More savage 18th century Europe

Yun-shuno

Banned
In the aftermath of the thirty year wars. Warfare in Europe became more limited and restrained. With laws like you couldn't shoot officers and instead of looting and such a lot more wheeling and dealing after limited conflicts with limited casualties.

What would make the continental European conflicts of 1700-1800 more violent, bloody, ruthless and less restrained?
 
I think you've mischaracterized warfare in the long 18th century; warfare then was exactly as savage and brutal as it had ever been, and I've seen very little evidence that whatever norms arose had anything to do with a reaction to the bloodshed of the Thirty Years War. Famously, you had Marshal Turenne's devastation of the Palatinate, where the French stripped the land through contributions, and towns that did not meet his demands were subject to executions. This scorched earth policy was part of French standard operating procedure when campaigning east of the Rhine. Peasants formed marauding bands in the Black Forest, where they set upon isolated French troops to massacre them; the French enforced their exacting of contributions and retaliated by taking hostages to execute in the case of partisan actions.
 
I think you've mischaracterized warfare in the long 18th century; warfare then was exactly as savage and brutal as it had ever been, and I've seen very little evidence that whatever norms arose had anything to do with a reaction to the bloodshed of the Thirty Years War. Famously, you had Marshal Turenne's devastation of the Palatinate, where the French stripped the land through contributions, and towns that did not meet his demands were subject to executions. This scorched earth policy was part of French standard operating procedure when campaigning east of the Rhine. Peasants formed marauding bands in the Black Forest, where they set upon isolated French troops to massacre them; the French enforced their exacting of contributions and retaliated by taking hostages to execute in the case of partisan actions.

Totally. You have that passage in Voltaire's "Candide" where Candide wacht two armies meeting uin battle and makes a reflection about the brutality and futility of war. It doesn't seem it was lees brutal than before and after. However the ideological trends of the time pushed for a more human war, just like nowadays we have the Geneva Convention and other conventions to make a less brutal war because we know war is brutal. But they are only a piece of paper after all.
 
I don't think it was ideological trends that made the push; rather, the material factors of war incentivized certain behaviors we now attribute to humaneness.

For example, allowing the capitulation and retirement of fortress garrisons. After the walls had been breached, there was nothing the garrison could do to prevent the imminent fall of the fortress and their deaths in battle. However, storming it would be quite costly to the army, since every soldier was someone they drilled and clothed and fed for years, and since these are largely absolute monarchs, you're flushing the personal wealth of the king down the drain if there's bloodshed after the walls have been breached.

Thus both armies have an incentive to minimize losses, and thus expense to the king; their solution was allowing the garrison to return to friendly lines, bearing its colors and arms once the fortress had fulfilled its purpose o delaying the army. There's nothing ideological about it, it's pure, even mercenary self interest. The greatest mercenary of all time, von Wallenstein, in the age of religious wars of vaunted brutality, preferred to settle campaigns through siege and negotiation, rather than battle, because he was the one footing the bill on the bloodshed.

The laws of war are dictated by two contending forces: military utility, and the enemy's capacity for retaliation. Wars are as brutal as is useful, up to the point where the enemy doing the same to you makes your methods suboptimal.
 
In the aftermath of the thirty year wars. Warfare in Europe became more limited and restrained. With laws like you couldn't shoot officers and instead of looting and such a lot more wheeling and dealing after limited conflicts with limited casualties.

What would make the continental European conflicts of 1700-1800 more violent, bloody, ruthless and less restrained?

With the rise of professional regulated standing armies in uinque uniforms, warfare was restricted to soldiers only during 18th an 19th Century. The monarchs in the age of Absolutism didn´t wish the civilian populance to be witness of their monarch´s warfare.
 
Top