But they were able to beat the ottomans for a period then. They'd also possibly be able to expand. As opposed to this war where it just left them penniless and hit their population massively . Getting rid of or hurting the ottomans would be good for them. The Persians kept them busy, so perhaps the two could do some lasting damage together

Well, the 30YW hit them hard but it also left them with an army (and an experience to raise one) and the competent commanders of all levels. People like Montecuccoli don't just grow on the trees to pick up a fully qualified army commander when you need one. And don't forget that besides the Ottomans there were French and the wars of Louis XIV.

On the early stage of the 30YW (prior to the "Wallenstein period") the Austrian Hapsburgs did not show any outstanding ability to raise sizeable armies of their own. Actually, their own army was too small to prevent the Bohemian-Hungarian troops to advance all the way to Vienna. To reverse the tide they needed the troops of the Catholic League and the Spanish troops from the Netherlands. But on the later stages of war they learned how to raise and keep in the field the adequate armies.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Well, the 30YW hit them hard but it also left them with an army (and an experience to raise one) and the competent commanders of all levels. People like Montecuccoli don't just grow on the trees to pick up a fully qualified army commander when you need one. And don't forget that besides the Ottomans there were French and the wars of Louis XIV.

On the early stage of the 30YW (prior to the "Wallenstein period") the Austrian Hapsburgs did not show any outstanding ability to raise sizeable armies of their own. Actually, their own army was too small to prevent the Bohemian-Hungarian troops to advance all the way to Vienna. To reverse the tide they needed the troops of the Catholic League and the Spanish troops from the Netherlands. But on the later stages of war they learned how to raise and keep in the field the adequate armies.
All very true. Without the war they wouldn't magically have that kind of army just hanging around. But it does show they were capable of creating a prettyeffectice army and maintaining it.
The Spanish were always happy to fund fighting the heathens, aka almost everyone. @counter reform Catholic
 
Gustav II Adolf is bound to go somewhere after 1629, having won against Muscowy and Poland-Lithuania. Denmark is the next option if there's no 40 years' war to get involved in.

While the Swedish army would still be far better than the Danish, Sweden would still not have been able to take out Denmark without some specific circumstances caused by the 30YW, the Danish Phase emptied the Danish treasury, the Imperial Invasion of Jutland resulted in the nobility being hard hit, the population losses 30YW resulted in fall in cereal prices, all this destroyed the Danish economy, this made Christian IV raise the Sound Dues, which resulted in the Dutch allying with Swedes to humiliate Denmark in the Torstenson War, which lead to Frederik III having a hard time being elected. The result was a impoverished Denmark with a weakened central power. Without the 30YW Denmark would be far stronger, have the money to hire more mercenaries and the Dutch would be unlikely to ally with the Swedes. The result would likely be a repeat of the pre-30YW conflicts between the two countries, Sweden do better on the battlefield, but Denmark through naval superiority force a status quo peace with maybe Gothenburg/Elfborg being occupied by the Danes until the Swedes pay a lump sum of money.

The Swedish successes against Denmark 1645-60 demanded a lot of factors favoring them and also a lot of luck. Denmark have outside the few winters where the Sound freeze a strategic position, which mean Sweden are not able to use their land superiority to its full extent and the Danish naval superiority also give it advantage of mobility against the Swedes. So Sweden need one of the rare winters where the Sound freezes or a alliance with the Dutch.
 
While the Swedish army would still be far better than the Danish, Sweden would still not have been able to take out Denmark without some specific circumstances caused by the 30YW, the Danish Phase emptied the Danish treasury, the Imperial Invasion of Jutland resulted in the nobility being hard hit, the population losses 30YW resulted in fall in cereal prices, all this destroyed the Danish economy, this made Christian IV raise the Sound Dues, which resulted in the Dutch allying with Swedes to humiliate Denmark in the Torstenson War, which lead to Frederik III having a hard time being elected. The result was a impoverished Denmark with a weakened central power. Without the 30YW Denmark would be far stronger, have the money to hire more mercenaries and the Dutch would be unlikely to ally with the Swedes. The result would likely be a repeat of the pre-30YW conflicts between the two countries, Sweden do better on the battlefield, but Denmark through naval superiority force a status quo peace with maybe Gothenburg/Elfborg being occupied by the Danes until the Swedes pay a lump sum of money.

The Swedish successes against Denmark 1645-60 demanded a lot of factors favoring them and also a lot of luck. Denmark have outside the few winters where the Sound freeze a strategic position, which mean Sweden are not able to use their land superiority to its full extent and the Danish naval superiority also give it advantage of mobility against the Swedes. So Sweden need one of the rare winters where the Sound freezes or a alliance with the Dutch.

While I agree that Denmark will be far stronger than OTL, at this time the Swedish army will return from East Prussia flush with experience (and money from the peace settlement) from the war against Poland-Lithuania, with a new way of war that defeated the armies that OTL defeated Denmark - I have a hard time seeing a 1630 (or so) war between Sweden and Denmark go like the Kalmar War.

I could see Scania, Jämtland, Härjedalen and Blekinge being occupied, Älvsborg put under siege and the siege lifted, Denmark dominatingt he sea but in general being unable to make as much of it 1630ish as 1611ish. The war concluding with Sweden getting Bohuslän, Jämtland and Härjedalen.
 
While I agree that Denmark will be far stronger than OTL, at this time the Swedish army will return from East Prussia flush with experience (and money from the peace settlement) from the war against Poland-Lithuania, with a new way of war that defeated the armies that OTL defeated Denmark - I have a hard time seeing a 1630 (or so) war between Sweden and Denmark go like the Kalmar War.

I could see Scania, Jämtland, Härjedalen and Blekinge being occupied, Älvsborg put under siege and the siege lifted, Denmark dominatingt he sea but in general being unable to make as much of it 1630ish as 1611ish. The war concluding with Sweden getting Bohuslän, Jämtland and Härjedalen.

The problem is that we saw similar invasion of the three Danish provinces before, but until 1657 these invasion ended up doing little more than harrowing the country side, and in the end Denmark regained them. Denmark won't surrender those provinces unless Sweden can threaten Copenhagen. As for the Norwegian ones, I see Sweden doing better there, but the Swedish problem is that sending a big enough army to Norway run into the problem of not having a army elsewhere.

Another aspect in the Swedish success after the 30YW was that Sweden got a lot of loot and some important territories in Germany which enable them to fund later wars. Bremen-Verden alone delivered 10% of the Swedish state budget, and without the 30YW Frederik III will be Prince-Bishop of Bremen-Verden, next the Torstenson War was also what alienated the Gottorp from their Danish cousin, here they likely stay similar to their Sønderborg cousins.
 
All very true. Without the war they wouldn't magically have that kind of army just hanging around. But it does show they were capable of creating a prettyeffectice army and maintaining it.
The Spanish were always happy to fund fighting the heathens, aka almost everyone. @counter reform Catholic

They became capable of creating an effective army because they got plenty of experience during the 30YW and as far as the Spain is involved, it was an important factor during the 30YW but it could not do too much after the 30YW (or rather the end of its war with France): it was totally exhausted economically and militarily. It did not participate in the Austro-Turkish War of 1663–1664 (even the French troops had been fighting on the Austrian side at the Battle of Saint Gotthard as a part of the League of the Rhine force).
 
The problem is that we saw similar invasion of the three Danish provinces before, but until 1657 these invasion ended up doing little more than harrowing the country side, and in the end Denmark regained them. Denmark won't surrender those provinces unless Sweden can threaten Copenhagen. As for the Norwegian ones, I see Sweden doing better there, but the Swedish problem is that sending a big enough army to Norway run into the problem of not having a army elsewhere.

Another aspect in the Swedish success after the 30YW was that Sweden got a lot of loot and some important territories in Germany which enable them to fund later wars. Bremen-Verden alone delivered 10% of the Swedish state budget, and without the 30YW Frederik III will be Prince-Bishop of Bremen-Verden, next the Torstenson War was also what alienated the Gottorp from their Danish cousin, here they likely stay similar to their Sønderborg cousins.

The difference between 1630ish and earlier wars is that the Swedish army had learned siege warfare in a way they did not in 1611 - they took Riga 1621 and numerous smaller and larger fortifications in East Prussia and northern Germany up to 1632. I could very well see Malmö fall like Riga did.
 
Well, the 30YW hit them hard but it also left them with an army (and an experience to raise one) and the competent commanders of all levels. People like Montecuccoli don't just grow on the trees to pick up a fully qualified army commander when you need one. And don't forget that besides the Ottomans there were French and the wars of Louis XIV.

On the early stage of the 30YW (prior to the "Wallenstein period") the Austrian Hapsburgs did not show any outstanding ability to raise sizeable armies of their own. Actually, their own army was too small to prevent the Bohemian-Hungarian troops to advance all the way to Vienna. To reverse the tide they needed the troops of the Catholic League and the Spanish troops from the Netherlands. But on the later stages of war they learned how to raise and keep in the field the adequate armies.
Population levels in Middle Europe would have been much higher.
 
The difference between 1630ish and earlier wars is that the Swedish army had learned siege warfare in a way they did not in 1611 - they took Riga 1621 and numerous smaller and larger fortifications in East Prussia and northern Germany up to 1632. I could very well see Malmö fall like Riga did.
Maybe the Swedes can or cannot take Malmö but that doesn't change one single fact, unless they can walk on water, they can't force a peace on Denmark.
 
Maybe the Swedes can or cannot take Malmö but that doesn't change one single fact, unless they can walk on water, they can't force a peace on Denmark.

Sooner or later the Dutch will resent the disruption of the Baltic trade to intervene on either side - and that can force a peace on Denmark (or Sweden), but the Dutch will usually side with the weaker side, not wanting anyone to totally dominate the Sound, in this era they would probably side with Sweden.
 
Without the resulting Enlightenment, a lack of increasing secularisation of Europe might as well mean we could avoid liberals plunging Europe into half a century of quasi-genocidal industrial warfare slaughtering millions upon millions at the behest of religion-substitute ideologies.
 
Top