DBWI: Gustav II Adolf dies at the Battle of Lutzen

Gustav II Adolf was known to have led from the front and to have put himself in harm's way on several occasions. At the Battle of Lutzen, he led a heroic cavalry charge which resulted in the collapse of the Imperial left wing and push towards the center of the Catholic forces. This battle was a turning point in the Thirty Years War for the Protestants. Out of curiosity, what would have changed if Gustav II Adolf's luck ran out and he died in this battle?
 
The Swedish Empire would be smothered - Gustavus was a leading, inspirational and almost divine figure in his own right and is still considered the most powerful, influential and all-round greatest Swede, for turning Sweden into a leading power that stood against the juggernaut of Catholicism.

Although with a weakened Sweden, I wonder what would happen with European politics. England and France were on the rise during this time, and Russia was trying to expand its power but its westward expansionist aims were strongly curbed by Sweden's near-hegemony on the Baltic and Eastern Europe after the Great War's peace was secured. While I think that the Anglo-Swedish alliance would still persist and a new rivalry with France would ensue like in our history, it would be much weaker and wouldn't necessarily force France to renege on its agreements in favour of courting Spain and the Italian states.

Russia as an even greater power than at present, however, is rather less within the realm of possibility. Still, assuming events following a hypothetical death of Gustavus at Lützen go really badly for Sweden and leave it weakened and disunited, it would present Russia with the best opportunity to fill the void in such a case. But again, it assumes things do not go Sweden's way at all.
 
Gustav II Adolf was known to have led from the front and to have put himself in harm's way on several occasions. At the Battle of Lutzen, he led a heroic cavalry charge which resulted in the collapse of the Imperial left wing and push towards the center of the Catholic forces. This battle was a turning point in the Thirty Years War for the Protestants. Out of curiosity, what would have changed if Gustav II Adolf's luck ran out and he died in this battle?

But he DID die at the battle.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
We wouldn't have had his famous speech which he made to his men the night before they won their final crushing victory over the Imperial Catholic troops at the Battle of Salzburg. The 1636 Treaty of Munich would have been the end of Sweden as a great power, rather than the beginning of the end for the Holy Roman Empire. Of course the south held together for another 150 years, but the northern parts broke away, encouraged by Sweden and Brandenburg.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
The Brandenburg Electorship in Swedish hands also gave Sweden a permanent hand in HRE politics that everyone had to respect. A Sweden without an HRE Electorship would have been greatly reduced in influence.

Well it didn't last long, given that by the 1680 it was clear that the HRE was in decline, and Brandenburg decided it would be better off forming its own North German Alliance. It could have been permanent if Sweden had chosen so, but of course it did not.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
You need to read up on the subject a bit more. Sweden didn't leave. Sweden-Brandenburg was kicked out of the HRE. The King of Sweden, in his person as the Elector of Brandenburg, would have been happy to continue with his German possessions recognized as part of the HRE. But the Hapsburgs got tired of having to placate him or worse, contest against him, every time an election came up.

So the Emperor contrived to have the the German possessions of Sweden removed from the HRE.

Did you not read my first post? Let's say it depends on whose side you are on. The HRE says it threw Brandenburg out, Brandenburg say they left to form their own, rather more successful, confederation. The war with Russia was a result of this, and began just 6 months after Brandenburg left the HRE.
 
The cohesiveness that you describe actually saved the HRE from collapse after Brandenburg left and, from what I recall, was beneficial to them holding off a renewed Ottoman assault on their lands. Imagine the Hapsburgs having to deal with a large percentage of Protestant states AND the Ottoman assault that occurred. I must say that 1680 could have been the year that the HRE fell.
 
Without his main rival, there's a real chance of Wallenstein going Colonel Kurtz and carving out his own private kingdom out of protestant principalities.
 
What you just said made no sense. He was already a prince(count palatine), as ruler of the Principality(later Duchy) of Friedland before the battle.

Exactly how would he have done that? All the protestant Princes were on the opposing side of the war. None of them would have backed him.

If you mean out of Bohemian territory,that's exactly what he did. Except he had already started on that in 1628, with the Duchy of Friedland, his own creation.

Wallenstein's own dissatisfaction with Ferdinand is what led him to switch sides a little more than year after the battle, and declared his independence from Bohemia. He had been defacto independent for years.

The Hapsburgs attempts to assassinate him just made the split permanent, and gave the Swedes yet another ally.

He doesn't need the princes of principalities to back him; he had a massive army of his own, and without the protection of the Lion of the North, there would be little stopping him from seizing their lands in addition to his Bohemian domains.
 
Top