What happens? Specifically, how does it affect the Thirty Years' War and its aftermath? What would the peace of the war look like? I know that this would have probably led to a much stronger Swedish Empire, but I don't know much beyond that.
Gustav II Adolf Isn't Killed at Lutzen
- Thread starter imperialaquila
- Start date
Probably a uniting of northern Germany in a
protestant union under the rule of emperor
Gustaf. Atleast that was his goal and
ofcourse chancellor Oxenstiernas too.
protestant union under the rule of emperor
Gustaf. Atleast that was his goal and
ofcourse chancellor Oxenstiernas too.
Ok-I've done some research and have a rough series of events worked out:
-Gustav II Adolf doesn't die and pursues the Imperial army under Wallenstein after the Battle of Lutzen. He goes into winter quarters near Dresden, Wallenstein near Prague.
-In spring 1633, the Swedes invade Bohemia and defeat Wallenstein near Prague. Wallenstein makes a deal with Gustav and disbands his army. Gustav than advances on Vienna. By fall, despite several delaying actions by the remaining Imperial forces, the Swedes are besieging Vienna. Emperor Ferdinand flees beforehand and tries to raise new forces in Bavaria. France, seeing that the Imperials are near defeat, declares war.
-Vienna falls in winter 1633. Emperor Ferdinand resists for a little while, but he finally agrees to Gustav's peace deal. The Treaty of Munich is signed in February 1634.
-The treaty:
-Sweden gains Bremen and Verden, Mecklenburg, and Pommerania. The north German states (Brandenburg, Saxony, Hesse, etc.) are grouped into a Swedish-led confederation. Sweden directs its foreign policy and military, while the various lords are responsible for everything else.
-The independence of the Netherlands is recognized.
-France gets the bishoprics of Toul, Metz, and Verdun.
-Bohemia becomes independent in personal union with Sweden.
How realistic is this? Any issues?
-Gustav II Adolf doesn't die and pursues the Imperial army under Wallenstein after the Battle of Lutzen. He goes into winter quarters near Dresden, Wallenstein near Prague.
-In spring 1633, the Swedes invade Bohemia and defeat Wallenstein near Prague. Wallenstein makes a deal with Gustav and disbands his army. Gustav than advances on Vienna. By fall, despite several delaying actions by the remaining Imperial forces, the Swedes are besieging Vienna. Emperor Ferdinand flees beforehand and tries to raise new forces in Bavaria. France, seeing that the Imperials are near defeat, declares war.
-Vienna falls in winter 1633. Emperor Ferdinand resists for a little while, but he finally agrees to Gustav's peace deal. The Treaty of Munich is signed in February 1634.
-The treaty:
-Sweden gains Bremen and Verden, Mecklenburg, and Pommerania. The north German states (Brandenburg, Saxony, Hesse, etc.) are grouped into a Swedish-led confederation. Sweden directs its foreign policy and military, while the various lords are responsible for everything else.
-The independence of the Netherlands is recognized.
-France gets the bishoprics of Toul, Metz, and Verdun.
-Bohemia becomes independent in personal union with Sweden.
How realistic is this? Any issues?
Good PoD, should be one of the top 50!
I'd say it's amazing how well Sweden got along with Gustav's death!
True Gustav was a charismatic leader, but a warrior slain at the zenith of his power and strength is even more appealing than a living king sinking deeper and deeper in the swap of the war as everyone else.
So in short, I don't see why Sweden should do any better than IOTL in a military way.
(Btw, if Sweden does significantly better than IOTL, this will sooner or later lead to a French-Swedish confict - this refers to most Thirty Years War scenarios.)
However, Gustav had a better relationship to his German allies than his successor.
Horn, for instance, tried to withhold as many territories, titles, fortresses etc. promised or granted by Gustav from the German prince-generals - with the only exception if he was dependent on their military skills, as the Saxe-Coburg brothers.
This will, perhaps, make the German Protestants keep on Sweden's side for a bit longer. But I don't think this make for a lot of difference.
I'd say it's amazing how well Sweden got along with Gustav's death!
True Gustav was a charismatic leader, but a warrior slain at the zenith of his power and strength is even more appealing than a living king sinking deeper and deeper in the swap of the war as everyone else.
So in short, I don't see why Sweden should do any better than IOTL in a military way.
(Btw, if Sweden does significantly better than IOTL, this will sooner or later lead to a French-Swedish confict - this refers to most Thirty Years War scenarios.)
However, Gustav had a better relationship to his German allies than his successor.
Horn, for instance, tried to withhold as many territories, titles, fortresses etc. promised or granted by Gustav from the German prince-generals - with the only exception if he was dependent on their military skills, as the Saxe-Coburg brothers.
This will, perhaps, make the German Protestants keep on Sweden's side for a bit longer. But I don't think this make for a lot of difference.
Why should Wallenstein accept the battle?
In Lützen, he was caught by surprise. In TYW tech, an army could easily fortify in the field if it had enough time; so if the army sizes are not extremely apart, then a battle only takes place if both sides want it.
So Wallenstein would avoid it if his army was still too weak.
Btw, there are not obvious reasons why Wallenstein should lose a battle if sought.
In Nuremberg, he had shown that he was at least as good a general as Gustav;
and Swedish casualties in Lützen were also quite high.
Wallenstein IS the sort of guy to make dirty deals with Gustav, true.
But he would only do so while HE was winning.
I agree that they might be able to take Vienna under such circumstances, but if so after a long and lossy siege.
You were also right to make France enter the war, but you chose the wrong side ;-)
A Swedish predominance across Germany is far worse for France than the status quo of 1618 or 1830. France would act the defender of the true faith, try to expel the Swedes as far as possible, and try to sack the imperial crown for the French king on the way.
Note that the TYW was largely a conflict for European domination.
The Habsburgs (Spain + Austria) tried it, France tried it, and Sweden tried it.
The Westphalian Peace is far from what anyone wanted:
It was based on the insight that European universality was impossible.
So you should not look too much at the WP if designing an alternate peace treaty.
_______________________
And finally: Gustav was a) heavily myopic, b) quite a courageous warrior. This is a combination I would not like as his life insurer. He will most probably fall relatively young.
Well, it's possible for him to make a mistake. Maybe Wallenstein thinks that he can catch the Swedes spread out, but has faulty information and ends up facing concentrated Swedish army in a field battle. And if they are roughly equal generals (something I'm not convinced of), then the Swedes should win, since they have more modern and effective tactics, as well as much better artillery.
OK, I can see this. I figured that Richeleau would support Sweden because he had already sunk so much money into its cause, as well as the fact that his whole foreign policy was based on opposition to the Hapsburgs. If the French do enter, then how will that tip the scales? I don't know how well they performed OTL, but it can't have been good, because all they seem to have done is maintain the status quo. And if France is all alone against the unbeaten Swedes, wouldn't they try to seek a compromise peace? Maybe the Peace of Vienna terms without the north German confederation and more French gains.
Well, if it's a compromise peace like I said above, then it could resemble WP.
Well, maybe he could end up with a minor wound or Oxensteirna manges to beat some sense into him. That's probably unlikely, but he should survive the war.
usertron2020
Donor
For Scifi fans, check out Baen books "1632" by Eric Flint. Not to mention "1633", several more sequels, an e-magazine and a discussion group about how Gustav survives and prospers. It's a ISOT story about a West Virginia town of 3,000 being dumped in June 1631 southern Thuringia.
I imagine that France would cut off aid to Sweden if the Swedes got into too strong of a position, but I don't think France would strenuously object to seeing the HRE permanently split between Catholic and Protestant. Putting an end to the threat of the Hapsburgs gaining total control over the HRE and unifying Germany was one of France's main foreign policy goals.
Super-Sweden would also be a natural ally in any future wars with the Hapsburgs, something the French are not about to object to so long as France is the stronger of the two allies.
Super-Sweden would also be a natural ally in any future wars with the Hapsburgs, something the French are not about to object to so long as France is the stronger of the two allies.
Well, I don't think Gustav can win that quick, but he was a better diplomat and had much more prestige than the Generals that took over.
The Swedes have two main problems while fighting in Germany, and none of them are related to the Imperial Armies. While Lützen was mostly a bloody draw, it was strategically a Swedish victory as the Swedish army had room to manouver and forage again. Nördlingen was the only time the Imperials really defeated a Swedish army and I do not think Gustav would end up that way.
The main problem was Poland and Denmark, both of which attacked Sweden during the war, creating major crisises
I think the war will go on until 1638 or so. Vienna will not fall, but the Swedish armies will ravage Bohemia, Bavaria and some of the Imperial lands before the Imperials agree to peace. This of course demands that the protestant princes will keep in line (which I think Gustav can do) and that neither Denmark nor Poland intervenes.
Richelieu will probably withdraw financial support once the Swedes become too powerful - divide your enemies was his axiom, and when one becomes too powerful, it is not good for France. This paired with increased Danish resentment at Swedish success and Polish revanchism will force the Swedes to make peace. A Swedish army ravaging Austria and the Ottoman threat forces the Imperials.
Gustav II Adolf will proclaim himself Emperor and protector of all protestants - he will not be Emperor of all protestants nor will he break up the Holy Roman Empire - but he will have the right to intervene if protestant princes' rights are threatened. War with Denmark will ensue immediately - Gustav will be wanting the 1658 borders (minus Trondheim).
Of course, Bremen, Werden, Prommerania and perhaps also the mouth of the Elbe (as a further gain and cash cow than OTL) will be Swedish.
The Swedes have two main problems while fighting in Germany, and none of them are related to the Imperial Armies. While Lützen was mostly a bloody draw, it was strategically a Swedish victory as the Swedish army had room to manouver and forage again. Nördlingen was the only time the Imperials really defeated a Swedish army and I do not think Gustav would end up that way.
The main problem was Poland and Denmark, both of which attacked Sweden during the war, creating major crisises
I think the war will go on until 1638 or so. Vienna will not fall, but the Swedish armies will ravage Bohemia, Bavaria and some of the Imperial lands before the Imperials agree to peace. This of course demands that the protestant princes will keep in line (which I think Gustav can do) and that neither Denmark nor Poland intervenes.
Richelieu will probably withdraw financial support once the Swedes become too powerful - divide your enemies was his axiom, and when one becomes too powerful, it is not good for France. This paired with increased Danish resentment at Swedish success and Polish revanchism will force the Swedes to make peace. A Swedish army ravaging Austria and the Ottoman threat forces the Imperials.
Gustav II Adolf will proclaim himself Emperor and protector of all protestants - he will not be Emperor of all protestants nor will he break up the Holy Roman Empire - but he will have the right to intervene if protestant princes' rights are threatened. War with Denmark will ensue immediately - Gustav will be wanting the 1658 borders (minus Trondheim).
Of course, Bremen, Werden, Prommerania and perhaps also the mouth of the Elbe (as a further gain and cash cow than OTL) will be Swedish.
I thought of this immediately upon seeing the thread. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of discussion about it in the ASB and Alternate History Media forums.
Yes, that was how I first heard of Gustav. I was intrigued and did some of my own research on him.
von Adler: If Wallenstein is bought off and disbands his army, then there will be no substantial Catholic army remaining to fight the Swedes. OTL, Wallenstein was scheming to bring about a peace deal, and if Gustav survives, he will be able to help Wallenstein. Wallenstein OTL was paying for his army out of his own pocket. If he defects or just quits, the Catholics won't have an army or the means to create one. Then they'll be forced to agree to whatever terms the Swedes dictate. I agree that the Poles and Danes will not like it, but Denmark was still recovering from losing most of its army in the earlier part of the TYW and Poland was still recovering from the defeat Gustav handed to them in 1629. They will be essentially powerless to oppose the Swedes.
You all may be right that France might prefer to stay out of the war, but turn supports form Sweden and to Bavaria. Richelieu tried to keep France out of the war as long as possible and, at the same time, extend French control continously - always neurotically fearing loosing everything gained so far, a perfect motor to keep a war going.
Bavaria was a staunch exponent of princely privileges against the Emperor (as far as they were non-religious). Thus it would make a great French ally, once the Swedes are to cumbersome. Actually, the discord between the Habsburg and Wittelsbach allies was one of the more important reasons for many of the Emperor's diplomatic and military problems during the war.
As to early peace treaties and compromises:
These are hardly possible. The war took so long because no side was ready for a compromise.
Not that the monarchs would have preferred to perish rather than lose - but a compromise was something the Ferdinand and Gustav, and in some sense also Richelieu found hard to accept. This was because all three claimed the universal power in Europe, which rules out compromises and anything involving the word 'balance'. This concept of universality was so strong an obligation for all three powers that it took roughly the second 15 years - a long time even for a single war! - of the war to hammer its futility into their brains.
For the same reason, I don't believe in a "deciding victory" for one or the other side, once the situation has become as messy as it was at and especially after Lützen. Sure, battles can take any course, whole armies can disappear. But look at Austria: It didn't really have an army for the last decade, but still went on fighting. Surprisingly, it did not do that bad in the peace treaty as you might expect for a military zero.
Therefore, I am very suspicious about any TL presenting a early end to the war, with a relatively late PoD. Potentially, including my own one ...
Bavaria was a staunch exponent of princely privileges against the Emperor (as far as they were non-religious). Thus it would make a great French ally, once the Swedes are to cumbersome. Actually, the discord between the Habsburg and Wittelsbach allies was one of the more important reasons for many of the Emperor's diplomatic and military problems during the war.
As to early peace treaties and compromises:
These are hardly possible. The war took so long because no side was ready for a compromise.
Not that the monarchs would have preferred to perish rather than lose - but a compromise was something the Ferdinand and Gustav, and in some sense also Richelieu found hard to accept. This was because all three claimed the universal power in Europe, which rules out compromises and anything involving the word 'balance'. This concept of universality was so strong an obligation for all three powers that it took roughly the second 15 years - a long time even for a single war! - of the war to hammer its futility into their brains.
For the same reason, I don't believe in a "deciding victory" for one or the other side, once the situation has become as messy as it was at and especially after Lützen. Sure, battles can take any course, whole armies can disappear. But look at Austria: It didn't really have an army for the last decade, but still went on fighting. Surprisingly, it did not do that bad in the peace treaty as you might expect for a military zero.
Therefore, I am very suspicious about any TL presenting a early end to the war, with a relatively late PoD. Potentially, including my own one ...
I can see that the peace won't be as decisive as I thought it was. However, if Ferdinand has no army and a Swedish army is marching through Bohemia straight at him, he (if he has any sense) will try to make a compromise peace so he can rebuild his forces and fight another day. Therefore, some kind of compromise peace is probably in order.
Well, the situation you describe actually took place at least once (1645-ish).
Of course this had implications on the negotiations, but still left several years of them.
And again the peace treaty does not really reflect the nearly-sunken status of Austria.
Another point: After OTL's TYW*, Europe was so exhausted of war that a time of relative peace ensued. Moreover, all parties resolved not to let another war grow so long and devastating as the just ended one.
If you find a realistic way of cutting the TYW short, the situation afterwards will be completely different: It is likely that even the conflict parties start a quarrels after quarrels a recreational couple of years. Needless to say, there will be much less shyness of war in general. So while the rest of the 17th century doesn't look that peaceful to us, it will be a lot more martial with a short TYW.
* Do you like abbros?
Valdemar II
Banned
I don't see it Sweden gained those territorioes in OTL after defeating Denmark in 1645, at this point Denmark are still neutral and Frederik (III) are Bishop of Verden and "heir" to the Bishopric of Bremen, and before you say Sweden can just defeat Denmark. In OTL they only succed in 1643-45 because of naval help from the Dutch*. If the Swedish control the entire North Germany they won't gain that support and they will be caugth in a long war of attribution with Denmark where Sweden and their North German possesions are cutoff from each others, and Denmark will receive economical support from any whom doesn't wish for a major Swedish Empire in North Germany.
*Whom the Danish had alienated with higher dues on the Baltic trade, through at this point their relationship hasn't deteriated to that point yet.