European relations without Westphalia

[False Dmitri]

I've been reading lately about the Thirty Years' War. What stands out the most to me, of course, is that there were dozens of possible alternate ends to the conflict. So many preliminary peace talks, truces, and attempts to declare separate peaces, but few were willing to stop out until the great Westphalia peace conferences.

A secular, international gathering of diplomats without an official mediator deciding together on peace terms - normal for us, unprecedented then. Westphalia is credited with creating our modern concept of the sovereign territorial state and weakening the institutional strength of the Holy Roman Empire, among other things.

But suppose the war had ended differently, with a series of small bilateral treaties instead of one big precedent-setting conference. What would international relations have looked like in the 16- and 1700s, and beyond?

 

[False Dmitri]

That was cruel. I'll rephrase the OP and bump this once to see if anyone bites.

 

[Color-Copycat]

I can't offer a big bite, but how about a nibble instead?

I'm guessing that not creating the concept of a nation-state could prove a bit problematic.

However, the biggest issue would have to be issues centered around religious toleration. The Treaty of Westphalia forced all signatories to recognize the Peace of Augsburg, which gave individual princes the ability to determine the official religion of their principalities. Without universal recognition of Augsburg, a lot of discontented, Protestant-leaning German principalities nominally under the rule of the HRE would have to pay tribute to Rome, and that might start up the whole pan-European conflict anew.

Also, Westphalia forced signatories to observe a modicum of de facto religious toleration, which (I think, not entirely sure) helped cool down the politico-religious atmosphere in Europe in the years after the treaty.

 

[False Dmitri]

I can't offer a big bite, but how about a nibble instead?

I'm guessing that not creating the concept of a nation-state could prove a bit problematic.

That's the biggest thing I am wondering: the extent to which Westphalia truly created that concept, and the extent to which it was already evolving. Political centralization was certainly well under way in many places before and during the war, for example. I'm having trouble clarifying exactly what the early-modern concept of statehood was, though; something transitional between medieval and modern, but what exactly? Most things I can find surveying the topic basically start with "In the beginning there was Westphalia."

However, the biggest issue would have to be issues centered around religious toleration. The Treaty of Westphalia forced all signatories to recognize the Peace of Augsburg, which gave individual princes the ability to determine the official religion of their principalities.

More or less... but as I understand it, Augsburg had already been accepted, but Westphalia clarified its vagueness. And I thought that Westphalia actually gave rulers less power to arbitrarily change the official religion of their principalities.

Without universal recognition of Augsburg, a lot of discontented, Protestant-leaning German principalities nominally under the rule of the HRE would have to pay tribute to Rome, and that might start up the whole pan-European conflict anew.

...Not that Europe got much of a respite in OTL between, oh, 1650 and 1950. But yeah, I can see that without a definitive peace signed by everybody, another big war will be that much easier to slide into. (And from an AH perspective, these short-term effects are more important anyway, since they'll combine to affect things later on.)

Also, Westphalia forced signatories to observe a modicum of de facto religious toleration, which (I think, not entirely sure) helped cool down the politico-religious atmosphere in Europe in the years after the treaty.

Probably the long years of (partly) religiously motivated war also helped to disillusion the more fanatical in Europe, but yes, I can imagine that international relations would be somewhat less secularized in the following years.

Thanks

 

[Elfwine]

I think, experts correct me if I'm wrong, that while Westphilia didn't create the concept in the sense suddenly states became "nation-states", it created the concept in the sense suddenly that term was acknowledged as meaning something (or that term existing).

Instead of how sovereignty was still in medieval-esque terms.

 

[False Dmitri]

I think, experts correct me if I'm wrong, that while Westphilia didn't create the concept in the sense suddenly states became "nation-states", it created the concept in the sense suddenly that term was acknowledged as meaning something (or that term existing).

Instead of how sovereignty was still in medieval-esque terms.

Cartainly the treaties did not use the term nation-states, which was (IIRC) mostly a 19th-century concept.

I'm still trying to figure out what, specifically in the treaties themselves helped to form this concept of sovereignty. Could it not be that this concept was already on its way, and the treaties just reflected it?

 

[Elfwine]

Cartainly the treaties did not use the term nation-states, which was (IIRC) mostly a 19th-century concept.

I'm still trying to figure out what, specifically in the treaties themselves helped to form this concept of sovereignty. Could it not be that this concept was already on its way, and the treaties just reflected it?

The concept had to be accepted as part of the law of nations, and understanding of the same, so I think it did more than reflect an existing situation.

Not familiar enough with the treaty or the times to comment more usefully or accurately.