia had declared void the previous election of Ferdinand of Habsburg and sealed his loss of the throne of Bohemia.
On August 26, the Bohemians were summoned to elect a new king. Among the candidates there was, in addition to the Elector Frederick of the Palatinate, the Elector John George of Saxony. The candidate less dangerous was precisely the latter, but the Elector had immediately shown little sympathy for the revolt, but was respected for his prestige and his wisdom, and he would be able to reach a compromise with Ferdinand of Habsburgs. The choose Frederick of the Palatinate meant instead choose war to the bitter end with the serious risk of a disastrous defeat for the Bohemia.
However at the election prevailed the Protestant extremists and Frederick was elected king by 146 votes against 7.
At the Court of Heidelberg everyone had dissuaded Frederick to accept a crown so dangerous. His mother, Louise Juliana of Nassau, daughter of William of Orange, told him not to depart. His Council presented at him a list with fourteen reasons contrary to accept the crown, against six favorable. Even the sovereigns his allies advised him to avoid getting bogged down in the question Bohemian.
Two days after, took place at Frankfurt the Imperial election: news from Bohemia had not yet arrived, and Ferdinand took his place among voters as King of Bohemia, and in the end, he was elected emperor by a unanimous vote (even that of the Palatinate!).
On 28 September, Frederick of the Palatinate said to himself willing to accept the crown of Bohemia.

Suggestions on the hypothesis that the Elector of Saxony had accepted the throne of Bohemia?
 
IMHO it would still have meant war, since for Ferdinand Protestants had robbed him of his birthright an were spreading heresies in a realm he thought of as rightfully belonging to his dynasty.

Whether it's the Palatinate or Saxony, accepting the Bohemian throne is a declaration of war against all branches of the house of Habsburg.
 
I don't think it was in John George's nature to accept such a dangerous title as King of Bohemia. The guy vacillated throughout the Thirty Years' War, erring on the side of caution and maintaining the status quo.

But assuming that he accepted the title, yes it would still have meant war with the House of Habsburg. Still, a loss was not inevitable considering that Ferdinand had plenty of trouble to deal with in his own Austrian domains, as well as the threat of Gabriel Bethlen. Still, the OTL unwillingness of the Bohemian lords to contribute to the war effort is going to have to be overcome if Saxony is to keep Bohemia in the long-run.
 
There is one potentially major difference between The Palatinate and Saxony in this situation; Saxony is not at this time a member of the Protestant Union. Should they accept the crown of Bohemia I expect they will very rapidly join the Union and call them into the War, but the war will start off being just Austria-vs-Saxony, and in that war, despite Austria's internal situation my money is still on them. I mean historically the Habsburgs managed to smash the Protestant Union's face in until foreign countries started intervening.

One other thing, if Austria doesn't make The Palatinate their primary target in the initial phases they won't be giving the Palatine Electorate to Bavaria. They may still try to give the Saxon Electorate to a Catholic State, and Bavaria would be the natural choice, however there isn't a dynastic relation between Saxony and any other states the way there was between The Palatinate and Bavaria, so that might be more difficult.
 
There is one potentially major difference between The Palatinate and Saxony in this situation; Saxony is not at this time a member of the Protestant Union.

I think you're probably overestimating the power of the Protestant Union, which was fundamentally pretty conservative in its policy (hotheads like Christian of Anhalt aside), which isn't surprising considering their initial goals were really just to maintain the Peace of Augsburg status quo. Historically they didn't do much to support the Palatinate in its war against the Bohemians; why would they accept a call to arms from Saxony, when its clear that doing so was going to drag them into a war and cause a major disruption of said status quo (especially the principle that rulers can't be deposed at whim from their lands)?

Really, Ferdinand was responsible for repeatedly escalating something originally to do with Imperial legitimacy into a general religious war.

But I agree that the odds are against Saxony in the long-run. If the Saxons start winning then Spain, at the very least, will increase its commitment to the Catholic cause.

One other thing, if Austria doesn't make The Palatinate their primary target in the initial phases they won't be giving the Palatine Electorate to Bavaria.

Well historically the Palatinate was more Bavaria's payment for helping out against Bohemia (Upper Austria having been pledged to them as collateral), so Saxony is probably going to them, dynastic relations regardless.

One issue to consider could be that since Friedrich V of the Palatinate was married to the daughter of James I, the annexation of Saxony could well mean that England doesn't take an interest in German affairs, which could have been an important factor since English support (or at least promises of English support) was somewhat instrumental in persuading Christian IV of Denmark to intervene in the Thirty Years War.

That said, the annexation will still be as inflammatory to the Protestant states as the Palatinate was OTL, and along with the Edict of Restitution will be the sparks that invite more general foreign intervention.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, would it have made any difference if Ferdinand had never been elected king of Bohemia in the first place? I'm just thinking that if the Bohemian electors had elected another king from the get-go, rather than electing Ferdinand, declaring said election void, electing Friedrich V, and then declaring that election void, and reinstating Ferdinand when it was clear they had no other choice, would Ferdinand have still had the same right to contest the Bohemian crown? Yes, it had theoretically gone to Habsburgs for a century, but he was neither the last king's son nor his brother nor his nearest heir - for instance, Albrecht VII was still in Brussels at the time.
 
Out of curiosity, would it have made any difference if Ferdinand had never been elected king of Bohemia in the first place?

Old-time histories like Gardiner's history of the Thirty Years' War would definitely say yes, arguing that a) Bohemia, as an elected monarchy, had the right to elect their own monarchy, and b) that deposing a legitimate monarch (of which OTL Ferdinand II was by virtue of his election) was abhorrent in the eyes of the Holy Roman Empire.

Certainly Gardiner would argue that the inappropriateness of Ferdinand II's deposition was what dissuaded the Protestant League and the North German princes from intervening on the side of the Palatinate.

But to somebody as zealous as Ferdinand II losing a large chunk of his realm to Protestantism must have been intolerable. It's likely the Habsburgs would have forged something in order to maintain some legitimate claim over Bohemia. In any case, the War of the Austrian Succession a century later certainly shows that the Habsburgs were not about to drop claims on Bohemia (or even the Holy Roman Empire) even if they lost election.
 
Top